4 ms·

The article does not support your claim. In fact, quoting from the second paragraph: [I]n 23 states, state and local governments are together spending less pe

The article does not support your claim. In fact, quoting from the second paragraph: [I]n 23 states, state and local governments are together spending less per pupil in the poorest school districts than they are in the most affluent school districts. As the graphic farther down shows, only in about half the states do students in poorer districts get more money; only in 7 states do they get more by more than 5%, and only in two states is the difference more than 10%. Those numbers strike me as piddling, frankly; 50% would be more like it, and 100% might not be too much.

rayiner 10y ago
You gotta flip the button on the graphic to account for local, state, and federal spending. In all but four states, poorer school districts receive more money. As for your second point: that's a different argument than the one I was responding to, which was that lower educational spending in poor districts causes the achievement gap. Now, you can make a different argument, which is that poorer school districts should receive more money than rich ones. That implicitly concedes that the achievement gap is not due to a lack of funding, but due to external factors. So the question is, how to overcome those external factors? Why do we assume spending more money on teachers and facilities will do that? If kids in poor schools are at a disadvantage because their parents are working two jobs, why not just write those families a check? I'm highly skeptical of this whole idea that the way to help poor people is to funnel more money to middle class teachers and administrators. I think that's ass-backward actually.
- ScottBurson 10y ago
  > You gotta flip the button on the graphic to account for local, state, and federal spending. Gack, sorry, missed that. > That implicitly concedes that the achievement gap is not due to a lack of funding, but due to external factors. Yes, I think that's well established. > So the question is, how to overcome those external factors? Why do we assume spending more money on teachers and facilities will do that? I don't assume that spending more money will be sufficient; I agree it probably won't be. However, I think it is probably necessary. What else will be required? Breaking the power of the teachers' unions, for one. Sounds like we agree on that. How to do both of these things at the same time is a problem I have no solution for.

rayiner 10y ago

You gotta flip the button on the graphic to account for local, state, and federal spending. In all but four states, poorer school districts receive more money. As for your second point: that's a different argument than the one I was responding to, which was that lower educational spending in poor districts causes the achievement gap. Now, you can make a different argument, which is that poorer school districts should receive more money than rich ones. That implicitly concedes that the achievement gap is not due to a lack of funding, but due to external factors. So the question is, how to overcome those external factors? Why do we assume spending more money on teachers and facilities will do that? If kids in poor schools are at a disadvantage because their parents are working two jobs, why not just write those families a check? I'm highly skeptical of this whole idea that the way to help poor people is to funnel more money to middle class teachers and administrators. I think that's ass-backward actually.

ScottBurson 10y ago
> You gotta flip the button on the graphic to account for local, state, and federal spending. Gack, sorry, missed that. > That implicitly concedes that the achievement gap is not due to a lack of funding, but due to external factors. Yes, I think that's well established. > So the question is, how to overcome those external factors? Why do we assume spending more money on teachers and facilities will do that? I don't assume that spending more money will be sufficient; I agree it probably won't be. However, I think it is probably necessary. What else will be required? Breaking the power of the teachers' unions, for one. Sounds like we agree on that. How to do both of these things at the same time is a problem I have no solution for.