“It’s time to rethink this system.”
August 24, 2016 5:32 AM Subscribe
The 50 Most Segregating School Borders In America [NPR.org] “The grass is greener ... if you're a student in Detroit, looking across your school district's boundary with the neighboring Grosse Pointe public schools. Nearly half of Detroit's students live in poverty; that means a family of four lives on roughly $24,000 a year — or less. In Grosse Pointe, a narrow stretch of real estate nestled between Detroit and Lake St. Clair, just 7 percent of students live at or below the poverty line. To recap, that's 49 percent vs. 7 percent. Neighbors. Which is why a new report from the nonprofit EdBuild [Fault Lines] [.pdf] ranks the Detroit-Grosse Pointe boundary as "the most segregating school district border in the country."”
I was surprised to see my school district listed but it's a case of two towns that could barely be described as "bordering". Rather than a political or economic split, it's a geographical one as the common border is a couple hundred feet of mud and rock at the bottom of the Connecticut River.
posted by dances with hamsters at 6:22 AM on August 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by dances with hamsters at 6:22 AM on August 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
This is very interesting, but it's important to note that school districts are not even equal across their own schools. I live on a street in New York where children on my side of the street go to a school with the children in the Trump buildings on Riverside Boulevard, and the children who live across the street from us go to one of the "worst" most dangerous schools in Manhattan.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:29 AM on August 24, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:29 AM on August 24, 2016 [7 favorites]
In fact, Sibilia says, she and her team "were shocked. We honestly believed we were going to see a lot of this in the South and very little in the North."
Nice of them to be up-front about their prejudices.
Not sure what the use of the term "segregating" is meant to imply. Oh, wait, I do.
The two Alabama examples are comparisons against 2 of the wealthiest suburbs in the nation. Not the state, the nation. So if these suburbs were placed next to your school system, I guarantee a large inequity would result (unless you're in a wealthy suburb yourself).
There are in fact racially-based and other inequities here and elsewhere, I'm sure, but sloppy headlining and presentation of research designed to "show" something the research wasn't designed to show bothers me.
posted by randomkeystrike at 6:31 AM on August 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
Nice of them to be up-front about their prejudices.
Not sure what the use of the term "segregating" is meant to imply. Oh, wait, I do.
The two Alabama examples are comparisons against 2 of the wealthiest suburbs in the nation. Not the state, the nation. So if these suburbs were placed next to your school system, I guarantee a large inequity would result (unless you're in a wealthy suburb yourself).
There are in fact racially-based and other inequities here and elsewhere, I'm sure, but sloppy headlining and presentation of research designed to "show" something the research wasn't designed to show bothers me.
posted by randomkeystrike at 6:31 AM on August 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
I would think a big reason it wouldn't show up in the south is simple geography. A lot of northern towns have natural borders, like the mentioned lake. Rich and pro wouldn't be "neighbors", as there is enough room for the rich to be 40 miles away from the poor.
posted by zabuni at 6:40 AM on August 24, 2016
posted by zabuni at 6:40 AM on August 24, 2016
Locally funded school boards are one of those peculiarities of US society that just never made any sense to me. In much/all of Canada, school boards are funded by the provincial government on the basis of need ($x per student, $x+y per special needs / ESL / low income student, additional money to rural/remote school districts and so on). Up here, there's a lot less impact of living in this area versus that in terms of the quality of schools.
Local school board funding doesn't just create structural inequality where the children of the rich get a better education and a further head start. It also creates toxic localized politics; Detroit is currently having an urban /suburban split ruining attempts to finally create a reasonable regional transit system, for example. But I also wonder, if a magic spell removed local school funding, how much the discussion of wanting to live in an area with good schools would be replaced with some other excuse for affluent whites to live with other affluent whites.
posted by Homeboy Trouble at 6:44 AM on August 24, 2016 [18 favorites]
Local school board funding doesn't just create structural inequality where the children of the rich get a better education and a further head start. It also creates toxic localized politics; Detroit is currently having an urban /suburban split ruining attempts to finally create a reasonable regional transit system, for example. But I also wonder, if a magic spell removed local school funding, how much the discussion of wanting to live in an area with good schools would be replaced with some other excuse for affluent whites to live with other affluent whites.
posted by Homeboy Trouble at 6:44 AM on August 24, 2016 [18 favorites]
The full report explains their use of the term "segregating" quite well. I think it was aptly chosen:
Socioeconomic segregation is rising in America’s schools, in part because of the
structure of education funding. The over reliance on locally raised property taxes
to fund public schools gives wealthier communities the permission to keep their
resources away from the neediest schools. This creates a system of school district
borders that trap low-income children in high concentrations of poverty, while
more privileged peers live in better-resourced communities, often right next door.
When property taxes define funding streams, those wealthiest suburbs in the nation get significantly more funding than their neighbors. In a public system, we might easily imagine alternative methods for collecting and disbursing funds within states to ensure that those with more need get more investment, rather than our current system which is instead designed to exacerbate inequities. This results in segregation as those who can afford to live near the good schools do so, and thereby drive property values still higher. What if the state directed funds in a way that ensured high quality schools everywhere, and more resources to provide additional supports to the most underserved communities? Good schools, like quality public transit systems or other public infrastructure, can serve as community foundations that can even playing fields and combat segregation. This report shows that right now there are too many examples of the public school system acting instead to reinforce segregation.
posted by cubby at 6:45 AM on August 24, 2016 [8 favorites]
Socioeconomic segregation is rising in America’s schools, in part because of the
structure of education funding. The over reliance on locally raised property taxes
to fund public schools gives wealthier communities the permission to keep their
resources away from the neediest schools. This creates a system of school district
borders that trap low-income children in high concentrations of poverty, while
more privileged peers live in better-resourced communities, often right next door.
When property taxes define funding streams, those wealthiest suburbs in the nation get significantly more funding than their neighbors. In a public system, we might easily imagine alternative methods for collecting and disbursing funds within states to ensure that those with more need get more investment, rather than our current system which is instead designed to exacerbate inequities. This results in segregation as those who can afford to live near the good schools do so, and thereby drive property values still higher. What if the state directed funds in a way that ensured high quality schools everywhere, and more resources to provide additional supports to the most underserved communities? Good schools, like quality public transit systems or other public infrastructure, can serve as community foundations that can even playing fields and combat segregation. This report shows that right now there are too many examples of the public school system acting instead to reinforce segregation.
posted by cubby at 6:45 AM on August 24, 2016 [8 favorites]
So if these suburbs were placed next to your school system, I guarantee a large inequity would result (unless you're in a wealthy suburb yourself).
It is not a law of nature that those suburbs run their own entirely separate school systems instead of Jefferson County having a school system. Doing so is not some weird, alien way of running schools; Florida does exactly that.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:53 AM on August 24, 2016 [6 favorites]
It is not a law of nature that those suburbs run their own entirely separate school systems instead of Jefferson County having a school system. Doing so is not some weird, alien way of running schools; Florida does exactly that.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:53 AM on August 24, 2016 [6 favorites]
Well, on the other hand, you could come up with creative ways of removing those explicit geographical boundaries, like Boston did in the early 70's with busing. Then, you get fifty years of slowly-fomenting resentment from overly-entitled white people who still figure out ways to game the system so that their kids get into the best schools (see: public exam schools). Either way, you end up with neighborhood schools that are overwhelmingly segregated, but with our way, you get to put your kid on the bus for 2+ hours a day. The main upside to this approach is that you can easily cull your list of acquaintances, based on their willingness to demand the return of neighborhood schools.
The main downside is that then you have to cull 90% of the people you know
posted by Mayor West at 6:59 AM on August 24, 2016 [5 favorites]
The main downside is that then you have to cull 90% of the people you know
posted by Mayor West at 6:59 AM on August 24, 2016 [5 favorites]
Also, it is important to consider why those are the wealthiest suburbs in the nation. This report is making a case that public school funding policies contribute to the concentration of wealth in particular places, and to the concentration of poverty in other places. I for one believe that public policy should value all people equally, and should therefore be designed in ways that reduce segregation while raising the standard of living for everyone. Public school funding grounded on principles of equity that distributes resources based on student needs rather than on local property values is an excellent place to start. This is very different than Boston's busing approach, which just shuffled kids around without really addressing the underlying problem that some schools were great and others were terrible.
posted by cubby at 7:01 AM on August 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by cubby at 7:01 AM on August 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
The school district I went to high school in just brought back "boundries," a system which on the surface from a strictly financial sense makes sense for the district but ends up leading to racist and classist outcomes.
posted by drezdn at 7:12 AM on August 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by drezdn at 7:12 AM on August 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
Locally funded school boards are one of those peculiarities of US society that just never made any sense to me.
Like most things in US society it makes perfect sense once you realize it is rooted in racism and white supremacy.
posted by ghharr at 7:15 AM on August 24, 2016 [23 favorites]
Like most things in US society it makes perfect sense once you realize it is rooted in racism and white supremacy.
posted by ghharr at 7:15 AM on August 24, 2016 [23 favorites]
But I also wonder, if a magic spell removed local school funding, how much the discussion of wanting to live in an area with good schools would be replaced with some other excuse for affluent whites to live with other affluent whites.
Well, maybe wealthy white people would still be living in self-segregated suburbs if school funding was organized at the state level, but at least the children who didn't live in the wealthy white suburbs would have access to education that was on a par with those who did.
Also, it might be easier to sell parents on bussing for diversity’s sake if they could be assured that their kids would be going to a school that had the same resources as the local one. (Not the die-hard racist parents, of course; I'm not sure what kind of action could help with them.)
posted by The Underpants Monster at 7:41 AM on August 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
Well, maybe wealthy white people would still be living in self-segregated suburbs if school funding was organized at the state level, but at least the children who didn't live in the wealthy white suburbs would have access to education that was on a par with those who did.
Also, it might be easier to sell parents on bussing for diversity’s sake if they could be assured that their kids would be going to a school that had the same resources as the local one. (Not the die-hard racist parents, of course; I'm not sure what kind of action could help with them.)
posted by The Underpants Monster at 7:41 AM on August 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
Locally funded school boards are one of those peculiarities of US society that just never made any sense to me.
Locally RUN boards are pretty much universal in the US, for good or ill.
When they're funded from above, there's a risk that they become hotbeds of nepotism and complacency. When they're funded locally, they become instruments of perpetuating class inequities.
No easy answers here.
posted by ocschwar at 7:46 AM on August 24, 2016 [4 favorites]
Locally RUN boards are pretty much universal in the US, for good or ill.
When they're funded from above, there's a risk that they become hotbeds of nepotism and complacency. When they're funded locally, they become instruments of perpetuating class inequities.
No easy answers here.
posted by ocschwar at 7:46 AM on August 24, 2016 [4 favorites]
The disparities in per-student spending in the US are outrageous.
Equality is not enough, equity is necessary to insure opportunity for all children.
Equity may mean spending more on schools that serve mostly poor kids of any race: they need those resources that wealthier parents provide to their children like good food, warm clothes, books, computers, field trips, and all the other forms of enrichment with which middle-class and wealthier parents supplement their children's schooling.
Children did not choose their parents.
posted by mareli at 7:51 AM on August 24, 2016 [4 favorites]
Equality is not enough, equity is necessary to insure opportunity for all children.
Equity may mean spending more on schools that serve mostly poor kids of any race: they need those resources that wealthier parents provide to their children like good food, warm clothes, books, computers, field trips, and all the other forms of enrichment with which middle-class and wealthier parents supplement their children's schooling.
Children did not choose their parents.
posted by mareli at 7:51 AM on August 24, 2016 [4 favorites]
I want all the kids in my neighborhood to come to our neighborhood school, and it's not because of racism on my part.
Right now all these groups are taken away from my elementary school: kids with moderate-to-severe disabilities, kids who need behavioral support, kids whose parents drive them to the school in the rich neighborhood, kids in the gifted program's dedicated classrooms, and kids in the "alternative" school. Bring them all back to the neighborhood school, and give the neighborhood school the resources to work with all those populations.
I believe this would increase the diversity of the schools in my town. Your district may vary.
posted by The corpse in the library at 7:56 AM on August 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
Right now all these groups are taken away from my elementary school: kids with moderate-to-severe disabilities, kids who need behavioral support, kids whose parents drive them to the school in the rich neighborhood, kids in the gifted program's dedicated classrooms, and kids in the "alternative" school. Bring them all back to the neighborhood school, and give the neighborhood school the resources to work with all those populations.
I believe this would increase the diversity of the schools in my town. Your district may vary.
posted by The corpse in the library at 7:56 AM on August 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
The corpse in the library, I went to a public high school 45 minutes away from my house because after 8 years in my neighborhood school, I finally convinced my parents that the bullying that went on there was not a good fit for me. So I think you have to allow parents choices and control in that sense, and not force them into a neighborhood school.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:03 AM on August 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:03 AM on August 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
In my ideal district, your neighborhood school would have had the resources to handle bullying.
posted by The corpse in the library at 8:10 AM on August 24, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by The corpse in the library at 8:10 AM on August 24, 2016 [4 favorites]
I think that this isn't really about school district boundaries so much as people think, and has more to do with the way people build and buy.
Thus, if you eliminated these borders, you would have less income segregated schools - at least at first - but you wouldn't have less income segregated housing. So you wouldn't have a handy line to use to show the income difference between neighborhoods, but that income difference would still be there.
The other problem is - right now, people's property taxes pay for schools, and they're mostly okay with that because the higher property taxes in some areas go to their neighborhood school that their kids use, which they can see is getting the money. So people complain about property tax, but they don't outright campaign against it that hard. But I guarantee if most of their money were going to a school far away that needed more money, rather than their local school, making their local school kind of "meh", they would fight those property taxes tooth and nail, and probably, in some cases, succeed in getting it reduced. So some schools would still improve, but the overall money going into the education pot would be lower.
posted by corb at 8:19 AM on August 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
Thus, if you eliminated these borders, you would have less income segregated schools - at least at first - but you wouldn't have less income segregated housing. So you wouldn't have a handy line to use to show the income difference between neighborhoods, but that income difference would still be there.
The other problem is - right now, people's property taxes pay for schools, and they're mostly okay with that because the higher property taxes in some areas go to their neighborhood school that their kids use, which they can see is getting the money. So people complain about property tax, but they don't outright campaign against it that hard. But I guarantee if most of their money were going to a school far away that needed more money, rather than their local school, making their local school kind of "meh", they would fight those property taxes tooth and nail, and probably, in some cases, succeed in getting it reduced. So some schools would still improve, but the overall money going into the education pot would be lower.
posted by corb at 8:19 AM on August 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
roomthreeseventeen, they are in the process of rezoning the elementary schools on the UWS. Of course, no one wants their little darlings going to school with children from the Douglass/Amsterdam Houses, so there is lots of hollering going on.
