4 ms·

No teacher can afford to live in the neighborhood if the house prices are that high. Why would the schools be better?

nemo44x 5y ago
I don’t understand the logic here. Schools are funded primarily through local property taxes. The town with the higher priced houses collects more property tax and can therefore allocate more funding to their school. This means they can pay higher salaries to teachers which means they can select for the best teachers. This attracts teachers that can’t afford to live in the town they teach in.
klipt 5y ago
All else being equal, if you have two neighboring school districts, one with good schools and one with bad schools, people will be willing to pay more for houses in the good school district. So higher house prices will tend to correlate with better schools.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  The causation will be more like if you have two neighboring school districts, the one with higher house prices will tend to be the good school district because the kids’ will be coming from houses with educated and financially successful parents like doctors, engineers, lawyers, business owners, etc.
maccard 5y ago
People often don't live in the neighborhoods they work in, and people often can't afford to own in the neighborhoods they live in. A teacher who bought a house 20 years ago might still be able to live there, for example.
novok 5y ago
The secret about good school districts is it's mostly about good student & parent populations. It makes people angry when you say that out loud.
- ryan_lane 5y ago
  It's a highly cyclical thing. Schools that perform well are generally in rich areas, because that's how they're funded. Well funded schools have better facilities, more programs, and can hire more teachers, so have better student to teacher ratios. People want to send their kids to those schools, but need to live in those districts, so move there. The property value of those areas go up, which leads to more funding to the schools, etc. Schools that perform poorly are usually in poor areas. They get less funding because the property is worth less in that area. They have more students, because it's cheaper to live in those areas, but have worse facilities, fewer programs, and they can't hire as many teachers, leading to even worse teacher/student ratios. People who can afford to move to better school districts do so, or find a private school they can afford. People get angry when you say that because it's taking a complex issue and trying to simplify it in a way that's only true from a surface level.
  - novok 5y ago
    The performance of a student is mostly dependent on the student's ability themselves, their social groups and how much their parents are able to give a shit, especially in today's age of the internet where access to information is not a limiting factor. A good school district that performs well is mostly a function of how much of the population is composed of that kind of student & parent combo and safe environment. Beyond a bare minimum service level of functioning buildings, adequate nutrition, adequate medical care, adequate psychological testing, some basic school supplies and semi-competent, non-abusive teachers the finances do not matter. If a classroom has a 1:10 ratio or 1:40 ratio or a 10 year old building vs a 90 year old building, big fancy gym vs an empty field, cool robotics lab or none at all, that barely matters in comparison and that what shows up as the difference in a well funded district vs a badly funded one. A well funded good school district causes a shift in the student population, it's not the money that causes improvements in outcomes compared to population shift, so it is easy to mix the two. Because the USA has a history of the above statement also being used for crypto-racist segregative bullshit, everyone thinks this really saying racist shit, but this applies the world over, including places without a long history of racism.
sul_tasto 5y ago
The quality of the schools depends more on the amount of parental support the students receive than the quality of the teachers.

I don’t understand the logic here. Schools are funded primarily through local property taxes. The town with the higher priced houses collects more property tax and can therefore allocate more funding to their school. This means they can pay higher salaries to teachers which means they can select for the best teachers. This attracts teachers that can’t afford to live in the town they teach in.

klipt 5y ago

All else being equal, if you have two neighboring school districts, one with good schools and one with bad schools, people will be willing to pay more for houses in the good school district. So higher house prices will tend to correlate with better schools.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
The causation will be more like if you have two neighboring school districts, the one with higher house prices will tend to be the good school district because the kids’ will be coming from houses with educated and financially successful parents like doctors, engineers, lawyers, business owners, etc.

maccard 5y ago

People often don't live in the neighborhoods they work in, and people often can't afford to own in the neighborhoods they live in. A teacher who bought a house 20 years ago might still be able to live there, for example.

novok 5y ago

The secret about good school districts is it's mostly about good student & parent populations. It makes people angry when you say that out loud.

ryan_lane 5y ago
It's a highly cyclical thing. Schools that perform well are generally in rich areas, because that's how they're funded. Well funded schools have better facilities, more programs, and can hire more teachers, so have better student to teacher ratios. People want to send their kids to those schools, but need to live in those districts, so move there. The property value of those areas go up, which leads to more funding to the schools, etc. Schools that perform poorly are usually in poor areas. They get less funding because the property is worth less in that area. They have more students, because it's cheaper to live in those areas, but have worse facilities, fewer programs, and they can't hire as many teachers, leading to even worse teacher/student ratios. People who can afford to move to better school districts do so, or find a private school they can afford. People get angry when you say that because it's taking a complex issue and trying to simplify it in a way that's only true from a surface level.
- novok 5y ago
  The performance of a student is mostly dependent on the student's ability themselves, their social groups and how much their parents are able to give a shit, especially in today's age of the internet where access to information is not a limiting factor. A good school district that performs well is mostly a function of how much of the population is composed of that kind of student & parent combo and safe environment. Beyond a bare minimum service level of functioning buildings, adequate nutrition, adequate medical care, adequate psychological testing, some basic school supplies and semi-competent, non-abusive teachers the finances do not matter. If a classroom has a 1:10 ratio or 1:40 ratio or a 10 year old building vs a 90 year old building, big fancy gym vs an empty field, cool robotics lab or none at all, that barely matters in comparison and that what shows up as the difference in a well funded district vs a badly funded one. A well funded good school district causes a shift in the student population, it's not the money that causes improvements in outcomes compared to population shift, so it is easy to mix the two. Because the USA has a history of the above statement also being used for crypto-racist segregative bullshit, everyone thinks this really saying racist shit, but this applies the world over, including places without a long history of racism.

sul_tasto 5y ago

The quality of the schools depends more on the amount of parental support the students receive than the quality of the teachers.