Let’s talk school funding

[PopeyesPappy]

I have read a few posts lately talking about the problem of local school funding. The issue being raised is local school district funding is largely based on the local tax base. This has resulted in a disparity of funding between schools in predominately white areas versus schools in predominately minority areas. I will concede that point. On a national level predominately white school districts are better funded than predominately minority districts. While I agree that is unfair and needs to addressed, fixing that issue alone is not going to help raise the test scores of minority children. The issue of lower standard test scores among minorities have more to do with students living in poverty than disparities in school funding. 
 
I live in Alabama. Most of you are probably aware that Alabama, along with most other deep south states, is at or near the bottom of the education rankings. What many of you might not be aware of is in most deep south states, including Alabama, this funding disparity issue isn’t nearly as pronounced as it is in places like New York, New Jersey, and California.
 
In the south school districts are generally drawn up on county and city lines. They are bigger than school districts in states where the problem is more pronounced. This gives our school districts a larger tax base that encompasses both poor and rich areas. We do have disparities between rich and poor districts, but funding within districts is for the most part biased towards schools with larger numbers of minority students. Generally speaking, within a given district the schools with higher percentages of minority students get more government funding per student than predominately white schools. This has not significantly helped improve the test scores of minority students in these schools.  
 
Why? To answer that question you need to drill down into individual districts and schools. When you do the level of funding per student becomes less of an issue. There are of course outliers in every group, but on average poor students do not perform as well as rich students even when both groups have access to the same resources at school.  Race doesn’t matter as much as income. When funding levels are equal rich white kids perform better than poor black kids, and rich black kids perform better than poor white kids.
 
So, if resources available at school isn’t the problem then what is? The answer to that seems glaringly obvious to me. The difference is resources available to poor kids after school. If we want to improve these kids lives we don’t have to pump more money into the school systems. We need to be pumping money into the communities they live in, and the communities need to be investing time into the children. We need to be providing them with food so they aren’t hungry. After school activities to keep them out of trouble. Community centers with computers, internet access, and most importantly stable adult role models to help them with their homework and serve as role models when their families either can’t or won’t provide these things.

[Minimalist]

Books could be, and probably have been, written on this subject.  Let me give you an example, Pap.

I lived in NY on Long Island for 55 years.  Leaving aside Brooklyn and Queens which are part of New York City, "Long Island" generally refers to the counties of Nassau and Suffolk.  Between them they have 126 separate school districts which does not include any of the bullshit religious "schools" which have thusfar avoided bankruptcy.  126 school districts ranging from very large to tiny.  That means 126 school boards, 126 superintendents, 126 duplicative administrative functions, etc., etc.

Generally, the concept of consolidation scores very highly among voters.  That is generally.  When you get down to specifics and suggest combining their district with another all of a sudden they get very protective. [WHAT?  I didn't mean MY district!]   It's about power and the illusion of control.  School taxes are through the roof.  When I left NY in 2005 my yearly tax bill was over $16k a year.  We couldn't retire there.  In Arizona the tax bill was about $1,500/year.  They pay the teachers coolie wages, of course, but I didn't have to worry about that.  My kids are in their 40's. 

So a lot of the problem has fuckall to do with the kids.

But, in answer to your question, I think poverty and de facto segregation is a major factor.

[Dom]

Have no kids, paid a fortune for schools over the years. I do want the see better educated people here in a place where few ever go further than a couple of years of high school, and many can't even read. It's an investment in the future, and at least it gives kids a chance, even when their parents don't give a shit.

[Thumpalumpacus]

School funding via property taxes and poverty in general are inextricably tied together. It's no surprise that poor areas have less money for schools, because poor people cannot afford higher-value houses or rentals.

[epronovost]

So, if resources available at school isn’t the problem then what is? The answer to that seems glaringly obvious to me. The difference is resources available to poor kids after school. If we want to improve these kids lives we don’t have to pump more money into the school systems. We need to be pumping money into the communities they live in, and the communities need to be investing time into the children. We need to be providing them with food so they aren’t hungry. After school activities to keep them out of trouble. Community centers with computers, internet access, and most importantly stable adult role models to help them with their homework and serve as role models when their families either can’t or won’t provide these things.

Doing what you would suggest is the stuff that needs to be done IN ADDITION to "pupping more money into schools". It's not an either or situation. The schools are part of their communities, in fact they are central to it, and yes, you would need to create youth centers, medical clinics and hospitals, parcs, lunch programs, social and street workers, proper sanitation, career centers, public defenders offices, post offices, banks or financial cooperatives, police services. It takes all those things to create a good community. That cost a lot of money, but hte good thing is that it can produce a lot of money too. You rarely lose by investing in people's future.

[Dom]

So, if resources available at school isn’t the problem then what is? The answer to that seems glaringly obvious to me. The difference is resources available to poor kids after school. If we want to improve these kids lives we don’t have to pump more money into the school systems. We need to be pumping money into the communities they live in, and the communities need to be investing time into the children. We need to be providing them with food so they aren’t hungry. After school activities to keep them out of trouble. Community centers with computers, internet access, and most importantly stable adult role models to help them with their homework and serve as role models when their families either can’t or won’t provide these things.

Doing what you would suggest is the stuff that needs to be done IN ADDITION to "pupping more money into schools". It's not an either or situation. The schools are part of their communities, in fact they are central to it, and yes, you would need to create youth centers, medical clinics and hospitals, parcs, lunch programs, social and street workers, proper sanitation, career centers, public defenders offices, post offices, banks or financial cooperatives, police services. It takes all those things to create a good community. That cost a lot of money, but hte good thing is that it can produce a lot of money too. You rarely lose by investing in people's future.

Also, stores that sell stuff other than candy and mac and cheese. Those kids are raised on convenience store crap.

[SYZ]

In Australia in 1963, the long-term process of providing federal benefits to private schools first began here.
At that time around 25% of students were enrolled in private schools and in 1965 these schools received 25% of
all Federal government funding.  (Which seems equitable.)

"Private" (church) schools are usually run by religious organisations, primarily Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, and Islamic.

Today those private schools in Australia receive 75% of all Federal funding. We've gone a long way past just
bringing poor Catholic parish schools up to public school standards. These days the poor schools across Australia,
those needing help, are public (state run) schools.

Today we don’t just fund Catholic schools, we now fund all religious schools including two Scientology schools
with fewer than 50 students, each receiving almost $10,000 per student every year from the public purse. We
also fund 31 Exclusive Brethren schools that in many cases get more government funding per student than
nearby government schools.

In Australia, private schools on average receive about $10K per student from combined government funding on
top of the parental fees which can be as much as $35k per student per year.  

Unfortunately, in Australia it seems that most of the additional government spend on education flows to private
schools that don’t need this additional money.  Half of the $22 billion spent on capital projects in Australian
schools between 2013 and 2017 was spent in just the 10% of those private schools. These schools are the
country’s richest, ranked by average annual income from all sources—Federal and State government funding,
parent fees, and other private church funding sources.  And bear in mind that in Australia, churches enjoy tax
free status, so their 'income' that flows from a church source to a school is itself effectively untaxed.

[Tres Leches]

I have read a few posts lately talking about the problem of local school funding. The issue being raised is local school district funding is largely based on the local tax base. This has resulted in a disparity of funding between schools in predominately white areas versus schools in predominately minority areas. I will concede that point. On a national level predominately white school districts are better funded than predominately minority districts. While I agree that is unfair and needs to addressed, fixing that issue alone is not going to help raise the test scores of minority children. The issue of lower standard test scores among minorities have more to do with students living in poverty than disparities in school funding. 
 
I live in Alabama. Most of you are probably aware that Alabama, along with most other deep south states, is at or near the bottom of the education rankings. What many of you might not be aware of is in most deep south states, including Alabama, this funding disparity issue isn’t nearly as pronounced as it is in places like New York, New Jersey, and California.
 
In the south school districts are generally drawn up on county and city lines. They are bigger than school districts in states where the problem is more pronounced. This gives our school districts a larger tax base that encompasses both poor and rich areas. We do have disparities between rich and poor districts, but funding within districts is for the most part biased towards schools with larger numbers of minority students. Generally speaking, within a given district the schools with higher percentages of minority students get more government funding per student than predominately white schools. This has not significantly helped improve the test scores of minority students in these schools.  
 
