School Funding

[Loren Pechtel]

Note, you see this effect even within the poor cohorts, I think, in the example of charter schools, which select for motivated students and kids who parents are motivated. I am skeptical about a lot of the claims that any particular method is useful due to this factor alone. Although, charter schools are a mixed bag.

Charter schools do better because they keep out the problems.

I think one thing you can do is encourage more economic integration in school systems, where kids can then at least emulate their peers. And this should go along with more economic integration of housing.

It's not going to work--this will simply trash the better schools, the parents will go private instead.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So, would you, and Loren, say that the schools themselves have equal resources, infrastructure, and opportunities in poor neighborhoods as in rich neighborhoods, and it is only the students themselves who, for whatever reasons, aren't taking advantage of them? There are no systemic differences, nothing holding them back but their own motivations?

Many states use statewide funding--the "poor" schools have as much money as the "rich" schools.

I do agree the poor schools are lacking in equipment but that's because it's destroyed or stolen.

There's also the consistent problem of underfunding and relying on the parents to provide supplies the teachers need--which doesn't happen in the poor schools.

 

[Jarhyn]

So, would you, and Loren, say that the schools themselves have equal resources, infrastructure, and opportunities in poor neighborhoods as in rich neighborhoods, and it is only the students themselves who, for whatever reasons, aren't taking advantage of them? There are no systemic differences, nothing holding them back but their own motivations?

Many states use statewide funding--the "poor" schools have as much money as the "rich" schools.

I do agree the poor schools are lacking in equipment but that's because it's destroyed or stolen.

There's also the consistent problem of underfunding and relying on the parents to provide supplies the teachers need--which doesn't happen in the poor schools.

So what you are saying is that districts with less affluence need greater rather than lesser funding to offset the social impacts in the educational environment of high poverty. Or at least that's the take-away I am getting.

Though I might also point out that between security spending in less affluent districts and the fact even in the OP post about "only 20%" of funding when that percentage was an average rather than a limit, as if this is not a HUGE difference all on its own.

It is my expectation that there ought be an inverse relationship between school funding and performance, where the poorly performing schools get the most rather than least financial backing, at least until the district "turns".

 

[J842P]

Note, you see this effect even within the poor cohorts, I think, in the example of charter schools, which select for motivated students and kids who parents are motivated. I am skeptical about a lot of the claims that any particular method is useful due to this factor alone. Although, charter schools are a mixed bag.

Charter schools do better because they keep out the problems.

I think one thing you can do is encourage more economic integration in school systems, where kids can then at least emulate their peers. And this should go along with more economic integration of housing.

It's not going to work--this will simply trash the better schools, the parents will go private instead.

That is an empirical question, Loren, and your just-so story doesn't count as empirical data.
We have examples of this working, e.g. in Cambridge Massachusetts. To what extent successful models can be scaled to the entire country is yet to be determined.

 

[Trausti]

Is there any evidence that increased school funding makes an appreciable difference in outcome? That is, increased funding with the same student population? This was tried in Kansas City in the late 1980’s, with predictable results.

 

[Toni]

So you are saying that poor people care less about education?

To a large degree, yes--their not caring about education is a big factor in being poor.

Bullshit.

Do you actually know any low income parents? Or low income people? Well enough to actually talk to and more importantly, listen to and hear what they say?

The low income parents I know who also grew up in poverty are often so ground down by poverty that they see no path out of it. School was not a good place for them. School is where they were treated as though they were stupid and had no future aside from working as cheap low skill or unskilled labor. Many had unrecognized or remediate learning disabilities and many more have undiagnosed or untreated or in effectively treated mental illness. You might be surprised at how depressing and overwhelming it is to be poor. And then there are chronic health problems, some of which were acquired performing heavy manual labor.

It’s just much much easier to believe that people deserve what they get. I guess for people like you, Donald Trump deserves his wealth and position.

 

[Trausti]

So you are saying that poor people care less about education?

To a large degree, yes--their not caring about education is a big factor in being poor.

Bullshit.

Do you actually know any low income parents? Or low income people? Well enough to actually talk to and more importantly, listen to and hear what they say?

The low income parents I know who also grew up in poverty are often so ground down by poverty that they see no path out of it. School was not a good place for them. School is where they were treated as though they were stupid and had no future aside from working as cheap low skill or unskilled labor. Many had unrecognized or remediate learning disabilities and many more have undiagnosed or untreated or in effectively treated mental illness. You might be surprised at how depressing and overwhelming it is to be poor. And then there are chronic health problems, some of which were acquired performing heavy manual labor.

It’s just much much easier to believe that people deserve what they get. I guess for people like you, Donald Trump deserves his wealth and position.

I agree that low income parents does not necessarily equate with not caring about education. Which is why I support school choice. Let the money follow the student so parents, regardless of income, can make the best choice for their child.

 

[Toni]

Bullshit.

Do you actually know any low income parents? Or low income people? Well enough to actually talk to and more importantly, listen to and hear what they say?

