[deleted] t1_j7mvrio wrote
The county system in Maryland seemed to be a lot more equitable than the district system in PA.
I wonder if this change could impact the housing market long term as people wouldn't be trying to cram into certain districts.
kormer t1_j7nik3j wrote
> The county system in Maryland seemed to be a lot more equitable than the district system in PA.
Absolutely. It also has a handy side-effect of keeping teacher wages low since nobody wants to travel a full county over to negotiate a raise.
I was shocked when I moved to PA to see teachers make a lot more with a lower cost of living.
[deleted] t1_j7nm48w wrote
Yeah I think it depends on what regions youre comparing. Their starting salary tends to be higher, but places like Baltimore have a lower max, which is why they struggle to retain teachers. DMV area is comparable to Philly and the burbs.
But being better than Maryland doesn't say much since PA teacher salaries aren't much to write home about but definitely not the worst in the country thanks to our unions.
hypotenoos t1_j7n173n wrote
Throwing more money at a district doesn’t always solve the problem.
There are very many poorly performing districts that spend much more per pupil than do their better performing neighbors.
[deleted] t1_j7n2uom wrote
This suit is about inequality in school funding. So, it's specifically addressing schools that are underfunded.
Also, these instances you mentioned are rare. In most cases, higher funding results in higher achievement. A large amount of higher spending but "lower achievement" is due to IEPs and the case of places like Philly it has to do with admin bloat which based on their budget should have the highest per pupil spending but the money doesn't get there.
Per pupil spending also doesn't account for family socioeconomic status, which is the greatest predictor of educational achievement, but SES does define neighborhoods and school districts.
IamSauerKraut t1_j7nbu1r wrote
>In most cases, higher funding results in higher achievement.
Lower Merion, for instance?
B0MBOY t1_j7pdmwv wrote
Not to be that guy but I know for a fact my local school district keeps more old school buildings open than necessary and that they blow an inordinate amount of their budget on repairs for those buildings. They have too few students in each school but parents are emotionally attached to the high schools they graduated from and won’t let them close for consolidation efforts. It’s also a very low ranking school district. I don’t believe showering money on the school system will improve the education of students here.
[deleted] t1_j7plqfu wrote
Yeah, that's interesting. I didn't know about districts specifically like that. I wonder if a county model would remedy the fact that moving away from the hyper localized format we have would allow for outside influences to make a better financial decision.
B0MBOY t1_j7px6vg wrote
I guess my question is if the current model is “unconstitutional” what is a “constitutional” model? And does this actually improve children’s education or is this simply more political maneuvering?
[deleted] t1_j7qdc17 wrote
I dont see whats wrong with attempting to give students equal educational opportunities regardless of where they live in the state. Is one example of a districts misnamgement enough evidence to say that there shouldn't be more equitable funding in public education?
Edit: I haven't read enough on this particular law suit and the proposed changes I do know that PA was (maybe still is) the state with the greatest disparity in quality of public education. Something needs to change.
MtCarmelUnited t1_j7n4uxg wrote
You're oversimplifying, by looking at funding in per-pupil amounts. That ignores the fact that districts with many high-poverty families have higher numbers (and proportions) of students that require learning-support services. Students from well-off families need less intensive resources to be academically successful. In other words, it's cheaper to educate rich kids.
hypotenoos t1_j7n5n1k wrote
And it always will be because you aren’t asking the school to manage a whole host of issues that are based outside its walls.
It doesn’t change the fact that more and more money into a school system doesn’t always remedy the problems that system suffers from. Because the school can only do so much.
delusions- t1_j7nv5pm wrote
That's being said there's no reason to not fix this problem to help SOME districts. An imperfect STEP to a solution is better than doing nothing because the step doesn't fix the whole problem
hypotenoos t1_j7nvjie wrote
My point is doing more of the same just with more money probably isn’t going to get better results.
There are broken districts. There is a state intervention program to deal with that, but it doesn’t do a very good job. Like Act 47 for municipalities, many that go in never come back out.
