I have been following this debate from the sidelines. I do think it an important issue, and there are funding problems. However, this is, in general, known. Why isn't it fixed, then? Allow me to jump in here, and play a little devil's advocate.



Congratulations. You have just started a tax revolt.

One of the fundamental problems of school funding is that it uses local taxes. In general, local taxes are expected to be spent, well, locally. Folks are going to raise heck if suddenly their taxes go up significantly, and none of that money goes to their local community. This is what causes the discrepancy to begin with, and also why so many of the various Robin Hood plans don't please the legal system. Politicians are forced to make compromises to get such legislation passed, and it is those compromises that the legal systems don't agree with. Take them away, however, and nothing gets passed at all. So, some concrete plan to get around this issue is needed, which is clearly easier said than done, or it wouldn't be an issue any more.

On a similar note, Turnea, I think you are misunderstanding AmLord's comments. You seem to be talking past each other. I don't think he's disagreeing that there are funding discrepancies. Rather, he's pointing out that funding alone doesn't seem to create good schools. This is a very important point, particularly given the above issue. There seems to be more than a funding problem at play here.



No problem with this one at all. Perhaps school funding reform should start here, as I don't really see how anyone could disagree that all schools should meet a certain safety/comfort standard. This would seem to be a workable lowest common denominator to start with.

Wohoo!


On a more serious note though I think that this is part of the problem, I don't see education as a local issue. It isn't something that should only be available to suburban and rich neighborhoods. It is something we have a national interest in excelling at and I'd honestly like to see the "right to an education" codified as an amendment or something but I doubt that'll happen.

The reality as I see it is that we are going to have serious problems competing with countries like India and China in the coming decades if we don't make radical changes to our education system and our attitude about education in general. Nothing else we are doing with regards to the economy or foreign policy really matters in the long run if we allow ourselves to fall behind here. You don't know where the next brilliant minds are going to come from so this system where you can't get a quality education in rural and urban areas has to go, a large portion of the country doesn't live in the suburbs. If anyone doubts the quality of education just look at how various states are ranked vs how rich their occupants are. We need to be striving for equalization and that means doing away with the current system of taxation. Taxes to pay for education need to come from the federal government with heavy support from states. If you want a private education there would still be reasons for that but you should be able to get a world class education at any public school in the country whether you are in a rural setting, an urban setting or a suburban setting.


It's really a chicken and egg thing in my opinion. Almost any problem you can cite with public schools today aside from things like parent involvement has to do with funding at the core of the issue. Simply dumping money on schools isn't enough, you have to do it in a focused manner with specific performance expectations and you need specific plans. Just dumping money on the problem is of course irresponsible, but money gets things done. Money buys textbooks and computers. Money fixes school infrastructure and builds new classrooms to bring class size down. Money allows you to pay and incentivize teachers better so we'll get better professionals in general and we can draw people to areas that need a lot of work. (i.e if you are asking someone to come teach in a tough urban school a meager one time 20K bonus plus a low salary isn't going to cut it.)

We should not have some magical cost per pupil in mind, we should be trying to achieve a goal and we should be willing to spend appropriately.

Most importantly though, people need to stop denying the problem. We are going to lose ground to the rest of the world if we don't get our act together, that is a fact. There is room for disagreement on some points but the denial needs to stop. It would also be helpful to study other education systems that are producing quality students and figure out what we can learn from them.

I'd go beyond saying it is part of the problem, and say it is the whole problem. If you want to have eqaul school funding, you need to stop using local taxes to do it. Therefore, school funding reform needs to go hand in hand with tax reform. Someone earlier mentioned using state income taxes instead. That would be workable...IF property taxes are reduced correspondingly. Local government will naturally be against this...no one likes their funding cut.

Before going that route, it would be interesting to see if its really necessary. On the surface, it seems obvious that rich subdivisions will have the most money. I'm not sure that's the case. You have far denser real estate in urban areas, so property tax there might actually be higher (compare a high rise office building with a block of homes....clearly the office building would have the higher value). So, before jumping to conclusions, it would be good to see if anyone has any data on this.



