3 ms·
You're partially right, depending on laws around allocation schools in rich neighborhoods may not get more money. But they often do, and by a lot. There are al
by npunt 10y ago
You're partially right, depending on laws around allocation schools in rich neighborhoods may not get more money. But they often do, and by a lot.
There are also differences at the neighborhood level. We see that in California quite a bit.
> A yawning gulf separates even school districts serving students from similar demographic backgrounds. For example, in 2009-10, the latest data available, per-pupil revenue was $14,076 in Palo Alto versus $7,679 in Milpitas, both unified districts serving K-12 students. But clearly, affluence counts: In San Mateo County, the Woodside elementary district took in $18,894 per student, while Millbrae elementary got $7,362 per student. [1]
The latter example is a 2.5x difference in funding, within the same county. This is in part due to some local support in Woodside [2] but its more than just that. The gaps are huge.
I disagree about not equalizing gaps, because there's one scarce resource here that isn't even discussed: quality teachers. By default, quality teachers are more likely to want to work in nicer communities, and we don't need to compound that by offering to pay them less (sometimes far less) to work in underprivileged schools.
Meanwhile, giving undereducated kids money instead of education is a great way to fulfill the old adage 'a fool and their money are soon parted'.
[1] http://www.mercurynews.com/2012/02/26/some-california-schools-get-twice-the-funding-and-more-of-others/ http://www.mercurynews.com/2012/02/26/some-california-school...
[2] http://www.almanacnews.com/news/2015/12/01/woodside-elementary-is-a-district-with-resources http://www.almanacnews.com/news/2015/12/01/woodside-elementa...
- rayiner 10y agoThe California situation seems totally bizarre. Where I grew up (D.C. suburbs), the situation is exactly the opposite: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/report-finds-wide-disparities-in-local-per-pupil-spending-dc-charters-spend-most/2014/10/14/f8b94b8c-53cd-11e4-ba4b-f6333e2c0453_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/report-finds-... ("Petrilli said the study found that Arlington and Fairfax counties spent more money to serve students who attended schools with a high percentage of students who are eligible for free and reduced-price meals, a federal indicator of poverty. Other districts did not, he said."). Similar where I live now in Maryland: https://conduitstreet.mdcounties.org/2016/04/26/chart-shows-marylands-school-funding-per-student https://conduitstreet.mdcounties.org/2016/04/26/chart-shows-.... Baltimore City, among the poorest, spends the second most. Surrounding Baltimore County, which is much wealthier, spends substantially less. Montgomery County, the richest in the state and a suburb of D.C., spends about the same as Prince Georges County, a much lower income county next door.
- crzwdjk 10y agoI would assume that this is due to Prop 13, which limits local property taxes to 1% of assessed value, which means that municipalities have to drive up the price of land if they want to collect more revenue. In most other places without these limits, the actual amount of property tax is more or less the same regardless of whether you live in an expensive or cheap city, and the latter just have higher rates to collect the revenue they need.