Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not true, wealthy districts usually spend LESS per student that lower income ones. The achievement of a student is correlated with their home environment, the school itself actually doesn't play that big of a part. Many find this hard to believe but research is very consistent in proving this out. In other words, your wealthy district school isn't as special as you think - those districts basically ride on the coattails of the households.
Can you provide some evidence of that claim because it contradicts everything that I have read on the subject
Interesting article... and it was certainly an interesting experiment. However, that particular article fails to tell the full story.
Kansas City was forced to desegregate schools back in 1984 after a court ruling. The 'remedy' (ie: refurbishing the schools and turning them into magnet schools) was not actually given three go ahead until November 1986.
In 1995, when the court ruled against the arrangement that forced Missouri to fund efforts toward education equality and desegregation (Missouri v Jenkins), it is estimated that KC's radical changes to it's school district had only been in place 2- 3 years. Not the 10 years that the original article asserts.
When the experiment was effectively ended, at the court ruling, it was suggested that the 2-3 years was an inadequate time frame to truly see any positive changes, and had there been more time, it may have worked.
Not everything in the posted article is a falsehood, but the notion that the experiment took place for a full 10 years is not only improbable but impossible, based on the timeline of events that a little more research reveals.
So, you're saying Kansas City public schools spent an extra $1.5 billion in just 2-3 years with no improvement to show for it? Taxpayers everywhere else won't go for that kind of extra spending.
So, you're saying Kansas City public schools spent an extra $1.5 billion in just 2-3 years with no improvement to show for it? Taxpayers everywhere else won't go for that kind of extra spending.
In NY we fall for it every year.
No country of any significance spends more per pupil than the US. And no state in the US spends more per pupil than NY. And NY is firmly in the middle of the pack among states and the US is in the middle of the pack among nations.
Not true, wealthy districts usually spend LESS per student that lower income ones.
I don't know where you live but that is not the case in my area. The wealthiest, highest performing schools pay significantly more per student here than in the poor failing districts. This may not be a U.S wide thing, but it is certainly the case here.
So, you're saying Kansas City public schools spent an extra $1.5 billion in just 2-3 years with no improvement to show for it? Taxpayers everywhere else won't go for that kind of extra spending.
From what information I've read, the majority of the funds went into much needed capital improvements- whereas no major changes were initially made to classroom size, student support services or teachers until right towards the end of the project.
Not true, wealthy districts usually spend LESS per student that lower income ones. The achievement of a student is correlated with their home environment, the school itself actually doesn't play that big of a part. Many find this hard to believe but research is very consistent in proving this out. In other words, your wealthy district school isn't as special as you think - those districts basically ride on the coattails of the households.
I guess you aren't going to respond to my question asking for some evidence of your claim, so I did some research on my own. Here's a map of the US, show me the wealthy districts spending less per student than the poor districts. https://www.npr.org/2016/04/18/47425...-money-problem
I don't know where you live but that is not the case in my area. The wealthiest, highest performing schools pay significantly more per student here than in the poor failing districts. This may not be a U.S wide thing, but it is certainly the case here.
Consider yourself lucky, because it is a waste of money. As I have said earlier in the thread, in NJ, by law, the poorest districts spend the most per pupil. Over $30k per student each and every year.
In spite of this, after 30 years, they are still the worst performing districts.
From what information I've read, the majority of the funds went into much needed capital improvements- whereas no major changes were initially made to classroom size, student support services or teachers until right towards the end of the project.
How much were they "needed" when they made no difference whatsoever in students' academic achievement?
Every income property is someone else's outgo property; wealth is redistributed from the rent serf unable to retain his own wealth to the landlord able to command wealth from others.
Nope! When you voluntarily buy an i-phone you do it because you get value from the investment of your money. Otherwise, why buy the i-phone? That value is worth something and it is called wealth.
When you rent you get a place to live and that has value. Wealth needs to be created on a daily basis otherwise we are doomed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
