hypotenoos t1_j7n78fp wrote
Reply to comment by SucksToYourAssmar3 in Landmark Pa. school funding case decided: The state’s system is unconstitutional by Hashslingingslashar
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?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments