3 ms·

Where I grew up in Baltimore the problem wasn't the funding of the schools. Indeed, when I was in school Baltimore City spent just a bit less per pupil than Mon

Where I grew up in Baltimore the problem wasn't the funding of the schools. Indeed, when I was in school Baltimore City spent just a bit less per pupil than Montgomery county which was one of the 10 wealthiest counties in the nation. However the money was spent very differently. So while I would agree that there are real systemic problems I don't think there is any amount of money that could be thrown at Baltimore City that would really change the outcomes in a meaningful way. And that is what makes me the most sad about it.

aantix 9y ago
I’m curious as to spencific differences in purchases?
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
lifeisstillgood 9y ago
how can you spend money so differently in one district to another ? Teacher salaries, buildings, books seem to be the likely highest costs wherever you are.
- philipkglass 9y ago
  School personnel end up acting as ad hoc social workers for children who show up unwilling or unable to focus on academic study. If one student comes to school worrying about what college they'll be able to get into, and another comes to school worrying if the family's going to be evicted from their apartment, then the same money/attention isn't likley to produce the same academic outcomes. I don't know if that is what sseveran alludes to -- Baltimore seems to be famously corrupt also -- but it's a significant problem. It's one of the reasons that some teachers are willing to take a pay cut to work at a private school that's selective about students. Teaching students who are attentive and ready to learn can be pleasurable. Trying to teach students who are resentful, distracted, and unprepared -- that's less attractive. Or at least it takes a rarer personality type to find it rewarding.
- cl0ckt0wer 9y ago
  Security is very expensive, and Baltimore needs way more of it.
- dashundchen 9y ago
  Spending per pupil alone doesn't tell the whole story. In the US, it's common for school districts in high poverty areas to end up providing services that in other countries would be provided via state welfare or privately. So free school lunches and breakfasts, physical and occupational therapy, counseling and nursing for students, transportation for handicapped, social workers etc all get wrapped up in a district budget, with the largest chunk of spending going towards the highest need students. Add up the higher rates of childhood poverty and special needs in urban areas and the per pupil spending becomes a poor measure of what is actually spent on education for the average student. I'll note that in my state, the balakanized school district situation in many metros leaves suburban districts too small to provide these services themselves, and they'll often send their highest need students into the bigger urban district. Here's an article describing some of this disparity among districts in the Cleveland, Ohio area. http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/01/poverty_and_special_needs_eat.html http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/01/poverty_and...
StanislavPetrov 9y ago
That's because the wealth and education level of one's parents is much more highly correlated to the wealth and education level of a child than any other factor. People who are poor and uneducated tend to raise children who end up poor an uneducated, regardless of race. Studies have shown that growing up in poverty produces measurable changes in the brains of infants. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0080954 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.... It may be en vogue to focus on race and identity has the major problems in our society, but all the data points to poverty and being the unifying cause - not race.
- SamReidHughes 9y ago
  If you read the paper you'll find that the conclusion posted here is absolute nonsense. Kids in poverty had average numbers 0.4-0.5 standard deviations below the mean. The authors didn't make any attempt to disprove the simple and obvious biological explanation: poor parents often had genes making them dumber, more impulsive low-grey-matter-havers that they passed on to their kids. I'll bet you Syrian refugee kids don't exhibit anywhere near such a large gray matter problem.

aantix 9y ago

I’m curious as to spencific differences in purchases?

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

lifeisstillgood 9y ago

how can you spend money so differently in one district to another ? Teacher salaries, buildings, books seem to be the likely highest costs wherever you are.

philipkglass 9y ago
School personnel end up acting as ad hoc social workers for children who show up unwilling or unable to focus on academic study. If one student comes to school worrying about what college they'll be able to get into, and another comes to school worrying if the family's going to be evicted from their apartment, then the same money/attention isn't likley to produce the same academic outcomes. I don't know if that is what sseveran alludes to -- Baltimore seems to be famously corrupt also -- but it's a significant problem. It's one of the reasons that some teachers are willing to take a pay cut to work at a private school that's selective about students. Teaching students who are attentive and ready to learn can be pleasurable. Trying to teach students who are resentful, distracted, and unprepared -- that's less attractive. Or at least it takes a rarer personality type to find it rewarding.
cl0ckt0wer 9y ago
Security is very expensive, and Baltimore needs way more of it.
dashundchen 9y ago
Spending per pupil alone doesn't tell the whole story. In the US, it's common for school districts in high poverty areas to end up providing services that in other countries would be provided via state welfare or privately. So free school lunches and breakfasts, physical and occupational therapy, counseling and nursing for students, transportation for handicapped, social workers etc all get wrapped up in a district budget, with the largest chunk of spending going towards the highest need students. Add up the higher rates of childhood poverty and special needs in urban areas and the per pupil spending becomes a poor measure of what is actually spent on education for the average student. I'll note that in my state, the balakanized school district situation in many metros leaves suburban districts too small to provide these services themselves, and they'll often send their highest need students into the bigger urban district. Here's an article describing some of this disparity among districts in the Cleveland, Ohio area. http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/01/poverty_and_special_needs_eat.html http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/01/poverty_and...

StanislavPetrov 9y ago

That's because the wealth and education level of one's parents is much more highly correlated to the wealth and education level of a child than any other factor. People who are poor and uneducated tend to raise children who end up poor an uneducated, regardless of race. Studies have shown that growing up in poverty produces measurable changes in the brains of infants. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0080954 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.... It may be en vogue to focus on race and identity has the major problems in our society, but all the data points to poverty and being the unifying cause - not race.

SamReidHughes 9y ago
If you read the paper you'll find that the conclusion posted here is absolute nonsense. Kids in poverty had average numbers 0.4-0.5 standard deviations below the mean. The authors didn't make any attempt to disprove the simple and obvious biological explanation: poor parents often had genes making them dumber, more impulsive low-grey-matter-havers that they passed on to their kids. I'll bet you Syrian refugee kids don't exhibit anywhere near such a large gray matter problem.