Lets me start by reminding you that you were the first to respond to me and you did so by calling something I posted ridiculous followed by a misrepresented defense of something I never argued against. (i.e. "There are plenty of evidence-based, targeted programs that have been proven to work. ") I only prod you again with this information to let you realize where where the snark starts and although the supposed statement that had you feeling snark from me WAS a bit facetious, it was truthful...I was hoping you would provide some free information.
BTW, I read and answered your first question. You probably wanted a period and not the comma. The answer was "No". I am not against taking a look at those ideas that work, but don't feel one should have to pay and I am not willing to pay 3x the current for it. Its not because I don't "care" or don't want kids graduating to be college-ready, however. That's an inane notion, but a commonly used tactic. Also, you deciding that the 3x concept must be an "unequivocal bargain" does not make it so.
Now lets see...you go from there to bashing my use of links as not being pertinent of something. My first set was purely and plurally there to back up my original statement. (Which they did) The last 2 both offered insights into HCZ (Which was the paragraph of yours that these links were in regard to) and only the first utilized any "conglomeration". I think you embellish a bit.
In any case the Brookings study is rather comprehensive...if not the most comprehensive done on HCZ and if you read it you would find it saying some positive things. It just does not back you up on everything you suggest, however.
Yes, I looked at the links you provided, one to HCZ itself and of course they are in the business of self-promotion so I am not sure that is where I am going to find unbiased information. Your first (Susan B. Neuman) more closely resembles what you accuse ME of ("...conglomerations of studies which offered little background or context from which to go on.") than anything I provided. It does look to have some interesting articles.
We seem to have a problem with confluence...or lack thereof. I came here discussing money, you want to turn it into something else like painting anyone who is not in full agreement with your view of the world as not wanting to help poor kids nor his fellow man. I understand you beat your husband. Is that true? ;o) Its ok if our rivers run parallel as their sources are far apart.
I do apologize though...I assumed that SES referred to "Special Education" and not Supplemental Educator. Is that like a teachers aid? Sorry my kids are out of college now (both engineers (one electrical and one mechanical) who put themselves through school) and I am not up on the current acronyms. I think they still call them PARAs here (not sure what that stands for either). Feel free to differentiate...Which does remind me of one of my favorite newspaper headlines. When my town was trying to pass some multi-million dollar referendum so they could build some palacial new school the local paper carried the headline: "Multiple Teachers to be cut if Referendum Fails to Pass". If you actually read the article you would have found that it was 5 and of that 3 were PARAs, 1 was a Swedish teacher (seriously), and the third was an art teacher (not the only art teacher).