Why? To answer that question you need to drill down into individual districts and schools. When you do the level of funding per student becomes less of an issue. There are of course outliers in every group, but on average poor students do not perform as well as rich students even when both groups have access to the same resources at school.  Race doesn’t matter as much as income. When funding levels are equal rich white kids perform better than poor black kids, and rich black kids perform better than poor white kids.
 
So, if resources available at school isn’t the problem then what is? The answer to that seems glaringly obvious to me. The difference is resources available to poor kids after school. If we want to improve these kids lives we don’t have to pump more money into the school systems. We need to be pumping money into the communities they live in, and the communities need to be investing time into the children. We need to be providing them with food so they aren’t hungry. After school activities to keep them out of trouble. Community centers with computers, internet access, and most importantly stable adult role models to help them with their homework and serve as role models when their families either can’t or won’t provide these things.

Oh, shit. Don't get me started on this. I agree 100% with your post.

Throwing more money at public schools won't solve a dang thing with our educational system. The US spends per pupil well above the global per pupil average, yet so many US students do poorly, compared to students in other developed nations.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018...outh-korea

Yet, we constantly hear the typical and dysfunctional US solution to any problem - more money, more greenbacks and those problems will magically disappear.

I agree that far more community resources need to be made available to children and families. But that is a pipe dream, even here in the liberal republic of California.
I've come to the conclusion the US as a society doesn't give shit about kids and how they're faring as they grow up. "I got mine, to heck with those kids."

-Teresa

[skyking]

broken or not, I keep voting to approve ballot measures. We never had kids but like @Dom , I don't want the kids near me to suffer.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

I have read a few posts lately talking about the problem of local school funding. The issue being raised is local school district funding is largely based on the local tax base. This has resulted in a disparity of funding between schools in predominately white areas versus schools in predominately minority areas. I will concede that point. On a national level predominately white school districts are better funded than predominately minority districts. While I agree that is unfair and needs to addressed, fixing that issue alone is not going to help raise the test scores of minority children. The issue of lower standard test scores among minorities have more to do with students living in poverty than disparities in school funding. 
 
I live in Alabama. Most of you are probably aware that Alabama, along with most other deep south states, is at or near the bottom of the education rankings. What many of you might not be aware of is in most deep south states, including Alabama, this funding disparity issue isn’t nearly as pronounced as it is in places like New York, New Jersey, and California.
 
In the south school districts are generally drawn up on county and city lines. They are bigger than school districts in states where the problem is more pronounced. This gives our school districts a larger tax base that encompasses both poor and rich areas. We do have disparities between rich and poor districts, but funding within districts is for the most part biased towards schools with larger numbers of minority students. Generally speaking, within a given district the schools with higher percentages of minority students get more government funding per student than predominately white schools. This has not significantly helped improve the test scores of minority students in these schools.  
 
Why? To answer that question you need to drill down into individual districts and schools. When you do the level of funding per student becomes less of an issue. There are of course outliers in every group, but on average poor students do not perform as well as rich students even when both groups have access to the same resources at school.  Race doesn’t matter as much as income. When funding levels are equal rich white kids perform better than poor black kids, and rich black kids perform better than poor white kids.
 
So, if resources available at school isn’t the problem then what is? The answer to that seems glaringly obvious to me. The difference is resources available to poor kids after school. If we want to improve these kids lives we don’t have to pump more money into the school systems. We need to be pumping money into the communities they live in, and the communities need to be investing time into the children. We need to be providing them with food so they aren’t hungry. After school activities to keep them out of trouble. Community centers with computers, internet access, and most importantly stable adult role models to help them with their homework and serve as role models when their families either can’t or won’t provide these things.

Oh, shit. Don't get me started on this. I agree 100% with your post.

Throwing more money at public schools won't solve a dang thing with our educational system. The US spends per pupil well above the global per pupil average, yet so many US students do poorly, compared to students in other developed nations.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018...outh-korea

Yet, we constantly hear the typical and dysfunctional US solution to any problem - more money, more greenbacks and those problems will magically disappear.

I agree that far more community resources need to be made available to children and families. But that is a pipe dream, even here in the liberal republic of California.
I've come to the conclusion the US as a society doesn't give shit about kids and how they're faring as they grow up. "I got mine, to heck with those kids."

