Yes—I’ll explain:

One example: if a student with challenges is provided accommodations, say a 1:1 paraeducator or an alternative setting program, they usually thrive. The paras are currently paid about 35K which is horrible and an unlivable wage. So, if these programs were appropriately funded instead of by property taxes, an inequitable system, perhaps those "untouchable" students would have an environment to thrive. I've seen it and taught ...

What we are dealing with is systemic. Having the wealthy pay their fair share is one way to move in the right direction. It’s not the only way, but we could do much with that extra revenue.

If you don’t understand the connection, either you didn’t read her whole thread or you just don’t understand anything about what’s broken in this country. Fiddling? No. She’s talking about 1) equitable wealth distribution so kids & parents/guardians aren’t living under the constant, debilitating stress of poverty & uncertainty, & 2) properly funding public schools (finally) so we can stop the mass exodus of teachers by giving them & students the actual support they need, which costs MONEY.

Yes

Because we know that one of the most effective interventions for all students is smaller class sizes, but that costs money.

Yes. More funding equal more services.

It will reduce class size, bring councilors into the classes, hire competent teachers. I taught chemistry for 38 years. Students do not want to fail. They need help

Yes. Prioritizing the Funding of our public schools, including much-needed mental health reaources can ONLY occur tbrough increased funding. There are other things that will help, such as reducing the administrative and reporting burdens on schools, but ultimately we MUST pay our teachers more and we must decrease class sizes. We also MUST address the underlying poverty, inequality amd lack of access to healthcare that fuels the underlying toxic stress.

This can’t be a real question.