Originally Posted by miketoronto
Detroit for example spends way more than many of its suburbs per child for education. Yet the kids do poorly due to outside influences.
I want to be clear about something. Just looking a spending per pupil is hardly an accurate way of potraying the issue. I'm sure as in most other older, established cities, while spending per pupil may be higher than in many of that city's suburbs, the plain number doesn't take into account where a lot
of that money is going. In many cases, a lot of that money for older, established districts is actually going to pay retiree health care costs and pensions. I'd like to see what the REAL number is when you factor in only the amount actually reaching the classrooms. Because I'll tell you right now, you tell the teacher having to buy textbooks and toilet paper for his or her classroom that their funding per pupil is so much higher than neighboring districts, and they'll laugh at you.
That's not to say that environment is a major factor in test results, but this idea that urban public schools are being lavished with funding that makes it into actual classrooms is a misguided belief at best.