I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure that many of the school districts in the country that spend the most per student are majority-minority, including New York and DC. Some states that have low-per pupil spending are mostly white (Alaska) and some aren't, like Alabama. I'm guessing unions have a lot to do with this, but see here and go to the Google:
I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure that many of the school districts in the country that spend the most per student are majority-minority, including New York and DC. Some states that have low-per pupil spending are mostly white (Alaska) and some aren't, like Alabama. I'm guessing unions have a lot to do with this, but see here and go to the Google:
Wow, I've been perusing that link and I am stunned, by many things.
Either the assessments are wildly inaccurate, or our society is in far deeper trouble than I had realized (and I knew it was bad).
The statewide percentage of students at or above proficiency is absurdly low.
In that context, schools in my county with <50% proficiency in math and in language (like varying from 10-50%) can be in the top 30% statewide and rated 8/10. To get a rating of 5/10, proficiencies need to be down to single digits.
The most troubled schools (mostly alternative or charter) tend towards a 10:1 student/teacher ratio, but the few truly near the top (90+% proficiency) tend to be more like 25-30:1, exactly opposite of what I had heard was a key factor. I assume that's because resources are being poured into the challenged schools, without much improvement. (The data goes back long before the pandemic and continues through it).
On the other hand, the California school districts with the highest budgets per student (eg: spending $740K per student in a small district in San Francisco) are not doing well either. Do they really average almost 3/4 million bucks per year per student, or is there some confounding factor enormously distorting the figures?
Can a highly leveraged high tech society survive based on a small fraction of highly competent people, along with a majority who are poorly educated? Especially in a political context of weaponized resentments and divisions, and a desire for universal benefits? Where "equity" is implemented by removing advanced classes so the more competent fraction cannot get further ahead, rather than by bringing up the less competent? It sounds like the recipe for some dystopian cyberpunk future.
Traditionally, the amount of money available per student is a product of the property values of taxable land in the district, and the tax ratio that voters in that district assess to themselves to support their community's valuation of education, divided by the number of students. A district with lower property values, lower tax rates, or more children per household would inherently thus have less funding per student.
Recognizing the value of better equality of opportunity through education, my state (among others) has eliminated and reversed that historical trend. The state provides targeted funding which first equalizes the total (local + state) per student, but then adds more to the districts which have more challenges, so the marginalized districts have the highest funding. I support that program.
However, I am sad to relate that so far there has been barely any budge in the performance statistics as a result. Perhaps someday that will change, but it's looking like differences in school funding may not be the primary driving factor in unequal outcomes, which is a shame because it's a comparatively easy (if not cheap) intervention.
It appears to me as an outsider that some sources of differential outcomes between districts with larger causative weights may be outside the Overton window of acceptable discussion in this state. It would appear that some causes can only be mentioned if they can be framed in consistency with the dominant oppression ideology. Sadly, "reinforce the dominant narrative at all costs" seems to be more important than "discover the empirical truth whether it's what we would prefer or not, and seek more measurably effective interventions".
I'm afraid we may not have learned from the Kansas City federal intervention in the late 20th century.
I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure that many of the school districts in the country that spend the most per student are majority-minority, including New York and DC. Some states that have low-per pupil spending are mostly white (Alaska) and some aren't, like Alabama. I'm guessing unions have a lot to do with this, but see here and go to the Google:
https://www.publicschoolreview.com/average-spending-student-stats/national-data
Wow, I've been perusing that link and I am stunned, by many things.
Either the assessments are wildly inaccurate, or our society is in far deeper trouble than I had realized (and I knew it was bad).
The statewide percentage of students at or above proficiency is absurdly low.
In that context, schools in my county with <50% proficiency in math and in language (like varying from 10-50%) can be in the top 30% statewide and rated 8/10. To get a rating of 5/10, proficiencies need to be down to single digits.
The most troubled schools (mostly alternative or charter) tend towards a 10:1 student/teacher ratio, but the few truly near the top (90+% proficiency) tend to be more like 25-30:1, exactly opposite of what I had heard was a key factor. I assume that's because resources are being poured into the challenged schools, without much improvement. (The data goes back long before the pandemic and continues through it).
On the other hand, the California school districts with the highest budgets per student (eg: spending $740K per student in a small district in San Francisco) are not doing well either. Do they really average almost 3/4 million bucks per year per student, or is there some confounding factor enormously distorting the figures?
Can a highly leveraged high tech society survive based on a small fraction of highly competent people, along with a majority who are poorly educated? Especially in a political context of weaponized resentments and divisions, and a desire for universal benefits? Where "equity" is implemented by removing advanced classes so the more competent fraction cannot get further ahead, rather than by bringing up the less competent? It sounds like the recipe for some dystopian cyberpunk future.
I'm too depressed to check other states tonight.
Traditionally, the amount of money available per student is a product of the property values of taxable land in the district, and the tax ratio that voters in that district assess to themselves to support their community's valuation of education, divided by the number of students. A district with lower property values, lower tax rates, or more children per household would inherently thus have less funding per student.
Recognizing the value of better equality of opportunity through education, my state (among others) has eliminated and reversed that historical trend. The state provides targeted funding which first equalizes the total (local + state) per student, but then adds more to the districts which have more challenges, so the marginalized districts have the highest funding. I support that program.
However, I am sad to relate that so far there has been barely any budge in the performance statistics as a result. Perhaps someday that will change, but it's looking like differences in school funding may not be the primary driving factor in unequal outcomes, which is a shame because it's a comparatively easy (if not cheap) intervention.
It appears to me as an outsider that some sources of differential outcomes between districts with larger causative weights may be outside the Overton window of acceptable discussion in this state. It would appear that some causes can only be mentioned if they can be framed in consistency with the dominant oppression ideology. Sadly, "reinforce the dominant narrative at all costs" seems to be more important than "discover the empirical truth whether it's what we would prefer or not, and seek more measurably effective interventions".
I'm afraid we may not have learned from the Kansas City federal intervention in the late 20th century.