While HB 100 allows Sussex Tech to increase the tax rate at which it collects the local portion of its funding, HB 100 also mandates that fewer students will be able to take advantage of the exceptional education opportunity offered at Tech. This is why I am both relieved, and troubled by the fact that the Delaware General Assembly has chosen this path forward for Sussex Tech.
Let’s be clear here, this bill was intended to put the Tech administration in its place, the GA felt as if it had been disrespected, in that Sussex Tech had dared to keep pace with the enrollment rates of the rest of the county, a county that Tech services in its entirety, without asking permission.
I also have mixed emotions about my personal representation in the General Assembly, my Representative, Dave Wilson 
voted for HB 100, thank you Mr. Wilson, however, my Senator Brian Pettyjohn 
voted no on HB 100.
It would seem as though some legislators were attempting the King Solomon answer, just cut the baby in two.
The only bright spot I can find in this bill, is that it allows those who support Tech, and sees the need to increase the amount of students who can attend this great school, two years to muster their forces to convince the GA that Tech is the model, not the whipping boy for education, and the other districts in Sussex.
There will now be a lot of talk about the need for an elected board. This would be a meaningless move, since the board would still have no real input in the budget, since the purse strings would still be held by the General Assembly, and heaven forbid the Tech haters were ever able to move Tech to referendum. If that were to happen, there would never be another increase for Tech, so close the doors and board the windows.
Tech parents, Tech students, those who hope to be, take HB 100 as your call to battle. Don’t let the no, no, no people destroy what is one of the best educational options for our children here in Sussex County.
I will close by saying, there seems to be a growing attitude within Sussex County, whether it be Sussex Tech, a school referendum, a chicken plant in Millsboro, a shopping center near Lewes, it is always no, no, no to everything that even smells of progress or growth. I know that a lot of people have retired here and see Sussex as a soft place to land after life in the real world.
But for some it is the real world, it is not about hording their last pennies so that they can watch their grass grow. It is about starting a life, raising a family, building a career. To all of those who say no to everything because they have already gotten past all of those things? Time to pay it forward folks. Help those who come after you, as those who came before you, helped you.
Frank,
I will save your server the band width and simply say ” You present a very one sided argument for tech, a lot of people want their home district to flourish, not a poser charter school in our midst.
How do you justify the extra $5,000 per student vo-tech schools spend?
And here I thought you WERE smarter than Don Ayotte. Guess not.
Sorry WP, if you have the other side please feel free to present it. That is what we do here.
Geezer, the results speak for themselves. And if all you have are insults, then you are Don Ayotte.
Frank,
The other side of the story has already been written in the other thread. The bill was the only solution fair to everyone. It provides the funding to get the students already enrolled out, without being punished. It forces tech to live within their means. The accountability for the administration will never come. We are left with only fiscal options through the legislature.
Tech is and has been coloring outside the lines for a long time now, and people are sick of it. People being the tax paying public. If tech wants to continue to march on its current path, it should turn in it’s vo tech status, and become a charter school subject to public controls.
Successful education and well educated people are the biggest threats to conservatives. See: Texas
What School Grows at 100 Students per year?? Tech went from 1250 students to 1600+ in 3 years. How is that the same as “in that Sussex Tech had dared to keep pace with the enrollment rates of the rest of the county”???? What school had an enrollment rate like this in the county??
We all know tech just wanted a new school, Come on Frank…..
Ah Dude? ST serves the entire county, they have to keep pace not with a single other district’s growth, but seven other district’s growth overall.
Come on Dude.
So you think that 400 students was a good growth goal?
So you are saying that they were not trying to get a new school?
So what if they were trying to get a new school? More students able to take advantage of a better education. Are you saying you would limit the number of students able to take advantage of a better education opportunity?
Dude….. you are yet another misinformed citizen. Sussex Tech has a little over 1500 students. Not 1600 plus! You are like so many. Throwing out numbers that are incorrect, making assumptions based on what you’ve hear instead of facts. Keep up the good fight Frank!
So I was off by 50 students, big deal. If they had their way next year would have been 1650. my point is that they were not trying to keep up with county growth, Frank just made that up. Tech was always trying to build a school for 1800 students. But why not just come out and say it, why all the lying? And your better education point is a valid point. but we will see how much better the education is with failing students now allowed to be put in the lottery.