Yes, I would agree with this. Education needs to be given a much higher priority; it would benefit everyone, including, eventually, the government, as educated people are higher earning people, and therefore higher tax paying people.



Every problem might, might every solution doesn't necessarily imply money. As Amlord as shown, urban schools already outspend suburban schools per pupil. Further, the US leads most developed countries in per pupil funding, and yet lags them in results. So, there is ample evidence that money is not always the problem. However, I would agree with the rest of what you say here.



Yes. Is there any reason that that goal should not be having the best education system in the world, with the best, most educated students? I don't think many would disagree...although I suspect the argument would be that we already do. Except that our education system excellence is primarily focused at the higher education level. This is also a fundamental part of the problem. As long as that is where the emphasis is, the problem with our K-12 systems will persist. It will be a difficult hurdle to overcome. Most of our universities are already overflowing with students. What is the need for even more, and where would they go? There is a perception that those who want to go to college can, and those that don't shouldn't have money wasted on them. This aspect of the education system would need to be addressed as well, as there is a perception that those who want to go to college can, and those who don't, well, why waste money on them? So, a strong case needs to be made that it is indeed essential for our country that this problem gets fixed. I don't disagree, but leaving it as an assumption won't get the necessary results.

I would add that this is an issue that should go beyond politics. Which party is against education? It is an issue that everyone benefits from, and in which compromise should be possible.

It may not need to go that far. As we've discussed briefly earlier in the debate, about half of public school funding is in supplementary funds from the state that are supposed to be used to equalize revenues going into property-poor districts.

The problem is the laws that allocate these funds do not send the funds equally, which is why court cases have laid the issue at the feet of state legislatures.

I'll respond more fully after I've pulled together some more research, but I thought that might help.

Edited to Add:
... and Amlord's data showed urban districts spent more, that's not the same thing as all urban schools. Many urban districts have rich neighborhoods that slant the average spending for the whole district, note the links I posted earlier.

Kozol's research has shown that urban schools often spend less that better performing schools, not more.

What can be done to improve the situation of under-resourced public schools in this country?

Some schools are “under resourced” but many are just badly managed and staffed. As “Stupid in America” pointed out it is not just the inner city schools that have the problem.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?i...TC-RSSFeeds0312

What is the relative importance of this issue?

It is critical fro the growth and survival of the US in an ever increasing high tech world. As it is today we must import high tech people from around the world. People we can and should be producing in OUR school systems.

Might an overhaul of the funding system improve the situation?

No. Numerous studies find NO correlation between school funding (to a point) and the academic achievement of the students.

Could funds be taken from income rather than property taxes and allocated equally by the state rather than local officials?

Better to fully fund NCLB and focus on accelerating the move to vouchers for kids in areas where the schools consistently cannot improve. Many schools in Boston are now at this point.

Is busing a good stop-gap measure until more drastic changes are decided upon?
IMO busing is a waste of the school day. Kids sit on busses when they could be in school. Take the millions spent and give it to the parents stuck with perennially bad schools in vouchers and let them get their kids a good education. IMO nothing is more raciest in our society than forcing minority kids in the inner cities to continue to suffer at the hands of bad schools run by bad principles and staffed by unqualified teachers.

That is a good point and that is why that many journalism pieces and studies conclude that spending more money per pupil isn't going to solve the problems (including the cited piece to a certain extent).

It overlooks something a lot bigger though, when it comes to staff you get what you pay for. If you are paying bottom dollar for teachers and administrative staff then guess what, you are going to get bottom dollar quality. That isn't to say that we don't have some good teachers that work for the wages they are paid, but we have to be realistic here, not everyone is going to work for job satisfaction alone. If we paid those in the education industry better wages then I think you'd find a lot college educated people willing to consider it as a career. Personally I think you'd have to be pretty close to insane to go to a state school, spend $30,000 (or so) on your education and then take a job where your starting pay is around 30K and you probably top out around 50K. Unless you get a lot more education and make it into the higher education world your wages don't rise that much. That just doesn't make any sense.

