marketingguy420 t1_iwqdzi2 wrote
Reply to comment by AnacharsisIV in Public Schools Are NYC’s Main Youth Mental Health System. Where Kids Land Often Depends on What Their Parents Can Pay. by LittleWind_
I didn't say they were good services! Because they're not. Nothing not dedicated to the things it's supposed to do is going to be good. Tacking on these services ad hoc as societal structures collapse is exactly the problem.
AnacharsisIV t1_iwqldok wrote
My point is that Bronx Science, by and large, didn't have better or even more services than the average NYC high school. In many cases, we had fewer.
drpvn t1_iwqvwnj wrote
People without kids in NYC schools have no clue about how “resources” are spread among schools.
AnacharsisIV t1_iwqw3oy wrote
It's really not that hard. I find myself in arguments on this topic pretty often and the information is easily available from the city or DoE.
drpvn t1_iwqw8t9 wrote
People just import whatever understanding they have about school financing from the suburb they grew up in.
Art_Basel_Ganglia t1_iwsjaef wrote
In their defense, public K-12 schools in 90% of the country are funded by property taxes from the district. Reading the headline where it says that wealthier people’s kids get better treatment/service - the average American would think “no shit.”
drpvn t1_iwsknk7 wrote
Yeah, that’s why people have that misunderstanding. But a surprising number of New Yorkers also have it.
drpvn t1_iwr52cl wrote
>If you put lots of richer kids with more resources in one building, they will perform better. It is an argument for a better distribution of richer children and resources.
>Because it pulled from a huge population and aggregated the highest performing kids and gave them the best resources.
Generally speaking, public schools in NYC with more affluent students do not have more or better resources.
princessnegrita t1_iws2n6u wrote
Public schools full of wealthy kids end up better funded not because the state gives them more money, but because of fundraising.
If you crowd all the kids with the parents who have time, money and resources into a few schools then it makes sense that those schools end up with more funding for programs and extracurriculars.
It’s the same as grouping all the kids with parents who have little to no time, money or resources. There’s no chance for them to be able to provide anything close to what “good” public schools get.
The issue is that all over the country spending on education doesn’t and can’t cover the things necessary to cultivate “good” schools. Education funding is great and can give kids resources but it can’t give them parents who can regularly afford to take time off of work to support/advocate for them or parents who can afford to take them to weekly therapy to address their issues.
drpvn t1_iws6ho1 wrote
> Public schools full of wealthy kids end up better funded not because the state gives them more money, but because of fundraising.
You’re correct that the state doesn’t give those schools more money than schools with less affluent parents, but you’re wrong to think that fundraising makes up the difference. It doesn’t.
princessnegrita t1_iws8hle wrote
Except that it is a widely known fact that parent fundraising does make a difference.
In under a minute, I read your response, googled “discrepancies in education parent fundraising” and saw the 5th article that popped up literally discusses Coney Island schools.
drpvn t1_iws8y5g wrote
It doesn’t. Look at the amount that PTAs raise at the wealthiest public schools. Add that to their total state, federal, and city funding. Compare that total to any Title I school in NYC. It will be lower on a per pupil basis.
And that article does not say what you think it says. It just says that some school PTAs raise more money than others. Specifically, it says that Mark Twain’s PTA raises approximately $250 per student. If you think that is enough to erase the gap in total funding with much less affluent schools, you are very wrong.
princessnegrita t1_iwsgjan wrote
That article actually does say what I think it says though.
Did you click the link provided when they were talking about Title I funding to read the Chalkbeat article about it? Because the organization that collects education funding data specifically stated that they found that schools with the smallest share of low income students are able to raise and spend more. The information for parent fundraising and government funding are in separate places and because of that most education funding analyses (likely including wherever you got your data from) don’t include the parent fundraising money.
For a little bonus, I looked up the funding for the elementary and middle schools I went to (I’m poor, black and an immigrant and the demographics of those schools remain the same). I compared them to the funding info on the elementary and middle school that I picked kids up from when I was a babysitter.
They all get identical amounts of money per pupil from the government which is cool and expected. The PTAs for my schools raised no money in 2019. The other elementary raised over $400k, an extra $756 per kid and the middle school raised $97k, an extra $90 per kid.
What’s funny about the difference between those two schools is that despite being literal blocks away from each other, the middle school gets a lot more kids from outside the neighborhood. So while the elementary school had 9% economic need index, the middle school had a 35% economic need index. My elementary and middle school rates were 84% and 74%. I’d bet money that pattern holds up with an analysis of all the school because the people who collect this data already said it did.
And that funding info doesn’t include in kind donations like a wealthy parent donating a bunch of laptops to a school or a well connected parent setting up an internship program in their field or even a parent donating time to teach an extracurricular.
(And none of this at all even addresses the bigger issue which is ensuring every parent has the ability to be involved and present for their kid’s education.)
drpvn t1_iwsh72g wrote
Just give me a concrete example of a school with wealthy parents that raises so much money that it outstrips the funding gap between it and a much less wealthy title I school. I don’t think you’ll find one. There are only a handful of schools with PTAs that could possibly raise enough money to make the exercise of comparing worthwhile to even attempt. Generally speaking the wealthiest schools get the least amount of money, even when private fundraising is included. Happy to be proved wrong.
(Also, note that the spreadsheets of data from 2019 that came out of Treyger’s law are known to be inaccurate. I’m not aware of any good data on PTA fundraising, but maybe the data got better after 2019.)
princessnegrita t1_iwve2tc wrote
Alright this is an exercise in foolishness because there are so many variables that effect costs but you issued a challenge and I’m a nerd so here we go:
William Sherman (PS 87) took in $20.3k per kid and raised an additional $2.3k per kid. The Title 1 school, Irving Gladstone (PS 186) took in $21.3k per kid and got an additional $681 per kid for Title 1. So that leaves our total at $22,600 vs $21,981 for the Title 1.
That’s a small monetary difference per kid but it’s a difference nonetheless. All without any necessary context.
The necessary context is that education and behavioral needs vary which means costs vary:
- 37% of the kids at Gladstone are learning English vs 3% of the kids at Sherman
- 71% of the kids at Gladstone come from a low income background vs 8% at Sherman
- Gladstone has a below average number of teachers with 3+ years of experience and Sherman has an above average number of teachers with experience (a 10% difference)
- They have a similar amount of special needs students but Gladstone spends a below average amount on their education ($25k per kid) while Irving spends a slightly above average amount ($34k). This could be Irving being bad with money OR it could be that Irving’s special needs kids just have more needs than Sherman’s.
So now that tiny monetary difference on paper is less tiny because of course the school with a ton more ESOL and low income kids need to spend more. They literally have more kids with more needs.
But yeah all of that culminates in what I was already saying was the issue: if you put all the wealthy and well supported kids in one school and all the low income latchkey kids in another, they aren’t going to be able to provide the same education. If you mixed up all the kids from both schools, divided them equally and sent each half to each one of the schools, they’re more likely to be able to cover each kid’s needs. You’d also have a good balance of parents who can’t get involved in school activities and parents who can.
drpvn t1_iwve6v9 wrote
Appreciate the engagement. I will try to dig into this later. But what is your source for the amount raised by the PTAs? Can you link it?
princessnegrita t1_iwvpvqx wrote
The only source there is: the 2019 Treyger collection. I wish they committed to collecting this info but it looks like the effort died after that first try.
BUT I picked Sherman because their number seems high but not clearly wrong like the ones that were $10k+ raised per kid. The fact that they have at least 3 professional fundraisers in their Parents Association as well as multiple named yearly fundraising events, lends credence to the accuracy (in my opinion).
drpvn t1_iwvq0yl wrote
Thx
ITEACHSPECIALED t1_iwswf39 wrote
I have taught in an affluent neighborhood in NYC and the poorest neighborhood in Queens.
Fundraising absolutely makes a massive difference.
The school I am currently at cannot even get parents to cover $10 admission fees to an honor society while the other school I was at had parents sponsoring trips to Europe for entire classes.
drpvn t1_iwsx9p1 wrote
It does make a difference. The question here was whether it covers the gap between the funding for schools with affluent parents and non-affluent parents in NYC public schools.
ITEACHSPECIALED t1_iwt0pji wrote
A whole lot of corruption and bullshit jobs.
8bitaficionado t1_iwv45hr wrote
I went through the system and my girlfriend's son just graduated. It's not parents who have time nor money. They are just not concerned. She would come back from meetings where there were four parents.
For enough parents the school is there to deliver social services and they want the school to do everything and not have to participate. It's less of resources and more of a priority.
princessnegrita t1_iwvct7j wrote
It’s fun to think everything has a simple answer but it’s the laziest choice.
Of course there are some parents who just don’t care about their kid, but there are a lot more who love their kid and just can’t show up. Not showing up isn’t a sign of not caring like you’re implying it is when there are so many people, even those without kids, who lack free time after a full workweek.
If a parent feels like they can’t help their kid because they work 40+ hours a week to struggle for resources that aren’t sufficient and their kid is struggling and they have no other support system outside the school, obviously they’re going to lean on the school.
8bitaficionado t1_iwvxv67 wrote
You still still love your child and expect the system to do things for you and not take any responsibility. I know well to do parents that don't want to work with their children because they say how this is the responsibility of the school. I know well to do parents that don't understand why the school doesn't supply everything and with all the taxes they pay they shouldn't have to. So it is not a poor person mentality.
princessnegrita t1_iww0iyz wrote
Yeah. They’re included in the “some parents who just don’t care about their kid”.
But so what? Should we make policies and sweeping generalizations that affect all of the kids based on outrage at the small portion of parents who just don’t care about their kids? You know the kids of uncaring parents also attend school right? Do you know how many kids with shitty parents lean on their friends parents?
They would benefit from a more equitable distribution of resources (including less tangible ones). Let those kids have a better chance of meeting parents with more resources who can consistently show up and give support.
8bitaficionado t1_iww1s4l wrote
You can spend more money, but you still will get the same results.
I was against cutting the school funds, I still am. But I also know that with increased funding the result will be the same.
princessnegrita t1_iww281j wrote
I disagree but we’re clearly talking about two different things so ok.
8bitaficionado t1_iww6agk wrote
I read your discussion as as two things:
Schools don't get the same fundraising because parents can't due to obligations. I disagreed and explained lack of responsibility vs. lack of ability.
Then that school budgets and policies should have a more tangible distribution of funds and students to address this. This I got from your second paragraph not the first one I responded to. I responded that I am fine with it, but I think will not fix anything.
I will respectfully agree to disagree.
princessnegrita t1_iww9mhi wrote
Where we stopped talking about the same thing was when I responded to your opinion on lack of ability vs lack of care.
I asked why should we make sweeping generalizations/policies about all kids because a small amount of parents are irresponsible?
I also said from my very first comment that funding equality won’t fix everything and what PTAs and parent groups offer isn’t just money, it’s support/showing up for the kids. It’s pretty much what all of my comments say.
So I’m talking about equity in all resources (specifically support) but you’re talking about money and irresponsible parents. Two different pages.
[deleted] t1_iwuc1m5 wrote
[removed]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments