|
babypolis posted:"A 2012 study by the New Jersey Department of Education, however, determined that score gains in the Abbotts were no higher than in those in high-poverty districts that did not participate in the Abbott lawsuit and therefore received much less state money" They don't receive no state money at all though, they still receive thousands of state dollars per pupil to make up for the low property tax income from low property values. The special districts simply receive additional thousands of dollars from the state per pupil. Before all this started, back in the 80s, all of the poor districts received hundreds of dollars per pupil at absolute most.
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 10:34 |
|
|
babypolis posted:Still it shows there a low upper limit to the effectiveness of more cash. And even then a pretty big gap remains which suggests money alone doesnt come close to solving the problem Yes, but that limit is well above the funding most school districts in this country get. Like if every school district in this country was just getting the per student funds that the just plain poor districts in NJ get due to state funding boosts, we'd be doing a whole lot better and the poor and minorities would be getting much better education. With that funding in NJ, kids who you'd expect to be doing really poorly due to how their locality's demographics and social class are treated elsewhere, instead end up not doing very much worse then students from rich towns and upper middle income towns. One of the big pulls for the extra funding that the poorest/worst off districts get is that the teachers almost never need to worry about doing things like having to buy classroom supplies out of their own paycheck too - which does a lot for keeping retention of good teachers, as well as meaning they effectively get higher pay then their colleagues in other states.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2015 04:41
|
|