Dude, I believe I “asked” the question why wouldn’t a school that serves the entire county keep up with county wide growth.
As for having their way? Why would we not want more students to go there?
And your last point about s being failing students there and dragging down Tech, that’s right, let’s make sure we lower everything to the lowest common denominator. That’ll show them.
Dude…..again you are misinformed. The only requirement to get into tech was to have a 70 in core classes. Same requirement for any student at any school to be promoted from 8th grade to 9th! Frank Knotts, there is a nice thank you on the Sussex Tech Legislative Action Committee facebook page.
Hey Dude-You were off by 100, not 50. I believe 1600-1500 =100. Not only are you misinformed but now mis-educated.
Wow, you guys are really grasping now!! misinformed, you are misinformed, students only have to pass 5 classes with 65 or better, that means they can fail 2 or 3 classes and still be promoted. Frank, one of they main reasons tech has been so successful is they cherry pick the best kids. it is a lottery, but if the lottery is full of the best students, its not really a lottery. Wake up people, why do you think the state has stepped in and done this to you, because you have lost your way!!
I think sometime you forget you are a public school. Let me remind you, you are a public school. You have to play by the same rules as all other public schools.
and tech has 1545 students right now, stop being petty
Ah Dude, it is you who have it wrong. Tech does not cherry pick the best students. It is the motivated parents and students who PICK Tech. The problem you have is that the home districts are left with students whose parents are not motivated enough to fill out the application.
But let’s cut the BS here.
Let’s drop all of the justification for you and others wanting to ham string what is admittedly one of the best high schools in Delaware, it’s not about that Tech has lost its way, or that the administration is shady, it’s not about protecting the home districts. It’s about people like you not wanting to pay another ten dollars a year to support quality results.
But just say that you can’t afford a lousy ten bucks, and drop all of the cover stories about elected boards and accountability, when it is nothing but penny pinching.
And the legislators think an elected school board ( only for Sussex Tech) and not for Kent or New Castle will really show um! I just hope all the voters whose kids didn’t get accepted along with the parents of the 1545 enrolled remember when elections roll around!
moremisinformed, an elected board would be a toothless beast, because the legislators will never give up the purse strings. An elected board would be nothing more than pandering to the people who moan over ten dollars.
And the fact that they would even propose to impose rules upon Sussex Citizens that are not applied to all Delaware citizens shows that this is about punishment, not fairness or equality. The General Assembly is attempting to show Tech who the boss is. But they would be ignoring one of the basics of our republic form of government, that being equal protection under the law.
No matter how you look at this they would be imposing restrictions on one sector of the citizenry, or from the other point of view, not protecting another sector.
Unfortunately for our future here in Sussex we are facing the growing trend of SCAG, Sussex Countians Against Growth, just say no to everything.
Tim Dukes should be trying to improve the schools in the district he represents. Students will still choice out of those regardless of Sussex Tech!
Frank you are wrong, I could care less about $10. all my points are valid. by you dodging my points just proves that you are clueless on the issues and have blinders on. if you can’t see that tech needed to be put in their place, well you are in the minority. Frank open your eyes!!! Tech has 12 Admins making over 100k per year, their teachers are the highest paid in the state, their locker room/weight room is the biggest and best in the state, and they dare ask for more money!!! how can you justify asking for more money. how can you defend that they have not lost their way?
Dude- so you’re saying you could care less about 10 dollars. If not the money, why do you care what Sussex Tech does? Why do you feel they need to be “put in their place”? Did your child/ children not get accepted? Is it about athletics? Is it about their band? I agree that Mr. Dukes should spend his time trying to improve the schools in his district and maybe students would stay!
Dude, I have not dodged anything, you just don’t like my answers. You listed all of the exceptional things they have, and you complain about wages. Yet you didn’t mention results. So who is dodging who?
“Put in their place”? So it is about punishment?
And why are you so concerned with the money spent by Tech which shows positive results, do you also complain about your home district and their spending?
Why is it so important to lower Tech to the standards of the home districts, instead of raising the home districts to Tech’s level?
Remember, tech doesn’t steal students from home districts, parents and students CHOOSE to go to Tech.
I already put forth the data in the other thread on this. Those interested can go look.
Amazing that we’ve found taxes that the anti-tax crowd love. Whatever.
The reason people are concerned about Tech’s (all Vo-tech’s) spending is that it isn’t put to a referendum, like all other public school districts. It’s board isn’t elected, like all other public school districts.
Those two things should be enough, but when you add in the entrance requirements (which results in cherry picking/self-selecting) – something public schools aren’t allowed to implement – nor should they be, and how far vo-techs have moved away from their stated mission we can see the problems. We are discussing a PUBLIC school.
And be careful crowing about Sussex Tech’s “success” and how people are “upset about not getting in”. It’s ugly. But if you’d like to play that game we can… Tech’s SAT scores are nothing to brag about.
I could care less if the school board is elected or appointed. I’m all about quality education and by all measures, Sussex Tech is one of the top high schools in the State and provides a quality academic education plus teaches a trade!. Pretty good bang for your buck! They are a Vo-Tech school as set forth by legislation. Not sure how they cherry pick students but I do know there were over 700 kids who wanted to attend this year, so obviously there is a need and desire for this school. Didn’t I just see on TV the other night that two students won 1st place in a state wide auto repair contest? If my kids were school age I would most certainly inquire. It is apparent to me that you, Pandora and the others are insanely jealous of the success of Sussex Tech and I don’t understand why the jealousy. Perhaps your district should add some technical education and emulate what Sussex Tech does. Just a thought. As for not having to go to referendum, it seems to me that other districts, Milford, IR , Delmar have all sought referendums but I don’t recall Sussex Tech asking for any money prior to the recent increase.. I also wonder how Sussex Tech would ever pass a referendum when you need the entire county to pass it? Perhaps this is the legislators plan. Hmmm.
Pandora, amazing we found a public school that the tax and spend crowd won’t support, whatever!
Maybe because it actually has shown positive results for the money spent.
As for referendum? That would be the end of Sussex Tech, once the same people who have held the home districts back are allowed to say no to supporting Tech as well, they will drag tech backwards as well.
The idea of an elected board as I have said would be nothing but pandering to the SCAG members, Sussex Countians Against Growth. An elected board without referendum would be a toothless beast. And I have heard no legislator suggest referendum.
Yeah, and those really tough entry requirements of a 70% average was brutal.
And cherry picking? Really? Pandora, motivated parents CHOOSE to apply for Tech. The reason these students are exceptional is in large part due to parental involvement.
And you keep emphasizing the word PUBLIC as if Tech is exclusionary. So tell us Pandora, why you oppose expanding the number of students who can attend?
And why are people so focused on lowering Tech to the lowest common denominator, rather than focusing on raising the home districts up?
And finally you say, ” Tech’s SAT scores are nothing to brag about.” So which is it Pandors? Is Tech some elitist college preparatory school, or is it a failure? Can’t have it both ways. Also lost in this discussion is the adult education cost for Tech as well, but let’s not confuse the issue here, like the General Assembly, many like Pandora and Dude simply want to piller Sussex Tech for whatever reason. The GA because Tech had the nerve to serve more students without permission from the GA, folks like Pandora because they dare to be successful, and people like Dude because ten bucks is just too much.
And for the record Pandora, I supported and voted yes on referendums for Woodbridge, was actually on a committee for one, and voted yes for one WHILE my daughter was in Tech, so save you down the nose attitude for those more deserving babe.
Vo-techs, like charters, are funded by public tax dollars. They are public schools which are required to accept all children. Special interest should be just that – interest in the subject. It shouldn’t require essays, GPAs, entrance exams, mandatory parent volunteer hours, etc..
One of the main problems with the path Vo-techs have taken is that they have abandoned their mission – to train children, who mostly aren’t college bound, in a trade. Vo-techs no longer serve the student they were created to serve. Why should taxpayers fund Vo-tech schools for parents who are not only using it to leave their public school (probably due to poverty #s), but are also changing the intended mission of the school?
Vo-tech schools funding was intended to fund all those expansive workshops in the school – workshops designed to give hands-on training to the student. If Vo-tech’s new mission is college prep (and given the way they, and their supporters, now promote themselves that seems to be the case) then why are we paying for those technical workshops and labs?
Sussex tech offers 18 AP courses. Indian River high offers 12. Seaford offers 8. Cape Henlopen offers 23. Delmar offers 3. Laurel offers 7. Woodbridge offers 10. Can someone explain why a Vo-tech offers so many (second highest in the area) AP courses? I can possibly understand AP calculus, bio and chemistry, but are they offering AP History, English Literature, Psychology, Art, etc.?
And AP courses cost money. Here’s a link to each subject’s approximate cost. AP US History costs somewhere between 3,400.00 and 5,000.00. AP Biology between 8,950.00 – 11,650.00.
But here’s the kicker – in order to offer AP courses you must have a critical mass of students with the potential to pass the exam. If you don’t have enough potential AP students the school will not offer the AP courses. When I look at Sussex Tech and see so many AP courses (which, of course, are college prep courses) offered in a technical school I have to wonder who this trade school is serving.
I’m also wondering how many AP courses public high schools are losing (or unable to offer) due to Tech abandoning its stated – and well funded – purpose. If Tech is pulling in AP students then public high schools will not only lose those college bound students to a TRADE school they will also lose the ability to offer AP courses.
And… one more time. I am not jealous – could you please grow up? I don’t live in Sussex. My oldest has just completed his junior year at university and my youngest graduates high school in two weeks and is on her way to university this fall. I don’t have a horse in this race.
I’m going to try and put this into terms you’ll understand. Ready?
Frank Knotts is principal of a traditional public high school, like Indian River/Seaford High School, and I’m principal of a Vo-Tech high school, like Sussex Vo-Tech (this works with charters, as well). At the end of the year, when test scores are released, we will both be judged/rated/rewarded/punished on those scores.
Frank’s school has a feeder pattern/attendance zone. That means that every student living in that area/zone will automatically be assigned to Frank’s school – no matter what their GPA is, no matter if they have behavior issues, learning disabilities, are rich or poor, etc. Frank has no control over who attends his school – if they live in the assigned geographic area he must take them.
In order to attend my public school a parent must complete a choice application (which already separates involved/informed parents from those without the skill set to maneuver through the educational system – that’s called self-selecting). Their child must also meet an academic bar to qualify to attend my school and submit their report card. They must also inform me, before enrollment, if their child has an IEP/challenges in math or English – the child will also have to write an essay, prior to acceptance – to be used any way I see fit – to attend my school. And… if I accept a student who fails to comply with academic and behavioral standards I can expel them at any time during the school year AND Frank’s school MUST take them.
Now… While I’m shaping my population away from my school’s intended goal (trade), focusing on who I let into my classrooms and adding AP/accelerated academic courses, Frank notices that he’s not only losing AP/accelerated students, but that his percentage of high needs/high poverty, IEP students, children with behavioral issues is increasing. Not only is this population increasing, but since he must serve all children he has to rearrange his budget/teacher units. This results in Frank eliminating AP/accelerated programs due to a reduction in those students (in number and percentage) because they are now heading to my school – which was never intended to be a college prep school, but rather a school for kids not college bound who needed to learn a trade.
Then, when the test scores are released, Frank, and his school, are labeled as failing, while mine is considered a success – and everyone gets to tell Frank that he should do what I did – even though he is not allowed to play by the same rules. See how that works?
Pandora says, “They are public schools which are required to accept all children.”
Ah! Wasn’t that what they were trying to do? Accept more students? Isn’t that exactly what HB 100 stops them from doing? They can only accept what the building will allow, are you in favor, as I am in allowing them to expand and accept more students?
Pandora says, “One of the main problems with the path Vo-techs have taken is that they have abandoned their mission – to train children, who mostly aren’t college bound, in a trade.”
No Pandora, they have reacted to demand. The idea that the school should pick a place in time and call it perfect reminds me of the sheriff argument. Times have changed, and what parents and students want have changed. The idea that if the school simply went back to offering only “TRADE” training in the fields of plumbing, and auto mechanic, that students would then take those courses. That is the build it and they will come idea. What is more likely is that you would have those expensive shops sitting idle and the students would choose out of their districts to go somewhere else.
The reason so many AP students are going to Tech, is? Well? Because they and their parents choose to.
Now to the analogy. If I am the principle of the home district, them instead of attempting to bring down Tech, I would hope I would be focused on bettering my district. Maybe there is a shift in the role of all schools. If the home districts are now tasked with working with the students who are more challenging, and fewer of their resources have to be addressed to AP, then shouldn’t they have more time, and resources to improve the results of those more challenging students?
Anytime you force accelerated students and more challenged students to work at the same pace in the same classes, you will create problems for both. The accelerated students will feel held back, or the more challenged will feel even more challenged.