Local funding and control of schools also leads to another problem in poor areas: a competence void. People with options generally don't want to work for such systems, or not for long. You can end up with some seriously incompetent administrators, which aggravates all the other problems.
posted by praemunire at 8:22 AM on August 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
Local funding and control of schools also leads to another problem in poor areas: a competence void. People with options generally don't want to work for such systems, or not for long. You can end up with some seriously incompetent administrators, which aggravates all the other problems.
posted by praemunire at 8:22 AM on August 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
Alternately, if all schools were more or less equal, people wouldn't feel the same need to buy in "good" districts, and we'd end up with more diverse schools and more diverse neighborhoods. People would be more involved in their neighborhood schools, which leads to stronger communities.
We don't have to settle for "meh."
posted by The corpse in the library at 8:24 AM on August 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
We don't have to settle for "meh."
posted by The corpse in the library at 8:24 AM on August 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
In my ideal district, your neighborhood school would have had the resources to handle bullying.
In my ideal district, anglos wouldn't tend to be panicky racist doofuses.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:37 AM on August 24, 2016
In my ideal district, anglos wouldn't tend to be panicky racist doofuses.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:37 AM on August 24, 2016
funding charter schools is, in fact, part of why the school district is underfunded, effectively
I'm going to push back on this with the caveats that I know it differs by state, that I now work and have worked in charters, and that I just watched the charter report by John Oliver and am genuinely horrified at the bad behavior of some charters (which I already knew, but damn!).
In CT, charter schools get state funding in the form of a per-pupil allotment and federal grant money. The local boards are not obligated to provide any local tax dollars to the school. So our district schools are getting both state money and local tax dollars and federal grants. The money that charters get is only taking money away from the districts in the sense that they are also taking kids out of those schools, so you in theory should need less money to educate fewer kids. Charters in CT need to seek other sources of funding, which is why they are public schools run by nonprofits who can fund raise to make up the difference in what they don't get in local tax dollars. Some districts are more generous than others and will throw the charters some money for taking some of their kids and educating them, but the boards are not required legally to do this.
posted by archimago at 8:49 AM on August 24, 2016
I'm going to push back on this with the caveats that I know it differs by state, that I now work and have worked in charters, and that I just watched the charter report by John Oliver and am genuinely horrified at the bad behavior of some charters (which I already knew, but damn!).
In CT, charter schools get state funding in the form of a per-pupil allotment and federal grant money. The local boards are not obligated to provide any local tax dollars to the school. So our district schools are getting both state money and local tax dollars and federal grants. The money that charters get is only taking money away from the districts in the sense that they are also taking kids out of those schools, so you in theory should need less money to educate fewer kids. Charters in CT need to seek other sources of funding, which is why they are public schools run by nonprofits who can fund raise to make up the difference in what they don't get in local tax dollars. Some districts are more generous than others and will throw the charters some money for taking some of their kids and educating them, but the boards are not required legally to do this.
posted by archimago at 8:49 AM on August 24, 2016
> The money that charters get is only taking money away from the districts in the sense that they are also taking kids out of those schools, so you in theory should need less money to educate fewer kids
You dismiss that so easily, but that's one of the biggest problems I have with charter schools. There are costs that don't go down just because a student leaves. The schools still need to be heated or cooled, need paint, need librarians and nurses, the playground needs to be resurfaced, the buses still run, the classrooms and offices have to be staffed...
posted by The corpse in the library at 8:54 AM on August 24, 2016 [4 favorites]
You dismiss that so easily, but that's one of the biggest problems I have with charter schools. There are costs that don't go down just because a student leaves. The schools still need to be heated or cooled, need paint, need librarians and nurses, the playground needs to be resurfaced, the buses still run, the classrooms and offices have to be staffed...
posted by The corpse in the library at 8:54 AM on August 24, 2016 [4 favorites]
Would cost per student i.e. school budget be a more interesting measure of inequity between neighboring districts?
posted by maryr at 9:00 AM on August 24, 2016
posted by maryr at 9:00 AM on August 24, 2016
Here in Bergen County, NJ, people "solved" this problem by taking local control to the nth degree- there are 70 municipalities in the county and each one has their own school situation. Our "school district" is just our town- one elementary school, one middle school, and one high school. That kind of blows my mind. It's not my ideal situation, but like most people, I'm living where I can afford to live.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 9:00 AM on August 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 9:00 AM on August 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
And on the property tax topic, Gov. Chris Christie is currently toting a new education plan that would give each school district the same exact dollar amount per student, as opposed to the current method that takes district need into account. Under the $6,599 per pupil flat aid rate, 37 districts would see their aid cut by more than 50 percent. I'm sure you can imagine which school districts will end up getting the short end of that stick.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 9:04 AM on August 24, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 9:04 AM on August 24, 2016 [6 favorites]
You dismiss that so easily, but that's one of the biggest problems I have with charter schools.
I may be oversimplifying, but I am not dismissing it so easily. I've managed budgets for schools. The funds that charters get are drops in the buckets of overall district budgets. I am the first person to say that teachers don't get paid enough and schools are desperately underfunded. Even schools in wealthy districts can do more for kids with more money to use.
The rallying cry of "Charters are taking our money" is, IMO, a straw man. Charters sprang up because schools were and are failing. So they were failing and underfunded before there were charters. But my experience is in the Northeast where for the most part charters are well-regulated and working. I'm saddened for the communities that are being subjected to charters that are criminally and ethically mismanaged.
posted by archimago at 9:16 AM on August 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
I may be oversimplifying, but I am not dismissing it so easily. I've managed budgets for schools. The funds that charters get are drops in the buckets of overall district budgets. I am the first person to say that teachers don't get paid enough and schools are desperately underfunded. Even schools in wealthy districts can do more for kids with more money to use.
The rallying cry of "Charters are taking our money" is, IMO, a straw man. Charters sprang up because schools were and are failing. So they were failing and underfunded before there were charters. But my experience is in the Northeast where for the most part charters are well-regulated and working. I'm saddened for the communities that are being subjected to charters that are criminally and ethically mismanaged.
posted by archimago at 9:16 AM on August 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
Charters sprang up because schools were and are failing.
It would be fairer to say that charters were developed as part of an organized and persistent strategy to force normal public education to fail.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:26 AM on August 24, 2016 [16 favorites]
It would be fairer to say that charters were developed as part of an organized and persistent strategy to force normal public education to fail.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:26 AM on August 24, 2016 [16 favorites]
Alternately, if all schools were more or less equal, people wouldn't feel the same need to buy in "good" districts, and we'd end up with more diverse schools and more diverse neighborhoods. People would be more involved in their neighborhood schools, which leads to stronger communities.
In my experience, this is absolutely not the case.
My state has state-wide funding and control of schools.
All property taxes are collected by the state and remitted to the districts on a per-student basis.
There are various add-ons for for low-income schools, percentage of free lunch, Title I, as well as rural schools with low populations.
The upshot is that the schools get a roughly equitable amount of funding.
School boards have defined decision making power. They hire/fire administration, negotiate contracts and direct state funding (within limits).
Most curriculum/testing decisions are made at a state level. The state defines the courses, the requirements and the credit hours.
Despite this, in my town, which is pretty damn homogeneous, we have "good" schools and "bad" schools. Schools that are seen as desirable and those to be avoided.
The good schools are those that circle the university and the immersion schools. Basically any school where the parents are involved and active.
The bad schools are on the rural outskirts or bordering the neighbouring town/industrial area. Schools where parents might not have the luxury of participating in the school experience.
My point is, when their children are involved, parents will find a way to bend the system to fit their needs. It's inevitable.
So you should not aim for making schools equal, it's a fools errand.
Instead, make the minimum acceptable level for your schools outstanding and fund that.
posted by madajb at 9:52 AM on August 24, 2016 [6 favorites]
In my experience, this is absolutely not the case.
My state has state-wide funding and control of schools.
All property taxes are collected by the state and remitted to the districts on a per-student basis.
There are various add-ons for for low-income schools, percentage of free lunch, Title I, as well as rural schools with low populations.
The upshot is that the schools get a roughly equitable amount of funding.
School boards have defined decision making power. They hire/fire administration, negotiate contracts and direct state funding (within limits).
Most curriculum/testing decisions are made at a state level. The state defines the courses, the requirements and the credit hours.
Despite this, in my town, which is pretty damn homogeneous, we have "good" schools and "bad" schools. Schools that are seen as desirable and those to be avoided.
The good schools are those that circle the university and the immersion schools. Basically any school where the parents are involved and active.
The bad schools are on the rural outskirts or bordering the neighbouring town/industrial area. Schools where parents might not have the luxury of participating in the school experience.
My point is, when their children are involved, parents will find a way to bend the system to fit their needs. It's inevitable.
So you should not aim for making schools equal, it's a fools errand.
Instead, make the minimum acceptable level for your schools outstanding and fund that.
posted by madajb at 9:52 AM on August 24, 2016 [6 favorites]
Here in Bergen County, NJ, people "solved" this problem by taking local control to the nth degree- there are 70 municipalities in the county and each one has their own school situation. Our "school district" is just our town- one elementary school, one middle school, and one high school. That kind of blows my mind. It's not my ideal situation, but like most people, I'm living where I can afford to live.
