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.
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).
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.").
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.