Again bringing up arguments that have nothing to do with my post. Also, Chicago faces lawsuits on education all the time. It's just a matter of when it'll be taken care of.Having the state supreme court intervene in your school system indicates to me that it was a dismal failure. Maybe that's what should happen in every state. But throwing more money at the problem is not the answer.
What you're not understanding/admitting is that 1. This "endless supply point" is a straw man because NO ONE has brought it up. It neither takes away nor adds anything to the arguments being made here or anywhere else on this board by anyone. 2. "The same amount of money" point would be relevant if we were talking about rich schools who were not underfunded. The problem is when most people talk about increased funding they are referencing underfunded schools (i.e. schools that get less than rich school) in low-income areas where more funding is needed. ----In other words, nobody ever brings up increasing money for places that have adequate money and are just using it poorly.Yes, increased money does do good things when it is spent appropriately. So does the same amount of money. Spending money appropriately is the answer...not an endless supply of it.
We bring it up for places that don't even have enough money to use in the wrong ways.
You have still failed to show how NY is a good example of how increased funds does not help because you have not acknowledged these three things:NY is a beautiful example that more money doesn't mean better educations. New York spends far more per student than Massachusetts yet has absolutely dismal statistics. Proves my point exactly. It's not MORE money that's needed. It's more money spent the right way.
1. Whether NY's money spent was excess - (Every state spends different amounts of money because every state has different needs. Why is $17,000 too much for NY specifically?)
2. Whether NY spent its funds appropriately - maybe it is spending enough, just not in the right places. Where is NY spending its money?
3. Time - I'll repeat it again since you ignored it - MA took 10-12 years to reap the benefits of its plan. NY has not had as much time, at all, to see the effects of its reform so you have no idea if it worked.
And your last point: there's no need to argue against an argument that I never made.