The article even backs that up to a certain extent. The school discussed does pinch pennies in some areas but it pays its teachers better than other areas which will attract talent. That more than anything is probably the reason for success at that school. Pinching pennies on physical education and grounds cleanup enables that but so would allocating more funding for schools and spending it in the right places.


NCLB is a completely flawed program and it needs to be scrapped entirely. It sets up all the wrong incentives for teachers and makes the problem worse, not better. First of all, problem schools shouldn't be abandoned, you should focus on what the problems are and fix them not just toss them away and allow them to close. Second, you aren't doing students any favors when your incentives prompt teachers to teach to the test rather than actually teaching students something of value and how to think critically. Neither a college nor an employer is going to care whether you have the ability to memorize facts, you have to be able to think critically and analyze information.

How then would you evaluate progress? There really isn't any other way other than testing...after all, that's what the tests are for. It seems the problem here, if there is one, would be better solved by adjusting the test. I say if there is one, because I don't recall taking Critical Thinking I in my elementary education. Rather, the focus seems to be on the three R's, which are well suited to the current tests. So, before adjusting the test, it seems that some discussion of learning objectives need to be undertaken. In the current system, it seems that higher education takes on the role you mention here.

But this is not the case. the average teacher in the Boston school system earns 70K/year. Certainly in line with other professions. The problem IMO is we manage teachers poorly and we allow unqualified people to teach. And to make it worse people on the Education Sub Committee in the Senate like Teddy K consistently vote WITH the teachers Unions and against teacher testing, student testing, and vouchers.

With no competition we get a mediocre “product” as one would expect.



I disagree. NCLB does NOT abandon schools – in fact IMO it is far too willing to allow bad schools to show minimal improvement with little or no penalty. As far as “programs to fix” remember schools are locally controlled and the government does not have the right to force a “fix” on any school system. What they can do is set a standard and demand that schools meet it. And as far as “teach to the test” you obviously have not seen the tests. I have 3 kids in school and have seen the MA MCAS test. It is one heck of a long way from “memorize facts”. These are well thought out tests that verify that students understand concepts and can apply them to real problems. If you think differently examine some of the tests – they are on line.
http://www.doe.mass.edu/mcas/testitems.html

The Teachers Unions against these test just do not want to have students measured to a standard, any standard. But the reality is you cannot verify weather or not you have a problem unless you test. And the tests have pointed out where the problems are and improved education in the US.

1] Education is primarily taken, not primarily given. Figure that one out, and you're 90% of the way out of poverty. Don't accept that basic fact, and you are condemned to a life of poverty.

2] At best, education is well offered. The question is, is public education equally well offered? It is well offered where folks give a rat's butt, and demand it. It is not well offered wherever it is treated with contempt. It is not equally taken, that's for sure. Even where it is well offered. No doubt, the consequence of that is unequal outcomes. Well, no crap.

But, if you find yourself in a community/locale where the culture treats the opportunity with contempt...don't support that community--or its contempt-- with your life.

3] "Accidents" are not a "Get Out Reality Free Pass." "Accidents" have consequences. Note to self: be careful.

4] Why would we permit union thugs to mob up and take control over the education of our children? edited to remove attempt to bypass profanity filter
5] Why would we let fundamentalist religious nuts take over our public education system? We haven't? Oh yeah? What about the Holy Unity based religion, the one worshipped by the Social Scientologists, based on the Unseen Yet all Seeing Magic SPirit in the Sky, "Society?" What foaming at the mouth fundamentalist said this?

"Society is not at all the illogical or a-logical, incoherent and fantastic being which has too often been considered. Quite on the contrary, the collective consciousness is the highest form of psychic life, since it is the consciousness of consciousness. Being placed outside of and above individual and local contingencies, it sees things only in their permanent and essential aspects, which it crystallizes into communicable ideas. At the same time that it sees from above, it sees farther; at every moment of time it embraces all known reality; that is why it alone can furnish the minds with the moulds which are applicable to the totality of things and which make it possible to think of them."