The low income parents I know who also grew up in poverty are often so ground down by poverty that they see no path out of it. School was not a good place for them. School is where they were treated as though they were stupid and had no future aside from working as cheap low skill or unskilled labor. Many had unrecognized or remediate learning disabilities and many more have undiagnosed or untreated or in effectively treated mental illness. You might be surprised at how depressing and overwhelming it is to be poor. And then there are chronic health problems, some of which were acquired performing heavy manual labor.

It’s just much much easier to believe that people deserve what they get. I guess for people like you, Donald Trump deserves his wealth and position.

I agree that low income parents does not necessarily equate with not caring about education. Which is why I support school choice. Let the money follow the student so parents, regardless of income, can make the best choice for their child.

I don't support taxpayer money going to private schools where its use and effectiveness is not transparent to taxpayers. Or where the schools have the ability to decline to take students with significant learning or other disabilities and instead shuffle off the more expensive students to the very institutions they are siphoning funding from.

I'm also very much in favor of the separation of church and state. No state funding for religious based schools.

 

[Trausti]

The primary purpose of school funding should be the benefit of the student. Not the teachers union. Not administrative bloat and high salaries. Not lavish pensions.

 

[Toni]

The primary purpose of school funding should be the benefit of the student. Not the teachers union. Not administrative bloat and high salaries. Not lavish pensions.

So you are unfamiliar with teacher’s salary scales, duties , responsibilities and hours.

Or how unions are funded.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So, would you, and Loren, say that the schools themselves have equal resources, infrastructure, and opportunities in poor neighborhoods as in rich neighborhoods, and it is only the students themselves who, for whatever reasons, aren't taking advantage of them? There are no systemic differences, nothing holding them back but their own motivations?

Many states use statewide funding--the "poor" schools have as much money as the "rich" schools.

I do agree the poor schools are lacking in equipment but that's because it's destroyed or stolen.

There's also the consistent problem of underfunding and relying on the parents to provide supplies the teachers need--which doesn't happen in the poor schools.

So what you are saying is that districts with less affluence need greater rather than lesser funding to offset the social impacts in the educational environment of high poverty. Or at least that's the take-away I am getting.

Though I might also point out that between security spending in less affluent districts and the fact even in the OP post about "only 20%" of funding when that percentage was an average rather than a limit, as if this is not a HUGE difference all on its own.

It is my expectation that there ought be an inverse relationship between school funding and performance, where the poorly performing schools get the most rather than least financial backing, at least until the district "turns".

All schools need to quit relying on students and teachers for supplies. The amount involved isn't that great, it shouldn't require any big changes to the funding.

However, that will not fix the fundamental problem--students who aren't there to learn.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Is there any evidence that increased school funding makes an appreciable difference in outcome? That is, increased funding with the same student population? This was tried in Kansas City in the late 1980’s, with predictable results.

Actually, the opposite--we have a judge who threw a lot of money at it, I forget the state by now. It did nothing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So you are saying that poor people care less about education?

To a large degree, yes--their not caring about education is a big factor in being poor.

Bullshit.

Do you actually know any low income parents? Or low income people? Well enough to actually talk to and more importantly, listen to and hear what they say?

The low income parents I know who also grew up in poverty are often so ground down by poverty that they see no path out of it. School was not a good place for them. School is where they were treated as though they were stupid and had no future aside from working as cheap low skill or unskilled labor. Many had unrecognized or remediate learning disabilities and many more have undiagnosed or untreated or in effectively treated mental illness. You might be surprised at how depressing and overwhelming it is to be poor. And then there are chronic health problems, some of which were acquired performing heavy manual labor.

It’s just much much easier to believe that people deserve what they get. I guess for people like you, Donald Trump deserves his wealth and position.

Your rant doesn't rebut what I'm saying at all. Maybe they had reasons not to like school but that doesn't change the problem of them not encouraging their kids to learn.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't support taxpayer money going to private schools where its use and effectiveness is not transparent to taxpayers. Or where the schools have the ability to decline to take students with significant learning or other disabilities and instead shuffle off the more expensive students to the very institutions they are siphoning funding from.

I'm also very much in favor of the separation of church and state. No state funding for religious based schools.

You're part of the problem, not part of the solution. Those kids with significant learning disabilities drag down the rest of the students. They should be in a class targeted at their ability. Mainstreaming is very expensive and bad for everyone involved.

 

[Toni]

Bullshit.

Do you actually know any low income parents? Or low income people? Well enough to actually talk to and more importantly, listen to and hear what they say?

The low income parents I know who also grew up in poverty are often so ground down by poverty that they see no path out of it. School was not a good place for them. School is where they were treated as though they were stupid and had no future aside from working as cheap low skill or unskilled labor. Many had unrecognized or remediate learning disabilities and many more have undiagnosed or untreated or in effectively treated mental illness. You might be surprised at how depressing and overwhelming it is to be poor. And then there are chronic health problems, some of which were acquired performing heavy manual labor.

It’s just much much easier to believe that people deserve what they get. I guess for people like you, Donald Trump deserves his wealth and position.

Your rant doesn't rebut what I'm saying at all. Maybe they had reasons not to like school but that doesn't change the problem of them not encouraging their kids to learn.

What rant?

And why can you not answer the question? Do you know any low income parents?

