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, o…
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.
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.