4 ms·

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 vict

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)

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)