>>>>>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.
I think we're on the same page here. Communities that can afford and are willing to spend more on schools typically provide better support to students at home.
FWIW, I don't know how true it is that big cities are spending anywhere near as much as those communities anyway. A quick search for per-pupil expenditures in PA brought me to these states (for the '05-'06 school year):
http://www.thenotebook.org/editions/2007/summer/schoolspending.htmPhiladelphia ranks 60th of 64 districts in the region, spending $10,000 less per student than the top-spending school district and $2,100 less than the median.
Lower Merion School District $21,399 (the highest spending district)
Median spending for the area $13,205
School District of Philadelphia $11,078
Upper Darby School District $ 9,727 (the lowest spending district)
FWIW, Upper Darby is a working class, first-ring, suburb.
Tamar
