3 ms·
I think that your characterization misses that in this recent study, this money did go to the schools. The whole quote: "But it does seem that certain types of
by scott_s 11y ago
I think that your characterization misses that in this recent study, this money did go to the schools. The whole quote:
"But it does seem that certain types of spending, especially on non-instructional items like capital improvements and support services, make a significant contribution. In other words, providing better physical and social environments for poor kids helps boost their performance relative to their richer peers."
To me, your comment sounds like it's neglecting the fact that this study found performance benefit from giving more money to poor schools.
- mdorazio 11y agoI have to disagree. Capital improvements and support services are very different investments than your typical school funding for supplies, teacher salaries, etc., which are the kinds of items the title implies. Improving infrastructure and community services don't even have to come out of the school's own initiatives - those can be funded via any of a number of community improvement programs that have indirect benefits to schools. The article failed to prove to me that giving the money to schools is better than giving it to other programs that would do the same kinds of things.