[jandrewrogers]

> It's not even that hard. Make taxation more progressive, and give extra funding to neighbourhoods and schools in poorer parts of the country/cities.

The US already does this. Taxation is more progressive than Europe and large amounts of money are redistributed to poor and troubled schools, in some cases as much as twice the European average. It is not correlated with any of the outcomes you are imagining.

Throwing money at the problem doesn’t work. The US has been doing that for decades with nothing to show for it.

[NalNezumi]

Can you cite a source for the statement in second paragraph?

I'm not from the states, but to my limited understanding, funding for school comes primarily from district and state level and in the form of property tax. Meaning rich areas have enormous advantage. Meanwhile the federal proportion of the funding for a school is less than 10% [1]

[1] https://youtu.be/VZx-rLoV4do timestamp 3:00

[eru]

See eg https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/education-commentary-is...

> This has all had the unfortunate effect of deepening ignorance about American school spending. We know, for example, that majority-Black and Hispanic schools receive significantly more per-pupil funding than majority-white schools. This fact is so contrary to basic liberal assumptions that they often react angrily to hearing it. But this reality shouldn’t surprise anyone. After all, we’ve been shoveling money at the racial achievement gap for 40 years, to no avail. Part of the problem here is an assumption that public education is dominantly funded by local expenditure, which hasn’t been true for some time. In fact, state funding is at or near parity with local spending in the United States, and state funding is heavily tilted towards areas of perceived need (that is, failing schools or districts). Federal funding, including but hardly limited to Title I funding, is also dominantly directed towards poor or high-minority schools. The rising tide of think tank and foundation money that finds its way into public K-12 school is very hard to track, but we can safely assume that almost all of it is earmarked for the poorest students. We’ve been trying to spend our way our of this problem since before I was born! And yet people who should know better pretend not to understand this reality and repeat the complaint about local funding of public schools, despite the fact that that story is not true.

[enkid]

This guys argument is based on a meta-analysis which has nothing at all to do with the argument he is making. The meta analysis in question (https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED610568.pdf) is talking about how different research techniques measure data in different ways and therefore can't be easily compared. He then takes a look at this data, determines that it means interventions don't work very well (he doesn't argue they don't work, just that they don't work that well) and therefore concludes that we shouldn't even try to close the gaps in educational outcomes. You can't read a study and completely change it's meaning, especially since the study he cites is from researches that clearly believe evidence based educational intervention can work. In other words, the people who the author cites, who looked at the data more closely then the author hold opposite beliefs from the author.

[Vt71fcAqt7]

The specific quote given, however, is not from your link but from Pathways to Inequality: Between-District Segregation and Racial Disparities in School District Expenditures[0].

>From this table, we can see that on average, both Black and Latinx total per pupil expenditures exceed White total per pupil expenditures by $229.53 and $126.15, respectively.

That being the case it is possible that GP simply means to bring that one fact, that is, that minorities have more funding yet still do not achieve the same academic results (aside from asians), rather than as an endorsement of the rest of the article. In any event it is a point worth considering regardless of GP's intention.

[0]https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/23328584198724...

[enkid]

Also from the article you quote: "We find that as Black–White racial segregation increases over time, total per pupil expenditures and other per pupil expenditures shift in ways that disfavor the typical Black student’s district relative to the typical White student’s district. We also find that Latinx–White segregation is associated with a relative shift of per pupil infrastructure expenditures that disfavors the typical Latinx student’s district and a shift of per pupil other expenditures that favors the typical Latinx student’s district."

So, still doesn't seem better for the argument that's trying to be made.

[Vt71fcAqt7]

Not really. That quote alone could simply mean that as already black-majority schools become more black, that is, "increases of time," they get less total funding. But that doesn't mean that total per pupil expenditures of majority black schools are lower than white ones. In fact that would directly contradict that "on average, both Black and Latinx total per pupil expenditures exceed White total per pupil expenditures by $229.53 and $126.15, respectively" which is stated explicitly rather than "shift in ways that disfavor the typical Black student’s district relative to the typical White student’s district" which is ambiguous. I didn't read the whole paper but this quote alone doesn't mean anything. The fact is that black schools get more money according to that study.

[eru]

Indeed, I like to quote my facts from people I disagree with (especially ideologically).

[xyzzyz]

This federal 10%, along with state level funding, is typically used to level the funding across the districts. The equalization of per student spending in school districts across the country has largely already happened, with little to show for it in terms of improvement of low performing schools. Rich districts do have more local school funding than poor districts, but this difference is made up with state and federal funds.

There is extreme scarcity of evidence for the idea that giving more money to schools improve outcomes of students. It simply doesn’t work this way. The worst performing schools in many US cities already have very high levels of funding with little to show it, for example in Washington DC. At the same time, quasi-experimental settings like Zuckerberg dropping $100M on Newark schools have basically zero effect in terms of student outcomes.

[Loquebantur]

Kids don't actually learn much curriculum content (as opposed to social behavior) when at school. They do that when at home.

Poor kids' homes aren't conducive to learning. They lack the necessary materials, (undisturbed) space and time. Necessary social support for content learning is often absent.

Wondering about why money given to schools (used for the most part for administrative nonsense presumably) doesn't change outcomes much consequently appears to show a (class based?) detachment from respective realities?

[vlovich123]

Yeah that’s my understanding of the situation. Additionally, politically governmental funding of schools stagnates while richer areas use funding drives to make up for it (in addition to the difference in property taxes already making a huge difference). Additionally, when the wealthy live in an area without the aggregate property taxes covering the school costs (eg because local governments slash funding anyway) they send their kids to private schools.

To improve outcomes you need a unified school district and limit the existence of private schools. Charter schools are positioned as “choice” but quality schools will remain out of reach of people using the vouchers to try to get to a better school - transportation is the first hurdle and as soon as meaningful number of “poors” move in, the wealthy will abandon the public schools and move to private institutions with entrance requirements that try to filter out the less wealthy masses.

[charrondev]

Is there a part of the world you could point to that banned private schools altogether and saw better aggregate outcomes?

Because if we’re just guessing, I would guess elimination of private schools would result in rich people with children grouping up in very wealthy areas more than they do today. A public school in a very affluent and wealthy area would likely not have many “pools” attending (because the cost of living in the area is so high).

One other type of charter school to consider would be one’s specialized is students with various disadvantages such as charter schools specialized in blind, deaf, autistic or emotionally disturbed students.

This 2018 analysis by the NCSECS (national center for special education) found that there were 137 such specialized schools and many were primarily focused on students with 1 specific disability. These schools had high enrolling rates for such students and found they had lower rates of suspension and expulsion. The recommendation was additional funding for such schools.

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED604731.pdf

[vlovich123]

If the public schools are good, the rich send to private schools for the exclusionary aspect more than for education outcomes so it doesn't really matter. I mean it matters in the sense that less talented people take up the spots for talented people, but not in terms of generating talent out of the general populace.

> Because if we’re just guessing, I would guess elimination of private schools would result in rich people with children grouping up in very wealthy areas more than they do today. A public school in a very affluent and wealthy area would likely not have many “pools” attending (because the cost of living in the area is so high).

But that's the point. If the funding is uniform based on number of pupils, in fact affluent areas will have worse education because they'll have fewer students. The thing that's hard to fight is "funding drives" to buy things for the school. That's the other thing affluent areas do on top of having a higher baseline of funding due to property taxes.

> This 2018 analysis by the NCSECS (national center for special education) found that there were 137 such specialized schools and many were primarily focused on students with 1 specific disability. These schools had high enrolling rates for such students and found they had lower rates of suspension and expulsion. The recommendation was additional funding for such schools.

That is correct. Ontario has additional funding for special education programs for those with disabilities on top of the normal funding per pupil

[George83728]

> To improve outcomes you need a unified school district and limit the existence of private schools.

The true rich will send their kids away to another state, or even another country, if that's what it takes to get their kids into a good school. To stop this and force all the rich kids into public schools you'd have to ban all private schools, not just in the state, not just in every state, but in every single country around the world.

The good news is the above doesn't matter, you don't need rich students to have a good school, you can let all super rich families send their brats to expat boarding schools in the UK and Japan without losing anything that matters to the rest. The entrance and attendance requirements that actually matter don't concern money, but rather student behavior and performance. It is possible to create great schools in poor communities with very little local funding IFF those schools are allowed to have strict requirements for behavior and performance and are empowered to kick out students that fall short of those requirements.

[vlovich123]

"Rich" isn't a binary thing though. The wealth population drops off rather quickly. People with a net worth of ~$1-10M are unlikely to be sending their kids away I think. It also doesn't matter so much because their taxes would still be paying for the education of everyone who's not doing this and the sending away is an extra tax they choose to pay.

[dolni]

I was surprised to hear that failing, urban schools get substantially more money than their suburban counterparts. But it appears to be true where I live.

Check out https://oese.ed.gov/ppe/.

I live near a school district that is well-known for high quality education. The urban district nearby has 20% higher per-pupil spending and the quality of education is MUCH lower.

[smegger001]

while yes the wealthy just move their kids to privet schools they have to pay for that out of pocket while still contributing taxes to the public school system which also now doesn't have to pay toward the privetly schooled child.

[vlovich123]

Yup. 100% agreed. Private schools are problematic for other reasons but not because they take away funding from public schools.

[hackernewds]

Which wealth class do you reckon pays more property taxes?

[vlovich123]

Why do property taxes need to fund the school / why does wealth class dictate the quality of schooling you’re entitled to? Shouldn’t we give the best schooling to the students that will take the most advantage of it / get the most benefit out of it? There’s all sorts of stories about how privilege at birth gets you into all sorts of elite places through a mix of wealth (bribes) and connections. Yet true expertise in more objective fields (eg STEM) does not reward those as easily.

Look at Ontario, Canada [1]. There’s an equal funding formula out of the general pool of funds for the province largely based on how many students are in your school board. The Toronto School Board (and I imagine other school boards too) then distribute their funds similarly [2]. School fundings isn’t tied to property taxes and it’s fundamentally weird to tie anything to property taxes as it gives back in services more to those areas that are already advantaged and creates skewed voting incentives.

I’m not saying that education in Canada was perfect, but I found the public school system to be decent enough with lots of opportunity to excel regardless and generally an equalizer (home dynamics it can’t correct for and is a huge problem). For example, I went to a well-regarded STEM magnate program that had objective entrance requirements that I had to travel to embedded within the public school. Out of two I got into, I ended up picking one closer because it was more convenient for my mom even though the other one I got into was a bit better regarded / and somehow had better funding (maybe more students but I suspect also outside funding drives / donations).

This travel problem repeats all the time with charter schools and is my main problem with the idea - when you’re wealthy travel is less of a problem (eg you have a very flexible work schedule).

[1] https://peopleforeducation.ca/public-education-in-ontario/ho...

[2] https://www.tdsb.on.ca/About-Us/Business-Services/Budgets-an...

[xyzzyz]

It doesn’t really matter how much tax is paid by “the rich” (say, top 1 in 1000), because collectively, they make too little money to make much of a difference even if we taxed 100% of their income.

What does matter is taxation on top 20% of population, and they do pay a lot of money on property taxes.

[Dylan16807]

The income (including capital gains) of the top tenth of a percent are more than 10% of total income.

The average federal income tax is under 15%.

It would make a ridiculously large difference.

[hajile]

This you get the argument for child tax credits. Let the money follow the child instead of the school.

In my area, private schools routinely offer much better education at a fraction of the expenditure per child. Loads of money simply disappears into the corruption of the school system, but private schools know doing that means students will leave and they’ll go bankrupt.

Set a national number and stick with it (allowing states to add to that number to account for their own higher cost of living).

At that point, schools will have to compete on offering a good education instead of being the local monopoly you are forced into using. It also offers smart kids born into bad school districts a way out of the cycle of poverty.

Politically, it’s weird too. This policy is fundamentally socialist redistribution, but is embraced by the right while being decried as evil by the left.

[George83728]

> In my area, private schools routinely offer much better education at a fraction of the expenditure per child. Loads of money simply disappears into the corruption of the school system, but private schools know doing that means students will leave and they’ll go bankrupt.

As you've identified, it's not because of funding, but it's not because private schools care more either. It's because private schools can kick out bad students, the students who deliberately make trouble and hold all the rest back. Private schools all do this, while public schools generally cannot (or it is so difficult that it rarely happens.) Throwing money at schools makes little difference if all the students in that school are forced to endure assaults and disruptions dished out by malicious students who are deliberately sabotaging everybody else.

[hajile]

In my observation, private schools (outside the most ritzy ones) are usually VERY hesitant to remove students because they can’t afford the revenue loss while public schools get the same money either way.

The ability to separate good students (regardless of financial or ethnic background) so they can learn without disruption from kids not wanting to learn is a huge positive. Lots of brilliant kids are held back by the terrible schools they are forced to attend. This would provide much better equality of opportunity.

[George83728]

The sort of private schools who retain lots of disruptive poor performers because of the money aren't the sort of private schools that perform well as schools. My statement that "private schools all [kick out bad students]" is an oversimplification because some private schools definitely specialize in admitting bad students from rich families. But those schools of last resort aren't the schools that are sought after by anybody who could instead send their children to a school with strict behavior and performance requirements. The desirable private schools are selective because being selective makes them desirable.

But at American public schools? A student flunking so hard they have to repeat a grade, once a fairly common occurrence, has become almost unheard of because turning a blind eye to misbehavior and performance has become the path of least resistance to each individual teacher and administrator. School administrators have no incentive to maintain the school's reputation because the school's reputation was never important in the first place. They don't have to sell parents on the merits of the school because they get incoming students and funding by default. The teachers who try to uphold standards get beaten down by the system, crushed with mountains of paperwork and are accused of being the reason that student behaves poorly. And so you get American public school systems where half the graduating students are functionally illiterate and everybody in the system pretends not to notice.

[eru]

> Set a national number and stick with it (allowing states to add to that number to account for their own higher cost of living).

Why do you even need to set a national number? Let states or even counties decide for themselves. (Make transfers to poor counties, if necessary. But don't tell them how to use the money.)

[hajile]

That’s what I said, but from the other end. I started with fixed Federal subsidies (which actually transfers money from wealthy states to poor states) then individual states can optionally set higher limits by adding their own money too.

[eru]

I'm saying that federal subsidies for poor states should not be earmarked for specific projects like education.

There's no reason to involve the federal level more than necessary. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity

[hajile]

There’s merit to this view, but it lacks wisdom.

Why send money just because?

People are then going to ask why they are sending the money instead of lowering federal taxes and increasing state taxes.

The truthful answer “we’re taking money from your state and giving it to another state to subsidize them” is going to tick off the rich states and lead to resentment.

Further, they will still be left asking “why do they need my money?” and “what are they spending my money on?”

Saying “we’re making sure all kids get a decent education” Is much more palatable than “whatever they feel like” even though the money no longer allocated to education is then spent on whatever they feel like.

[drekk]

> Funneling children into the arms of private businesses is fundamentally socialist redistribution

Mmm I'm going to take a very controversial stance here and say that no, privatizing education is not "fundamentally socialist distribution" or even "progressive" for that matter.

It absolutely is a money problem when teachers are spending their own salaries (already much lower than their EU counterparts) on classrooms. You can say there's corruption, that the money disappears, etc. but it's possible to solve the problems in public education by making sure the people molding the minds of the next generation make a decent living.

All my friends in academia were tired of being treated like shit (in both public and charter systems) and ended up pivoting to code where they make 2-3x the salary with dramatically less effort. Even worse for teachers in "inner cities" where the cost of living is higher. Small wonder that the US has some of the worst education outcomes compared to other "industrial liberal republics".

[megaman821]

Any large increase in the social programs of the US is going to have to tied to increased tax on the middle class. The tax-the-rich and spend politicians seem disingenuous by not telling their constituents what it would actually take to fund large social programs. That dishonestly guarantees those social programs will never come to fruition, so do they even want them?