We have no official counties in Connecticut, ThePinkSuperhero, and we made the list for that very reason. As each large town is its own school district, you can see vastly different average incomes as you move a very short distance. (I was actually surprised that the dot in CT didn't lead to Bridgeport which has a high poverty rate in one of the richest areas of the country.) The wide range doesn't just adhere to town lines either and some towns like ours experience an immensely large range of incomes and backgrounds within its own small borders which leads to its own issues far beyond school funding.
posted by dances with hamsters at 10:48 AM on August 24, 2016
We have no official counties in Connecticut, ThePinkSuperhero, and we made the list for that very reason. As each large town is its own school district, you can see vastly different average incomes as you move a very short distance. (I was actually surprised that the dot in CT didn't lead to Bridgeport which has a high poverty rate in one of the richest areas of the country.) The wide range doesn't just adhere to town lines either and some towns like ours experience an immensely large range of incomes and backgrounds within its own small borders which leads to its own issues far beyond school funding.
posted by dances with hamsters at 10:48 AM on August 24, 2016
Locally funded school boards are one of those peculiarities of US society that just never made any sense to me.
We just moved from a poor border town to a fairly comfortable (but not insanely rich) suburb of Houston. My kids' previous school was 97% economically disadvantaged. That's not an exaggeration--it's the number from the Texas Education Agency report. They did fundraisers constantly to get even small improvements to the school, or to help partially fund field trips. If there was a bigger trip, the students (97% poor!) had to pay most of the cost, because there just weren't more funds available. And this was in the slightly "wealthier" of the two districts in our town.
Last week I did "Meet the Teacher" day at our new school, and got PTO information. The difference is stunning. The school has pretty much everything it needs because house prices are higher in this area, so they get more from property taxes. The PTO, with plenty of well-off parents, fully funds field trips, gives extra money to teachers for classroom improvements, paid for a $25000 digital marquee last year and wants to raise another $25000 this year to put a nice shade over the playground equipment--equipment which is already exquisite compared to our old school.
On one hand, yes, I'm selfishly glad my kids are in a better school. On the other hand, most of the kids around here already have computers at home and museum memberships and access to really nice parks, and on and on and on, and they would manage just fine at a school with fewer resources. But the kids we left behind don't have any extra stuff at home, don't get chances to do neat educational things in town, and would have their lives changed significantly if our new school could be transported to our old community. If is incredibly frustrating to me that kids who (in general) have everything they need get more stuff just handed to them, while the destitute kids sell three different things and then kick in more family money to have one chance to do what my kids get to do on any random Saturday.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 11:05 AM on August 24, 2016 [15 favorites]
We just moved from a poor border town to a fairly comfortable (but not insanely rich) suburb of Houston. My kids' previous school was 97% economically disadvantaged. That's not an exaggeration--it's the number from the Texas Education Agency report. They did fundraisers constantly to get even small improvements to the school, or to help partially fund field trips. If there was a bigger trip, the students (97% poor!) had to pay most of the cost, because there just weren't more funds available. And this was in the slightly "wealthier" of the two districts in our town.
Last week I did "Meet the Teacher" day at our new school, and got PTO information. The difference is stunning. The school has pretty much everything it needs because house prices are higher in this area, so they get more from property taxes. The PTO, with plenty of well-off parents, fully funds field trips, gives extra money to teachers for classroom improvements, paid for a $25000 digital marquee last year and wants to raise another $25000 this year to put a nice shade over the playground equipment--equipment which is already exquisite compared to our old school.
On one hand, yes, I'm selfishly glad my kids are in a better school. On the other hand, most of the kids around here already have computers at home and museum memberships and access to really nice parks, and on and on and on, and they would manage just fine at a school with fewer resources. But the kids we left behind don't have any extra stuff at home, don't get chances to do neat educational things in town, and would have their lives changed significantly if our new school could be transported to our old community. If is incredibly frustrating to me that kids who (in general) have everything they need get more stuff just handed to them, while the destitute kids sell three different things and then kick in more family money to have one chance to do what my kids get to do on any random Saturday.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 11:05 AM on August 24, 2016 [15 favorites]
We don't have to settle for "meh."
So, once upon a time, somebody in NYC whose name rhymed with Forb might have fudged things slightly to get her kid into the good school which was fifteen blocks away instead of the bad school which was five blocks away.
The good school had not just art class and band but poetry class and ballet. It had extra teachers, such that the class sizes were much smaller. It had an organic garden in the school yard whose vegetables were recycled into the school cafeteria food. When it had a concert night, there was someone playing a fucking Stradivarius. All blackboards were SmartBoards. It had enrichment programs up the /ass/.
There's no way, just no way, that there's enough money for everyone in the country to have a school like that.
So some schools will have to come down. Some people, if everything was equalized, would have to settle for what they believe to be 'meh'. Or they'll take their kids out of public school altogether.
posted by corb at 11:44 AM on August 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
So, once upon a time, somebody in NYC whose name rhymed with Forb might have fudged things slightly to get her kid into the good school which was fifteen blocks away instead of the bad school which was five blocks away.
The good school had not just art class and band but poetry class and ballet. It had extra teachers, such that the class sizes were much smaller. It had an organic garden in the school yard whose vegetables were recycled into the school cafeteria food. When it had a concert night, there was someone playing a fucking Stradivarius. All blackboards were SmartBoards. It had enrichment programs up the /ass/.
