[themafia]

> This is a huge waste of time/money

Right. And when you see someone so dedicated do it there is almost certainly a hidden variable which causes this to occur. I imagine the nature of funding of these schools and the distribution of public monies has a lot to do with it.

> ways of combating fraud

Imagine being the richest country in the world and _caring_, honestly, about school location "fraud."

[angiolillo]

The country as a whole may be "rich" in terms of GDP but school districts are funded locally and many towns are struggling or underwater in terms of finances.

I lived in a working class town with a school district that built up a great reputation, especially for special needs students, due to the hard work of some amazing teachers and local parents. After I left I found out that the district had to scale back many programs dramatically because the number of students, especially special needs students, was growing significantly faster than the overall tax base and got close to bankrupting the town. Most of that was an increase in the ratio of families (esp special needs families) moving to town for the schools, but apparently there were fraud cases as well.

I have sympathy for the incoming families that sought out the best school they could find for their children, but I also sympathize with the existing families who lost the great programs they helped build because they became too successful.

A better solution would have been to fund education more equitably at the state level, but that was not a lever that the school district had.

[themafia]

> started growing much faster than the tax base

So you have two unaddressed problems.

> A better solution would have been to fund education more equitably at the state level

Which could only work if the state was "richer" than the local district. So by playing abstract and unnecessary games with money and districting we intentionally prevent schools from accessing the funding which could obviate concerns over this "fraud" issue entirely.

> but that was not a lever that the school district had at the time.

The idea of a parent "fraudulently" getting their child an education from a "district" is still just hilarious to me. What is the point of this system? To make parents play games or to educate children?

[angiolillo]

> [funding at the state level] could only work if the state was "richer" than the local district

It's not whether the state is "richer", it's whether the state has a more stable percentage of student-age children, especially high cost students (e.g. special needs, behavioral issues).

Let's say the median student costs ~$20k per year and an outlier who needs individualized help due to special needs or behavioral issues costs ~$150k per year. The expectation is that each district is able to amortize these costs across a diverse tax base. But families, especially those with higher-cost students, frequently shop between neighboring districts to get the best schools for their kids, which is completely rational. Even wealthy cities and towns can be bankrupted if they attract a sufficiently high percentage of households with students, especially higher-cost students. (If this is not obvious I'd be happy to provide an example.) Because of this, even when administrators talk about improving their schools, behind closed doors they'll admit that there's a limit to how much more attractive they can afford to make their school than neighboring districts, especially with regard to special needs programs.

However, because it is less common for families to move across state lines for better schools, states are more insulated from this sort of adverse selection (New Jersey notwithstanding).

> we intentionally prevent schools from accessing the funding which could obviate concerns over this "fraud" issue entirely.

Exactly. No family or school administrator wants to play these ridiculous games, but our inequitable funding structure forces them to.

[ikr678]

The point of the system is for wealthier areas to have good schools, and not be forced to contribute their property taxes towards poorer minority areas.