The relationship between school funding and school quality is extremely weak, since many public schools overspend on administration and employee benefits. #school #education
Well the biggest issue is requiring a BA in education or a masters in a subject + a state cert. Education was really good when there was no cert or degree attatched, however we have forced the degree and cert costing educators substantially. This weeds out some who would have done it out of passion as the pay is almost unchanged nearly 2 decades later, but now it's shackled with uni debt which creates a lot of stress and lowers QOL of the educators directly negatively impacting their perfornance and by extension the students.
In reality, there's likely a huge gap in parental involvement from suburban Carmel to inner city Indianapolis. When a household has a culture of valuing education and parents are involved, it makes a difference. When parents are involved, administrators are pressured to deliver results. My son is in special ed, so he's been placed in a variety of settings (not all schools in a district have all the same programming, so SpEd kids often get shuffled around). His lower income schools had incredibly low expectations and, unsurprisingly, incredibly low results. Higher income suburbs - like Carmel - have parents keeping administration on their toes and don't settle as easily for poor education. Race, income, upbringing ... whatever the underlying reason for the discrepancy ... it changes when the "customer" insists on a better product.
@@Essy311it's not just parents demanding a lot of the schools, it's also how much parents can support their children's schooling. To a parent living paycheck to paycheck, making sure their children keep up on homework can be just one too many things to juggle.
@@gowzahr This is why the argument that "systemic racism" doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Black/Hispanic children from affluent families excel academically compared to poor white children. Where often with poverty is associated with single parent/income household, this is one of the largest drivers of paycheck-to-paycheck living in America. Blacks children suffer the highest percentage of single parent households of any group. This is a social problem not a racial problem, it is mostly black men abandoning their children. Hispanic and White children suffer the same problems but at much lower rates, because it is far less acceptable for them to have "baby-mamma's". The outlier here has always been the Asian communities who even when poor such as a first generation migrant. Since they have the lowest percentage of single parenthood due to social pressure they rarely have to raise children alone. They also put a huge focus on education and academic excellence leading them to have the lowest poverty rate.
In this case, cubic dollars cannot make up for lack of parental involvement. It's really not the teachers, it's the parents who are failing their children. Politicians keep throwing money at the problem, but they never work on producing better parents.
@tanonymous2557 Baltimore is a overwhelmingly black city and county. Really as their are parts of the Austin Tx metro that get half as much funding but have average graduation rates 5x as high as Baltimore and guess what their majority asian and Indian. Its not race its culture and funding distribution.
I remember my school begging for funding to fix the heating, sinking gym floor and leaks in every room but they were denied and the state fined them for the building not being up to code.
@@danielyuan9862yup the same state that should have been funding the school to fix the code violation. Is also the same state that fine them for not fixing the code violation.
@@danielyuan9862the school: ”The heating gym floor has sunk and is leaking into every room.” The state: “Dafuq u just say”? The school: “We are in a state of constant debauchery” The state: “You’re in a what”? The school: “I’m going to need a drink after this.” The state: “Umm, we’re going to fine you, GG! HA, I WON! LOOK, DAD, I WON”!
Are they majority blacks? I mean Research has shown that once more than 10 percent of your neighbors are Black, the value of your home declines. As the percentage of Black neighbors increases, the property’s value plummets even further, if that's what they do to housing I reckon they do it to schools as well.
@@4-Methylaminorexmaybe generation of racism has an effect on what happens in society just maybe. These schools are underfunded. I don’t know where this lady is getting her info.
@@daniels.3062Sure it is. Any community with kids that seem to take pride in disrupting school. Interrupting, vandalism, assault. All on behalf of the “kids” in Baltimore schools.
Nobody else seems to break down the itemized list of the budget per student, which makes the comparisons flawed. “Transportation” is a huge item in some budgets, but not others. Obviously, such items don’t greatly affect education quality.
Yeah. Rural places might spend more on transportation per student while in cities they have options, like subways, that are already funded by the government.
There is a big difference in the way RURAL America views public money and its spending. Due to the small size of many rural school distracts they may only have 2 or 3 (elementary/middle and high) schools under their control. It is fairly common for these school boards in these rural communities to be part time un-paid positions. While Rural areas do spent more on transportation it isn't as much as you think. A School Bus is a investment that get amortized over a decade or more. Maintenance is often cheaper as schools will have contracts with local heavy machinery mechanic who will cut the schools a break. Rural areas often have a significantly lower cost of living, allowing them to pay teachers less but allowing them to do things like actually own homes and still have money to live.
This video condenses the concept of school funding into a single point with no nuance, and makes comparisons without taking any context into account. For instance, they didn't consider the COST of running a school in different areas. It's understandable that you might be able to build and run a school cheaper in some parts of the country than in others, or even in different parts of the same state. Furthermore, they said "much worse results" but don't explain what they mean by that. Fewer graduations? Lower test scores? They don't tell us what they mean by that. And they totally fail to account for other factors that could impact student success at these supposedly "worse results" schools. Obviously no single factor is going to completely explain why some students succeed and some don't. But all the video does is cherry pick some numbers and make some unsubstantiated claims. There's not nearly enough data, no nuance, and no context.
- Don't discuss what test scores they are using when comparing the two states. - Don't discuss why using test scores is a good metric for measuring school success. - Don't cite source for per pupil funding numbers, and further use per pupil funding numbers from 2020, when federal spending on schooling was at an all time high due to COVID - States that public schools overspend on administration and public benefits, but doesn't provide a source. - Provides citation of their own article at the end of the video, with the subtitle that ONE researcher had this finding. This is what I have been able to find. Quite frankly this should be removed because its not backed up by any credible, traceable sources.
The amount schools receive does not matter---it is what they do with it that makes the difference. If not for the Department of Education and the teachers' unions, the schools would have to do more with less, and if they couldn't, they should fail and close.
@@thiccbowlofcoffee "Don't discuss why using test scores is a good metric for measuring school success." ok, that's enough, you've just lost everyone within the second sentence. Your arguments are entirely invalid and your opinion is stupid.
What you're saying depends upon the myth that parents are the real enemy and don't care. This is not true. There are plenty of examples where a child was failing, getting suspended, etc, but once the PARENTS moved them to a different school, the kid was doing just fine. This sort of makes me believe that the reality is that the PARENTS were the only ones that cared.
@@TheRisky9 I never said parents are the enemy. Quite the contrary. It's the culture they're raised in. Typcially these kids don't even have two parents. That's exactly the problem. It's been demonstrated empirically that spending more education money on kids doesn't change the outcomes meaningfully. Exactly what I said. No amount of money can make a kid care more about school.
@@farharbor3178 EVERYONE says that. It's a talking point of every teacher group out there. Funny how I was able to take kids from messed up homes and pretty easily get them basically competent most of the time, I must have been a miracle worker. . . . either that, or teachers and admin are just making excuses.. . .
Yeah, I'm a teacher in rural AZ. I see so many videos explaining how property taxes pay for schools so only the rich areas get quality education. Meanwhile most of our funding comes from federal sources. Even the state pays more than local to make a similar per $ per student to the rich areas. This is all public info and yet reading it might be dangerous lol. I get that they can fundraise much more but those are always for luxuries like travel for extra curriculars and new equipment. Not the foundational education. Culture has a far bigger influence than money.
My ex worked for a school district on the east side of Phoenix. She was always bitching about spending, and saying how much better they would do if they actually had a budget (their lowest rated school was an A- at the time). I had an idea. I looked up my hometown's school district, in Illinois. They spent 3x as much per student as the district she worked for. The school in my hometown district with the lowest dropout rate had a rate 6x higher than the highest rate in her district. The highest rated school in my hometown district was rated D-. Please tell me more about how it's spending that makes the difference.
My econometrics research project studied this in NJ. Family wealth, family cohesion, and bullying are pretty much the only factors that influence test scores.
Doesn't Wyoming have a significantly bigger problem with rural schools, though? That's a geographical factor that increases costs irrespective of administrative waste
Why does it increase costs? Genuinely asking, I'm in a rural area and the cost of living (before the new housing bubble warped the market) is much lower than other areas. There are also a lot of people who want to live in rural areas and there are fewer jobs there, so the teaching and admin jobs are kind of the income jewels There's heating bills and transport, of course.
@@Ryan-zv6xw I would prefer that someone with more expertise than me jump in, but I'll explain what I know. Rural schools are often more expensive because of the average number of students. Sure, land may be cheaper, and salaries might even be lower. But every school stills needs a building, various subject-specific teachers, a principal, buses, counselors, and whatever else may be required by law. Now if that rural school only has 200 kids instead of 1000, the cost per student just went up by five. Sure, there will be ways to get by with less staff and smaller buildings, but that's unlikely to equal the expense of building a school in a less-populated area. Simply put, it's like a business. More customers per location lowers the cost of service per customer.
@@NomadJournalistNews So economy of scale? I can see that being part of the picture, but the large expenses like school construction are usually bond issues, and in my state the state government equalizes per student expenditure so it seems like it's not going to be a huge factor with day to day expenses, and maybe balanced out to a degree with other issues. I do see how a 500 person high school won't have a pool, but I'm not sure they are prevented from (for example) competing for the best teachers. But I see your point, and it makes sense.
My high school (Grad 2010) had all the stuff that Carmel school has. We were in a poor neighborhood with mediocre test scores. The state just gave us more money
@@pugness I would bet if you removed pensions then you could increase pay by 50% at least which would bring in more quality teachers and allow teachers to save for retirement.
@@mabbook And you'd bet wrong. Removing the pensions wouldn't increase teacher pay, the district would just receive less funding because they'd "suddenly" have more than they need. You have to remember, there are people (Conservatives) that don't think teachers should be paid, and don't think education is beneficial. After all, if a person is educated, they're far less likely to be Conservative.
Bullshit. The worst experiences I had were in classes with less than 10 students. If the teacher doesn't like you, you're fucked and there's nothing you can do about it.
There’s 2 schools in the same district both contains thousands of students but one is smaller and less funded The other is twice as big and has bigger rooms but both have similar if not the same amount of kids per room Despite the increased quality of life in the big one Both are as poorly educated and the smaller one has barley better scores Small thing of note the smaller one has a 5 percent white student population
The school I go to has class sizes of around 27, and it's one of the best schools in the country. Although, most students are generally well-behaved, so teachers don't need to monitor them as accurately.
Cash grant per student is not a good indication of the total money invested per child. Of my two local schools, one has a higher spend. That school is renting about half its buildings. The other has a fully paid off state of the art sports facility that is rented out evenings and weekends (and those funds don't show up on the per pupil spend). To actually see the total results vs spend we should account for a percentage of the value of the assets of the school (as if they were in high interest accounts) if you do this I'm prepared to bet these numbers will flip. Then we get into the same problems impacting paycheck to paycheck people. Say the school is over budget and skint. If they urgently need to replace something that's failed - they have to get the awful replacement that only lasts a year - but is way worse value for money long term. The biggest issue for most deprived schools is not cash flow, but asset capital. You gave the other school these facilities, then the yearly cost to run will plummet.
@@mazzaleen6091 I mean, there is a lot of literature on the application of Boots theory within the school sector, and how a higher improvement investment account in Scotland absolutely had higher impacts than the same money funneling into special circumstances funds in England. Yeah, it's simple on the surface to say "just have more stuff", but the point I'm making is that the amount of investment a school needs in terms of facilities is not accounted for in the current formulas, despite the fact that workarounds are incredibly expensive.
That school has 5400 students. It makes no sense to compare it to rural schools with 200 kids or inner city schools that have 1000 kids and buildings from the 1800s
@@Sam-ip6co Presumably they're pointing out that having something like a pool is more likely if you have 5000 students sharing it compared to only 1000. There are bare-minimum facilities a school needs, and if you build five schools they all need those facilities. But if you build one school with five times the budget, you can get away with extras because you don't need five times everything when it's all one shared building. In other words, it's probably a lot less about per-student funding, and more about being a larger school.
This is Reason. They are a 501(c)(3) with their primary donations coming from Koch (anti-regulation oil tycoon) and from the Sarah Scaife foundation (a wealthy Republican donor). They have close political ties to agents that have actively sought to undermine American schools (among other things).
@@able34bravo37yeah, and also having to work overtime every day, and work for the year over the summer, and but school supplies, and deal with bratty kids like you who can't appreciate how hard teaching is. Why are you putting working class people against each other, it isn't the teachers who choose your salary?
@@able34bravo37 Sounds like someone is upsetti spaghetti about how much a job that requires a Masters degree and constant overtime and public hatred pays.
I would caution using test scores to compare states' academic performances because there is no one national test that all students of a certain age or grade must take. Here in NY students in grades 3 - 8 are expected to take an annual Math and ELA state test. However, students (or their parents on their behalf) can refuse to take these tests. Further compounding this is that students have no extrinsic reason to perform well on these tests as their promotion to the next grade is not contingent on them passing them.
@@qazmko22 That's not becuase of the wealthy schools, that's because College Board has set things up so that if you take the test many times, hire a private tutor, and pay extra for their analysis services you will likely score much higher than if you don't. So the scholarships and grants based on scores go to the higher income students, you basically have a system where if you can pay for higher scores you will "make" money in the long run. The people that can't take advantage of that are the ones in families whose cash is tied up.
@@Meton2526So here's the thing about IQ, IQ is completely nonsense, it's like a bunch of different numbers compacted into one number, which comes with a whole host of problems, the main one being, it's not an actually accurate indication of anything at all.
Not to mention that standardized tests are very poor indicators of how a student performs in school. I know many people struggle on tests, but do well on assignments and clearly know the subject matter. On the other hand, I was really shitty in school because I hated the drudgery of it - but my standardized test scores were always very high. Paradoxically, my language scores were extremely high despite language/writing classes being the ones I hated the most. Those tests just aren't the same as real school, which isn't the same as the real world.
There's a lot of problems with this: First, cost per student is a problematic metric when comparing different population densities, because the ratio of fixed costs to marginal costs changes quite a bit as distance increases. Different accounting rules mean that different things appear in those statistics state by state. (There are few statistics collected by the federal Dept of Ed, but those aren't often used for these kinds of comparisons). There's also plenty of non-government funds in school systems, and often quite a lot of sweat equity, which is more available in areas with more single income stream families. The conclusion talks about administrative and benefits overhead, but I've never seen a public school administrator paid enough to be the only income source in their family, and benefits are just barely holding on. I've never seen a school teacher be financially independent, outside of teaching in retirement. I have seen two teachers make a living, but they were just scraping by. I can't say if this was just poorly researched, because confirmation bias is a strong thing, but I don't believe this paints a realistic picture. That is possible that I live in a microcosm, and conditions outside of where I have this ability are significantly different.
Chicago public schools is spending 50% more on schooling on 20% less students. 20% of students are proficient in math and only 16% are proficient in English language arts. Our system in Illinois is beyond broken. Also in 2021-2022 45% of students were chronically absent meaning they missed at least 10% of school days.
Many children in the Chicago public schools have English as a second language l. Learning a language that you weren't raised with makes education harder.
In my limited experience, the quality of my local high school wrnt DOWN woth increases in funding. They forgot to hire better teachers and instead we got a bunch of unused atyletic fields and other facilities. Finally they built a WHOLE NEW SCHOOL and its now one of the worst in the state.
In my grandmother's day people became teachers in part because they wanted to do that work, and they stayed teaching because of the satisfaction of bringing value to young people. When you start making teachers some of the higher paid people in a community you give people who might otherwise have left high school and worked their way up at Walmart an incentive to get a BA in education from one of the many schools that will give you that very, very easily so you can have the good hours and the higher pay. So you paradoxically can get worse teaching with more money.
@@Ryan-zv6xw@Ryan-zv6xw "in my grandmother's day" Cool story, it's not 1922 anymore though so how about we make a game plan within reality yeah? "When you start making teachers the highest paid" Increases in funding only goes towards sports and administration. I'm not even sure how you watched the video and still missed the point. Look up average teacher salaries, or even specific salaries for your area. I don't even know what your last few sentences are trying to say. People that would work at Walmart are becoming teachers because colleges are just giving away degrees? Your world view is not only skewed, it's so damn shallow I question whether you've ever even left your hometown.
@@ZoidSwift Don't know what you'd like to see as a reply here. I'm not always a clear communicator, but whenever someone essentially is labeling himself a victim of Dunning-Kruger there's not really much point in trying to explain again. I've got the stats in other comments here. Nationally, mean salary for teachers is about $60,000 with a mean household income nationally resting at $80,000. So a household with two teachers is making $40,000 more than the average. They also both get full benefits, 15 to 20 weeks of vacation, early retirement, and a pension until death. It is nearly impossible for a teacher or admin to lose his job -- I worked with some straight-out abusers that the school refused to even try to fire. It is a very appealing job for those with a college degree (which is actually extremely accessible these days as long as you don't care about the quality of the degree or the content of the instruction) but not the ability to make anywhere near that amount of money doing something else. So you are encouraging the mediocre and worse to become teachers just for the money. As for admin, just double or triple all that (the salaries are ridiculously higher, the quality of worker ridiculously lower -- these are people who can't even stand being in the classroom) and that's the new standard. I'm sorry you think that it's unreasonable to want people today to teach because they value the work and care about the students. You may be right, but if you are then there's not really any reform that will help, except the reform of shutting down all the public schools, which is actually my recommendation.
@@SaltyChickenDip Monetary compensation and stability are going to be part of why anyone takes and stays at any job, and that's always been the case. But in previous decades the compensation was lower, the stability was lower, the jobs available with the same level of skill were likely more numerous, but we didn't have teacher shortages because the nonmonetary compensation (feeling like you were doing a good thing, genuine desire to help children) was a big part of why many people did that work. Don't get me wrong, there were always people who went into teaching almost only for the schedule, or because (as women) their job options at that salary level were limited, or because they were control freaks who liked to have that captive audience. But if you narrow down the "reasons" to teach to "higher than typical salary for that skill level + less time at the job + full family medical + early retirement with pension until death" then you are creating an incentive. School jobs are, by the way, one of the few areas where people are still actually getting pensions.
I just dont understand how that's possible. My highschool was one of the worst in Washington and the teachers were underpaid, but we had $17,000 per student. Now I'm curious where that money is going
This is hilarious comparing two low population states to one another without actually providing a metric of the scores. I don’t know how the test scores are of Utah and Wyoming, but that isn’t my job. This whole video just hits to appeal to people who think that hard work is the only reason why grades are bad (it’s a factor, but nowhere close to the biggest factor).
For real - like they don't even say the test scores. NAEP scores? SAT? ACT? It would be HILARIOUS if it was state standardized tests, which have completely different standards from state to state. Also funny how it's "funding doesn't matter" when family income (not high school GPA, AP course enrollment, or even years in high school) correlates strongest with standardized test scores. Authors of this video are quite literally so detached from our education system that its borderline misinformation.
@@pugness I think it’s fair to assess a highly funded school to a low income school to prove a point, as long as the point is that the better funded a school is the better the educational outcomes are (this is one of the few conclusions you can actually come to without misrepresenting the data). But the person in the video compared two poorly funded south western states to each other without even providing a numerical comparison barring a “they are similar” is goofy. If you can’t provide consistent data, or you can’t even provide data at all, then your claim is grounded almost entirely in fiction. Not to mention that 5K and 10K are still grossly underfunded. That doesn’t even cover a teacher salary lmao
To be fair, everything costs more in the city. But the real factor in quality of education is middle-class children from suburban two parent homes are easier to teach.