Why do you think that low income parents do not care about education? What is the basis for this assertion?

 

[Toni]

I don't support taxpayer money going to private schools where its use and effectiveness is not transparent to taxpayers. Or where the schools have the ability to decline to take students with significant learning or other disabilities and instead shuffle off the more expensive students to the very institutions they are siphoning funding from.

I'm also very much in favor of the separation of church and state. No state funding for religious based schools.

You're part of the problem, not part of the solution. Those kids with significant learning disabilities drag down the rest of the students. They should be in a class targeted at their ability. Mainstreaming is very expensive and bad for everyone involved.

How am I part of the problem?

I realize you missed in but I believe that students with significant learning difficulties or learning or physical disabilities are entitled to have them addressed in whatever school they attend.


You seem to admit that private schools cannot or will not meet these special needs and at the same time seem oblivious to the fact that burdening public schools with the most difficult and expensive students to educate while siphoning off the most capable, along with the state funding IS the problem and YOU ARE FINE WITH THAT.


Are you, like Trump, uncomfortable with those who are disabled?

 

[Toni]

So what you are saying is that districts with less affluence need greater rather than lesser funding to offset the social impacts in the educational environment of high poverty. Or at least that's the take-away I am getting.

Though I might also point out that between security spending in less affluent districts and the fact even in the OP post about "only 20%" of funding when that percentage was an average rather than a limit, as if this is not a HUGE difference all on its own.

It is my expectation that there ought be an inverse relationship between school funding and performance, where the poorly performing schools get the most rather than least financial backing, at least until the district "turns".

All schools need to quit relying on students and teachers for supplies. The amount involved isn't that great, it shouldn't require any big changes to the funding.

However, that will not fix the fundamental problem--students who aren't there to learn.

I agree that schools should stop relying on students' families--or teachers for school supplies. You are wrong when you say that the cost is not significant. I well remember when I had multiple elementary age kids in school at the same time and then, their relatively modest school lists were well over my budget. And we're middle class.

 

[ronburgundy]

Is there any evidence that increased school funding makes an appreciable difference in outcome? That is, increased funding with the same student population? This was tried in Kansas City in the late 1980’s, with predictable results.

Actually, the opposite--we have a judge who threw a lot of money at it, I forget the state by now. It did nothing.

Bullshit. Numerous analyses show a significant impact of increased funding on scores, graduation rates, and college attendance, especially more funding in areas that serve low income students.

This article summarizes some of that work.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Bullshit.

Do you actually know any low income parents? Or low income people? Well enough to actually talk to and more importantly, listen to and hear what they say?

The low income parents I know who also grew up in poverty are often so ground down by poverty that they see no path out of it. School was not a good place for them. School is where they were treated as though they were stupid and had no future aside from working as cheap low skill or unskilled labor. Many had unrecognized or remediate learning disabilities and many more have undiagnosed or untreated or in effectively treated mental illness. You might be surprised at how depressing and overwhelming it is to be poor. And then there are chronic health problems, some of which were acquired performing heavy manual labor.

It’s just much much easier to believe that people deserve what they get. I guess for people like you, Donald Trump deserves his wealth and position.

Your rant doesn't rebut what I'm saying at all. Maybe they had reasons not to like school but that doesn't change the problem of them not encouraging their kids to learn.

What rant?

And why can you not answer the question? Do you know any low income parents?

Why do you think that low income parents do not care about education? What is the basis for this assertion?

I didn't say all low-income parents don't care. However, there's a reason they're low income and that reason is likely related to how they see education and preparing for the future.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't support taxpayer money going to private schools where its use and effectiveness is not transparent to taxpayers. Or where the schools have the ability to decline to take students with significant learning or other disabilities and instead shuffle off the more expensive students to the very institutions they are siphoning funding from.

I'm also very much in favor of the separation of church and state. No state funding for religious based schools.

You're part of the problem, not part of the solution. Those kids with significant learning disabilities drag down the rest of the students. They should be in a class targeted at their ability. Mainstreaming is very expensive and bad for everyone involved.

How am I part of the problem?

I realize you missed in but I believe that students with significant learning difficulties or learning or physical disabilities are entitled to have them addressed in whatever school they attend.


You seem to admit that private schools cannot or will not meet these special needs and at the same time seem oblivious to the fact that burdening public schools with the most difficult and expensive students to educate while siphoning off the most capable, along with the state funding IS the problem and YOU ARE FINE WITH THAT.


Are you, like Trump, uncomfortable with those who are disabled?

I'm saying that those with substantial special needs should be handled in schools intended for the purpose, not in the ordinary schools. Most private schools are not going to be big enough operations to have enough such students for it to make sense. It's the same as we have special schools for a whole range of things that don't have enough students to warrant including them in regular school.

My mother went to a school for the blind--which worked a lot better than attempting to fit a blind kid into regular class, requiring someone to read for them and having a bunch of things in class that are of a visual nature so they have no way to do them at all. Everything in the school for the blind was set up for blind kids, none of the lessons were wasted, no need of one interpreter per student, and since everyone was blind no taking pity on the blind kid and letting him get away with things.