More Money Really Does Make Schools Better(bloombergview.com)
bloombergview.com
More Money Really Does Make Schools Better
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-03-04/spending-more-money-really-does-make-schools-better
8 comments
I think that your characterization misses that in this recent study, this money did go to the schools. The whole quote:
"But it does seem that certain types of spending, especially on non-instructional items like capital improvements and support services, make a significant contribution. In other words, providing better physical and social environments for poor kids helps boost their performance relative to their richer peers."
To me, your comment sounds like it's neglecting the fact that this study found performance benefit from giving more money to poor schools.
"But it does seem that certain types of spending, especially on non-instructional items like capital improvements and support services, make a significant contribution. In other words, providing better physical and social environments for poor kids helps boost their performance relative to their richer peers."
To me, your comment sounds like it's neglecting the fact that this study found performance benefit from giving more money to poor schools.
I have to disagree. Capital improvements and support services are very different investments than your typical school funding for supplies, teacher salaries, etc., which are the kinds of items the title implies. Improving infrastructure and community services don't even have to come out of the school's own initiatives - those can be funded via any of a number of community improvement programs that have indirect benefits to schools. The article failed to prove to me that giving the money to schools is better than giving it to other programs that would do the same kinds of things.
I can't help thinking education could be the best possible public investment we could make in this ultra low interest rate environment...
Simply pouring Money into a School District without fixing the fundamental failings of the school district is a terrible investment.
Case in point: Dearborn vs Detroit.
School Districts Border one another.
Detroit gets $16,138 per student and Dearborn $12,128.
Detroit Public School District consistently ranks in the bottom 5% of school districts statewide and Dearborn in the top 10% of school districts in the state. If money were the solution why is Detroit not on par with Dearborn despite Detroit spending 30% more per student?
https://www.mackinac.org/depts/epi/fiscal.aspx
Case in point: Dearborn vs Detroit.
School Districts Border one another.
Detroit gets $16,138 per student and Dearborn $12,128.
Detroit Public School District consistently ranks in the bottom 5% of school districts statewide and Dearborn in the top 10% of school districts in the state. If money were the solution why is Detroit not on par with Dearborn despite Detroit spending 30% more per student?
https://www.mackinac.org/depts/epi/fiscal.aspx
From your own link (great source!), it says that the expenditures on instruction are, respectively, $7714 and $7073 per student per year. But Detroit spends much more on support services and food services.
> If money were the solution why is Detroit not on par with Dearborn despite Detroit spending 30% more per student?
I don't know that anybody is arguing that more money is "the solution," although surely it must be part of any solution. Even if more money was the solution, I don't know why 30% more would be the magic number.
> If money were the solution why is Detroit not on par with Dearborn despite Detroit spending 30% more per student?
I don't know that anybody is arguing that more money is "the solution," although surely it must be part of any solution. Even if more money was the solution, I don't know why 30% more would be the magic number.
Any schools performance should be judged in the delta and not the absolute.
Different student populations would be my guess.
Eh, come on. You can't compare two things which are different in tons of factors. If you want to compare, you need to adjust for those factors. If you wan't to look at them individually, you need to look at pre-investment and post-investment results, and preferably with a control group and a large sample. What you just did makes no sense.
For example, let's name a couple predictors of good schools. One is quite easy, it's parents. Are parents wealthy, well-read, command the native language well etc? If so, it's likely they can take time off from work to spend with their kids, and/or hire tutors when necessary, take kids on extracurricular trips to the museum, pay for extra learning materials (e.g. toys at a young age for cognitive skills, fun kid's books for vocabulary, later computers etc), converse with their kids in a way that's conducive to their natural language learning capacity, advise kid's, help them with their homework, pay for sports gear and transportation to get them to sports activities which helps kids have fun, relax, wind down and engage socially with others and build friendships and social skills. Parents are a huge deal, and while poor parents can parent great, too, it's a lot harder and some things are a lot less accessible (tutoring, vacation to Europe, speaking the native language) for poor or minority parents.