Emil Durkheim, founder of the Holy Unity based fundamentalist religious movement that has overrun our public schools and institutions with its Magic Spirit In The Sky based slop, for well over a century.

"highest form of psychic life?" My, how we all did love 'Ghostbusters," but wtf was Durkheim ranting about, and why have we force fed all his derivative crap to our public school kids just because the "we believe" apostles slapped "science" on their clearly a religion?

Take a look at any SOciology text; it's filled with nothing but 'sociologists believe' religious fervor as far as the eyes can see. Well, no crap, so did the apostles believe.


Why did we let that religion overun our public schools and institutions in AMerica?

We are fully Burka'd up, so inculcated to the Holy Unity based religion("look, no Holy Trinity, must not be a 'real' religion, it's Magic SPirit in the Sky is only Holy Unity based, so it's OK to let it loose on the kids...")that we can't even see it as religion.

Well, after all, it's our religion.

Anti-social? Mea-culpa, proudly. Especially when 'S'ociety is defined as "outside of and above individual and local contingencies." Indeed, I'm pro-'people,' every damn last individual one of them. So, all you individuals, to the right. What's left is what makes up 'S'ociety.

If you're patient enough, a spokesmen will be along in a second to divine the wants and needs of 'S'ociety. Trust him, he knows. It's like 'Rules for God', only, per Durkheim's transmogrification of old time religion, 'S'ociety=God. Nice trick. And, we're worried about the Ten Commandments, crucifi, and Bibles...

I'd have preferred if Durkeim instead would have had the secular thought, "One skin, one driver," and leave the conversations with God proxies totally private affairs, as they rightfully should be in a free country. Apparently, it wasn't enough for some, and God protect the rest of us from them.

Frediano

OK, I have to do this carefully, because it is going to SOUND like I am being insulting or belittling, when I swear to you I am not. So here goes.

What on earth are you talking about? I ask seriously, what is this 'religion' which has "dominated our public schools for over a century" that you are talking about? I genuinely do not understand your post at all. Can you clarify?

I'm not a big fan of standardized tests, but I do like data. Right now, the U.S. Department of Education website has data that break down the spending of every public school in the country. They don't have anything similar to measure the performance of those schools. I want both, so I can do a scatterplot, see if there's a detectable "adequacy level" for funding, if there are identifiable clusters of good-ROI and bad-ROI schools, what education policies predict which schools end up in those clusters, etc.

A serious question: absent standardized tests, how would you measure school performance? How would we know which schools are "promoting knowledge and innovative and independent thinking"?

Why are schools dangerous? One Word; RAP

Why are schools underfunded? One Group; POLITICIANS

Schools have been unsanitary for a loong time. Whenever you've had a building around for as long as some schools, you're going to get unsanitary conditions, and because of the underfunding, they can't get it fixed.

we need to keep the politicians out of our schools and let the educators run it.

I am not arguing against standardized testing, in fact I support using it as discussed in a previous education thread on the subject. My problem is the incentives behing NCLB and the kind of behavior they promote. "Punishing" schools which do poorly does you absolutely no good if your interest is ensuring that all children get a quality education. Of course when it comes to some politicians I guess that is a valid question, what are their goals?

Can you reference some of these studies directly. I have resources that point to precisely the opposite.

I've found that getting local in this debate often helps, so here's what we know about Massachusetts.

There have been two landmark school funding cases before the state's Supreme Court recently.

I'm going to link to one (Hancock v. Driscoll) because it is more recent (2004) than the other and quotes from it.

First the reference to the '93 McDuffy case, where the Supreme Court found:

Link(PDF)

This resulted in the passage of the Education Reform Act of 1993 which mandated a funding overhaul in Massachusetts

Education Reform Act


Although this lead to significant progress you will not the base amount settled upon isn't very high and some schools countered it was insufficient leading to the next case.

The court directly addressed claims that disparities are due to "faulty leadership".


Case after case has found funding to be a critical issue, what studies do you cite to prove contrary?

I think this is a very well thought out and good topic Turnea- and you have made very valid points, and your evidence is pretty overwhelming about "under-resourced" schools- I myself have seen and attended them in my lifetime, and was even a <ahem> "victim" of busing in the early 70s- and recieved some beatings from black kids in those very schools by virtue of my being lilly white- so I fully understand your positioin.

That being said- I have also toured schools in former eastern bloc countries and third world schools that are far poorer and have worse conditions- and frequently more dangerous just to get to the school. However- they seem to graduate outstanding students anyway!

So- I will answer what I believe is the best answers to your questions- then add something at the end


What can be done to improve the situation of under-resourced public schools in this country?

I believe there should be some kind of federal implementation of equity in school funding and supplies- and I think it is in the countries best interest to educate our "disadvantaged" areas much better- I think it is a "root cause" of much of our crime at this time. I think, instead of GWs idiotic ( and we now know, founded on lies and bad science) NCLB act- we should look at the materials themselves, as much or more than testing. A kid in inner city run down Milwaulki should have the same access to education as a kid in the Hamptons- and the same school condition, same school books and same computers.

What is the relative importance of this issue? Personaly- I blame bad school funding formulas and the attacks on the NEA and such as the root cause of most of our countries problems- we are simply not pumping out enough employable poeple in this country- with skills to get a "living wage" job or open thier own biz.

Might an overhaul of the funding system improve the situation?

It would help- but I don't think it is the root cause- I will explain later.

Could funds be taken from income rather than property taxes and allocated equally by the state rather than local officials?

I am thinking when you say "income" you are saying from the federal levl general budget? I think a hybird of local property taxes AND using federal monies in block grants would be a very good idea. Programs that meld local and federal money seems to work very well. Programs like Hope 6 for housing have been massively succesful in renewing at risk or run down nieghborhoods- something like that would work well IMHO.

Is busing a good stop-gap measure until more drastic changes are decided upon?

Not really- I don't care as much about suburban sensibilities and hurt feelings of those surbanites that have to deal with it- I think it distracts from the childs education and takes too much time from the childs day.


OKAY- all that being said- I don't think ANY solution will help as long as we don't place the blame where it truly belongs- US culture's views on education. Parents, rich or poor, see schools, not as an education for thier children, but cheap day care.

In those societies were children still get a fine education but have far worse conditions, because the parents take enormous "ownership" of thier childs education, usually seeing as thier way out of poverty as well.

Teachers are facilitators of the education, and the parents are the directors- and that is the different mentality of the whole system.

We like to blame others for our personal problems as human beings- but America is especially good at it. We blame teachers, the NEA, liberals, conservatives, the president and the school board when our children can't read- but it is really the parents that are to blame. And probably because we have to work like a slave just to make ends meet- and if it is not to make ends meet, it is to "keep up with the Joneses"

we are a nation of absentee parents- You can throw all the money in the world at a child, but if the parents arent' involved in the process, or the prmary provider in any case- then there will simply be no real education for the child.

SoI would like to see rewards and sanctions placed ON THE PARENTS of school systems.

Right now, the teachers are in a horrible space- if you kid is bilingual, speaks english as a second language, has a behavior disorder or is living in poverty- the teacher gets some help, but outstanding, good students, the teacher gets LESS help.

I volunteer at my daughters Russian immersion school- a parent directed school.

I live in a fairly rich state, and new at that- but, last time I volunteered, I had to sit in line for nearly 2 hours to USE A COPY MACHINE- we have this big school, and one darn copy machine!

So at the next PTA/MIR meeting- THAT is what I lobbied for- another darn copy machine! How would have I even known had I not volunteered? A teacher has to spend two hours just to copy materials for her class? Unreal!

And this school is in as rich a nieghborhood as any in Alaska!

So, all those questions and problems posed by Turnea's careful research would be much better served if we can attack the real root cause- the parents!

There is no current agreement on the effect of funding. Certainly socioeconomic factors play a part.

http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/files/schoolprod.html

The most common outcomes measured in such studies are standardized test results, graduation rates, dropout rates, college attendance patterns, and labor-market outcomes. Inputs usually include per-pupil expenditures; student-teacher ratios; teacher education, experience, and salary; school facilities; and administrative factors (Lawrence Picus 1995). The most famous production-function study was the U.S. Department of Education's 1966 "Coleman Report." This massive survey of 600,000 students in 3,000 schools concluded that socioeconomic background influenced student success more than various school and teacher characteristics (Picus 1995).
This type of research culminated in Eric Hanushek's 1989 study, which analyzed results of 187 production studies published during the previous 20 years. Using a simple vote-counting method to compare data, Hanushek found no systematic, positive relationship between student achievement and seven inputs.
Hanushek's findings have been challenged by recent studies using more sophisticated research techniques. When Larry Hedges (1994) and associates reanalyzed Hanushek's syntheses using meta-analysis, they discovered that a $500 (roughly 10 percent) increase in average spending per pupil would significantly increase student achievement.

More likely the factors below are as important as funding. I cannot find a current link but I recall a story out of St Louis. Nearly a billion $ was spent on new schools for minority students in the inner city. The schools had everything including well paid teaches and computers everywhere. The result over the next three years was that test scores either did NOT improve or actually went DOWN.


A report from the Consortium on Productivity in the Schools (1995) attributes flat productivity to schools' "unstable governance, lack of incentives to leverage productivity improvement, structures favoring continuity over continuous improvement, and inadequate quality controls on innovations." Students' time could also be used more effectively.

Ted:
The very real gap between you previous claims and the actual evidence you present seems to me to be quite revealing of the real dynamic of this issue. There is an enormous gulf between the initial claims (which I have described as knee-jerk reactions) such as.


..and the actual evidence that you have presented to back your argument.

Your own data admits that school funding matters, in light of this I'd ask if your thoughts on the debate questions have changed?

Funding is one of a number of factors. There is no agreement on the extent to which just “throwing money” at the problem will fix it. Certainly there is evidence that the problem is far more complex. Schools are not factories that will crank out better products if they have more expensive machines to produce them. Schools need to be managed and provide an environment conducive for learning. These factors are at least as important as pay.

Rules that force schools to keep violet disruptive students are just one of the problems.

Students physically assault 190,000 teachers each year in the US. 1/2 of all teachers report being verbally abused. 100,000 children carry guns to school; 600,000 carry other weapons. In many cities, more than 1/4 of all kids are afraid to go to school on any given day 1,000 children each year are arrested for murder; more than 5,000 are arrested for rape.


http://www.rippleeffects.com/aboutus/media...statistics.html

Rosenholtz and Simpson (1990) offer a
detailed analysis of how organizational
factors contribute to teacher’s commitment
to the workplace. Their evidence shows that
school management of student behavior and
the burden of non-teaching obligations
affect new teachers’ commitment much
more than it does experienced teachers (see
also Hargreaves 1994; Macdonald 1995). On
the other hand, experienced teachers appear
to be more concerned with the discretion
and autonomy they have in their schools.
Other important predictors of teachers’
commitment include: performance
efficacy—a teacher’s perception of how his
or her teaching, in the particular school
context, will affect students’ learning;
psychic rewards—a variable which, like
performance efficacy, is generated both
from a teacher’s own qualification and from
3


school’s organizational quality that allows
free flow of supportive/constructive
feedback; and learning opportunities—
including mentoring for new teachers and
other plans for professional development.
Rosenholtz and Simpson (1990) further find
that teachers’ commitment to the workplace,
measured by their disaffection, absenteeism,
and defection, is highly correlated with
turnover.