I am always amazed that there is a rational justification to take away funding and resources from schools that do not perform well (based on standardized testing). Although the teachers and/or administration may feel the pinch from a financial standpoint or by being replaced/removed, the real victims are obviously the students. Public schools, which deal with children who depend on the adults/leaders for direction, are not meant to be ran the same as a publicly traded corporation with stock options (money) increasing in value to the highest producers (in this case, schools). I am confused to see funding applied to limited ‘solutions’, such as sending a few children to charter schools. How does this benefit the majority of the children who do not receive the same education? If failing schools see the advantages of charter schools/private schools, it would be wonderful to see some of the ideas implemented into the curriculum of the schools with academic disadvantages to increase the value of the education. The stigma of being in a ‘failing school’ is another hurdle that children have to overcome (both socially and academically as they advance forward). Instead of ranking our schools in Indiana, it seems like it would be beneficial to have schools that are doing well work collaborative with less productive schools to find out what works well so if they must rank the schools, the scores in each county would be more congruent with each other. It does not help Indiana (or our country) if the children in one county are excelling, but in the next county, the majority of children are failing. Most people recognize that it is cheaper to put a child/young adult through four years of college than it is to imprison a person for the same amount of time. Why do we undervalue and negotiate down the education for our youth?