Alright now that's established, take a look at your locations. Turns out, family income is about 50% higher in Dearborn than in Detroit. That's a big difference, particularly because disposable income is really the big differentiator. If you imagine every household has to spend at least about $20k to make do, and above that there's a degree of 'extra wealth' that can be spent on working less, tutors, sports, extracurricular stuff etc, then a Detroit household income of $25k vs a Dearborn household income of $45k makes a huge difference. And that's just purely the money. Again, if you take money as a proxy of educated parents who know the system, have connections, know the language etc, then there's lots of intangible benefits of having wealthier parents like the kids in Dearborn do, too. And that has a huge effect on whether kids end up doing well in school or not.
Anyway that's just one factor to consider, there are lots. I'm not trying to argue here that money solves things, I'm just saying you can't deny it or argue against it on the basis of the example you provided, not even a little bit. After all, you wouldn't be surprised if education improved if both numbers increased by $10k, would you? Or deteriorated if both numbers decreased by $10k, for that matter. Money matters, but it's not the only thing that matters so one school that spends more may not do better than another school that spends less.
That having been said, it states total expenditures on education differ by approximately 13%. Not really a big deal. There's things like 'other expenditures' which are huge in Detroit and aren't qualified.
> Simply pouring Money into a School District without fixing the fundamental failings of the school district is a terrible investment.
Completely agree.
For example, let's name a couple predictors of good schools. One is quite easy, it's parents. Are parents wealthy, well-read, command the native language well etc? If so, it's likely they can take time off from work to spend with their kids, and/or hire tutors when necessary, take kids on extracurricular trips to the museum, pay for extra learning materials (e.g. toys at a young age for cognitive skills, fun kid's books for vocabulary, later computers etc), converse with their kids in a way that's conducive to their natural language learning capacity, advise kid's, help them with their homework, pay for sports gear and transportation to get them to sports activities which helps kids have fun, relax, wind down and engage socially with others and build friendships and social skills. Parents are a huge deal, and while poor parents can parent great, too, it's a lot harder and some things are a lot less accessible (tutoring, vacation to Europe, speaking the native language) for poor or minority parents.
Alright now that's established, take a look at your locations. Turns out, family income is about 50% higher in Dearborn than in Detroit. That's a big difference, particularly because disposable income is really the big differentiator. If you imagine every household has to spend at least about $20k to make do, and above that there's a degree of 'extra wealth' that can be spent on working less, tutors, sports, extracurricular stuff etc, then a Detroit household income of $25k vs a Dearborn household income of $45k makes a huge difference. And that's just purely the money. Again, if you take money as a proxy of educated parents who know the system, have connections, know the language etc, then there's lots of intangible benefits of having wealthier parents like the kids in Dearborn do, too. And that has a huge effect on whether kids end up doing well in school or not.
Anyway that's just one factor to consider, there are lots. I'm not trying to argue here that money solves things, I'm just saying you can't deny it or argue against it on the basis of the example you provided, not even a little bit. After all, you wouldn't be surprised if education improved if both numbers increased by $10k, would you? Or deteriorated if both numbers decreased by $10k, for that matter. Money matters, but it's not the only thing that matters so one school that spends more may not do better than another school that spends less.
That having been said, it states total expenditures on education differ by approximately 13%. Not really a big deal. There's things like 'other expenditures' which are huge in Detroit and aren't qualified.
> Simply pouring Money into a School District without fixing the fundamental failings of the school district is a terrible investment.
Completely agree.
>> During that period, the U.S. had a large influx of low-skilled immigrants, who are bound to rely on public schools more and parents less.
I've read the opposite, that immigrant families actually spend more time focusing on education outside of school.
>> There also was a large increase in single parenthood, which probably means those kids get less education at home as well.
This too seems odd. It sounds logical that a single parent might have less time to educate kids while at home, but there are so many factors. Not all single parents work, at least not all full time. And having two parents doesn't mean that they aren't both working, or that they spend any more time with educating kids than a single parent. It is just too simple to assume that single parent = less education at home.
