Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: QED
We're kinda getting off-topic here, but the funny part of what you are saying is that typically, inner-city school districts spend as much, if not more, per-pupil than their suburban counterparts. Yet we know those same suburban schools typically outperform the inner-city ones which outspend them. Hence, it appears the problem is not one of funding... but of how resources are managed-- which is all done at the local level.
We can't get off topic since the topic became "I knew they were black."
As to your post something doesn't pass the smell test. You say that inner city schools outspend suburban schools on a per pupil basis?
Yep, typically. Take the Cleveland area for an example. The Cleveland school district is notoriously awful, consistently performing near the bottom in the entire nation in a range a metrics-- from graduation rates to SAT scores.
For the 2005-2006 school year, the Cleveland City School district spent $11,073 per pupil-- more than any of its suburban neighbors, all of whom outpeformed it. Solon, a nearby suburb, spend nearly $1,000 less per-pupil and yet was ranked as one of the top school districts in the nation. Avon, another nearby suburb, spent just $7,104 per student (a nearly $4,000 per student difference), yet outperformed Cleveland.
I don't know what they are factoring in, but mismanagement alone cannot explain why classes of students are using books a decade out of date while suburban kids get new books every few years. Teacher salaries are lower in inner city schools. So where's the money going?
That is a very good question-- because something obviously is not adding up. The teachers make less, they use older books, and yet they spend more. I have heard some urban school districts make the claim that their overhead costs are higher since their school buildings tend to be older and require more maintenance, their student's require more busing than other school districts, etc.