Maybe instead of the old model of sending the, how did Pandora put it, ” high needs/high poverty, IEP students,” to vo-techs and other resources, maybe the new model is to allow the accelerated students to move on at their own pace instead of holding them back out of some false sense of fairness.
This is a pointless discussion, Frank, because you do not understand public education or how it’s funded and organized. Vo-Techs have a stated mission. They are TRADE schools. And there are plenty of kids who want to learn auto-mechanics, plumbing, etc.. Too bad Vo-Techs are no longer serving those children. Too bad we’re funding (without a referendum) Vo-Techs that have decided, on their own, to become college prep. If that’s what they want to be then let them apply to convert to a charter school, because they should no longer be funded in a special way due to their special circumstances. If they want to change who they are, and what students they serve, they should not be allowed the special funding consideration. It really is that simple. You can’t have it both ways.
Here’s a question… Vo-Techs, no matter how much they expand, cannot possibly serve all AP/accelerated students (FYI, it’s not their stated, or funded, purpose either). Why is it okay for the AP/accelerated students in public schools to lose AP/accelerated courses due to Tech changing its purpose? What about those kids? And I bet if it was your kid losing these programs you’d be singing a different tune, because the one thing that’s crystal clear in this entire discussion is that this issue is personal to you.
And when you say this: “Anytime you force accelerated students and more challenged students to work at the same pace in the same classes, you will create problems for both. The accelerated students will feel held back, or the more challenged will feel even more challenged.” It tells me that you haven’t stepped foot in a public middle or high school and have no idea how classes are organized. Accelerated kids are not held back. Where do you get this nonsense from?
You keep talking about fairness, but refuse to see the unfairness in the rules public schools must play by. You are the one with a false sense of fairness, and an appalling lack of facts and understanding of how public schools work. But, just for fun, why don’t you show us your plan for improving all public education – be sure to include details on all children, funding, teacher units, etc.. Or you can simply say that you think certain children deserve an education and others don’t.
Pandora, first of all, they are not trade schools, even when I attended Kent Vo-Tech in the 70s, they were not trade schools. The word “trades” has historically and even in the dictionary been defined as “some line of skilled manual or mechanical work; craft:”.
These schools have always offered more than just the trades education. That has expanded and evolved over the years. What parents and students want from the schools also has changed and evolved.
They are vocational and technical schools, which is open to interpretation. But to pick a time in history and say nothing must change, ever, is silly, maybe you would choose the 1600s along with the sheriff fanatics. Then all the children could study rat catching.
Before I go further let me address a statement you made earlier about Tech’s SAT scores, here is the 2013-14 numbers from the state website.
Tech State National
1,370 1,291 1,497
And tech is above the state average in math, writing and critical reading.
Here is the link,
http://profiles.doe.k12.de.us/SchoolProfiles/school/Student.aspx?checkSchool=770&districtCode=40
Pandora, why is it you keep making the argument to me, that Tech is exclusionary? When my whole point is to expand the number of students that can attend Tech? Are you arguing out of habit?
I have also made the point that the home districts need to improve to better serve the students that stay in them.
Your whole argument is designed to draw Tech down, when, like the home districts you should be looking for ways to improve them instead. I am not sure you realize how much you sound like the ultra right wingers you detest so much.
I will again state, for me this is not about building Tech up to the downfall of the home districts, again, I have supported and work for referendums in Woodbridge, even while my daughter was attending Tech.
For me the argument is why would we want to reduce the number of students who can attend a school that few can find fault with? it makes no sense.
When I spend my money I look for positive results, we see that with Tech. If their SAT averages are behind the national, while being above the state’s, then we should be looking at the state DOE, obviously Tech is achieving within the parameters set forth by the state.
Maybe it’s my fault for putting the cart before the horse. Let’s start here, Frank: What is public education? What is the difference between a Public school, Vo-Tech school, Magnet school, Charter school and Private school? How are each of these schools funded? Why are they funded this way? What are teacher units and how do they come to be?
Sorry, but saying “I like Tech so they should be able to expand” and “home districts should improve” doesn’t qualify as a serious, informed discussion.
I say Frank wins!
The ” mess ” ST created was to increase enrollment beyond its fiscal stability without approval of the legislature. It was arrogance. They tried a power play, and lost. They enrolled more students and showed a deficit, which they thought would equal a rubber stamp from the legislature and public. They could not have made a more arrogant move.
WP, no school in Delaware can ask to expand until they show a need, this includes home school districts, who cannot expand based on projections, but only based on need. If Tech is forever capped, how can we ever expand it to serve more students?
But of course that is the point for some. To never give expand Tech.
So you think paying 12 admins over 100K per year has lead to all of Sussex tech’s success? your AP numbers are way off, where did you get them from?
AP course numbers listed here.
Frank,
The home districts are FORCED to serve their residents based on population. When population increases and schools are overwhelmed, they expand with the blessing of residents via referendum.
Tech advertised for, and accepted applications and students to increase its enrollment beyond its fiscal means. That expansion was not based on community expansion of population, it was based on arrogance of leadership.
SO do you think paying 12 admins over 100K each had something to do with there financial trouble?
WP, it was based on demand, more students apply each year than can be accepted. That is the demand. Again, explain why you would not want to expand to allow more students to go there.
Dude, can you prove it had no effect on the success?
It did have an effect on their success, no question. but we all have to play by the same rules. and all districts can only spend so much money. I think you just need to take off your blinders and look at the big picture. the other school districts need a chance to get better. tech will be fine, they got a slap on the wrist. could have been a lot worse. they took a gamble and lost, now the state had to come bail them out. they need to stop spending money like water. But you would have to admit that 12 admins making over 100k for a school of 1545 is crazy.
Dude, You seem to be obsessed with the pay of administrators at Sussex Tech. You mention it in darn near every one of your posts. I don’t see a problem. I’m sure there is a lot of pressure on administration to maintain the high expectations of both staff and students. I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt and believe the money is well earned!
I have also heard legislators actually say that Tech “DARES” to pay their teachers more in an attempt to lure the best teachers away from other districts. When will the people and the General Assembly put an end to this nightmare of excellence?
” The nightmare of excellence ” will be properly recognized when ST plays by the same rules for enrollment and finance as all the other schools in Sussex. Period. End of story. Spin is over.
So you are saying its money well spent!! WOW!!! you guys have blinders on. they are spending money like its water and then asking for more!!! Come on guys. !2 admins in one building making over 100K per year is ludicrous!! no other school in the state has over 4 in one building, maybe 2 more to add in super and assist. super, so 6 at the most, tech doubles them!!!
Dude, you do realize that Sussex Tech is actually three schools in one building, don’t you?
You have the academic high school, you have the vocational/technical high school, and you also have the adult education part of the school.
So if you divide the 12 administrators by the three schools, we come up with the 4 average you mention of the other schools in Delaware.
LOL!!!! you are really trying to justify This!!!! 1545 students!!!! you don’t qualify for 12 admins!!! You are spending money that you don’t have and asking for more. you have 30+ students in each class and are “Forced” to layoff teachers? Your staff is very upset with the whole mess. wake up frank, you are not being objective.
Dude, I am sorry, where did I lead you to believe that I was trying to be objective? I think Sussex Tech is doing a good job, I don’t want to see SCAG ruin it because of $10. a year. I have made it clear that I think we should be expanding Tech at the same pace that the rest of the county is, and if that means a new school, so be it.
If you thought I was trying to be objective, sorry, was never my intention.
You are truly and idiot
Dude, I am sorry you have now had to resort to that, up until now it was a difference of opinion. Why is it okay for you to feel that Tech should be strangled to the point of failure, simply to make the home districts “LOOK” better? But others are not allowed to believe that Tech should be supported and expanded, based on the fact that they have been successful?
You call me an idiot, okay. What do you call someone who sees something successful and instead of building on that success, they want only to destroy it because of $10.00 a year?
Have a nice day, and take your $10.00 and go buy a pizza, of course for $10.00 it won’t be a very good pizza, but hey, you have shown you prefer mediocrity .
… it’s really sad and borderline disturbing that through ALL of this talk of money, scores, administrators, etc… we have to argue about providing for CHILDREN. It should never be a question – education needs to be a priority, no matter what the cost.
Underfund it, take away from it, “spread the wealth” and you’ll end up with exactly that … lack of knowledge, lack of success, and a whole lot of people incapable of providing anything to society.
This problem supercedes Sussex Tech, Indian River, Cape, you name it… this is a societal problem. The conversation needs to be geared toward giving more now, to have a better later.