I've read the opposite, that immigrant families actually spend more time focusing on education outside of school.
>> There also was a large increase in single parenthood, which probably means those kids get less education at home as well.
This too seems odd. It sounds logical that a single parent might have less time to educate kids while at home, but there are so many factors. Not all single parents work, at least not all full time. And having two parents doesn't mean that they aren't both working, or that they spend any more time with educating kids than a single parent. It is just too simple to assume that single parent = less education at home.
If I was a billionaire I think I'd create boarding schools near urban ghettos and offer pre-K through 12th grade education for free to groups of kids who would otherwise have almost no chance in life. Have the kids go home on the weekends (if they want) but be able to control their environment the rest of the time.
Something like this has been tried before. It results in the students being institutionalized and prepared for prison.
http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/boarding-school-syndrome
Maybe lifting the people of the urban ghettos out of the poverty trap might be a good start.
http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/boarding-school-syndrome
Maybe lifting the people of the urban ghettos out of the poverty trap might be a good start.
With little to no education that is quite difficult. There is a serious cultural failing occurring in urban ghettos and until people want to discuss it, nothing will change. For an excellent look at how culture has destroyed a School System and Prevented its change watch Dan Rather's "A National Disgrace" a 2 hour special on the failures of Detroit Public Schools and the culture controlling them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xypiZ-hqdY
Maybe, but single moms with only a high school education who homeschool, will place their kids int he top 60% of publicly educated kids.
Nothing matters more than parental involvement. And if every conversation about public education centered around "we can't do much if you don't care about little Johnny's education" maybe parents would start doing more. I'm not sure that being ambivalent about your child's education isn't a severe form of child neglect.
Nothing matters more than parental involvement. And if every conversation about public education centered around "we can't do much if you don't care about little Johnny's education" maybe parents would start doing more. I'm not sure that being ambivalent about your child's education isn't a severe form of child neglect.
[deleted]
Interesting extension might be to offer jobs as well to 12+ year olds (apprenticeship/training). Essentially JROTC or something taken to an extreme.
A combination of a "total institution" for children, combined with a clear path to a good job after, would probably be appealing. I don't think anyone but government could legally do a lot of this, but a local or state government might be able to provide cover.
Healthcare as a field might be a good domain...viewed as "good", high amounts of government expense already (va, Medicare/Medicaid), a wide range of ultimate skill jobs ( orderlies through types of nurses and techs to doctors to research), etc.
If I were a poor parent in the ghetto, and I could get my kids into "work at local hospital: pre pre med coursework plus objective standards for admission into various education later, and jobs", I'd do it in a heartbeat.
A combination of a "total institution" for children, combined with a clear path to a good job after, would probably be appealing. I don't think anyone but government could legally do a lot of this, but a local or state government might be able to provide cover.
Healthcare as a field might be a good domain...viewed as "good", high amounts of government expense already (va, Medicare/Medicaid), a wide range of ultimate skill jobs ( orderlies through types of nurses and techs to doctors to research), etc.
If I were a poor parent in the ghetto, and I could get my kids into "work at local hospital: pre pre med coursework plus objective standards for admission into various education later, and jobs", I'd do it in a heartbeat.
Let's hope you're never a billionaire then. Poverty is a mindset. Yes, intense coaching from someone who cares can make a difference but I'm going to venture a guess that no one actually cares about those kids.
Yes, poverty is a mindset but not monolithically. Poor people make decisions around finances just like every other type of person in the western world. It's not clear who "no one actually cares" refers to, but in my experiences communities and households living in poverty care deeply about education. They just often lack the $$$ resources to supplement a crappy public school education. I'd be more inclined to agree if I (or you) could point to sustained mobility of populations out of generational poverty sans economic or political interventions, but I can't.
