[aantix]

"ever"? We live in an affluent neighborhood surrounded by Doctors and CPAs. Our kids see that every day. That's their normal.

And if/when there are major budget changes to the district, who do you think are the first parents in line advocating for their school?

You literally buy your kids a chance at a better future.

[sixstringtheory]

I think the person you're replying to is referring to the fact you highlight, that money is the qualifier for who lives better or worse, as part of the scam.

Should the impoverished just pull themselves up by their bootstraps harder?

Conversely, do people who reject materialistic tenets of society deserve lower quality education?

It could be that those doctors and CPAs are just following in other peoples' footsteps, following life paths prescribed for them. As a poster below mentioned, they aren't necessarily the happiest people.

Isn't part of what we're talking about is that what is considered "normal" is up for debate, and some people choose something off the beaten path of the high-powered career-oriented lifestyle? That they're diversifying the focus of their waking hours instead of putting in overtime to the man to pay insane rent, and finding out that it is gratifying?

[Tempest1981]

I kind of agree. Although I look around at those professionals every morning, and almost nobody is smiling. That worries me. And kids notice that too.

[sitkack]

School funds should be distributed equally across the entire population. If we were a democracy, rich neighborhoods wouldn't have better schools.

[jknoepfler]

That's not precisely true. Because we live in a democracy, citizens of local governments can collectively vote to levy additional funds for local schools. I agree that federal and state funding should obviate this, but there's nothing intrinsically undemocratic about the current system. (Unfair or badly designed != undemocratic).

Some of the best public schools in the nation exist where I grew up in the Minnesota suburbs. They served trailer parks and public housing the same as the doctors and lawyers. But they also passed levies to increase their own taxes year after year.

It is unfair, and wrong, that Minneapolis inner city schools don't have the same funding, but the vibrancy of the well funded public schools was a consequence of local, effective, democratic political action.

[eric_b]

Minneapolis spends an obscene amount per pupil on students, with the number getting HIGHER in the bad districts: http://www.startribune.com/where-minneapolis-public-schools-...

North Minneapolis has bad outcomes not because of lack of money, that's for sure.

[jknoepfler]

Yeah, it's a tough problem. I did Americorps work in some of the poorer elementary schools in St. Paul, and one of the biggest problems those schools face is that they have very high special needs burdens that they have to meet before they can deal with the general population, and those are incredibly costly. That said, I completely agree with you that there are a lot of problems facing students in Northeast Minneapolis that hurt outcomes that have nothing to do with funding.

I mean at the end of the day, kids like myself had well-educated parents who read to us every night, did math problems with us, and provided the scaffolding for learning long before we hit school (most of primary education was a waste, at best review). There's no substitute for that.

The experience of tutoring badly off kids in poor neighborhoods was one of the more heartbreaking experiences of my life. The inertia in the students is palpable after about age nine.

That said, I still struggle to call the distribution of effective resources "equitable," and I'll happily foot a tax bill to double education spending until the generational poverty problem is mitigated to a much greater degree (although I suspect non conventional methods might have better returns).

[jarcoal]

Unfortunately as long as there are better parents there will always be better schools.

[rayiner]

At least within states, they more or less are: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/03/12/in-2... ("When federal dollars are included, just five states are spending less in their poorest districts than in their wealthiest. Nationwide, the average disparity drops from 15 percent to less than 2 percent.").

[ashark]

Spending’s not the problem. Income just happens to correlate with having kids who aren’t disruptive and (are made to) care about education. The money itself isn’t the main reason for different school outcomes.

[humanrebar]

> If we were a democracy, rich neighborhoods wouldn't have better schools.

If we were a democracy, you'd be able to have more choice in how your children were educated. Switching schools or otherwise opting for more innovative educational approaches would be much more viable.

People buy into school districts because that's, bottom line, the only way to have a say in your kids' education.

[sitkack]

Democracy isn't just about choice. It includes access, privilege and equality.

I think the imbalance in school district efficacy has more to do with classism and a "just universe" than anything else. The betters should have it better.

[selectodude]

The wealthiest school districts in the country tend to be the worst.

[sitkack]

Could it be that the wealthy in those locations predominately send their children to private schools. Public schools aren't a priority for the super rich.

[s0rce]

Definitely not the case in the Bay Area -- Palo Alto, Piedmont, Orinda are wealthy and have some of the best schools.

[selectodude]

Not wealthy residents. Wealthy school districts. LAUSD spends substantially more than Palo Alto per student.

[aantix]

Citation?

[rayiner]

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-05-21/news/bs-md-ci-ce...

Out of the top 5, only Montgomery County has a high-income student population.

[afpx]

I’m sure it’s a safe bet. However, 20 years is a long time. And, 2037 will be as different from 2017 as 2017 was from 1987. I suggest hedging your bet by raising kids who are flexible and adaptable.

For instance, when I was a kid, parents who wanted their kids to have a ‘better future’ knew that college degrees were the sure thing. And, we all know how that turned out. 20% of my close high school friends are now low-wage post-docs with $100k in debt.

[s0rce]

Yah the strategy of a cheap house doesn't work as well if you have children who need an education. Most of the areas partly expensive (in high demand) because of the excellent local schools. In being expensive the schools then get even more money. Unless education funding is distributed uniformly I can't see this changing soon.