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.
Most of the posts about urban schools start out, "Urban schools don't get as much money per pupil from tax sources as suburban schools do; that's why their tests scores are lower, yada, yada". Then someone comes along and shows that in many cities, the opposite is actually true. This can go on for quite a while, until we start discussing another conspiracy theory of why people live in the burbs.
I think I've made that argument (somewhat incorrectly) once or twice.
I think I've made that argument (somewhat incorrectly) once or twice.
It is true for Long Island vs city schools. That doesn't mean lower funding is the cause of the quality differences. Just because the suburban schools are funded better doesn't mean the city schools are poorly funded. A bigger cause might be difference in family income (75% eligible for reduced lunch in NYC, 25% ish for Long Island).
It is true for Long Island vs city schools. That doesn't mean lower funding is the cause of the quality differences. Just because the suburban schools are funded better doesn't mean the city schools are poorly funded. A bigger cause might be difference in family income (75% eligible for reduced lunch in NYC, 25% ish for Long Island).
When I lived in NY, they had a very antiquated method of school funding, virtually all from property tax, and the quality of the schools varied widely from district to district. Don't know what they are doing now. Many states have gone to some sort of "equalization funding" that makes it a little more equitable. The state kicks in money to the poorer districts, in a nutshell.
When I lived in NY, they had a very antiquated method of school funding, virtually all from property tax, and the quality of the schools varied widely from district to district. Don't know what they are doing now. Many states have gone to some sort of "equalization funding" that makes it a little more equitable. The state kicks in money to the poorer districts, in a nutshell.
I dunno how much it's changed, but districts have a lot of local control and funding. School districts get a portion of their funds from the state (close to half) and the rest of local taxes. Except for the city, the local taxes are almost entirely from property taxes. The city is the exception, it uses a combination of property and income taxes. This results in a similar home in NYC having half the property taxes as one across the border in Long Island. But even if some districts are poorly funded the state overall spends more on its schools than any other state. NYC (below the state average)probably spends more per pupil than your town. Some rich districts are funded to really high levels.
I remember the district adjacent to us had better funding because there were more business within its limits, especially a power plant.
When I lived in NY, they had a very antiquated method of school funding, virtually all from property tax, and the quality of the schools varied widely from district to district. Don't know what they are doing now. Many states have gone to some sort of "equalization funding" that makes it a little more equitable. The state kicks in money to the poorer districts, in a nutshell.
In New Jersey, it's pretty much gone to the extreme -- the state funds the poor ("Abbot", after a series of NJ Supreme Court decisions) districts essentially 100% -- often to more per-pupil than the wealthier districts. This has lead to the highest property taxes in the nation, but the schools in poor areas remain low quality.
Here is a fairly typical group of middle-class houses in Youngstown:
And here is my street:
(I don't have many street pictures, but these are still fairly representative)
While it wouldn't be as jarring as removing a single row-house from a group, it still doesn't look right.
I'd rather preserve the semi-urban fabric that we still have, that makes us unique from the suburbs, and eliminate the neighborhoods that are almost gone.
Looks like a beautiful neighborhood. I just can't imagine any sane person looking at a neighborhood like this and going "OH GOD WHAT AN URBAN HELLSCAPE! I know, we'll demolish every other building and that will make it much better!"
Looks like a beautiful neighborhood. I just can't imagine any sane person looking at a neighborhood like this and going "OH GOD WHAT AN URBAN HELLSCAPE! I know, we'll demolish every other building and that will make it much better!"
Thanks! By that definition, there just isn't a lot of sanity left in the city. Most of the policy makers still have the mindset that, to make Youngstown more attractive to potential residents, it has to be more like the suburbs.
I think I've made that argument (somewhat incorrectly) once or twice.
School performance is more about where the personal money is coming from than where it is going. As a group the richer will almost always statistically outperform the not-richer (I know that's not a word) because, frankly, they have more resources which means better support for children, better diets and a better lifestyle. School metric performance is probably more a function of income equality/inequality than it is funding inequality.
School performance is more about where the personal money is coming from than where it is going. As a group the richer will almost always statistically outperform the not-richer (I know that's not a word) because, frankly, they have more resources which means better support for children, better diets and a better lifestyle. School metric performance is probably more a function of income equality/inequality than it is funding inequality.
Yes. Tough to concentrate on learning when your family is worrying about being evicted or you don't have enough to eat at home. You can throw enormous amounts of money at schools in very poor communities and it still only go so far. Schools can only do so so much to make up for other, pre-existing inequities.
Also, in many schools parent fundraising makes a huge difference. These days, in some districts, parents aren't just raising money for fun extras; they're funding staff positions and other basics. When we looked at public schools in Chicago we learned that some public schools had enormous donation expectations for parents. Obviously it wasn't mandatory, but also no surprise that the schools that had a student body where the families were able and expected to be able to donate $1000 to the school (as well as participate in lots of other ways, both time and money) were typically the best schools. (and those neighborhoods came with higher rental/purchase prices, too, for that matter.)
^^In Colorado, it is illegal for fund-raising money to be used for staff positions.
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.