The reason the schools in nearby Indy get more funding from the state is because they are lacking the funding provided by rich parents and nearby wealth which is how the afford the autoshop, pool, radio station, etc. meanwhile other schools can barely afford the necessities
The thing also not stated is that around the edge of Marion County (Indianapolis, Carmel is adjacently north) in all directions, there are very good public and private schools in the suburban area of Indy. Indiana is also a school of choice state that allows lower-income families to allocate their tax money for local private schools or for a different public school.
I think another thing that isn't taken into consideration is fundraising, local taxes, local events, etc. Obviously fundraising can't make a state of the art gymnasium, but it can help with other smaller costs, like the radio show, that opens government funds up for things like the gym
@@itsGrzli Kids from poor families make up a major portion of those who drop out. All the kids I know who dropped out did so because they couldn’t afford basic necessities or were from a single parent home. It turns out kids who are from wealthier households in nicer areas tend to have better chances in school
I realize that that is the case most of the time, but you also have to factor in richer neighborhoods donating more to kids, and setting up more elaborate fundraisers out of pocket. I went to a very well funded elementary school in Portland, and it was no secret that a lot of our excess money came from parent donations and events, as well as donations from a local college.
Graduated from school in nw indiana. They take their curriculum and ALL AREAS OF STUDY AND CLUBS/GROUPS/ EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES VERY VERY SERIOUSLY. i was so beyond prepared for my first year of college classes it was unreal. They also hired retired college professors as teachers etc. They took it seriously.
I didn't go to a crazy large high school like that one shown, but there were many programs to enter into. At least for my school there were active teachers and people in administration that would apply for grants a lot to get all kinds of stuff for the classroom. For example one letter writen by my digital arts teacher got the school a few labs filled with brand new iMacs directly from Apple. Something similar happend with the donation of a bunch of 3D printers. There are companies wanting to write off what they give and get recognition/free advertising.
I mean, the majority of the difference is likely due to each state and municipalities level of urbanization. More urban states have more expensive real estate and more competitive job markets requiring more money to maintain the same level of staff and floor space as a more rural/ suburban high school.
Funding dictates whether a school can achieve good outcomes if it makes good decisions. A well funded school can fuck up and be bad, a school without enough money cannot be good. Which is why it's fucked up to fund schools based on nearby property taxes. Especially when, due to redlining, black schools will receive significantly less funding
Depends on what you mean by "without enough money". The benefit of local funding is local control. The ideal of a neighborhood school with community and family involvement and accountability to the parents and the community members is a good one, and when you have that kind of organic interdependence and mutual support you don't need a ton of funding to get the basic job done. But we ditched that for federal programs (one after the other, "No Child Left Behind", "Common Core", doesn't matter who is in power they all want to tell the schools what to do from 3000 miles away) and state mandates, because the promise was all our kids would become software engineers and all our schools would have pools. Instead we have high schools with thousands of kids where the staff doesn't even know who attends so the shooter can easily get on campus. We have admin budgets go up by 30% while school population is dropping. We have some districts where 1 in 5 kids drop out and up to 1 in 4 of the ones that stay in school for 13 years can't functionally read. We have a system where 1 in 10 students who get all the way through to graduation say they have been sexually assaulted or harassed by a school employee -- an employee, not a peer. We have 1000 rapes a year in public schools -- in the schools, not after school hours. And if a parent complains, he's called a Karen and told to leave it to the experts. And if she takes her kid out of school to home school or private school she's accused of wrecking the system with her selfishness because the parents who care enough to do something tend to be the ones with students who have high test scores so now the school looks bad to the feds. So the move to fund away from the locality did not do us any good. But just reversing that won't fix everything because the damage has been done.
This is boiled down to such a simple level in this short that it becomes one of those "technically true" but portrays the data in a very disingenuous way.
@@Ryan-zv6xwThis is all off the cuff, not making an argument here. I'm just bringing up important factors that are completely ommitted. Obviously, it's a short. They don't provide any citations, just splash an article up on the screen that I assume they read and drew conclusions from, so there isn't really much to argue against. Going strictly based off of what they say, which really isn't much, they don't define anything. Such as, how are they measuring a school's success? Are they factoring in things like parent donations (both monetarily as well as time spent volunteering)? Where does the money come from? Ect... They mention test scores, but what test scores? Is the data accurate an measured per capital (no citations/ not doing so is a common tactic to misrepresent)? And this all assumes that everyone agrees that is a good measure of student success in life, to which there are studies proposing the opposite. More money does play a role, but there may be a point of diminishing returns. There is a larger impact when extra funds are applied to underfunded schools. Lower income areas have less resources, so their dollars may not stretch as far as a more affluent school (who tend to have more business connections from the locality and well off parents). The money is likely spent on drasticly different things, how is it spent? This is already really long so I'm going to stop there, but there is so many things to question that I just think this is a very simplistic argument that addresses literally nothing. This isn't even including any topics not directly addressed that raise potential questions as to the validity of this argument. It's just not very compelling at all imo.
@@Ryan-zv6xw It one: doesn’t say anything about the difference between Wyoming and Colorado’s scores, and those are two vastly low population states which skews data tremdously Two: the school in the video is a 5400 person school, so they clearly have a lot more money to work with than a 300 person school with double the funding.
@@dnsjtoh I can see an issue as there are two different kinds of comparisons being made in the video. The first part shows school facilities at an Indiana school, but compares to Indianapolis schools -- those are going to be the same size. The next compares test scores in Utah and Wyoming. Utah has some rural areas also, not sure how the school population size compares, but test scores shouldn't be affected by school size the way having a pool might be. But maybe it's fair to say that by combining both situations in one short it gives a confused impression. I'm still not sure it's giving an inaccurate one, or that the conclusion she draws isn't warranted.
Not even a technical truth. A better funded school can afford to pay teachers better wages. A better paid teacher will usually care about their job, and thus providing an education, more. A well funded school can afford extracurricular activities to get students engaged with the community and give them something to do after school. If you care about your community you are more likely to try to continue education to better the environment around you. If you have something to do after school, your less likely to do drugs or join dangerous groups to escape the feeling of loneliness- and I hope I don’t have to explain how those things result in worse educational outcomes. Well funded schools can afford to have a higher councilor to student ratio to help with mental health. A student who only has to deal with school work on average does better than a student who has to deal with schoolwork and the lingering pain of depression. It is a horrible and disgusting argument to even suggest otherwise. Because to suggest that, you are saying that lower income areas (disproportionately made up of black and Hispanic people) are just dumber, because excluding hyper specific examples (ie. Exceptions to the rule) lower funded schools DO have worse educational outcomes than higher funded schools
We're not going to talk about the fact that wyoming has schools with like 50 people total in a highschool, and that those schools arent the exception but the rule. Using wyoming isnt exactly fair.
I don't know if there is a perfect system but my suggestion is make the money follow the student. These bloated administrative heavy systems will disappear.
I'd like to see how much variation there is in the amount of money spent per student on things related to students being unruly. Things like extra security, needing teachers' aids in classrooms to handle the kids, after school security for the schol grounds and buildings, and the repairs and maintenance of the buildings related to students damaging equipment, vandalizing, theft of supplies, graffiti, etc. When I was on the high school stage crew in a rural NW Pennsylvania town, I remember talking with some performers from NYC who were putting on a community playhouse show. They asked how old our school building was because it looked brand new and we had a much nicer auditorium and better equipped stage than they were used to seeing. When we told them that the school was 12 years old, they couldn't believe that it was so pristine. I visited the school once about 18 years later and it was still in nearly-new condition. I've also driven past it while on vacation a year ago and it still looks new even though its over 50 years old.
What does she mean when she says that "many public schools overspend on employee benefits?" That can be taken several different ways. Teachers should get health insurance provided to them as a minimum.
The US spends 3× mkre per student than countries on the top 10 or 40 lists. And in 2022, there 40 school shooting deaths, 19 lightning strikes deaths and 60 dog deaths. Hardly a relevant factor when there are 50~ million kids in public schools Edit And the USA taxes guns.
My High School was public funded, it was regional, had to submit request to go, had to meet certain standards, had most all of what's here minus the pool. Had classrooms for every major Vocation at that time... Drafting, Electrical, Masonry, Carpentry, Body Shop, Auto Shop, Retail, Cosmetology, Culinary Arts, Electronics, Horticulture, Medical, Graphic Arts, etc... It absolutely is more about the students and Parents attitude.
Hold on though. Some of those employee benefits include teachers earning a livable wage which they clearly do not hear in Utah. I would argue that it's important to pay teachers fairly regardless.
As someone originally from the Indianapolis area (Greenfield in Hancock county), as soon as they said Carmel, I thought, “Yep, that’s pretty much what I expected.” I’m pretty sure Eagleton in the show Parks and Rec was a thinly veiled parody of Carmel-it’s wonderful (and affluent) suburb of Indianapolis. Never went inside any of its schools, though-I went to the private Lutheran High School on Indianapolis’s South side. Not nearly as many amenities as Carmel (or most Indianapolis-area public schools), but the (underpaid) teachers really put their hearts into their work.
Its rare for funding to be the issue. My high school cost 140 million to build, and could “barely afford” to upgrade the computers in 4 classrooms. The issue is siphoning funds, an issue that goes largely unchecked.
Correction: It's _over_ double, which sounds much more convincing for starters. Additionally, a comparison by ratio seems to make more sense here than by a direct amount, because I personally have no idea how what $10,000 per student is like, but if I know it's double of another student, I can possibly imagine what it's like.
@@LakevusParadice I mean you could just move somewh- oh wait no you can't because developed countries wouldn't be able to survive without a tax system. You've got 14 places you can go to and you need a shit ton of cash to do it. Please name a country that doesn't have any taxes and is not a shit hole.