My statement wasn't clear. It's common for people to think they know better than the parents and that the best thing they can do for the kids is to take them away from their families. As another poster stated, such interventions institutionalize children.
That's what I meant. If it were as simple as "oh, you shouldn't raise your own kids" the current school system would have done its job.
That's what I meant. If it were as simple as "oh, you shouldn't raise your own kids" the current school system would have done its job.
I don't know about the rest of the US, but I grew up in a state where the school districts are funded by local property tax. As you can probably guess, this has the effect of making schools in poor areas overcrowded and underfunded, while schools in affluent areas spend millions on indoor pools and turf football fields.
[deleted]
This isn't true in Sweden. My school got most funds per student and still went downhill. iPads, expensive computes and it still can't increase graduate numbers.
At some point, culture matters.
At some point, culture matters.
The data can also be interpreted: a court order to fix your damn school correlates with improvement. It's hard to believe that it's just money, some of these poorer urban districts have the highest per student educational spending, so a court order to spend money on students to me suggests "redirecting financial resources away from corruption"
I have looked everywhere for a national dollar per student database. Do you know if such a thing exists?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/05/23/the-d...
Look at the list of top spending districts, I see two districts with good outcomes (fairfax and Montgomery county) and the rest are urban districts with notoriously bad public schools (plus Hawaii which doesn't have local school districts and has outcomes so bad that pretty much everyone flees to private options, eg Barack Obama).
Look at the list of top spending districts, I see two districts with good outcomes (fairfax and Montgomery county) and the rest are urban districts with notoriously bad public schools (plus Hawaii which doesn't have local school districts and has outcomes so bad that pretty much everyone flees to private options, eg Barack Obama).
In the U.S. the census appears to handle that. I'm not any kind of expert on this data, but try this PDF here:
http://www2.census.gov/govs/school/13f33pub.pdf PDF Page 26
How I got there: http://www.governing.com/gov-data/education-data/state-educa... http://www.census.gov/govs/school/
How I got there: http://www.governing.com/gov-data/education-data/state-educa... http://www.census.gov/govs/school/
Here's our spending on ed, virtually the highest in the world https://polisonic.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/education20spe...
Here are our scores, among the worst https://softwarestrategies.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/image...
The problem with our education system is not a lack of money.
Here are our scores, among the worst https://softwarestrategies.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/image...
The problem with our education system is not a lack of money.
The education community has known for some time that there isn't a direct link between education spending and student achievement. That's because student achievement (as measured by international tests like PISA) is pretty much just related to the student's socio-economical background. Spending more on schools has little to no effect on it.
Increasing educational spending, however, will indirectly impact student achievement though being (or not being) able to attract qualified candidates to the teaching profession. This is especially true for STEM fields.
For example, let's say that a school district wants to start a computer science program (Intro to programming in MS, Programming and APCS in HS). Ideally, you want someone that is good at programming, current with the CS field, that has a valid teaching credential, and is willing to work 40-50 hours a week starting at $44,000[1] yearly (pay will cap out at $88,00[2] with 20 years of experience). You can see why not many good CS majors will decide to go into teaching. The school district will then have to ask some of its current teachers to teach these CS classes, usually as an elective in addition to their other "core" classes (usually math). They will have various degrees of understanding and knowledge about programming, different backgrounds and experiences.
Increasing the pay for teachers will allow districts to attract qualified candidates for teaching, the same way that universities have to pay top salaries to attract the best coaches for their football programs. The nations that consistently top the PISA chart have some way to attract their best college students as school teachers.
Teach for America is an example that attracting top college students to the teaching profession can indeed help student achievement in the US and that their 5-year retention rate (~15%) in the teaching profession that these candidates don't stick around teaching for long.
Notes: [1 and 2] Salary figures come from my local school district's pay scale
Increasing educational spending, however, will indirectly impact student achievement though being (or not being) able to attract qualified candidates to the teaching profession. This is especially true for STEM fields.
For example, let's say that a school district wants to start a computer science program (Intro to programming in MS, Programming and APCS in HS). Ideally, you want someone that is good at programming, current with the CS field, that has a valid teaching credential, and is willing to work 40-50 hours a week starting at $44,000[1] yearly (pay will cap out at $88,00[2] with 20 years of experience). You can see why not many good CS majors will decide to go into teaching. The school district will then have to ask some of its current teachers to teach these CS classes, usually as an elective in addition to their other "core" classes (usually math). They will have various degrees of understanding and knowledge about programming, different backgrounds and experiences.
Increasing the pay for teachers will allow districts to attract qualified candidates for teaching, the same way that universities have to pay top salaries to attract the best coaches for their football programs. The nations that consistently top the PISA chart have some way to attract their best college students as school teachers.
Teach for America is an example that attracting top college students to the teaching profession can indeed help student achievement in the US and that their 5-year retention rate (~15%) in the teaching profession that these candidates don't stick around teaching for long.
Notes: [1 and 2] Salary figures come from my local school district's pay scale
I've suspected for a while that these kinds of comparisons are a unfair. US schools wind up providing more social services than schools in other countries. What would US schools look like if we had the healthcare and social safety net of Finland?
The problem with our system is not ONLY a lack of money.
Part of it is the monetary allocation. Property taxes are the primary school funding mechanism, and they allocate the most money where it is least needed.
Part of it is socioeconomic. We allocate the same amount of money as much smaller countries with more homogeneous populations and much less poverty.
Part of it is societal. The best scores come from societies that value teachers and knowledge. Having a large anti-education population hurts your chance of educating effectively. If you segment the US into different areas, you find that the Northeast is more competitive with world scores while the Southeast is vastly worse than even these averages suggest.
Part of it is the monetary allocation. Property taxes are the primary school funding mechanism, and they allocate the most money where it is least needed.
Part of it is socioeconomic. We allocate the same amount of money as much smaller countries with more homogeneous populations and much less poverty.
Part of it is societal. The best scores come from societies that value teachers and knowledge. Having a large anti-education population hurts your chance of educating effectively. If you segment the US into different areas, you find that the Northeast is more competitive with world scores while the Southeast is vastly worse than even these averages suggest.
> Part of it is the monetary allocation. Property taxes are the primary school funding mechanism, and they allocate the most money where it is least needed.
Less than half of school funding comes from local property taxes. Slightly more than half comes from state or federal support, which is overwhelmingly directed at poor school districts. In 45 states, the poorest school districts get more money than the richest: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/03/12/in-2....
> Part of it is socioeconomic. We allocate the same amount of money as much smaller countries with more homogeneous populations and much less poverty.
We allocate staggering amounts of money to the poorest school districts. D.C. spends triple the OECD average on its overwhelmingly low-income student population. And test scores are terrible.
Education as a remedy for social problems is a failed experiment. As a society, we like to lean on education as a way to make up for the sins of our past, but education is never going to fix inner cities victimized by historical segregation, deindustrialization, and social collapse. Nice facilities and well-paid teachers aren't going to help kids who live in communities where parental power vacuums have left gangs as the ones in charge of the social structure.
Less than half of school funding comes from local property taxes. Slightly more than half comes from state or federal support, which is overwhelmingly directed at poor school districts. In 45 states, the poorest school districts get more money than the richest: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/03/12/in-2....
> Part of it is socioeconomic. We allocate the same amount of money as much smaller countries with more homogeneous populations and much less poverty.
We allocate staggering amounts of money to the poorest school districts. D.C. spends triple the OECD average on its overwhelmingly low-income student population. And test scores are terrible.
Education as a remedy for social problems is a failed experiment. As a society, we like to lean on education as a way to make up for the sins of our past, but education is never going to fix inner cities victimized by historical segregation, deindustrialization, and social collapse. Nice facilities and well-paid teachers aren't going to help kids who live in communities where parental power vacuums have left gangs as the ones in charge of the social structure.
> Education as a remedy for social problems is a failed experiment.
Education is simply one part. And education is actually one of the most cost effective. I can't find the study, but for every year you can keep a child in school, the probability of their getting into criminal trouble drops by something like 15%.
> education is never going to fix inner cities victimized by historical segregation, deindustrialization, and social collapse.
You say this like it doesn't affect you. This is coming to us ALL. Deindustrialization and social collapse is rife in rural areas, too. It's why there are so many angry people in this US election.
If we don't figure this out, and soon, ALL of us are going to be in this same boat.
Education is simply one part. And education is actually one of the most cost effective. I can't find the study, but for every year you can keep a child in school, the probability of their getting into criminal trouble drops by something like 15%.
> education is never going to fix inner cities victimized by historical segregation, deindustrialization, and social collapse.
You say this like it doesn't affect you. This is coming to us ALL. Deindustrialization and social collapse is rife in rural areas, too. It's why there are so many angry people in this US election.
If we don't figure this out, and soon, ALL of us are going to be in this same boat.
> You say this like it doesn't affect you.
I say this as someone who has spent the last five years living or working in downtown New Rochelle, Wilmington, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and D.C. Each of these cities spends more (in some cases, a lot more) per pupil than the affluent suburb where I grew up. And it's not doing anything to help these kids.
> If we don't figure this out, and soon, ALL of us are going to be in this same boat.
We're not willing to do what it takes to fix the problem. What people keep voting for is separate but equal: give those 90% low-income minority school districts more and more money hoping that fixes things. Nobody is willing to put into place measures to actually integrate those populations into the broader community. Here's an idea: instead of creating urban ghettos by concentrating welfare spending in the inner cities, why not spread it out? Build housing projects in wealthy suburbs so kids can go to schools where their peers and the community put high value on education. Measures that might actually break the cycle of poverty are a total no-go even in "liberal" places.
I say this as someone who has spent the last five years living or working in downtown New Rochelle, Wilmington, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and D.C. Each of these cities spends more (in some cases, a lot more) per pupil than the affluent suburb where I grew up. And it's not doing anything to help these kids.
> If we don't figure this out, and soon, ALL of us are going to be in this same boat.
We're not willing to do what it takes to fix the problem. What people keep voting for is separate but equal: give those 90% low-income minority school districts more and more money hoping that fixes things. Nobody is willing to put into place measures to actually integrate those populations into the broader community. Here's an idea: instead of creating urban ghettos by concentrating welfare spending in the inner cities, why not spread it out? Build housing projects in wealthy suburbs so kids can go to schools where their peers and the community put high value on education. Measures that might actually break the cycle of poverty are a total no-go even in "liberal" places.
I think what you suggest (regarding integration) is in the right direction, but simply moving people around wouldn't be near enough. You will have opposition from all sides. You would have to limit your "integrations" to a very small percentage of the local population, or they would just bring their drug and gang problems with them. You have to deal with the accusation that you are trying to destroy a culture, be it farm culture, urban culture, ethnic culture, whatever.
All in all, it seems like the current divisions in society have developed very strong memetic immunizations against thoughts of integration, and I don't see how you overcome that.
All in all, it seems like the current divisions in society have developed very strong memetic immunizations against thoughts of integration, and I don't see how you overcome that.
"It's why there are so many angry people in this US election."
Did you miss the last 12 years were people were lynching puppets of the sitting present (Bush protestors) or pooping on cops cars and shutting down large portions of inner cities (occupy protestors) or large segments of the country referring to a minority group of tax reformers as "tea-baggers"?
By those standards, things are a lot more civil.
Did you miss the last 12 years were people were lynching puppets of the sitting present (Bush protestors) or pooping on cops cars and shutting down large portions of inner cities (occupy protestors) or large segments of the country referring to a minority group of tax reformers as "tea-baggers"?
By those standards, things are a lot more civil.
Socio economic reasons are a big part of this. Providing education for ESL students isn't cheap. Most ESL is for low income students whose parents don't pay for private lessons.
If you take all middle class and above students and above the US figures well compared to other countries.
So it's not that how we go a out educating is off... It's just that educating such a diverse student population with the economic and social characteristics is more difficult than when you have a more homogeneous culture.
If you take all middle class and above students and above the US figures well compared to other countries.
So it's not that how we go a out educating is off... It's just that educating such a diverse student population with the economic and social characteristics is more difficult than when you have a more homogeneous culture.
> If you take all middle class and above students and above the US figures well compared to other countries.
While that is probably true, it doesn't mean we still don't have a problem.
You can't just "write off" more than half of your population unless you start talking things like Basic Income. And the size of the middle class has been decreasing, so there are more and more children who fall under that line.
While that is probably true, it doesn't mean we still don't have a problem.
You can't just "write off" more than half of your population unless you start talking things like Basic Income. And the size of the middle class has been decreasing, so there are more and more children who fall under that line.
The size of the middle class has been shrinking in large part because the upper class has been growing:
http://reason.com/blog/2015/12/10/the-middle-class-is-shrink...
http://reason.com/blog/2015/12/10/the-middle-class-is-shrink...
The middle class has not been decreasing by any measure other than subjective gut feeling.
At least in the US, by far the largest impact on a student's education is parental involvement. It is how single mothers with only a high school education can homeschool their children and have them average in the top 60% of public schools on standardized tests.
This argument about money has always been about administrator and teacher jobs for two reasons. One, telling parents they need to do better is politically untenable and a nearly intractable problem. Two, teacher unions have consistently been a powerful voting block in nearly every state, turning every debate on public education into at least a partial referendum on their pay.
This argument about money has always been about administrator and teacher jobs for two reasons. One, telling parents they need to do better is politically untenable and a nearly intractable problem. Two, teacher unions have consistently been a powerful voting block in nearly every state, turning every debate on public education into at least a partial referendum on their pay.
With the rest of the industrialized world being more socialized and having less childhood poverty, I think one could make the case that we are indirectly inadequately funding our education system in terms of child nutrition, parental involvement, etc.
Well it's a bit complicated. Schools being funded locally means that a lot of that spending comes from a state or federal level and is 'required' to have various strings attached to it.
So quite a bit of the money that comes in can't be used to say buy more desks or hire an exterminator or fix the AC. It has to be used to buy say SmartBoards or iPads because !technology! and !STEM!, a couple years back for instance my mom was issued an iPad and told to integrate into her teaching. One iPad in a class of 30+ teaching English. With ~100 teachers at the school though that'll show up as ~50,000 dollars worth of spending and it'll do jack all squat.
So quite a bit of the money that comes in can't be used to say buy more desks or hire an exterminator or fix the AC. It has to be used to buy say SmartBoards or iPads because !technology! and !STEM!, a couple years back for instance my mom was issued an iPad and told to integrate into her teaching. One iPad in a class of 30+ teaching English. With ~100 teachers at the school though that'll show up as ~50,000 dollars worth of spending and it'll do jack all squat.
Edit: Whoops, confused articles. NYTimes One:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/26/us/tangelo-park-orlando-fl...
One thing that people are overlooking from the article:
> And it has had Mr. Rosen’s focus and financing over 21 years.
How many funding experiments have been carried on for two decades?
One thing that people are overlooking from the article:
> And it has had Mr. Rosen’s focus and financing over 21 years.
How many funding experiments have been carried on for two decades?
"In other words, providing better physical and social environments for poor kids helps boost their performance relative to their richer peers."
It's been pretty well known for a while that the family and neighborhood environment of young students is a massive contributor to academic performance, so just pouring more money into schools themselves doesn't help things overly much. You tend to get better results by spending money on things like daycare (to help parents) and scholarships (to incentivize students). Example:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/26/us/tangelo-park-orlando-fl...
Edit in case NY Times is paywalled - This is the program's actual website: http://www.tangeloparkprogram.com/