>>>>I've heard that studies show a correlation between the amount of money pumped into public school systems and poor performance. The more money they get, they worse the kids do.
>>>
>>>I'd like to see a cite for that. While big cities are something of an exception, in most places, you see the reverse correlation. The biggest reason for that is that in the places where they're willing to spend the most on schools, kids tend to walk in most prepared. (Check out, for example, Lower Merion, PA, or Grosse Pointe, MI, or other similar wealthy suburbs.)
>>>
>>>Tamar
>>
>>Why do you give this exception to big cities? Is it because they support John's hypothesis?
>
>Because big cities have a special set of problems that suburban schools don't tend to have. In addition, because they're _big_, they typically need more administrative levels, which, of course, raises the cost.
>
>Tamar

I think the reason the extra funding doesn't always pay off in academic achievement is because those large city schools don't have the neighborhood, family, and environmental support that those in the subburbs or somewhat smaller cities do.