magnet schools are fine, they generally tend to be put up in low income neighborhoods and act as one of the very few social aid programs to these regions, as the local populace often get’s accepted before the more well off outside district children
Magnet schools are not fine ,because they’re still allowed to be selective; they don’t have to take people with disabilities, for instance. Since they can take students based on testing, they’re able to weed out students that come from less well-performing public schools, which tend to be more urban, and more non-white. And because they’re structured around a particular field, they’re able to structure themselves so that they can be maximally beneficial to people that are already well-off.
There’s no reason to not put those same programs within an existing public school system, unless the goal is to make public education less accessible to families that aren’t already well off.
“Equally” as in, per school? Because then large school systems would end up with less funding per student. Which would have the same net result of urban schools, particularly in poorer areas, being underfunded.
Without getting into more complicated math about figuring real estate costs, prices to build, etc., per student is a roughly fair system. It’s not perfect, but it’s a good starting point.
honestly I think we should take it away from the states; or at least set some kind of national minimum standards. I moved every few years growing up and consequently attended a load of different schools in different states, and the wild variations on what was considered the minimum was frankly terrifying. Louisiana’s standards were particularly ridiculous. National standards seem like a no brainer.
But I balk at the idea of everything being set at a federal level. Mostly because, in practice, the fed. gov’t is pretty slow to react to anything, since it needs more consensus than a state does.
The DoEd Common Core has been tried. But the only outcome appears to be a giant pile of standardized tests, designed to torment children and teachers alike in pursuit of some ephemeral national Good Education Score Card.
I’m not sure I want to see education in Massachusetts or Minnesota fall victim to whatever Betsy DeVos cooks up during her next term as Education Secretary.
Yeah that was all garbage. Bush created a distraction needed from all the heinous shit he was doing overseas. I don’t look at that shitshow as a model for future reform.
A good idea, in theory, as long as the state continues to fund public education.
In practice, you’re still stuck with the problem of state institutions riddled with corporate shills and white nationalists who want to demolish the system root and branch.
And why charter/magnet/and any private schools that take any public money need to be utterly abolished.
When the state comes at the public sector with a wrecking ball, private schools will be all that’s left.
I’m genuinely worried what happens when ripping out all the public infrastructure fails to eliminate the Woke Mind Virus, and you have Chuds in my state simply shooting anyone carrying a book or wearing glasses.
If we’re lucky, outside intervention in the ensuing civil war. If we’re unlucky, outside intervention but they’re fascists.
I suspect we’re in the boring dystopia timeline though, where things just gradually get worse until climate refugees provide an excuse to close our borders until enough people die to change the dominant political demographic. The rich and powerful flee to somewhere not overburdened with drought and famine and never see consequences for their actions.
this doesn’t work like you think it would. many school districts that used this funding model got absolutely fucking destroyed when covid happened and families either moved or parents moved their kids to private schools.
it creates downward pressure: as kids leave schools for reasons, funding drops, so the schools make cuts and the quality of education drops. then more parents take their kids out of school, funding drops more, rinse and repeat.
Thats a good point. We should design the system so that it can be adapted to population changes with planned transitions and levels of support, no matter what generated it. However, we should probably not base a funding model intended to run for multiple decades around an edge case like what happened during Covid.
if you expect your funding model to span multiple decades then yes, you absolutely need to factor in “edge cases” like covid. climate change will have an effect on school attendance, guaranteed.
any system that seeks to create an “efficient funding” model will always fail our children. schools are not businesses and cannot function as one.
It’s a vicious cycle. Housing prices in a neighborhood are high in no small part because the schools are considered good (it’s a very meaningful metric when people are looking to move to a new state or new part of a state). And the schools are good because housing prices are high and so is property tax. How do you fix that problem? Probably some complex analysis of financial metrics tied to the school, its students, the economic statuses of those students’ families, and well…a bunch of other stuff.
Fund it per seat, regardless of whether a student is in it. (With regulations and oversight, obv.) That way schools with low populations have more money per student, making them better, which will get people to move there and eventually level things out.
This is why school funding needs to be entirely de-coupled from property taxes, and funded on a per-student basis at a state level.
And why charter/magnet/and any private schools that take any public money need to be utterly abolished.
magnet schools are fine, they generally tend to be put up in low income neighborhoods and act as one of the very few social aid programs to these regions, as the local populace often get’s accepted before the more well off outside district children
Magnet schools are not fine ,because they’re still allowed to be selective; they don’t have to take people with disabilities, for instance. Since they can take students based on testing, they’re able to weed out students that come from less well-performing public schools, which tend to be more urban, and more non-white. And because they’re structured around a particular field, they’re able to structure themselves so that they can be maximally beneficial to people that are already well-off.
There’s no reason to not put those same programs within an existing public school system, unless the goal is to make public education less accessible to families that aren’t already well off.
I think we should keep the property taxes and just pool the money at the state level, then pass it back out on a per student basis.
Or just divide it equally?
“Equally” as in, per school? Because then large school systems would end up with less funding per student. Which would have the same net result of urban schools, particularly in poorer areas, being underfunded.
Without getting into more complicated math about figuring real estate costs, prices to build, etc., per student is a roughly fair system. It’s not perfect, but it’s a good starting point.
honestly I think we should take it away from the states; or at least set some kind of national minimum standards. I moved every few years growing up and consequently attended a load of different schools in different states, and the wild variations on what was considered the minimum was frankly terrifying. Louisiana’s standards were particularly ridiculous. National standards seem like a no brainer.
I think national minimums are a good idea.
But I balk at the idea of everything being set at a federal level. Mostly because, in practice, the fed. gov’t is pretty slow to react to anything, since it needs more consensus than a state does.
balk all you want, you’re basically excusing alabama, mississippi, arkansas and Louisiana children to a shit education and a hard fucking life.
we haven’t been slow to react, we’ve been ignoring these places and their kids deserve better.
The DoEd Common Core has been tried. But the only outcome appears to be a giant pile of standardized tests, designed to torment children and teachers alike in pursuit of some ephemeral national Good Education Score Card.
I’m not sure I want to see education in Massachusetts or Minnesota fall victim to whatever Betsy DeVos cooks up during her next term as Education Secretary.
Yeah that was all garbage. Bush created a distraction needed from all the heinous shit he was doing overseas. I don’t look at that shitshow as a model for future reform.
It wasn’t just Bush. Obama was a big supporter of Michelle Rhee, during the 2008 DC School takeover and privatization plan.
I don’t look for it, but I do see it. Houston ISD is currently being gutted in the same manner as the DC system 16 years ago.
ok, have it your way - we’ll do nothing and kids in the south will continue to receive laughably substandard educations.
this is what we get for wanting nice things.
bet you’re really popular at parties.
Exactly. This isn’t a matter of the government doling out money to rich suburbs. Rich suburbs pay more.
And right with ya on the last. It’s appalling that tax money goes to private institutions.
A good idea, in theory, as long as the state continues to fund public education.
In practice, you’re still stuck with the problem of state institutions riddled with corporate shills and white nationalists who want to demolish the system root and branch.
When the state comes at the public sector with a wrecking ball, private schools will be all that’s left.
I’m genuinely worried what happens when ripping out all the public infrastructure fails to eliminate the Woke Mind Virus, and you have Chuds in my state simply shooting anyone carrying a book or wearing glasses.
If we’re lucky, outside intervention in the ensuing civil war. If we’re unlucky, outside intervention but they’re fascists.
I suspect we’re in the boring dystopia timeline though, where things just gradually get worse until climate refugees provide an excuse to close our borders until enough people die to change the dominant political demographic. The rich and powerful flee to somewhere not overburdened with drought and famine and never see consequences for their actions.
President Xi, my people yearn got their freedom.
this doesn’t work like you think it would. many school districts that used this funding model got absolutely fucking destroyed when covid happened and families either moved or parents moved their kids to private schools.
it creates downward pressure: as kids leave schools for reasons, funding drops, so the schools make cuts and the quality of education drops. then more parents take their kids out of school, funding drops more, rinse and repeat.
Thats a good point. We should design the system so that it can be adapted to population changes with planned transitions and levels of support, no matter what generated it. However, we should probably not base a funding model intended to run for multiple decades around an edge case like what happened during Covid.
if you expect your funding model to span multiple decades then yes, you absolutely need to factor in “edge cases” like covid. climate change will have an effect on school attendance, guaranteed.
any system that seeks to create an “efficient funding” model will always fail our children. schools are not businesses and cannot function as one.
It’s a vicious cycle. Housing prices in a neighborhood are high in no small part because the schools are considered good (it’s a very meaningful metric when people are looking to move to a new state or new part of a state). And the schools are good because housing prices are high and so is property tax. How do you fix that problem? Probably some complex analysis of financial metrics tied to the school, its students, the economic statuses of those students’ families, and well…a bunch of other stuff.
Fund it per seat, regardless of whether a student is in it. (With regulations and oversight, obv.) That way schools with low populations have more money per student, making them better, which will get people to move there and eventually level things out.