@@ZoidSwift 250 years ago there wasn’t a country that didn’t have slavery. Just because everybody does it is does not make it RIGHT. Morally right And no. I shouldn’t have to move to have my rights protected. Their my rights and they should not be violated. If anything the violators are the ones who should leave or be removed. Atlas shrugs
@LakevusParadice wow you're actually stupid, and this is going to be pointless, but whatever. I wasn't saying every country was doing it, so we should, too. I was saying every country does it because they HAVE to. There is no other option in the world we live in. Wtf fantasy world do you live in? You should move. In this country, and every other country you could move to, you pay taxes. Find some good meds bro.
Had disparaging differences in the funding and supplies between my high school and the new one built for the new developments. This was way back in 2006ish.
My highschool principal embezzled hundreds of thousands of dollars. Had 2 corvettes and a prime location home in San Diego… we didn’t have AC half of the classrooms were temporary trailers and the track, tennis court and baseball field were taken back by the grass and “water” As soon as a new principal came MAGICALLY we could afford a whole two story building and AC 😂 good old corruption…
That's pretty common. The school district in my city (Portland) has way for $ per student then the burbs but does way worse. And they keep asking for more money
So public schools have to choose between giving administration and staff a good wage, or giving kids useable facilities? I agree schools should use their funding more effectively but this feels like an excuse that local governments will reach for when addressing funding issues
I would also put forth the proposition that a school district's success is in INVERSE proportion to the number of administrators and directors per student on the payroll.
Yup. Extra admin often also means larger class sizes because there's not as much money for teachers and assistants. Same for higher ed, about one admin hire for every undergrad at the higher-priced schools.
I think "double" sounds worse, making me wonder why she would say "almost $10,000 more" instead. Perhaps the script and the graphic were based on different numbers?
This shit right here is how conspiracy theories start. Someone makes some inconsequential statement or misspeaks, and you guys lose your minds looking for context. Who gives a flying fuck about the script of one youtube video Jesus christ lmao
I would imagine Wyoming schools have to pay teachers more to get them to be willing to live and work in very rural areas, resulting in them having to spend more per student as a result.
Put a kid in the country's worst school but give him highly involved and available parents he will get much higher results than a kid in the country's best school but with a single parent who is never around and doesn't care...
It starts with the parents and is reinforced by teachers. Utah is where I went to high school and we had the biggest classes ive ever known. They hounded me and my friends parents for weeks after they caught us playing hooky for only 1 period.
My high school had excess funding so they bought like 20 flatscreens to put in the cafeteria, meanwhile our distance learning room had six 70 pound tube TVs hanging from the ceiling and only three turned on. They shut down distance learning, which was a program funded by the colleges we partnered with, the same year they built a massive wing for community college and tech school classes that students had to pay hundreds of dollars for.
They also forgot to mention that alumni donate large portions of money to their own school they attended or their kids school. Richer neighborhoods have more wealthier people to donate. The schools also spend less money on programs like free meals.
My school is 1,600 students, but doesn’t even have working internet, and we still write on chalkboards. We are part of a huge Theater Trip Exchange, where you go to other schools to learn Theater stuff from them. My brother went on one to Amsterdam and the girl from Belgium complained about how bad it was. My brother thought it was good. PS: One of my teachers taught in Thailand, and they don’t use chalk boards. We live in a highly developed country, so that’s kinda embarrassing.
I would argue that it also depends on school boosters. My school was known as "the rich school" by people on the other side of town. I talked to many of them and they were shocked to learn we couldn't afford paper. We took tests on class copies using our own paper as answer sheets. At the same time, our football boosters raised money to put a fucking jumbotron in our brand new stadium (that the district didn't want to give us. For over 20 years we used our rival's stadium as our home field) The district gave us shit all in terms of funding. The choir celebrated a 15 dollar budget increase. All of our "nice" equipment came from parents buying it for the school.
My favorite example of this is baltimore who has the worst schools in the country, but spends an eye watering 22 thousand dollars per student. They’re schools are hideous, falling apart, crumbling, moldy with under paid staff and still spend more than almost any school on earth percentage wise
In many if not most instances, low-performing schools with high spend per pupil are spending A Lot of money on metal detectors, the teachers basically get hazard pay unless it's a Teach For America deal, and they usually pay like 20 extra security people to patrol the hallways and keep order. They are not teachers, but they're all paid 40k or whatever just to keep the order. I went to a high performing high school that was not over-funded. Anyone could easily enter the school through a half-dozen different doorways that were not secured, there was no metal detector system or patdown at all, we didn't need to have clear backpacks, teachers kept an eye on the hallways, and for a school of over 4,000, there was one unarmed security guard. I knew him from church and I got to know his kids over the years. You ever notice that school shooting always happen in mostly white schools? There's a reason for that, and it comes down to virtually no spend on security. The spend is Crazy high in mostly black schools, and that's the trade-off. They don't have school shootings that are actually in the school, Side note, any shooting that happens within a certain distance of school property is counted by some measures as a school shooting. Even if no students were involved and it just happened to fall within that area. This can inflate the school shooting numbers artificially, and it's possible that some "school shootings" happen Near to a majority black school without happening inside it. That being said, the security works but the trade-off is that mostly black schools need even More outsized net spend per student in order to have effective security and also nice things. This is the math that you're able to see if you really dig into the breakdown of what the money is being spent on.
It’s not about spending money on the student, it’s about hiring good teachers. If you are seriously suggesting we pay teachers too much, you’ve never been in a public school in this decade.
They spend next to nothing on staff and benefits, and just pocket the money. They may spend a little more to make sports teams feel good, but that's because they know ticket sales will get them more money than they spend.
There's also a difference between quality, and test scores. I've seen plenty of schools that are basically rooms, and chalkboards with better scores than a decked out school.
Lol my school has all of that except the pool…but we have a whole separate facility for swim, agricultural science, and a greenhouse for floral design…most of the students attending there are on food stamps and WIC cards
Its almost like throwing money at problems isnt the solution, but rather compotent workers and passionate people dedicated to doing the right thing.
Well the biggest issue is requiring a BA in education or a masters in a subject + a state cert.
Education was really good when there was no cert or degree attatched, however we have forced the degree and cert costing educators substantially. This weeds out some who would have done it out of passion as the pay is almost unchanged nearly 2 decades later, but now it's shackled with uni debt which creates a lot of stress and lowers QOL of the educators directly negatively impacting their perfornance and by extension the students.
In reality, there's likely a huge gap in parental involvement from suburban Carmel to inner city Indianapolis. When a household has a culture of valuing education and parents are involved, it makes a difference. When parents are involved, administrators are pressured to deliver results. My son is in special ed, so he's been placed in a variety of settings (not all schools in a district have all the same programming, so SpEd kids often get shuffled around). His lower income schools had incredibly low expectations and, unsurprisingly, incredibly low results. Higher income suburbs - like Carmel - have parents keeping administration on their toes and don't settle as easily for poor education. Race, income, upbringing ... whatever the underlying reason for the discrepancy ... it changes when the "customer" insists on a better product.
@@Essy311it's not just parents demanding a lot of the schools, it's also how much parents can support their children's schooling. To a parent living paycheck to paycheck, making sure their children keep up on homework can be just one too many things to juggle.
@@gowzahr This is why the argument that "systemic racism" doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Black/Hispanic children from affluent families excel academically compared to poor white children. Where often with poverty is associated with single parent/income household, this is one of the largest drivers of paycheck-to-paycheck living in America. Blacks children suffer the highest percentage of single parent households of any group. This is a social problem not a racial problem, it is mostly black men abandoning their children. Hispanic and White children suffer the same problems but at much lower rates, because it is far less acceptable for them to have "baby-mamma's".
The outlier here has always been the Asian communities who even when poor such as a first generation migrant. Since they have the lowest percentage of single parenthood due to social pressure they rarely have to raise children alone. They also put a huge focus on education and academic excellence leading them to have the lowest poverty rate.
In this case, cubic dollars cannot make up for lack of parental involvement.
It's really not the teachers, it's the parents who are failing their children.
Politicians keep throwing money at the problem, but they never work on producing better parents.
She's right. Baltimore Schools spend on average the most per student in funding but have some of the worst test score in the nation.
@morgan14366 I've seen similar ones to that. Its not the amount its how its used.
@@morgan14366 Agreed
Regardless of how much money is spent on any student. It's taxpayers money, spent on indoctrination and brainwashing. So?
It’s about race
@tanonymous2557 Baltimore is a overwhelmingly black city and county. Really as their are parts of the Austin Tx metro that get half as much funding but have average graduation rates 5x as high as Baltimore and guess what their majority asian and Indian. Its not race its culture and funding distribution.
I remember my school begging for funding to fix the heating, sinking gym floor and leaks in every room but they were denied and the state fined them for the building not being up to code.
I had a stroke reading that. Did I read what I just read?
@@danielyuan9862yup the same state that should have been funding the school to fix the code violation. Is also the same state that fine them for not fixing the code violation.
@@danielyuan9862the school: ”The heating gym floor has sunk and is leaking into every room.”
The state: “Dafuq u just say”?
The school: “We are in a state of constant debauchery”
The state: “You’re in a what”?
The school: “I’m going to need a drink after this.”
The state: “Umm, we’re going to fine you, GG! HA, I WON! LOOK, DAD, I WON”!
That is what happens when you give a bureaucratic agency total control over all schools.
Cut admin staff 10% and fix things.
Baltimore schools spend $17,493 per student, and that school system is in full blown meltdown.
It's because of all the future astronauts there 😉
It's not the kids' fault.
Are they majority blacks? I mean Research has shown that once more than 10 percent of your neighbors are Black, the value of your home declines. As the percentage of Black neighbors increases, the property’s value plummets even further, if that's what they do to housing I reckon they do it to schools as well.
