3 ms·

People bring up funding but Carmel high school doesn't spend more than others. > However, Carmel High School spends significantly less per pupil than public hi

by bko 4y ago

People bring up funding but Carmel high school doesn't spend more than others. > However, Carmel High School spends significantly less per pupil than public high schools in Indianapolis. According to the Indiana Department of Education, Carmel High School in 2020 spent between $3,500 to $6,000 less per pupil compared to the four public high schools in Indianapolis. I remember when Zuckerberg donated $100 million to Newark schools. Needless to say you won't be seeing any viral videos from Newark students showing off their schools I wish people looked at this with awe rather than envy. We can have nice things. https://reason.com/2023/02/15/bad-schools-arent-always-underfunded/ https://reason.com/2023/02/15/bad-schools-arent-always-under... https://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-schools-education-newark-mayor-ras-baraka-cory-booker-2018-5 https://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-schools-educ...

yucky 4y ago
That reminds me of the recent article showing Detroit Public Schools having the distinction of both the highest per pupil spend and the lowest test scores in their state by a wide margin.
throwaway6734 4y ago
Schools in poor areas will always cost significantly more per student because they carry more societal weight that isn't being carried at the students' homes.
scottLobster 4y ago
It's been proven time and again that there are many factors beyond money that go into making a good school. It's a little taboo because it can come off as victim-blaming/classist/racist. If the majority of parents for whatever reasons don't value education, the school will suck. If the majority of kids are poorly raised and abused at home, the school will suck. Wealthy areas don't just have good schools because they're rich. They also have good schools because wealthy people universally and correctly value education as a means of generating/perpetuating their wealth. Even the dumbest, weakest, most self-entitled wealthy person knows a college degree matters, even if they don't understand how or why or which degree. And they're wealthy, so they won't bat an eye at marginally increased property taxes to fund schools, and they make sure their kids go to school.
- bko 4y ago
  That could explain performance, but not necessarily facilities. I think it has more to do with corruption and accountability. If you're dumping money into a school, why can't you have something nice (physically)? Unless you're spending all that money on counselors or other things wealthy districts don't have to worry about as much. It may be old fashioned but broken window principle applies. If things are nice and maintained, they're more likely to stay that way.
- IG_Semmelweiss 4y ago
  Educational outcomes may suck, but the school (facilities) will not. The problem is really what is happening with the dollars spent ? Its entirely OK for kids with more dollars to show worse outcomes than a school like Carmel, for exactly the reasons you cite. HOWEVER, a school with difficult families and students that is well funded, should be outperforming similar other schools with less funds. But that's not the case. And there is the whole philosophical discussion on whether burning cash for no outcomes, is worth it. Maybe that money should be going to other things that could have better bank for the buck (i.e. assistance for single mothers working)
meetingthrower 4y ago
So much this. I saw this go viral and all the comments were about the "rich Carmel suburb." The fact of the matter is that they are spending WAY less per student (including infrastructure funding.) Part of this is scale for sure - it is a huge school - but also just good management. Wish we had more of it.

by bko 4y ago

yucky 4y ago

That reminds me of the recent article showing Detroit Public Schools having the distinction of both the highest per pupil spend and the lowest test scores in their state by a wide margin.

throwaway6734 4y ago

Schools in poor areas will always cost significantly more per student because they carry more societal weight that isn't being carried at the students' homes.

scottLobster 4y ago

It's been proven time and again that there are many factors beyond money that go into making a good school. It's a little taboo because it can come off as victim-blaming/classist/racist. If the majority of parents for whatever reasons don't value education, the school will suck. If the majority of kids are poorly raised and abused at home, the school will suck. Wealthy areas don't just have good schools because they're rich. They also have good schools because wealthy people universally and correctly value education as a means of generating/perpetuating their wealth. Even the dumbest, weakest, most self-entitled wealthy person knows a college degree matters, even if they don't understand how or why or which degree. And they're wealthy, so they won't bat an eye at marginally increased property taxes to fund schools, and they make sure their kids go to school.

bko 4y ago
That could explain performance, but not necessarily facilities. I think it has more to do with corruption and accountability. If you're dumping money into a school, why can't you have something nice (physically)? Unless you're spending all that money on counselors or other things wealthy districts don't have to worry about as much. It may be old fashioned but broken window principle applies. If things are nice and maintained, they're more likely to stay that way.
IG_Semmelweiss 4y ago
Educational outcomes may suck, but the school (facilities) will not. The problem is really what is happening with the dollars spent ? Its entirely OK for kids with more dollars to show worse outcomes than a school like Carmel, for exactly the reasons you cite. HOWEVER, a school with difficult families and students that is well funded, should be outperforming similar other schools with less funds. But that's not the case. And there is the whole philosophical discussion on whether burning cash for no outcomes, is worth it. Maybe that money should be going to other things that could have better bank for the buck (i.e. assistance for single mothers working)

meetingthrower 4y ago

So much this. I saw this go viral and all the comments were about the "rich Carmel suburb." The fact of the matter is that they are spending WAY less per student (including infrastructure funding.) Part of this is scale for sure - it is a huge school - but also just good management. Wish we had more of it.