An excellent and unexpected article appeared in the business section of the New York Times on November 5, written by Eduardo Porter.
Despite bipartisan rhetoric about “closing the achievement gap,” and giving every child an equal change “regardless of zip code,” the evidence suggests that this is empty blather. What really matters is which schools get the best funding.
Porter writes:”
The United States is one of few advanced nations where schools serving better-off children usually have more educational resources than those serving poor students, according to research by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Among the 34 O.E.C.D. nations, only in the United States, Israel and Turkey do disadvantaged schools have lower teacher/student ratios than in those serving more privileged students.
Andreas Schleicher, who runs the O.E.C.D.’s international educational assessments, put it to me this way: “The bottom line is that the vast majority of O.E.C.D. countries either invest equally into every student or disproportionately more into disadvantaged students. The U.S. is one of the few countries doing the opposite.” The inequity of education finance in the United States is a feature of the system, not a bug, stemming from its great degree of decentralization and its reliance on local property taxes.
And he adds that much of the disparity stems from our nation’s heavy reliance on property taxes:
Today, the federal government provides only about 14 percent of the money for school districts from the elementary level through high school, compared to 54 percent, on average, among other industrial nations. More than half the money comes from local sources, mostly property taxes, which is about twice the share in the rest of the O.E.C.D.
This skews the playing field from early on. In New York, for instance, in 2011 the value of property in the poorest 10 percent of school districts amounted to some $287,000 per student, according to the state’s education department. In the richest districts it amounted, on average, to $1.9 million.
The state government in Albany redresses part of the imbalance: In the 2010-11 school year it transferred $6,600 per student to the state’s poorest school districts, about four times as much as it sent to the richest. But it’s still a long way from closing the gap.
That year, the most recent for which comprehensive data is available, the wealthiest 10 percent of school districts, in rich enclaves like Bridgehampton and Amagansett on Long Island, spent $25,505 on average per pupil. In the poorest 10 percent of New York’s school districts — in cities like Elmira, which has double the nation’s poverty rate and half its median family income — the average spending per student was only $12,861.
In other states, the disparity between the richest districts and the poorest districts is even larger.
What a shame that Race to the Top was targeted at test scores and not at leveling the playing field in systematic ways.
I wrote a post on this yesterday that included this paragraph that incorporated some “quick and dirty” research findings:
In it’s study of school funding, the Education Law Center cited three states, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Vermont, as ones who “…provide more money per student to high-poverty districts than to low-poverty districts”. And how did these states do on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, our national “report card”? Massachusetts scored highest in 4th and 8th grade mathematics and reading; New Jersey was rated first (tied with MA on 8th grade reading) through 4th; Vermont was rated second through 8th. For those who say they scored higher because they were among the point out that they were among the highest per pupil spending states, please don’t argue at the same time that “throwing money at the problem” doesn’t make a difference. What these results show is that total spending per pupil DOES matter, but only if the money is apportioned equitably. Look at New York’s high but inequitable spending for further evidence of this conclusion.
100%
Not sure this is the case everywhere. . when I dove in the the San Diego Unified School District Budget Book several years back, includingthe extra Federal dollar subsidies, students in lower income neighborhoods were getting upwards of 3x the amount that students in more affluent neighborhoods were gettting (metric was $/pupil). In other words, 10k per pupil vs. 3.5k per pupil. It was all based on the fact that the parents in the affluent hoods could pony up $100-$150k extra per year, to help pay for music, PE, art, language, librarians, counselors, etc. etc. etc. Sad state of affairs. One SDUSD Board said out loud during a meeting that they rely on this fundraising.
http://www.thunderclap.it/projects/4597-what-teachers-really-make?locale=en?WT.mc_id=Thunderclap|Student|Link&utm_source=Thunderclap&utm_medium=Link&utm_campaign=Student&utm_content=Other
I’d be interested to hear what people think about the above.
It’s a DOE/corporate partnership to recruit teachers. It has the usual reform marketing language about teachers “making more” (I assume ‘more money’, but I skipped what I consider advertising copy).
What is this thing, really? Are we now planning on federally funding two corporate-backed teacher recruitment orgs (this one and TFA)?
Arne Duncan @arneduncan 3h
We’re launching @TEACHorg to recruit the next great generation of teachers. Sign up now to show your support: http://bit.ly/1cNEGD3
By “we” I assume Duncan means “The DOE” although I suppose he could mean “State Farm Insurance” (one of the sponsors) 🙂
There are about 15,000 school districts who primarily raise funds through property taxes approved at the polls – the dollars are directly related to the wealth of the district – in NY the state does provide funding on a low wealth/high wealth scale – the dollar gap remains substantial … to move away from local control is a very heavy political lift … there are 700 school districts in NYS – scores of districts should be consolidated yet there is very little enthusiasm at the local or state level. To the best of my knowledge the American system of funding schools is unique to our nation. Funding is based on state laws and state constitutional provisions – many legal challenges have not made significant changes. With the current sharp opposition to increased federal controls it is highly unlikely that we will see any changes.
Wrong URL, this is the right one sorry for the confusion
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2013/11/i-embrace-you-with-all-my-heart.html
Only a savage people would accept such savage inequalities.
Thanks Robert. Without the pursuit of fairness, there is only savagery.
Bolsheviks, both of you.
To answer the question posted:
Because they, the students, were born to the most deserving parents as shown by their already massive amounts of wealth.
This is not about class warfare.
The difference just might be that the federal government was not involved in the past and schools could succeed; teachers could respond and teach their students. Some of us had parents with NO education, who worked less than blue collar jobs, we had no handouts. The adversity made us want to work harder, and we had good teachers who were not hamstrung by chaotic rules.
There is too much waste and stupid mandated programs that simply are imposed whether needed or not, and not only do they not work, they actually dilute education and interfere with learning.
Let teachers do what needs to be done. Look at HOW money is spent. Getting more money money to do more and more of the same thing does not work!
Weren’t some of the best schools in the country in NYC – surrounded by people living with very little?
In California, Prop 13 was passed in about 1977? 1978? It said that property taxes will be raised (above 1 or 2% a year) only when the property changed hands and was recorded as such. It was ostensibly to help elderly people who could not compete with the escalating property values around them and would have been unable to afford to live in their houses. However, one of the ramifications of this (and probably the intent of the makers of the law) was that in the 1970s 40% of revenue was raised from residential property and 60% from commercial. That ratio has now been reversed due to a number of ways commercial property owners can evade recording property and business change of ownership and other tricks of the trade. So not only is the burden much heavier on the 99%, but the 1% pays less proportionately than the 99%. So, all around less money for education in California.
teachorg – private/public partnership, Microsoft a partner. Steve Barr of Green Dot Charters already signed up as a supporter.
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Texas Education and commented:
This the same problem as Texas.
Answer: Entitlement and Greed.
DeBlasio.
But now, the wealthy districts are being targeted for that wealth, and 80 million dollar slush funds, such as in Douglas Cnty CO, by billionaires like the Koch Bros & Gates, to steal our money for their own continued personal gain. 😡
I read the article and my heart sinks – I work in an underpriveldged school in Chicago’s west side – our school’s budget was cut by 2.5 million this year – I think we spend something like $3,000 dollars per student – whereas just up the road in the suburbs they spend $31,000 per student. I shake my head and my fist at the inequity.
Reblogged this on Transparent Christina.
My state addresses the differences in local wealth by limiting the local community’s freedom to fund public education. One way to reduce any gap is to bring the top down closer to the bottom.
Why does the Us continue to spend more money on affluent children??
Their Test Scores will be higher making the Big Dogs look real good.