-Teresa

Funding is an issue though. Not necessarily from a "we need more funding" stance, but in many cases a "we need better utilization of the existing funding" stance. Those "per student" numbers that get thrown about don't show what's actually reaching the students in the form of texts and teaching tools, but the raw total numbers spent on "education." Jefferson County Colorado is the largest school district in Colorado and the second best funded. The Jefferson County Schools Superintendent makes a whopping $265,000/yr. He has three secretaries that all make 6 figure incomes, and he presides over a school district who's textbooks are 10 years out of date and who's teachers are paid, on average, less than $60,000/yr. and are sometimes forced into early retirement to avoid higher pension payouts. Somehow I doubt it's very much different any where else in the country. This is but one example of imbalances and poor choices in how school funds are spent. What's needed more than money is fiscal oversight, but the districts fight tooth and nail against it every time it's brought up.

That, and we need the pot tax money that was promised to us for building/maintaining schools. No one in our state Senate seems to be able to explain where that money has gone. Almost $1.4 bn. (yes, billion, with a 'B') in taxes has been collected from pot sales since 2014 with 40% earmarked for building/maintaining our schools. Actual amount spent on public school buildings to date: $0.00

And again, fiscal oversight is fought, the cooked books are hidden and the politicians continue to drive their Jaguars home to their McMansions every night.

[trdsf]

broken or not, I keep voting to approve ballot measures. We never had kids but like @Dom , I don't want the kids near me to suffer.

I vote for them as well.  Thirty or forty years from now, my life may depend on a doctor who's growing up in our school district right now.

[M.Linoge]

[Dancefortwo]

It doesn't matter how much we fund the schools, we are not a nation that values intelligent, well educated people. Look at the thing that ended up in the White House. The US is a country that values gut instinct over intellect.  We celebrate sports and entertainers over university graduates. 

Then there's the problem of combining schools with sports programs.   Correct me if I'm wrong but most European schools are just schools,  they are just for education, not sports.  In Europe, as I understand it, soccer and all the other sports activities are clubs independent of the schools. The schools here in the US are also sports centers. 

Schools are also a social service centers where free lunches are provided and outreach programs into the community is a thing. Schools here have become more a multifaceted community center than they are a school.  And the reason they've become this way is because most Americans consider socalism and national health care an evil thing so a lot of the nations social problems have fallen onto the schools to fix the and that's why schools don't just teach anymore and why teachers are exhausted and underpaid.

[mordant]

Books could be, and probably have been, written on this subject.  Let me give you an example, Pap.

I lived in NY on Long Island for 55 years.  Leaving aside Brooklyn and Queens which are part of New York City, "Long Island" generally refers to the counties of Nassau and Suffolk.  Between them they have 126 separate school districts which does not include any of the bullshit religious "schools" which have thusfar avoided bankruptcy.  126 school districts ranging from very large to tiny.  That means 126 school boards, 126 superintendents, 126 duplicative administrative functions, etc., etc.

Generally, the concept of consolidation scores very highly among voters.  That is generally.  When you get down to specifics and suggest combining their district with another all of a sudden they get very protective. [WHAT?  I didn't mean MY district!]   It's about power and the illusion of control.  School taxes are through the roof.  When I left NY in 2005 my yearly tax bill was over $16k a year.  We couldn't retire there.  In Arizona the tax bill was about $1,500/year.  They pay the teachers coolie wages, of course, but I didn't have to worry about that.  My kids are in their 40's. 

So a lot of the problem has fuckall to do with the kids.

But, in answer to your question, I think poverty and de facto segregation is a major factor.

I can confirm. All three of these are homes I've owned in urban suburbs:

Arizona: 1900 sq ft home, combined property & school taxes $1,600/yr, basis of $300K
Indiana: 2800 sq ft home, combined property & school taxes $2,700/yr, basis of $300K
Upstate NY: 2000 sq ft home, combined property & school taxes $11,000/yr, basis of $420K

Are NY schools almost 7 times better than Arizona schools in terms of taxation / sq ft? I think not.

I'm given to understand that a lot of this is because the state quit revenue-sharing with counties years ago, so it's 100% on the counties to fund their schools. Where do the $ go? In this state, probably the mafia, I don't pretend to know.