@@4-Methylaminorexmaybe generation of racism has an effect on what happens in society just maybe. These schools are underfunded. I don’t know where this lady is getting her info.
@@daniels.3062Sure it is. Any community with kids that seem to take pride in disrupting school. Interrupting, vandalism, assault. All on behalf of the “kids” in Baltimore schools.
Nobody else seems to break down the itemized list of the budget per student, which makes the comparisons flawed. “Transportation” is a huge item in some budgets, but not others. Obviously, such items don’t greatly affect education quality.
Yeah. Rural places might spend more on transportation per student while in cities they have options, like subways, that are already funded by the government.
Thank you!!! They don't care compare what percentage of the budget is spent on what per child because their argument wouldn't hold up then.
There is a big difference in the way RURAL America views public money and its spending. Due to the small size of many rural school distracts they may only have 2 or 3 (elementary/middle and high) schools under their control. It is fairly common for these school boards in these rural communities to be part time un-paid positions. While Rural areas do spent more on transportation it isn't as much as you think. A School Bus is a investment that get amortized over a decade or more. Maintenance is often cheaper as schools will have contracts with local heavy machinery mechanic who will cut the schools a break. Rural areas often have a significantly lower cost of living, allowing them to pay teachers less but allowing them to do things like actually own homes and still have money to live.
This video condenses the concept of school funding into a single point with no nuance, and makes comparisons without taking any context into account. For instance, they didn't consider the COST of running a school in different areas. It's understandable that you might be able to build and run a school cheaper in some parts of the country than in others, or even in different parts of the same state. Furthermore, they said "much worse results" but don't explain what they mean by that. Fewer graduations? Lower test scores? They don't tell us what they mean by that. And they totally fail to account for other factors that could impact student success at these supposedly "worse results" schools. Obviously no single factor is going to completely explain why some students succeed and some don't. But all the video does is cherry pick some numbers and make some unsubstantiated claims. There's not nearly enough data, no nuance, and no context.
- Don't discuss what test scores they are using when comparing the two states.
- Don't discuss why using test scores is a good metric for measuring school success.
- Don't cite source for per pupil funding numbers, and further use per pupil funding numbers from 2020, when federal spending on schooling was at an all time high due to COVID
- States that public schools overspend on administration and public benefits, but doesn't provide a source.
- Provides citation of their own article at the end of the video, with the subtitle that ONE researcher had this finding.
This is what I have been able to find. Quite frankly this should be removed because its not backed up by any credible, traceable sources.
The amount schools receive does not matter---it is what they do with it that makes the difference. If not for the Department of Education and the teachers' unions, the schools would have to do more with less, and if they couldn't, they should fail and close.
Short form videos are a great way to spread Misinformation
@@evenodd3339 Because there is insufficient run time to obscure the facts with politically correct talking points!
@@thiccbowlofcoffee "Don't discuss why using test scores is a good metric for measuring school success." ok, that's enough, you've just lost everyone within the second sentence. Your arguments are entirely invalid and your opinion is stupid.
There is no limit to the amount bureaucrats can waste and grift tax money.
I guess these government shit can even cause sand shortage in Sahara.
That's what I was gonna say
You mean Graft tax money? Also those county school board directors in charge of the budget are usually the ones getting large pay raises.
No amount of money can make kids care about education. It starts at the home.
I see you’re into the real shit that no one wants to talk about.
What you're saying depends upon the myth that parents are the real enemy and don't care.
This is not true.
There are plenty of examples where a child was failing, getting suspended, etc, but once the PARENTS moved them to a different school, the kid was doing just fine. This sort of makes me believe that the reality is that the PARENTS were the only ones that cared.
@@TheRisky9 I never said parents are the enemy. Quite the contrary. It's the culture they're raised in. Typcially these kids don't even have two parents. That's exactly the problem.
It's been demonstrated empirically that spending more education money on kids doesn't change the outcomes meaningfully. Exactly what I said. No amount of money can make a kid care more about school.
@@TheRisky9what was actually said was that broken homes tend to create broken people
@@farharbor3178 EVERYONE says that. It's a talking point of every teacher group out there. Funny how I was able to take kids from messed up homes and pretty easily get them basically competent most of the time, I must have been a miracle worker. . . . either that, or teachers and admin are just making excuses.. . .
Yeah, I'm a teacher in rural AZ. I see so many videos explaining how property taxes pay for schools so only the rich areas get quality education. Meanwhile most of our funding comes from federal sources. Even the state pays more than local to make a similar per $ per student to the rich areas. This is all public info and yet reading it might be dangerous lol. I get that they can fundraise much more but those are always for luxuries like travel for extra curriculars and new equipment. Not the foundational education. Culture has a far bigger influence than money.
I'm a product of the AZ public education system and it's honestly not bad.
@@jamesrosewell9081 Yes, like many things in life, it is what you make it. For the most part, you get out what you put in
@@geoffreydowdle5751What part of Az do you teach in?
My ex worked for a school district on the east side of Phoenix. She was always bitching about spending, and saying how much better they would do if they actually had a budget (their lowest rated school was an A- at the time).
I had an idea. I looked up my hometown's school district, in Illinois. They spent 3x as much per student as the district she worked for. The school in my hometown district with the lowest dropout rate had a rate 6x higher than the highest rate in her district. The highest rated school in my hometown district was rated D-.
Please tell me more about how it's spending that makes the difference.
My econometrics research project studied this in NJ. Family wealth, family cohesion, and bullying are pretty much the only factors that influence test scores.
Doesn't Wyoming have a significantly bigger problem with rural schools, though? That's a geographical factor that increases costs irrespective of administrative waste
Why does it increase costs? Genuinely asking, I'm in a rural area and the cost of living (before the new housing bubble warped the market) is much lower than other areas. There are also a lot of people who want to live in rural areas and there are fewer jobs there, so the teaching and admin jobs are kind of the income jewels There's heating bills and transport, of course.
Maybe smaller schools?
@@Ryan-zv6xw I would prefer that someone with more expertise than me jump in, but I'll explain what I know. Rural schools are often more expensive because of the average number of students. Sure, land may be cheaper, and salaries might even be lower. But every school stills needs a building, various subject-specific teachers, a principal, buses, counselors, and whatever else may be required by law. Now if that rural school only has 200 kids instead of 1000, the cost per student just went up by five. Sure, there will be ways to get by with less staff and smaller buildings, but that's unlikely to equal the expense of building a school in a less-populated area. Simply put, it's like a business. More customers per location lowers the cost of service per customer.
@@NomadJournalistNews So economy of scale? I can see that being part of the picture, but the large expenses like school construction are usually bond issues, and in my state the state government equalizes per student expenditure so it seems like it's not going to be a huge factor with day to day expenses, and maybe balanced out to a degree with other issues. I do see how a 500 person high school won't have a pool, but I'm not sure they are prevented from (for example) competing for the best teachers. But I see your point, and it makes sense.
@@Ryan-zv6xwLet’s see
1: Buses.
2: Less students, so you have to spend more per student on basic facilities.
My high school (Grad 2010) had all the stuff that Carmel school has. We were in a poor neighborhood with mediocre test scores. The state just gave us more money
Ask how much your district is spending in uncapped pension liabilities. That’s where the bulk of the money is going.
And administration
As it should. You think a teacher who worked for 40 years could retire without a pension? No
@@pugness I would bet if you removed pensions then you could increase pay by 50% at least which would bring in more quality teachers and allow teachers to save for retirement.
@@mabbook And you'd bet wrong. Removing the pensions wouldn't increase teacher pay, the district would just receive less funding because they'd "suddenly" have more than they need. You have to remember, there are people (Conservatives) that don't think teachers should be paid, and don't think education is beneficial. After all, if a person is educated, they're far less likely to be Conservative.
School quality and education is more about class sizes then funding. You can't get a good education if you have 30 kids in your class.
Bullshit. The worst experiences I had were in classes with less than 10 students. If the teacher doesn't like you, you're fucked and there's nothing you can do about it.
There’s 2 schools in the same district both contains thousands of students but one is smaller and less funded
The other is twice as big and has bigger rooms but both have similar if not the same amount of kids per room
Despite the increased quality of life in the big one
Both are as poorly educated and the smaller one has barley better scores
Small thing of note the smaller one has a 5 percent white student population
The school I go to has class sizes of around 27, and it's one of the best schools in the country.
Although, most students are generally well-behaved, so teachers don't need to monitor them as accurately.
Cash grant per student is not a good indication of the total money invested per child. Of my two local schools, one has a higher spend. That school is renting about half its buildings. The other has a fully paid off state of the art sports facility that is rented out evenings and weekends (and those funds don't show up on the per pupil spend).
To actually see the total results vs spend we should account for a percentage of the value of the assets of the school (as if they were in high interest accounts) if you do this I'm prepared to bet these numbers will flip.
Then we get into the same problems impacting paycheck to paycheck people. Say the school is over budget and skint. If they urgently need to replace something that's failed - they have to get the awful replacement that only lasts a year - but is way worse value for money long term.
The biggest issue for most deprived schools is not cash flow, but asset capital. You gave the other school these facilities, then the yearly cost to run will plummet.
"If you gave the school free shit, they wouldn't need to spend as much". Absolutely amazing analysis.
@@mazzaleen6091 I mean, there is a lot of literature on the application of Boots theory within the school sector, and how a higher improvement investment account in Scotland absolutely had higher impacts than the same money funneling into special circumstances funds in England. Yeah, it's simple on the surface to say "just have more stuff", but the point I'm making is that the amount of investment a school needs in terms of facilities is not accounted for in the current formulas, despite the fact that workarounds are incredibly expensive.
Worked in NM government schools. Can confirm.
That school has 5400 students. It makes no sense to compare it to rural schools with 200 kids or inner city schools that have 1000 kids and buildings from the 1800s
Wtf are you talking about
@@Sam-ip6co Presumably they're pointing out that having something like a pool is more likely if you have 5000 students sharing it compared to only 1000. There are bare-minimum facilities a school needs, and if you build five schools they all need those facilities. But if you build one school with five times the budget, you can get away with extras because you don't need five times everything when it's all one shared building. In other words, it's probably a lot less about per-student funding, and more about being a larger school.
@Lord_zeel So just consolidate schools in the inner city if student body gives you an edge over funding
The numbers discussed was "per student" not "per school".
@@Sam-ip6coinner city schools generally get the most funding by far
I’d be careful saying we spend too much on “employee benefits.”
This is Reason. They are a 501(c)(3) with their primary donations coming from Koch (anti-regulation oil tycoon) and from the Sarah Scaife foundation (a wealthy Republican donor).
They have close political ties to agents that have actively sought to undermine American schools (among other things).
"Waaaaaah! I get paid median household income for working 8-9 months a year! This is bullshit!"
-every teacher in America
@@able34bravo37yeah, and also having to work overtime every day, and work for the year over the summer, and but school supplies, and deal with bratty kids like you who can't appreciate how hard teaching is. Why are you putting working class people against each other, it isn't the teachers who choose your salary?
@@able34bravo37 Sounds like someone is upsetti spaghetti about how much a job that requires a Masters degree and constant overtime and public hatred pays.
for a 9 month job.
This is excluding the lower income areas and cherry picks from other well funded schools
Amazing that nice people from good families attend nice schools with good things. Who would have guessed?
@user-ye4bu6xh4c I'm guessing "nice people" means "high trust" and "low upkeep" in this context.
Money goes much further in such an environment.
@user-ye4bu6xh4c "nice" means "they're disciplined enough by their parents that they know not to trash their own facilities."
5k student population, Carmel is a huge school.
I would caution using test scores to compare states' academic performances because there is no one national test that all students of a certain age or grade must take.
Here in NY students in grades 3 - 8 are expected to take an annual Math and ELA state test. However, students (or their parents on their behalf) can refuse to take these tests. Further compounding this is that students have no extrinsic reason to perform well on these tests as their promotion to the next grade is not contingent on them passing them.
Their is the SAT and ACT test, but despite what this video says THOSE tests are directly correlated with wealth in a particular zipcode.
@@qazmko22 More correlated with G (general intelligence, as measured by IQ) than with wealth. By a LOT.
@@qazmko22 That's not becuase of the wealthy schools, that's because College Board has set things up so that if you take the test many times, hire a private tutor, and pay extra for their analysis services you will likely score much higher than if you don't. So the scholarships and grants based on scores go to the higher income students, you basically have a system where if you can pay for higher scores you will "make" money in the long run. The people that can't take advantage of that are the ones in families whose cash is tied up.
@@Meton2526So here's the thing about IQ, IQ is completely nonsense, it's like a bunch of different numbers compacted into one number, which comes with a whole host of problems, the main one being, it's not an actually accurate indication of anything at all.
Not to mention that standardized tests are very poor indicators of how a student performs in school. I know many people struggle on tests, but do well on assignments and clearly know the subject matter. On the other hand, I was really shitty in school because I hated the drudgery of it - but my standardized test scores were always very high. Paradoxically, my language scores were extremely high despite language/writing classes being the ones I hated the most. Those tests just aren't the same as real school, which isn't the same as the real world.
There's a lot of problems with this:
First, cost per student is a problematic metric when comparing different population densities, because the ratio of fixed costs to marginal costs changes quite a bit as distance increases.
Different accounting rules mean that different things appear in those statistics state by state. (There are few statistics collected by the federal Dept of Ed, but those aren't often used for these kinds of comparisons).
There's also plenty of non-government funds in school systems, and often quite a lot of sweat equity, which is more available in areas with more single income stream families.
The conclusion talks about administrative and benefits overhead, but I've never seen a public school administrator paid enough to be the only income source in their family, and benefits are just barely holding on.
I've never seen a school teacher be financially independent, outside of teaching in retirement. I have seen two teachers make a living, but they were just scraping by.
I can't say if this was just poorly researched, because confirmation bias is a strong thing, but I don't believe this paints a realistic picture.
That is possible that I live in a microcosm, and conditions outside of where I have this ability are significantly different.
Poorly researched? It's Conservative propaganda. I don't think they put any research into anything.
It's Admin Admin Admin... and many districts waste a lot of money.
It's teachers unions making tons of money and ensuring the worst teachers go to the worst schools.
Chicago public schools is spending 50% more on schooling on 20% less students. 20% of students are proficient in math and only 16% are proficient in English language arts. Our system in Illinois is beyond broken. Also in 2021-2022 45% of students were chronically absent meaning they missed at least 10% of school days.
Many children in the Chicago public schools have English as a second language l. Learning a language that you weren't raised with makes education harder.
Admittedly the us states' average is only 30% in reading so it's not obscene. People in Chicago can read
In my limited experience, the quality of my local high school wrnt DOWN woth increases in funding. They forgot to hire better teachers and instead we got a bunch of unused atyletic fields and other facilities.
Finally they built a WHOLE NEW SCHOOL and its now one of the worst in the state.
In my grandmother's day people became teachers in part because they wanted to do that work, and they stayed teaching because of the satisfaction of bringing value to young people. When you start making teachers some of the higher paid people in a community you give people who might otherwise have left high school and worked their way up at Walmart an incentive to get a BA in education from one of the many schools that will give you that very, very easily so you can have the good hours and the higher pay. So you paradoxically can get worse teaching with more money.
@@Ryan-zv6xw@Ryan-zv6xw "in my grandmother's day"
Cool story, it's not 1922 anymore though so how about we make a game plan within reality yeah?
"When you start making teachers the highest paid"
Increases in funding only goes towards sports and administration. I'm not even sure how you watched the video and still missed the point. Look up average teacher salaries, or even specific salaries for your area.
I don't even know what your last few sentences are trying to say. People that would work at Walmart are becoming teachers because colleges are just giving away degrees? Your world view is not only skewed, it's so damn shallow I question whether you've ever even left your hometown.
@@ZoidSwift Don't know what you'd like to see as a reply here. I'm not always a clear communicator, but whenever someone essentially is labeling himself a victim of Dunning-Kruger there's not really much point in trying to explain again.
I've got the stats in other comments here. Nationally, mean salary for teachers is about $60,000 with a mean household income nationally resting at $80,000. So a household with two teachers is making $40,000 more than the average. They also both get full benefits, 15 to 20 weeks of vacation, early retirement, and a pension until death. It is nearly impossible for a teacher or admin to lose his job -- I worked with some straight-out abusers that the school refused to even try to fire.
It is a very appealing job for those with a college degree (which is actually extremely accessible these days as long as you don't care about the quality of the degree or the content of the instruction) but not the ability to make anywhere near that amount of money doing something else. So you are encouraging the mediocre and worse to become teachers just for the money.
As for admin, just double or triple all that (the salaries are ridiculously higher, the quality of worker ridiculously lower -- these are people who can't even stand being in the classroom) and that's the new standard.
I'm sorry you think that it's unreasonable to want people today to teach because they value the work and care about the students. You may be right, but if you are then there's not really any reform that will help, except the reform of shutting down all the public schools, which is actually my recommendation.
@@Ryan-zv6xwthey stayed because teachers got crazy good pensions .
@@SaltyChickenDip Monetary compensation and stability are going to be part of why anyone takes and stays at any job, and that's always been the case.
But in previous decades the compensation was lower, the stability was lower, the jobs available with the same level of skill were likely more numerous, but we didn't have teacher shortages because the nonmonetary compensation (feeling like you were doing a good thing, genuine desire to help children) was a big part of why many people did that work.
Don't get me wrong, there were always people who went into teaching almost only for the schedule, or because (as women) their job options at that salary level were limited, or because they were control freaks who liked to have that captive audience.
But if you narrow down the "reasons" to teach to "higher than typical salary for that skill level + less time at the job + full family medical + early retirement with pension until death" then you are creating an incentive.
School jobs are, by the way, one of the few areas where people are still actually getting pensions.
I just dont understand how that's possible. My highschool was one of the worst in Washington and the teachers were underpaid, but we had $17,000 per student. Now I'm curious where that money is going
This is hilarious comparing two low population states to one another without actually providing a metric of the scores. I don’t know how the test scores are of Utah and Wyoming, but that isn’t my job. This whole video just hits to appeal to people who think that hard work is the only reason why grades are bad (it’s a factor, but nowhere close to the biggest factor).
For real - like they don't even say the test scores. NAEP scores? SAT? ACT? It would be HILARIOUS if it was state standardized tests, which have completely different standards from state to state.
Also funny how it's "funding doesn't matter" when family income (not high school GPA, AP course enrollment, or even years in high school) correlates strongest with standardized test scores.
Authors of this video are quite literally so detached from our education system that its borderline misinformation.
@@thiccbowlofcoffeetbf standardized testing is crap. That’s why a lot of colleges are test optional nowadays
Plus schooling differs greatly state to state so how can you compare
@@pugness I think it’s fair to assess a highly funded school to a low income school to prove a point, as long as the point is that the better funded a school is the better the educational outcomes are (this is one of the few conclusions you can actually come to without misrepresenting the data). But the person in the video compared two poorly funded south western states to each other without even providing a numerical comparison barring a “they are similar” is goofy. If you can’t provide consistent data, or you can’t even provide data at all, then your claim is grounded almost entirely in fiction.
Not to mention that 5K and 10K are still grossly underfunded. That doesn’t even cover a teacher salary lmao
They are the same
To be fair, everything costs more in the city.
But the real factor in quality of education is middle-class children from suburban two parent homes are easier to teach.
if we cut the nuclear family bullshit.
Rich people have more resources.
The reason the schools in nearby Indy get more funding from the state is because they are lacking the funding provided by rich parents and nearby wealth which is how the afford the autoshop, pool, radio station, etc. meanwhile other schools can barely afford the necessities
Well lemme just say if my school had spent SIMILARLY to how this school spent I probably wouldn’t have hated school as much
The thing also not stated is that around the edge of Marion County (Indianapolis, Carmel is adjacently north) in all directions, there are very good public and private schools in the suburban area of Indy. Indiana is also a school of choice state that allows lower-income families to allocate their tax money for local private schools or for a different public school.
I think another thing that isn't taken into consideration is fundraising, local taxes, local events, etc. Obviously fundraising can't make a state of the art gymnasium, but it can help with other smaller costs, like the radio show, that opens government funds up for things like the gym
I mean, give money to the schools that are actually performing well instead of the ones that will end up dropping up before senior year
Get money out of education. (:
So you’re saying if a family’s poor they shouldn’t have any possibility of an education? Cause one of the main reasons a kids will drop out.
@jacobfox7274 poor wtf are you on about when did I say anything about poor people
@@itsGrzli Kids from poor families make up a major portion of those who drop out. All the kids I know who dropped out did so because they couldn’t afford basic necessities or were from a single parent home. It turns out kids who are from wealthier households in nicer areas tend to have better chances in school
@jacobfox7274 skill issue
I realize that that is the case most of the time, but you also have to factor in richer neighborhoods donating more to kids, and setting up more elaborate fundraisers out of pocket. I went to a very well funded elementary school in Portland, and it was no secret that a lot of our excess money came from parent donations and events, as well as donations from a local college.
It’s not about the money spent, it’s about where that money is going
Graduated from school in nw indiana. They take their curriculum and ALL AREAS OF STUDY AND CLUBS/GROUPS/ EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES VERY VERY SERIOUSLY. i was so beyond prepared for my first year of college classes it was unreal. They also hired retired college professors as teachers etc. They took it seriously.
"the relationship between school funding and performance is weak. here's proof: *poor/mismanaged funding correlating to poor performance*" lmao
Gotta love when they can’t even find cherry picked data that supports their argument they have to just straight up lie and mislead about it
I didn't go to a crazy large high school like that one shown, but there were many programs to enter into. At least for my school there were active teachers and people in administration that would apply for grants a lot to get all kinds of stuff for the classroom. For example one letter writen by my digital arts teacher got the school a few labs filled with brand new iMacs directly from Apple. Something similar happend with the donation of a bunch of 3D printers. There are companies wanting to write off what they give and get recognition/free advertising.
when you don't have to spend your school budget on metal detectors and security guards you can spend more on facilities. more at 12
I mean, the majority of the difference is likely due to each state and municipalities level of urbanization. More urban states have more expensive real estate and more competitive job markets requiring more money to maintain the same level of staff and floor space as a more rural/ suburban high school.
Funding dictates whether a school can achieve good outcomes if it makes good decisions.
A well funded school can fuck up and be bad, a school without enough money cannot be good.
Which is why it's fucked up to fund schools based on nearby property taxes. Especially when, due to redlining, black schools will receive significantly less funding
Depends on what you mean by "without enough money". The benefit of local funding is local control. The ideal of a neighborhood school with community and family involvement and accountability to the parents and the community members is a good one, and when you have that kind of organic interdependence and mutual support you don't need a ton of funding to get the basic job done.
But we ditched that for federal programs (one after the other, "No Child Left Behind", "Common Core", doesn't matter who is in power they all want to tell the schools what to do from 3000 miles away) and state mandates, because the promise was all our kids would become software engineers and all our schools would have pools.
Instead we have high schools with thousands of kids where the staff doesn't even know who attends so the shooter can easily get on campus. We have admin budgets go up by 30% while school population is dropping. We have some districts where 1 in 5 kids drop out and up to 1 in 4 of the ones that stay in school for 13 years can't functionally read. We have a system where 1 in 10 students who get all the way through to graduation say they have been sexually assaulted or harassed by a school employee -- an employee, not a peer. We have 1000 rapes a year in public schools -- in the schools, not after school hours.
And if a parent complains, he's called a Karen and told to leave it to the experts. And if she takes her kid out of school to home school or private school she's accused of wrecking the system with her selfishness because the parents who care enough to do something tend to be the ones with students who have high test scores so now the school looks bad to the feds.
So the move to fund away from the locality did not do us any good. But just reversing that won't fix everything because the damage has been done.
This is boiled down to such a simple level in this short that it becomes one of those "technically true" but portrays the data in a very disingenuous way.
How?
@@Ryan-zv6xwThis is all off the cuff, not making an argument here. I'm just bringing up important factors that are completely ommitted. Obviously, it's a short.
They don't provide any citations, just splash an article up on the screen that I assume they read and drew conclusions from, so there isn't really much to argue against.
Going strictly based off of what they say, which really isn't much, they don't define anything. Such as, how are they measuring a school's success? Are they factoring in things like parent donations (both monetarily as well as time spent volunteering)? Where does the money come from? Ect...
They mention test scores, but what test scores? Is the data accurate an measured per capital (no citations/ not doing so is a common tactic to misrepresent)? And this all assumes that everyone agrees that is a good measure of student success in life, to which there are studies proposing the opposite.
More money does play a role, but there may be a point of diminishing returns. There is a larger impact when extra funds are applied to underfunded schools. Lower income areas have less resources, so their dollars may not stretch as far as a more affluent school (who tend to have more business connections from the locality and well off parents). The money is likely spent on drasticly different things, how is it spent?
This is already really long so I'm going to stop there, but there is so many things to question that I just think this is a very simplistic argument that addresses literally nothing. This isn't even including any topics not directly addressed that raise potential questions as to the validity of this argument. It's just not very compelling at all imo.
@@Ryan-zv6xw
It one: doesn’t say anything about the difference between Wyoming and Colorado’s scores, and those are two vastly low population states which skews data tremdously
Two: the school in the video is a 5400 person school, so they clearly have a lot more money to work with than a 300 person school with double the funding.
@@dnsjtoh I can see an issue as there are two different kinds of comparisons being made in the video.
The first part shows school facilities at an Indiana school, but compares to Indianapolis schools -- those are going to be the same size.
The next compares test scores in Utah and Wyoming. Utah has some rural areas also, not sure how the school population size compares, but test scores shouldn't be affected by school size the way having a pool might be.
But maybe it's fair to say that by combining both situations in one short it gives a confused impression. I'm still not sure it's giving an inaccurate one, or that the conclusion she draws isn't warranted.
Not even a technical truth. A better funded school can afford to pay teachers better wages. A better paid teacher will usually care about their job, and thus providing an education, more.
A well funded school can afford extracurricular activities to get students engaged with the community and give them something to do after school. If you care about your community you are more likely to try to continue education to better the environment around you. If you have something to do after school, your less likely to do drugs or join dangerous groups to escape the feeling of loneliness- and I hope I don’t have to explain how those things result in worse educational outcomes.
Well funded schools can afford to have a higher councilor to student ratio to help with mental health. A student who only has to deal with school work on average does better than a student who has to deal with schoolwork and the lingering pain of depression.
It is a horrible and disgusting argument to even suggest otherwise. Because to suggest that, you are saying that lower income areas (disproportionately made up of black and Hispanic people) are just dumber, because excluding hyper specific examples (ie. Exceptions to the rule) lower funded schools DO have worse educational outcomes than higher funded schools
Are we just taking out the entire concept that the purchasing power of the dollar is different in each state?
Is it reallt 2 times difference from Utah and Wyoming
We're not going to talk about the fact that wyoming has schools with like 50 people total in a highschool, and that those schools arent the exception but the rule. Using wyoming isnt exactly fair.
I don't know if there is a perfect system but my suggestion is make the money follow the student. These bloated administrative heavy systems will disappear.
I don’t think their concern is the tests scores (funny enough,) but the quality of the school campus
Yeah God forbid schools actually take care of the kids
The point is, the school which takes better care of kids spends less.
I'd like to see how much variation there is in the amount of money spent per student on things related to students being unruly. Things like extra security, needing teachers' aids in classrooms to handle the kids, after school security for the schol grounds and buildings, and the repairs and maintenance of the buildings related to students damaging equipment, vandalizing, theft of supplies, graffiti, etc.
When I was on the high school stage crew in a rural NW Pennsylvania town, I remember talking with some performers from NYC who were putting on a community playhouse show. They asked how old our school building was because it looked brand new and we had a much nicer auditorium and better equipped stage than they were used to seeing. When we told them that the school was 12 years old, they couldn't believe that it was so pristine. I visited the school once about 18 years later and it was still in nearly-new condition. I've also driven past it while on vacation a year ago and it still looks new even though its over 50 years old.
What does she mean when she says that "many public schools overspend on employee benefits?"
That can be taken several different ways. Teachers should get health insurance provided to them as a minimum.
And none of those extra facilities mean anything if the student population isn't well behaved and come from solid families
There’s also nothing saying that this school that spends a ton of a money on their facilities has good/better learning outcomes.
When you don't need to spend money on metal detectors and armed guards, you can have nice educational things!
The US spends 3× mkre per student than countries on the top 10 or 40 lists. And in 2022, there 40 school shooting deaths, 19 lightning strikes deaths and 60 dog deaths.
Hardly a relevant factor when there are 50~ million kids in public schools
Edit
And the USA taxes guns.
My High School was public funded, it was regional, had to submit request to go, had to meet certain standards, had most all of what's here minus the pool.
Had classrooms for every major Vocation at that time... Drafting, Electrical, Masonry, Carpentry, Body Shop, Auto Shop, Retail, Cosmetology, Culinary Arts, Electronics, Horticulture, Medical, Graphic Arts, etc...
It absolutely is more about the students and Parents attitude.
Hold on though. Some of those employee benefits include teachers earning a livable wage which they clearly do not hear in Utah. I would argue that it's important to pay teachers fairly regardless.
As someone originally from the Indianapolis area (Greenfield in Hancock county), as soon as they said Carmel, I thought, “Yep, that’s pretty much what I expected.” I’m pretty sure Eagleton in the show Parks and Rec was a thinly veiled parody of Carmel-it’s wonderful (and affluent) suburb of Indianapolis. Never went inside any of its schools, though-I went to the private Lutheran High School on Indianapolis’s South side. Not nearly as many amenities as Carmel (or most Indianapolis-area public schools), but the (underpaid) teachers really put their hearts into their work.
Its rare for funding to be the issue. My high school cost 140 million to build, and could “barely afford” to upgrade the computers in 4 classrooms. The issue is siphoning funds, an issue that goes largely unchecked.
Bottom line.. somebody's getting rich
PER STUDENT PER FISCAL YEAR?!
Wtf how are they spending so much. Money.
Our school district here spends about $5k less then the neighboring city school district. The city school scores are half of what ours is.
Interesting how you chose to say almost $10000, and not almost double.
Exactly it's closer to double than 10k 😅
Correction: It's _over_ double, which sounds much more convincing for starters.
Additionally, a comparison by ratio seems to make more sense here than by a direct amount, because I personally have no idea how what $10,000 per student is like, but if I know it's double of another student, I can possibly imagine what it's like.
um, the urban schools here have those and have had for a long while
And people wonder why confidence in public schools is at an all time low.
That’s interesting. Didn’t know we call using stolen money “spending” now adays. Always thought anything stolen was then being laundered
What's being stolen? Tax money?
@@ZoidSwift of coarse! Do you not think taxes are stolen money? Aka theft?
@@LakevusParadice I mean you could just move somewh- oh wait no you can't because developed countries wouldn't be able to survive without a tax system. You've got 14 places you can go to and you need a shit ton of cash to do it.
Please name a country that doesn't have any taxes and is not a shit hole.
@@ZoidSwift 250 years ago there wasn’t a country that didn’t have slavery. Just because everybody does it is does not make it RIGHT. Morally right
And no. I shouldn’t have to move to have my rights protected. Their my rights and they should not be violated. If anything the violators are the ones who should leave or be removed.
Atlas shrugs
@LakevusParadice wow you're actually stupid, and this is going to be pointless, but whatever. I wasn't saying every country was doing it, so we should, too. I was saying every country does it because they HAVE to. There is no other option in the world we live in. Wtf fantasy world do you live in?
You should move. In this country, and every other country you could move to, you pay taxes. Find some good meds bro.
Not the wrestling room they spent 400$ on mats and put in a empty room getting called expensive 😂
Had disparaging differences in the funding and supplies between my high school and the new one built for the new developments. This was way back in 2006ish.
My highschool principal embezzled hundreds of thousands of dollars. Had 2 corvettes and a prime location home in San Diego… we didn’t have AC half of the classrooms were temporary trailers and the track, tennis court and baseball field were taken back by the grass and “water” As soon as a new principal came MAGICALLY we could afford a whole two story building and AC 😂 good old corruption…
But but… it HAS to be racism!!?? 🙄🙄
Well schools are underfunded in low income areas simply because they have less money…it’s not racist you are right it’s classist
@@doodles4funo569But also black neighborhoods are on average far less wealthy, therefore perpetuating the cycle of poverty.
Did you see that one comment even trying to associate this with the KKK? People on Twitter are unhinged.
@@doodles4funo569tell them to get better test scores
There are plenty of studies and documentaries that point out how racism has affected how certain schools function.
That's pretty common. The school district in my city (Portland) has way for $ per student then the burbs but does way worse. And they keep asking for more money
So public schools have to choose between giving administration and staff a good wage, or giving kids useable facilities?
I agree schools should use their funding more effectively but this feels like an excuse that local governments will reach for when addressing funding issues
I would also put forth the proposition that a school district's success is in INVERSE proportion to the number of administrators and directors per student on the payroll.
Yup. Extra admin often also means larger class sizes because there's not as much money for teachers and assistants. Same for higher ed, about one admin hire for every undergrad at the higher-priced schools.
Now expand this nation wide. Our taxes should be giving us world class benefits, but are wasted by corruption and greed.
No it pays 8000 dollars more just double 8000+8000=16,000 her showing her math skills, trying to make it sound even worse
I think "double" sounds worse, making me wonder why she would say "almost $10,000 more" instead. Perhaps the script and the graphic were based on different numbers?
This shit right here is how conspiracy theories start. Someone makes some inconsequential statement or misspeaks, and you guys lose your minds looking for context. Who gives a flying fuck about the script of one youtube video Jesus christ lmao
I lived in Carmel. The football stadium is like a Junior College stadium. Carmel is also the Beverly Hills of Indy, so lots of rich donors.
I would imagine Wyoming schools have to pay teachers more to get them to be willing to live and work in very rural areas, resulting in them having to spend more per student as a result.
Put a kid in the country's worst school but give him highly involved and available parents he will get much higher results than a kid in the country's best school but with a single parent who is never around and doesn't care...
The real problem is we think that schools just "need more funding"
It starts with the parents and is reinforced by teachers. Utah is where I went to high school and we had the biggest classes ive ever known. They hounded me and my friends parents for weeks after they caught us playing hooky for only 1 period.
My high school had excess funding so they bought like 20 flatscreens to put in the cafeteria, meanwhile our distance learning room had six 70 pound tube TVs hanging from the ceiling and only three turned on. They shut down distance learning, which was a program funded by the colleges we partnered with, the same year they built a massive wing for community college and tech school classes that students had to pay hundreds of dollars for.
This shows how terrible government funded stuff is at spending money properly, Carmel should be an example on how to spend money effectively
Only Twitter could make school about race somehow
The school as soon as i move out of the school:
They also forgot to mention that alumni donate large portions of money to their own school they attended or their kids school. Richer neighborhoods have more wealthier people to donate. The schools also spend less money on programs like free meals.
I live in one of the poorest cities and still had all this at the high school
My school is 1,600 students, but doesn’t even have working internet, and we still write on chalkboards. We are part of a huge Theater Trip Exchange, where you go to other schools to learn Theater stuff from them. My brother went on one to Amsterdam and the girl from Belgium complained about how bad it was. My brother thought it was good.
PS: One of my teachers taught in Thailand, and they don’t use chalk boards. We live in a highly developed country, so that’s kinda embarrassing.
I live right next to it it's annoying with the traffic. I walk outside and see it everyday
Also carmel high school has about 1350 students per year, or $50M in funding per year, kinda makes sense to have those facilities at that point.
I would argue that it also depends on school boosters. My school was known as "the rich school" by people on the other side of town. I talked to many of them and they were shocked to learn we couldn't afford paper. We took tests on class copies using our own paper as answer sheets. At the same time, our football boosters raised money to put a fucking jumbotron in our brand new stadium (that the district didn't want to give us. For over 20 years we used our rival's stadium as our home field)
The district gave us shit all in terms of funding. The choir celebrated a 15 dollar budget increase. All of our "nice" equipment came from parents buying it for the school.
My favorite example of this is baltimore who has the worst schools in the country, but spends an eye watering 22 thousand dollars per student. They’re schools are hideous, falling apart, crumbling, moldy with under paid staff and still spend more than almost any school on earth percentage wise
In many if not most instances, low-performing schools with high spend per pupil are spending A Lot of money on metal detectors, the teachers basically get hazard pay unless it's a Teach For America deal, and they usually pay like 20 extra security people to patrol the hallways and keep order. They are not teachers, but they're all paid 40k or whatever just to keep the order.
I went to a high performing high school that was not over-funded. Anyone could easily enter the school through a half-dozen different doorways that were not secured, there was no metal detector system or patdown at all, we didn't need to have clear backpacks, teachers kept an eye on the hallways, and for a school of over 4,000, there was one unarmed security guard. I knew him from church and I got to know his kids over the years.
You ever notice that school shooting always happen in mostly white schools? There's a reason for that, and it comes down to virtually no spend on security. The spend is Crazy high in mostly black schools, and that's the trade-off. They don't have school shootings that are actually in the school,
Side note, any shooting that happens within a certain distance of school property is counted by some measures as a school shooting. Even if no students were involved and it just happened to fall within that area. This can inflate the school shooting numbers artificially, and it's possible that some "school shootings" happen Near to a majority black school without happening inside it.
That being said, the security works but the trade-off is that mostly black schools need even More outsized net spend per student in order to have effective security and also nice things. This is the math that you're able to see if you really dig into the breakdown of what the money is being spent on.
Well…for the record, I’d rather my teachers got paid a living wage than have a pool
my highschool gave all of the engineering students $4,000 dell laptops.... and they programmed the firewall to block most of the engineering software
It’s not about spending money on the student, it’s about hiring good teachers. If you are seriously suggesting we pay teachers too much, you’ve never been in a public school in this decade.
Comparing Utah to Wyoming is ridiculous, they have like 5 people. God I wish we had less people.
Spanish fork
NYC Spends $35000 per student.
As someone who works in education : employee benefits? Hah. It's all going to administration. Thank God I'm leaving before it all collapses
They spend next to nothing on staff and benefits, and just pocket the money. They may spend a little more to make sports teams feel good, but that's because they know ticket sales will get them more money than they spend.
There's also a difference between quality, and test scores.
I've seen plenty of schools that are basically rooms, and chalkboards with better scores than a decked out school.
Lol my school has all of that except the pool…but we have a whole separate facility for swim, agricultural science, and a greenhouse for floral design…most of the students attending there are on food stamps and WIC cards