Local Funding

I think Al will be glad to see Kevin Carey correcting the view that "Schools are mostly funded locally." Instead, he points to a table demonstrating that schools get 40+ percent of their money from local sources, a slightly larger amount from state sources, and a small amount (around eight percent on average, but I think this varies quite a bit) from the federal government.

That's still a lot of local funding, and I wonder how much of the non-local stuff is for disabled kids or whatever rather than "regular" programming, but it's not "most."

Comments

Heh. But money is fungible, isn't it?

Posted by Al | December 4, 2006 11:36 AM

Do conservatives believe it's fungible? I thought a standard conservative trope was that if you provide money for certain types of service, the need for that service will grow to meet the available money.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | December 4, 2006 11:57 AM

Al said Chait is "lying" when he says rich districts can pay more poor ones on teachers' salaries, since "most funding is local". Al cites data that says only 40+% of funding is local.

It is my understanding that there is a tremendous disparity in teacher salaries in urban and suburban schools. 5 years ago my brother-in-law finished training as a high school science teacher. He trained in New York City and enjoyed his teaching experiences there. He considered NY city schools and suburban schools. Starting salaries in suburban schools were about $10,000 higher. That is a pretty big incentive for teachers given the choice (presumably, the better, more competitive ones) to teach in the suburbs. Teacher salaries in Scarsdale, NY are in $90 - $100k range with many individuals exceeding $100k. I live in suburban NJ and there is no question that the rich suburban districts have higher teacher starting salaries than the lower-middle-class suburban districts. I don't know the statistics nationally, but all indications are a large teacher-salary discrepancy in rich and poor districts.

Second point. It does seem fatalistic to say that parental involvement determines student success. By way of contrast I ask anybody to think back on their education. Almost everyone thinks that a critical factor is teacher quality. In courses (or years) with good teachers, school was great. For me, I can remember the specific content of beautifully-taught courses almost perfectly. On the other hand, a bad teacher (there were many) is ruinous. On an intuitive level, it seems clear that increasing the numbers of good or great teachers will have a big impact on education in all regions. My fear is that we've filled the inner city schools with disproportionate numbers of bad teachers.

Posted by johnk | December 4, 2006 12:02 PM

Ignore Al. He stated, in that same comment, that no union would let its members work 16 hours days, and that the only people who work 16 hour days are non-unionized professionals. That is simply wrong - I myself am a unionized professional and I work a 16 hour day whenever necessary. (It's rarely necessary, but nothing in my contract stops me from doing it, nor would my union ever object.) Many non-professional i.e. non-salaried union members are delighted to work more hours because they get overtime. I don't get overtime, but I get a professional-level salary so I don't mind.

Al, if he thought about it, would probably say that he meant that no union would let its members regularly work 10-12 hour days without either negotiating a professional-level salary or else getting appropriate overtime pay. That would be correct, and I don't see what the problem is. Can schools only be fixed if teachers voluntarily work very long hours for very low pay, and no grievance/bargaining support?

Posted by The Navigator | December 4, 2006 12:20 PM

I think nearly all of the DIFFERENCE in school funding is determined by local sources.

Posted by chris m | December 4, 2006 12:48 PM

By way of contrast I ask anybody to think back on their education. Almost everyone thinks that a critical factor is teacher quality.

Well, of course, for any individual person, the quality of parenting is held constant, while quality of instruction varies.

Posted by Consumatopia | December 4, 2006 12:59 PM

To go along with Consumatopia's point:
I wonder if it's true that the mean funding levels of schools nationally breaks down the way you state, but that (perhaps) local funding is a significantly larger portion of school's funding in richer school districts. Might it be as high as 50--, or even 70% -- in many suburban districts? I'd bet yes...

Posted by Andrew Cory | December 4, 2006 2:05 PM

consumatopia said,

Well, of course, for any individual person, the quality of parenting is held constant, while quality of instruction varies

Try to imagine having all bad teachers. Then, all good teachers. Not a subtle difference.

(And, the teacher who said that, from her experience, amount of parental involvement perfectly separated good and bad students had quality of teacher held constant)

And here is an unsubtle way in which the two interact. "involved" parents steer their children away from poor teachers, especially in elementary grades. Double whammy.

Posted by johnk | December 4, 2006 2:12 PM

Instead of "most" we could say "plurality," a concept that needs a better word any way. The "biggest share" or the "controlling share." Something like that.

Posted by Saheli | December 4, 2006 2:20 PM

Federal money is more likely to be targeted to specific populations, like poor kids or kids with disabilities. State and local funds pay operating expenses.

Posted by Bob | December 4, 2006 4:00 PM

Local funding varies from state to state. Here in Texas it is mostly local. Try this link:

http://www.cfbisd.edu/adequacy/pdfs/FAQ.pdf

Heck of a system we have down here.

Posted by Nat | December 4, 2006 4:55 PM

Oh yeah, I forgot. Texas has a 'Robin Hood' system where local property tax dollars from rich districts (like Austin) get funneled to poor districts.