Wuz314159 t1_j7n3nb0 wrote
Check your local schools. Are they spening money on teachers or on LED signs out front?
orangesfwr t1_j7n6qni wrote
Mine is writing blank checks to PR firms and Republican operatives to defend them against discrimination lawsuits
Mor_Tearach t1_j7n8e3y wrote
Even in the case of IEP's and ability to provide what those students need there's almost no oversight on how much some of these districts may/can spend arriving at a plan which will best serve that child.
An insane, surreal amount is frequently spent actually litigating with parents. That's billable hours, TAX dollars spent by some districts, parents shell out ridiculous amounts to access their legally mandated education. Not all districts choose to do this.
Our district here in upper Dauphin county PA is notorious for it. Laid off 2 teachers citing "budget" during just ONE case where more than their salaries was spent on lawyers. State allows it. Next district over? Nope. Evaluates, provides what is required.
IndependentCode8743 t1_j7qyi31 wrote
I think 20-25% of Philly's budget goes towards pension cost. That kind of makes it hard to set money aside for capital improvements.
SucksToYourAssmar3 t1_j7n2tbn wrote
Can you link some?
hypotenoos t1_j7n78fp wrote
Take a few of your nearby districts and look up their enrollment, budget and performance figures.
Many of the big spenders on a per student basis are in medium to large suburban schools with good performance but some are also in large or small urban schools with not so great performance.
How that money is spent is the big difference between them.
SucksToYourAssmar3 t1_j7n8022 wrote
So no? It was just another conservative fantasy?
hypotenoos t1_j7n8lym wrote
Christ, you can literally look up every single district in the state and do the math.
Have at it-
SucksToYourAssmar3 t1_j7na9eo wrote
Do your work to confirm your guess? Nah.
More resources, better schools.
hypotenoos t1_j7nb7fp wrote
Pittsburgh Public spends almost double the amount per student as does the large, 2nd or 3rd ring suburban districts around it.
Those districts are filled with wealthy people that is true. They have a huge tax base to draw from, but they pale in comparison the to non-residential tax base available to the City.
So if double isn’t enough to over come the disparity, is triple? Quadruple?
What’s the magic number?
SucksToYourAssmar3 t1_j7nd0hp wrote
It’s an apples/oranges comparison - that money is making up for shortfalls that rich suburban districts do not have. Poor students need more resources just to get to parity.
You were probably hoodwinked by stuff like this:
“Last month, the Allegheny Institute analyzed the 43 Allegheny county school districts in a policy brief, arguing that “the very worst-performing school districts are not being shortchanged for resources … all but one of the seven very best performing and top-ranked districts spent less than the state average and far less than the average for the weakest performing … [nine] districts.” John Haulk, Institute President and the brief’s author, concludes by impugning the truthfulness of those who advocate for more school funding. “It is time for some honesty from those who continually claim in most vociferous terms that school funding is unfair and that more money is needed,” he wrote.
This kind of analysis and rhetoric might be a good way to get attention, but when one looks closely, it becomes clear that the Allegheny Institute is presenting the issue of school funding in a very misleading way. The Institute came to the conclusion that high-performing districts in Allegheny County spend less than their peers by ignoring the differing needs of districts. The findings of the state’s bi-partisan Basic Education Commission provide some valuable context. After the commission reviewed both extensive testimony from Pennsylvania educators and national research, they confirmed a common sense reality: not all students cost the same to educate. English Language Learners need more help and support than the average student. Students who grow up in poverty come to school less prepared than students who do not, and face additional challenges as well. Unsurprisingly, not all districts have the same percentage of higher costing students.
…
hen the amount of money spent by districts in 2016-17 for current spending (the very same figure used by the Institute) is divided by the state’s calculation of the number of weighted students each district had that year, the outcomes are very different.
The average district in the state spends $12,812 per weighted student, and every one of the seven high performing districts identified by the Institute is spending well above that figure. Their average spending per weighted student was $15,602, or almost three thousand dollars above the average. As for the nine lowest performing districts identified by the Institute, only two were spending below the state average, but their average of $13,523 was more than $2,000 per weighted student less than the average for high performing districts. Indeed, all low performing districts cited by the Institute were spending below the average amount per weighted student for the high performing districts, except for Pittsburgh and Wilkinsburg. South Fayette was the only high performer spending less than the average for the low performers.
Another issue with the Institute’s methodology is its decision to compare Allegheny school district spending with the state average. This is not entirely appropriate because Allegheny districts face higher costs than many more rural counties. But comparisons between Allegheny County’s districts using the county average spending as a baseline reveal the same funding disparities. The county’s average current spending per weighted student is $14,512. Using that as a base, only two of the seven hjgh performing districts highlighted by the Institute spent less than average, and only three of the nine low performing districts spent more. All in all, there appears to be a real correlation between having low resources and poor academic performance.
South Fayette SD, a high performing district with low per weighted student spending, is the only real outlier highlighted by the Institute’s analysis. It would indeed be worth looking at how this district accomplishes so much, but one outlier does not refute the fact that the 42 other districts in Allegheny County have markedly different experiences. It should be noted that South Fayette is among five districts in the state with the lowest weights added on to the base attendance—less than four percent. This means that South Fayette has relatively few students that require additional support. It may be that South Fayette looks more cost effective because it is relatively cheaper to educate the average student there and the weights for the more expensive students are not big enough to really reflect their additional cost.”
hypotenoos t1_j7ndzh9 wrote
Yes I understand how needs of students from different backgrounds are different.
It still comes down to a question of just how different? In my example PPS is spending almost twice as much per student as the next 3 biggest districts in the area. If you combine those 3 they have almost the same enrollment as PPS but only 58% the revenue.
Should PPS be spending 3x? Is that enough?
No one can ever seem to answer what the figure is.
Over the past decade or so PPS has increased taxes, revenue and spending all while it’s enrollment has been in steady decline. They added something like 100 administrator positions in that time as well.
The funding mechanisms are broken, but so are many of these districts. It’s good money after bad until they fix how these districts operate.
SucksToYourAssmar3 t1_j7nlow1 wrote
Your example is an Allegheny Institute fantasy, though - Pittsburgh isn’t spending double per student. They are spending lots on a large number of disadvantaged students.
I’m not going to get mad about imaginary numbers. You can’t fairly compare a large school district with lots of special needs/disadvantaged kids vs a rich, white suburban school by just dividing by the number of students. Some students cost vastly more to educate - those are much, much rarer in the suburbs.
Trying to boil it down to a percentage is just one problem with your approach. You’re looking at Pittsburgh’s needs vs rich suburbs and not considering ANY of the structural differences between who those districts serve and what they do.
All in the name of cutting money for education - something we definitely don’t need.
The magic number is whatever it takes to give EVERY student a quality education.
hypotenoos t1_j7nt4bt wrote
I never said education funding should be cut.
You mind telling me what the percent of IEP students is in PPS versus say- the overall for Pennsylvania?
Since the need is so substantial certainly that IEP figure should be off the charts right?
Bicycle-Seat t1_j7q9gpo wrote
So the data show that in PGH area the poor performing districts already spend more than higher performing districts. So, exactly how are they underfunded?
Or0b0ur0s t1_j7nj0o7 wrote
It's a lot like employee pay, actually.
You can guarantee poor performance by paying too little. But beyond a certain point, more pay does not create better performance.
When finding that inflection point is a matter of politics & ideology, you might as well give up and go drinking. And no, I do realize that it's NOT actually a matter of politics and ideology, that data can show where that point is. But nobody in charge is ever going to listen to that data, so...
cuppa_tea_4_me t1_j7n7nhq wrote
some of the poorest schools in a district have the best resources
TacoNomad t1_j7n3ypm wrote
Nobody said anything about throwing money at it
hypotenoos t1_j7n54gi wrote
It’s literally a lawsuit about school funding.
TacoNomad t1_j7nnvzw wrote
But nobody in the comments suggested throwing money at anything.
hypotenoos t1_j7ntzys wrote
What exactly do you think the plaintiffs are looking for here? Less money?
TacoNomad t1_j7nu9ue wrote
Don't know, it's behind a pay wall. What does it say?
hypotenoos t1_j7nv9bi wrote
The lawsuit is about reworking the pa school funding mechanism. Hopefully to direct more money to schools that do not have the benefit of a wealthy tax base- that’s the “more money” part.
TacoNomad t1_j7nvlcd wrote
What does the article say they want?
SSFx93 t1_j7n71d0 wrote
Yes
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments