3 ms·

It's not misleading. If each state is internally equal, but richer states have much higher funding, that's still a case where richer districts get more funding,

It's not misleading. If each state is internally equal, but richer states have much higher funding, that's still a case where richer districts get more funding, just not one that's visible within any one state. Something related has happened in recent elections: higher income is correlated with voting Republican in every state, but richer states are typically bluer. So if you aggregate by state, it looks like there's no relationship, but if you aggregate by people, there is one. Returning to school funding, the complicating factor is that so far as costs of construction and labor are higher, New Jersey arguably would spend more per student than Mississippi in a completely equitable world. Because of that, I said that the map was somewhat conducive to your point of view, but there's still a lot of work to determine the net effect.

rayiner 8y ago
> If each state is internally equal, but richer states have much higher funding, that's still a case where richer districts get more funding, just not one that's visible within any one state. The U.S. isn't like the EU, where there are "rich" states and "poor" ones. Adjusted for purchasing power, the states are fairly closely clustered in terms of income: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vwpy8_glsgc/Vi5llZ9ZILI/AAAAAAAAIvg/odurAYPHYG4/s1600/adjustedRPP.jpg http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vwpy8_glsgc/Vi5llZ9ZILI/AAAAAAAAIv.... New Jersey and Mississippi differ by about 25%, whereas Camden and its rich neighbors differ by 600-700%. That means that if school funding within states is even, there is a pretty low upper bound on how big the disparity can be between "rich states" and "poor states."
- hyperpape 8y ago
  I see what looks like $26k vs. $38%, so that's more like a ratio of 2:3, isn't it? That said, it puts an upper bound on how large the discrepancies could be.

rayiner 8y ago

> If each state is internally equal, but richer states have much higher funding, that's still a case where richer districts get more funding, just not one that's visible within any one state. The U.S. isn't like the EU, where there are "rich" states and "poor" ones. Adjusted for purchasing power, the states are fairly closely clustered in terms of income: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vwpy8_glsgc/Vi5llZ9ZILI/AAAAAAAAIvg/odurAYPHYG4/s1600/adjustedRPP.jpg http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vwpy8_glsgc/Vi5llZ9ZILI/AAAAAAAAIv.... New Jersey and Mississippi differ by about 25%, whereas Camden and its rich neighbors differ by 600-700%. That means that if school funding within states is even, there is a pretty low upper bound on how big the disparity can be between "rich states" and "poor states."

hyperpape 8y ago
I see what looks like $26k vs. $38%, so that's more like a ratio of 2:3, isn't it? That said, it puts an upper bound on how large the discrepancies could be.