5 ms·

So you're saying that the largest source of funding for primary and secondary public schools is the local government (state? county?), as opposed to the federal

So you're saying that the largest source of funding for primary and secondary public schools is the local government (state? county?), as opposed to the federal government? And that as such your place of living is the deciding factor for the quality of public education available to you? Areas with poor people in them also gather less tax money, meaning they can't provide the residents with quality education, meaning those areas perpetuate poverty.

pmiller2 6y ago
Bingo. Schools in the US are usually funded by property taxes, which leads to all the effects you just named.
- vesinisa 6y ago
  Thank you. This makes it so much easier to understand more about the US public school system and how it is sometimes portrayed as piss poor (season four of The Wire pops to mind). Is this something that is being discussed on a wider policy level? I believe it's a universally agreed upon fact that the quality of primary education is the single most important factor in helping people escape poverty. This should work equally well in rural Nigeria, suburban Oslo and West Baltimore.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    I think the downvotes on our comments should tell you how extensively it's being discussed. It's not. The people actually running things like it that way.
ghaff 6y ago
It often doesn't really work that way though, especially if you contrast suburban and urban school systems. It's not at all uncommon for urban systems with poor educational outcomes on average to outspend on a per-student basis middle-class suburbs. So it's not as simple as throwing money at the problem.
rayiner 6y ago
No. Even though school governance Halle s mostly at the local level, half of school funding comes from state and federal sources, to even out disparities in funding. This is the typical model pretty much in every federal country.
kaesar14 6y ago
Not exactly so simple. For one, like another commenter mentioned, funds are provided by the federal government specifically to level these differences out, but that's all it is, money. The administration of those funds is carried out at the lowest levels of government, with little to no accountability standards from higher up (obviously we've had reform attempts on this like NCLB). The differences arising from living in a poorer district vs a richer district have more to do with factors outside of school, like I said. It has to do with the home environments provided by parents who are often much poorer and thus less able to provide care and tutoring outside of school. Less access to role models that can guide the way to getting to college and upward mobility. As our country's economy becomes increasingly competitive, these disadvantages ossify socioeconomic statuses for people and their offspring. Obviously, more oversight of funds is a good thing, but it really isn't a lack of money that leads to these problems (for the most part). Edit: Also, a poorer district usually has lower cost of living to weigh against lower property taxes.

pmiller2 6y ago

Bingo. Schools in the US are usually funded by property taxes, which leads to all the effects you just named.

vesinisa 6y ago
Thank you. This makes it so much easier to understand more about the US public school system and how it is sometimes portrayed as piss poor (season four of The Wire pops to mind). Is this something that is being discussed on a wider policy level? I believe it's a universally agreed upon fact that the quality of primary education is the single most important factor in helping people escape poverty. This should work equally well in rural Nigeria, suburban Oslo and West Baltimore.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  I think the downvotes on our comments should tell you how extensively it's being discussed. It's not. The people actually running things like it that way.

ghaff 6y ago

It often doesn't really work that way though, especially if you contrast suburban and urban school systems. It's not at all uncommon for urban systems with poor educational outcomes on average to outspend on a per-student basis middle-class suburbs. So it's not as simple as throwing money at the problem.

rayiner 6y ago

No. Even though school governance Halle s mostly at the local level, half of school funding comes from state and federal sources, to even out disparities in funding. This is the typical model pretty much in every federal country.

kaesar14 6y ago

Not exactly so simple. For one, like another commenter mentioned, funds are provided by the federal government specifically to level these differences out, but that's all it is, money. The administration of those funds is carried out at the lowest levels of government, with little to no accountability standards from higher up (obviously we've had reform attempts on this like NCLB). The differences arising from living in a poorer district vs a richer district have more to do with factors outside of school, like I said. It has to do with the home environments provided by parents who are often much poorer and thus less able to provide care and tutoring outside of school. Less access to role models that can guide the way to getting to college and upward mobility. As our country's economy becomes increasingly competitive, these disadvantages ossify socioeconomic statuses for people and their offspring. Obviously, more oversight of funds is a good thing, but it really isn't a lack of money that leads to these problems (for the most part). Edit: Also, a poorer district usually has lower cost of living to weigh against lower property taxes.