There's no way, just no way, that there's enough money for everyone in the country to have a school like that.
So some schools will have to come down. Some people, if everything was equalized, would have to settle for what they believe to be 'meh'. Or they'll take their kids out of public school altogether.
posted by corb at 11:44 AM on August 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
There's no way, just no way, that there's enough money for everyone in the country to have a school like that.
Hogwash. Like others have said, most of these costs are not linear in the number of students. A few hours worth of the US' military expenditure would probably cover it.
It's not that there isn't enough money, it's that there's no will, a lot of racism and an infinity of excuses.
posted by klanawa at 12:12 PM on August 24, 2016 [16 favorites]
Hogwash. Like others have said, most of these costs are not linear in the number of students. A few hours worth of the US' military expenditure would probably cover it.
It's not that there isn't enough money, it's that there's no will, a lot of racism and an infinity of excuses.
posted by klanawa at 12:12 PM on August 24, 2016 [16 favorites]
When it had a concert night, there was someone playing a fucking Stradivarius.
There's no way, just no way, that there's enough money for everyone in the country to have a school like that.
Okay
posted by beerperson at 12:14 PM on August 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
There's no way, just no way, that there's enough money for everyone in the country to have a school like that.
Okay
posted by beerperson at 12:14 PM on August 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
...there are 70 municipalities in the county and each one has their own school situation. Our "school district" is just our town- one elementary school, one middle school, and one high school. That kind of blows my mind.
All of the rural schools I attended in upstate NY were like that. Two of them were K-12 in one building. I know it's not as common as it used to be, but it's still not really unheard-of.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 12:15 PM on August 24, 2016
All of the rural schools I attended in upstate NY were like that. Two of them were K-12 in one building. I know it's not as common as it used to be, but it's still not really unheard-of.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 12:15 PM on August 24, 2016
Well, guys, some schools have gold-plated toilet seats and a dedicated falconry yard, so I guess a lot of poor people who can't wriggle out of the bureaucracy's grip should settle for "completely unacceptable."
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 12:16 PM on August 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 12:16 PM on August 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
Ugh. I'm not saying that - I'm just trying to say that it's not possible for nobody's school experience to go down, and everyone's to go up to that level, so we should start from an honest position about that.
posted by corb at 12:41 PM on August 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by corb at 12:41 PM on August 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
We just make a bigger damn pie. Everyone still gets a slice.
posted by The corpse in the library at 12:53 PM on August 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by The corpse in the library at 12:53 PM on August 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
Ugh. I'm not saying that - I'm just trying to say that it's not possible for nobody's school experience to go down, and everyone's to go up to that level, so we should start from an honest position about that.
Yeah, that's true.
Some people, if everything was equalized, would have to settle for what they believe to be 'meh'.
You're right that rich parents' intransigence is a political obstacle which would have to be overcome.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 1:01 PM on August 24, 2016 [5 favorites]
Yeah, that's true.
Some people, if everything was equalized, would have to settle for what they believe to be 'meh'.
You're right that rich parents' intransigence is a political obstacle which would have to be overcome.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 1:01 PM on August 24, 2016 [5 favorites]
If budgets mattered, then Bronx Science at $13,833 per student would perform 50% worse than nearby Lehman High School at $21,193 per student.
The fact is that a big part about how Bronx Science can perform as well as it does is that it doesn't have to deal with the problems of the Lehman kids. All that you do by combining these two kids of schools is transform the situation from 50% success and 50% (likely unavoidable) failure, to 100% (avoidable) failure.
posted by MattD at 1:04 PM on August 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
The fact is that a big part about how Bronx Science can perform as well as it does is that it doesn't have to deal with the problems of the Lehman kids. All that you do by combining these two kids of schools is transform the situation from 50% success and 50% (likely unavoidable) failure, to 100% (avoidable) failure.
posted by MattD at 1:04 PM on August 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
If budgets mattered
If budgets mattered
If budgets mattered
posted by beerperson at 1:07 PM on August 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
If budgets mattered
If budgets mattered
posted by beerperson at 1:07 PM on August 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
Bronx Science and a neighborhood school like Lehman are not comparable like that; they're in two completely different systems within NYC. Bronx Science also gets alumni endowments.
posted by griphus at 1:10 PM on August 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by griphus at 1:10 PM on August 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
Ohio's laws about local school levies are insane, which forces our school districts to recommend new property tax levies every 2-5 years just to keep up with inflation. We've got one coming up, and there's a lot of discussion in our neighborhood bulletin board about which way to vote. Our suburb's schools get a little more than the regional average funding per-student, and they get poor marks for how well students are doing but great marks for how much kids improve each year. There are 2 very vocal groups that see this very differently:
Group 1, which amazes me with their sanity, note that our little suburb has a relatively high population of children from disadvantaged backgrounds, and thinks that our school district is doing a great job helping kids with disadvantages do well. They are voting for the levy so teachers can get their first raise in 3 years and so funding in other areas is not cut (see note about losing to inflation).
