[streptomycin]

That's true, but generally the worst school districts are the ones that get the most money, although the exact way money is distributed varies by region. For instance, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbott_district describes how NJ gives tons of money to schools in poor areas, although it does not seem to have produced any better educational outcomes.

[juve1996]

Does "get the most money" equate to "has the most money?"

[streptomycin]

Not sure what the difference is. But it does seem that no matter how much money you throw at a problem with no measurable impact, there will always be people claiming just a little bit more is needed because this time something will be different and it won't be squandered.

[mrguyorama]

How much of that "money thrown at the problem" is actually used to pay teachers more and attract competent teaching talent and give the teachers proper resources they don't have to buy with their own money and providing needy students the help they need to succeed?

I already know the answer, because many in my family are lifelong teachers. All money goes to facilities that don't always need it, though are still good investments, and administration.

The current process sure works well to say "well we keep throwing money at it and nothing improves" as if you can LITERALLY just throw money in the general direction of the problem and see an improvement. As long as those prioritizing funds and resources continue to just ignore teachers wholesale, we will see no improvement in education.

[streptomycin]

It'll be interesting to see how far things can go before people stop making these arguments. It's the same argument people made 20 years ago. Yet spending keeps going up without results. Check back in another 20, I predict "equity" will be as far away as today but a lot more money will be spent and the public discourse will be the same.

Also, there are different regions and schools where different ways of spending money have been tried. The best results you'll find in the literature are temporary improvements that wash out by the end of high school. The worst results are not even that.

[juve1996]

Investment clearly works across all facets of our economy. It could work, in schools, too. But our society will never allow for what it really takes to adequately use the funding given to it.

It's not surprising students did better as they were younger. Poor districts expose children to bad outcomes earlier leading to poor performance in school, obviously during the teenage years.

[streptomycin]

I don't think it's clear that every problem can be solved by spending more money on it. In this case, if the root cause of the problem is outside the school, then the school may not be able to do much about it even given infinite funding.

[juve1996]

We have very clear evidence money solves a lot of problems. Why doesn't it work here? It works everywhere else in our capitalist economy.

In any case the difference is quite clear. If a school in a rich suburb doesn't get much federal money than, say, a inner city school, that gets a lot. That rich suburb already has money. They obviously wouldn't get further funding - but are likely much richer?

[streptomycin]

The numbers I cited before were total $ per pupil from all sources.

[juve1996]

The numbers you cited also have a citation that leads to a 404 and are only for 1 year, in one specific state. Hard to draw any reasonable conclusion from that.

[streptomycin]

NJ has been doing it for decades, the Wikipedia article gives a pretty good overview. There's similar programs in other states, and many examples of poor/bad schools that get tons of funding. Such as basically every major city in the country.

Possibly entire states and nearly every city for decades is not enough time, success may be right around the corner!