5 ms·

"Most states" qualifier supports the claim that funding varies widely from state to state and town to town. State and Federal funding grants alone are not going

"Most states" qualifier supports the claim that funding varies widely from state to state and town to town. State and Federal funding grants alone are not going to sustain a school district. Also, your link is basically a charter school industry propo campaign. Hardly unbiased when talking about public schools.

giantg2 4y ago
It's possible there could be bias. Do you have a source that states otherwise? Do you have any resaon/explaination to suspect the numbers in the pertianate table to be biased? '"Most states" qualifier supports the claim that funding varies widely from state to state and town to town.' Of course funding will vary to some degree - as does cost of living. This is especially true depending on the state, but it is not based on local wealth (as the original claim states). The point is that the troupe that districts collecting less property tax are providing poor education because of it are mostly false. The funding levels are mostly adjusted to be similar to other districts based on the needs-based funding of higher levels of government. Are there some states that underfunded the entire system? Probably. The example of Pennsylvania shows that it is one of the highest funded states, with some of the highest paid teachers, has relatively evenly distributed funds, and it still has districts that underperformed. This isn't a funding issue, and continuing to look at it like one is doing a disservice to those students. There are other factors that drive success more than property tax funding. Things like two parent households, and societal/parental expectations.
- bradlys 4y ago
  As someone who went to a very poor school district - I can tell you that what the state and federal government has sent in the past is not sufficient. My school district was only 4-days a week. It has not changed since I left to the best of my knowledge. Four days. We couldn’t even afford five days a week. There were other effects to this besides four day weeks but I’m giving a good sound byte here.

giantg2 4y ago

It's possible there could be bias. Do you have a source that states otherwise? Do you have any resaon/explaination to suspect the numbers in the pertianate table to be biased? '"Most states" qualifier supports the claim that funding varies widely from state to state and town to town.' Of course funding will vary to some degree - as does cost of living. This is especially true depending on the state, but it is not based on local wealth (as the original claim states). The point is that the troupe that districts collecting less property tax are providing poor education because of it are mostly false. The funding levels are mostly adjusted to be similar to other districts based on the needs-based funding of higher levels of government. Are there some states that underfunded the entire system? Probably. The example of Pennsylvania shows that it is one of the highest funded states, with some of the highest paid teachers, has relatively evenly distributed funds, and it still has districts that underperformed. This isn't a funding issue, and continuing to look at it like one is doing a disservice to those students. There are other factors that drive success more than property tax funding. Things like two parent households, and societal/parental expectations.

bradlys 4y ago
As someone who went to a very poor school district - I can tell you that what the state and federal government has sent in the past is not sufficient. My school district was only 4-days a week. It has not changed since I left to the best of my knowledge. Four days. We couldn’t even afford five days a week. There were other effects to this besides four day weeks but I’m giving a good sound byte here.