4 ms·

Except that good school districts usually are better funded because they're paid for with property taxes.

• ashark 9y ago
  The really bad schools receive a lot of outside money. Around here they pay substantially better than the good schools. It doesn't help much, because the money's not what's making the difference. [EDIT] Clarification: what is making the difference is selection bias, basically. The kids in the richer districts are way the hell easier to educate. Easy-to-educate kids tend to be so for reasons (family circumstances/priorities/wealth) that also make them more likely to leave a poorly-performing district for better (more expensive to live in) districts. Effectively addressing the things that make some of the kids easy to educate and some very difficult will have very little to do with school quality/funding.
• danielvf 9y ago
  That's commonly said, but I checked my cities budget numbers and it's actually the opposite. The city average per pupil is $9,215 per year. The school system as a whole is funded citywide, then funding is allocated by the school system with extra money and teachers sent into "bad" schools. The "bad schools" have more teachers per student, more money per student, and smaller schools, and average between $12,000 and $14,000 per pupil. However, if you move out of the city, across the state line, to the richer bedrooms community with the really good public schools, you will find that they spend even less per student than the average city school. The best school system in the metro area spends $7,600 per student. Parents matter far more than the amount of money spent on the school system.
• slededit 9y ago
  This is not the case in Canada where this article takes its data from.