Group 2 notes that a nearby suburb (that doesn't have the same poverty issues that we do) spends less and get better results. They conclude that we must cut funding to our local schools because "funding doesn't matter."
I'm dismayed that people can look at reports like this one and conclude #2. Let's take kids who are starting with challenges and others who are starting with advantages, give both the same funding at school, see who does well. Conclusion? A frightening number of people blame the first group of kids and their parents when they don't do so well. Frankly, I'm proud of our suburb that most people seem to get that equity is more funding for schools with more disadvantaged kids, not the same funding.
posted by Tehhund at 1:22 PM on August 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
Group 1, which amazes me with their sanity, note that our little suburb has a relatively high population of children from disadvantaged backgrounds, and thinks that our school district is doing a great job helping kids with disadvantages do well. They are voting for the levy so teachers can get their first raise in 3 years and so funding in other areas is not cut (see note about losing to inflation).
Group 2 notes that a nearby suburb (that doesn't have the same poverty issues that we do) spends less and get better results. They conclude that we must cut funding to our local schools because "funding doesn't matter."
I'm dismayed that people can look at reports like this one and conclude #2. Let's take kids who are starting with challenges and others who are starting with advantages, give both the same funding at school, see who does well. Conclusion? A frightening number of people blame the first group of kids and their parents when they don't do so well. Frankly, I'm proud of our suburb that most people seem to get that equity is more funding for schools with more disadvantaged kids, not the same funding.
posted by Tehhund at 1:22 PM on August 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
Funding does matter but I think there's a good deal of evidence that it only matters so much.
posted by atoxyl at 1:52 PM on August 24, 2016
posted by atoxyl at 1:52 PM on August 24, 2016
Which I don't mean as an argument against fixing the absurdity of local school funding the way it is most places now. If funding didn't matter surely nobody would have a problem with giving up some, anyway! But that's only going to go so far in "fixing schools."
posted by atoxyl at 1:55 PM on August 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by atoxyl at 1:55 PM on August 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
If budgets didn't matter, Chapin, Dalton, and Horace Mann would be free, instead of charging $40K and up.
Also, who knew that the problems of the Lehman kids were some kind of communicable disease?
posted by praemunire at 2:09 PM on August 24, 2016 [4 favorites]
Also, who knew that the problems of the Lehman kids were some kind of communicable disease?
posted by praemunire at 2:09 PM on August 24, 2016 [4 favorites]
Funding does matter but I think there's a good deal of evidence that it only matters so much.
I think it's fairer to say that there are variables other than the raw number of dollars per pupil, but that many of those variables themselves correlate to other types of government spending that could be increased to make education more effective.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:29 PM on August 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
I think it's fairer to say that there are variables other than the raw number of dollars per pupil, but that many of those variables themselves correlate to other types of government spending that could be increased to make education more effective.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:29 PM on August 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
> Funding does matter but I think there's a good deal of evidence that it only matters so much
I can't think of any problem with my kids' schools that money couldn't fix. What am I missing?
posted by The corpse in the library at 2:29 PM on August 24, 2016
I can't think of any problem with my kids' schools that money couldn't fix. What am I missing?
posted by The corpse in the library at 2:29 PM on August 24, 2016
Of course funding matters, as long as your definition of funding includes both public (state) and private (parental) sources. Add in the tens of thousands that affluent parents spend on tutoring, test prep, extracurriculars, foreign travel, laptops, instruments, to the per capita school cost before trying to compare outcomes.
posted by scyllary at 2:51 PM on August 24, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by scyllary at 2:51 PM on August 24, 2016 [4 favorites]
I can't think of any problem with my kids' schools that money couldn't fix. What am I missing?
A significant portion of inequality of educational outcome is probably accounted for by the home lives of the kids and other extracurricular factors.
posted by atoxyl at 4:43 PM on August 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
A significant portion of inequality of educational outcome is probably accounted for by the home lives of the kids and other extracurricular factors.
posted by atoxyl at 4:43 PM on August 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
I can't think of any problem with my kids' schools that money couldn't fix. What am I missing?
home stability, safety, nutrition, parental literacy and numeracy, cultural and social capital ... just being poor is highly stressful to children.
education will never approach equity while inequality remains high.
posted by jb at 6:20 PM on August 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
home stability, safety, nutrition, parental literacy and numeracy, cultural and social capital ... just being poor is highly stressful to children.
education will never approach equity while inequality remains high.
posted by jb at 6:20 PM on August 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm rather surprised KC didn't make the list, given it's segregation. Maybe bussing was more effective than expected.
posted by pwnguin at 8:40 PM on August 25, 2016
posted by pwnguin at 8:40 PM on August 25, 2016
« Older An apartment roughly the same size as the coffin... | Rio Olympics : Did the IOC's gamble pay off Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 5:46 AM on August 24, 2016 [25 favorites]