|
Cease to Hope posted:This is true but incomplete. While property tax bases are a problem, poor kids in poor schools do worse even when you spend more on them. Poverty means malnutrition, trauma, and exhausted parents, and there's only so much a school can do to compensate for that. (Free meal programs really help.) Do you have a citation on this? I'd be interested to read the scholarship on spending more on poor schools and having the students performance directly negatively correlate. Thanks!
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 00:53 |
|
|
on the left posted:Explain the societal benefit of dropping 70k/year on special ed for a single student. I'm assuming we will never see any of that money back in the form of income taxes. This is a dumb assumption. Also, income tax isn't the only tax paid to the state, FYI, babyhitler.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:I didn't say they directly negatively correlate - I said rather that the fact that children in poor areas are living in poverty is the primary reason schools with poor tax bases do poorly. It's one of the main conclusions of the Coleman Report Not to quibble but you did say, Cease to Hope posted:While property tax bases are a problem, poor kids in poor schools do worse even when you spend more on them. which rather carries the implication that we shouldn't spend money on poor children. Also, I'm gonna toss out that the Coleman report is over 50 years old. Some more recent research seems to run counter to your claims: quote:We show that school resources play a major role in student achievement, and that finance reforms can effect major reductions in inequality between high- and low-income school districts. Accordingly, while states that did not implement reforms have seen growing test score gaps between high- and low-income school districts over the last two decades, states that implemented reforms saw steady declines over the same period. The effect is large: Finance reforms raise achievement in the lowest-income school districts by about one-tenth of a standard deviation, closing about one-fifth of the gap between high- and low-income districts. There is no sign that the additional funds are wasted. On the contrary, our estimates indicate that additional funds distributed via finance reforms are more productive than funds targeted to class size reduction. Using a different metric, we still see a gain here: quote:To study the effect of these school-finance-reform-induced changes in school spending on long-run adult outcomes, we link school spending and school finance reform data to detailed, nationally-representative data on children born between 1955 and 1985 and followed through 2011. We use the timing of the passage of court-mandated reforms, and their associated type of funding formula change, as an exogenous shifter of school spending and we compare the adult outcomes of cohorts that were differentially exposed to school finance reforms, depending on place and year of birth. Event-study and instrumental variable models reveal that a 10 percent increase in per-pupil spending each year for all twelve years of public school leads to 0.27 more completed years of education, 7.25 percent higher wages, and a 3.67 percentage-point reduction in the annual incidence of adult poverty; effects are much more pronounced for children from low-income families. Exogenous spending increases were associated with sizable improvements in measured school quality, including reductions in student-to-teacher ratios, increases in teacher salaries, and longer school years. How do you explain this?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
on the left posted:It's odd that the demands for equal funding only go in one direction, towards the weakest and most marginalized groups. Almost as if demands for equality are being used to advance a true agenda that would be deeply unpopular if revealed in the current political climate. It's almost as though disabled kids....might need more resources! 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2017 21:27
|
|