School Funding

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

I'm saying the costs are small compared to the costs of running the class in the first place. I'm not looking at them in terms of your budget.

 

[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.

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.

The studies don’t provide clear answers on how to best use new resources, though,

If they can't say what works I seriously question the quality of the studies. Note that most of these studies involve cases where people voted for more funding vs places where they didn't--in other words, the samples are biased.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

But how, if you're not going to agree with the fact that schools are categorically more expensive to run when students are categorically more risk-laden when they are populated by low-affluence individuals?

I am asking you point blank, and you have yet to answer: can you accept that there is an inverse relationship between school performance and necessary funding?

Students won't show up to learning they feel like there is no interest in spending the time and money to make sure they are taught.

 

[Trausti]

I am asking you point blank, and you have yet to answer: can you accept that there is an inverse relationship between school performance and necessary funding?

What Matters for Student Achievement

 

[ronburgundy]

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.

The studies don’t provide clear answers on how to best use new resources, though,

If they can't say what works I seriously question the quality of the studies. Note that most of these studies involve cases where people voted for more funding vs places where they didn't--in other words, the samples are biased.

Disingenuous hand waiving dismissal of rigorous and sophisticated analyses you clearly don't understand.

From the TX study where the extra money has nothing to with voting for more $:

"To do so we leverage a long-standing rule in the state funding formula for Texas’s public schools
that grants additional per-pupil allotments to geographically large districts with few students. We
exploit the fact that the formula is discontinuous in size, at 300 square miles, and is kinked with
respect the number of students, at 1,373. Since the true relationship between size and sparsity and the
cost of educating students is in all likelihood smooth, we can exploit the difference between the true
smooth relationship and the kinked and discontinuous formula as a source of variation in per-pupil
funding. Because this element of the formula determines in large part base per-pupil funding for
districts, this variation is meaningful in determining per-pupil revenue and expenditures. Our data
allow us to observe districts receiving more than $1,600, or 13%, in additional per-pupil revenue
that is arguably unrelated to the true cost of educating students."


Another study compared the effects of spending increase votes, but compared districts where the ballot measure was just above the passing threshold vs just below that threshold. It compared 900 districts across 7 states, using numerous control variables including year, number of enrollments, expenditures per pupil one and three years
prior to the election, as racial makeup of the student body, SES of the student's families, and rural vs. urban.
They looked at gains in student test scores and graduation rate from across from the election.

The Wisconsin study also compared the effects of extremely close elections within 1% of passing or not, showing no differences pre election on numerous control variables. They also control for voter turnout and other referenda put on the ballot that year. They also look separately at ballot measures requiring the use of funds for capital layout (construction and building maintenance) versus operations costs (teacher compensation, class size, and other factors directly related to instruction quality). Only passage of increased operational funds predicted improvements in student outcomes, which controls for the district and voter characteristics related to approving tax increases related to schools.

 

[SimpleDon]

And yet if you look up a list of the so-called "best" public school districts in California, they all reside in rich neighborhoods. Why is that?

As is almost always the case, it's the students themselves that are the main factor.

As with the special education students, it costs more to educate students from impoverished areas. Doesn't that speak to directing more money to these schools than to schools in the wealthy areas?