3 ms·

The lower performing schools also tend to be older and require more maintenance and repairs than newer schools in wealthier areas. Not all of that additional pe

The lower performing schools also tend to be older and require more maintenance and repairs than newer schools in wealthier areas. Not all of that additional per-pupil funding makes it to the classroom.

danans 4y ago
> The lower performing schools also tend to be older and require more maintenance and repairs than newer schools in wealthier areas. Sure, that's a factor too, but I'd still call it a social service issue since it ultimately results from the historical disinvestment in the communities that today have low performing schools. There are reasons that the roofs didn't get repaired and the lead pipes didn't get replaced in those schools: because middle income people took their lives, businesses, and tax dollars out of those communities starting in the late 1960s, both by migrating to newly built suburbs, and also by ensuring their tax dollars never went toward the communities they left. Look up the opposition to "Robin Hood" school funding from the 80s and 90s. Where I grew up it was largely about keeping suburban tax dollars out of inner-city school districts.
- zozbot234 4y ago
  Except that this whole movement is now reversing. These communities are starting to gentrify and grow rich - to the horror of progressive activists everywhere! Damned if you do, damned if you don't. You just can't win!
- 6502nerdface 4y ago
  A difference in maintenance costs is not necessarily a consequence of disinvestment... it could simply be that lower performing schools are more likely to be urban, and in urban areas everything related to the construction and maintenance of buildings, whether old or new, is more expensive (not to mention admin salaries, etc.). Or it could be that plus what you say for a double wammy at some schools. I'm just brainstorming reasonable seeming hypotheses that you could imagine trying to rule out with the right dataset.
car_analogy 4y ago
The study I linked (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2332858419872445 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/23328584198724...) addresses this in table 1, page 8. Surprisingly, Black pupils get on average $10 less "infrastructure" expenditures, and $150 more "instructional" expenditures compared to White. The table breaks the spending down into 5 different categories, but in all of them, the differences are negligible. The $150 instructional expenditure difference is the largest.

danans 4y ago

> The lower performing schools also tend to be older and require more maintenance and repairs than newer schools in wealthier areas. Sure, that's a factor too, but I'd still call it a social service issue since it ultimately results from the historical disinvestment in the communities that today have low performing schools. There are reasons that the roofs didn't get repaired and the lead pipes didn't get replaced in those schools: because middle income people took their lives, businesses, and tax dollars out of those communities starting in the late 1960s, both by migrating to newly built suburbs, and also by ensuring their tax dollars never went toward the communities they left. Look up the opposition to "Robin Hood" school funding from the 80s and 90s. Where I grew up it was largely about keeping suburban tax dollars out of inner-city school districts.

zozbot234 4y ago
Except that this whole movement is now reversing. These communities are starting to gentrify and grow rich - to the horror of progressive activists everywhere! Damned if you do, damned if you don't. You just can't win!
6502nerdface 4y ago
A difference in maintenance costs is not necessarily a consequence of disinvestment... it could simply be that lower performing schools are more likely to be urban, and in urban areas everything related to the construction and maintenance of buildings, whether old or new, is more expensive (not to mention admin salaries, etc.). Or it could be that plus what you say for a double wammy at some schools. I'm just brainstorming reasonable seeming hypotheses that you could imagine trying to rule out with the right dataset.

car_analogy 4y ago

The study I linked (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2332858419872445 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/23328584198724...) addresses this in table 1, page 8. Surprisingly, Black pupils get on average $10 less "infrastructure" expenditures, and $150 more "instructional" expenditures compared to White. The table breaks the spending down into 5 different categories, but in all of them, the differences are negligible. The $150 instructional expenditure difference is the largest.