I am not sure, but certain wealthy districts might actually have to collect over 100% of of their district costs in order to meet their 'Robin Hood' obligations.

Posted by Nat | December 4, 2006 5:02 PM

johnk:

"... By way of contrast I ask anybody to think back on their education. Almost everyone thinks that a critical factor is teacher quality. In courses (or years) with good teachers, school was great. For me, I can remember the specific content of beautifully-taught courses almost perfectly. On the other hand, a bad teacher (there were many) is ruinous. ..."

My memory is that all my teachers were about the same and made little difference.

Posted by James B. Shearer | December 4, 2006 5:05 PM

The relationship between amount of school funding and student performance is an old, old issue that was studied to death by the best social scientists -- e.g., Coleman and Jencks -- before many of the commenters on this blog were born.

The correlation between spending and performance is quite small. That's why North Dakota, a low spending state, always ranks near the top of the NAEP test scores. In contrast, a federal judge ordered Kansas City to spend billions extra over the decades on inner city schools, with very little to show for it.

Posted by Steve Sailer | December 4, 2006 5:05 PM

The 40% figure is vastly misleading for two reasons. First, as several posters have noted, the bulk of state and, esp. federal, funding, is aimed at specific popultions like special education and the poor. A lot of state money is also directed as capital improvements, as opposed to operational expenses like teacher salaries. Second, there is a wide difference between districts in the percentage of local vs. state funding. Here in NJ, as a result of a school funding lawsuit, many urban districts receive as much as 98% of their funding from the state and feds while scores of suburban districts receive less than ten percent.

Yet, even suburban districts in NJ that want to pay teachers more can't even if they wanted to. The legislature has imposed caps on how much they can increase the budget every year making it literally illegal to raise local taxes above a certain level. Moreover, many of these districts, despite their relative wealth, are suffering from property tax stress because they have no commercial ratables and any local school tax increases come directly from homeowners.

Posted by mert7878 | December 4, 2006 5:09 PM

Per Saheli, you could say "plurality" or "biggest share," but the answer still wouldn't be "local funding," it would be state funding, which comprises the majority of funding for most school districts. And while federal funds, and to a lesser extent state funds, do tend to be tied to specific purposes, those purposes are more likely to be related to serving disadvantaged students--and thus, help close the achievement gap--than non-specific funding.

Posted by Kevin Carey | December 4, 2006 5:12 PM

Everybody in the "reality-based community" needs to read "The Dream Palace of the Educational Theorists," a point by point empirical demolition of Paul Tough's NYT article.

Posted by Steve Sailer | December 5, 2006 5:09 AM

http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=4844&sec_id=4844

Posted by Steve Sailer | December 5, 2006 5:11 AM

To S Sailer,

You call this drivel reality based?

http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=4844&sec_id=4844

You can't be serious. John Derbyshire's "argument" is both racist and elitist. 50 % of the "education problem" comes down to genetics: Poor (and often minority) kids are too genetically dumb to learn. The rest has to do with being rich ("non-shared environment choices" see the rant below). So why bother improving schools for poor and minority kids?

That is not my reality.

This article, full of distortions and slain straw men, is a waste of time.

beyond_left_right

/an extended rant on Derbyshire

So it is with humanity. We come into the world with a good deal of our life course pre-ordained in our genes.
-Derbyshire

So being rich or poor, smart or stupid, teachable or not (one's "life course") is genetically determined(!). Hence the problem with inner city schools [the origin of this thread] has nothing to do with the crumbling facilities, inferior teachers, lack of materials, and crime and urban blight that surround those schools or impoverished and/or disfunctional households with many parents who have little time and few resources to give a child. It's because of the gene pool that poor and minority kids come from. I believe that relative wealth (and all the advantages it brings in schooling and in life) and being a part of the dominant culture determines way more than someone's genes about what their "life course" be. and both wealth and social acceptance are ruled by social relations not biological laws.

Derbyshire states: "[a person's] personalities and prospects are around 50 percent innate and pre-ordained...[and] around 50 percent formed by “non-shared environment” (not shared, that is, with siblings raised in the same home by the same parents—a somewhat controversial concept in its precise contents[ie it is meaningless], but clearly consisting mostly of those out-of-home experiences), and 0-5 percent formed by “shared environment”—mainly parenting style."

There is not a shread of evidence for this.

He continues:
"What about genes? The kids have their parents’ genes, and most features of human personality—including aggressiveness [and we assume, ability to learn and do well in school] —are highly heritable." Translation: Smartness [and we assume teachablity] run in families. Only smart people have smart kids [that succeed in school].

This is patently and demonstrably false.

And the biggest not shared environment” factor mentioned? Not parenting style "which makes very little difference to life outcomes" outside of extreme abuse and neglect [strawman alert].

WHAT!!! This is total nonsense.

He does offer "parental decisions influencing the non-shared environment—e.g. where parents choose to live—may make a great deal of difference." Choose to live! Housing segegation by race and class, previously by law, and now by custom is rampant in the US.

His conclusion: Why bother improving poor kids school experience. In order to improve their children's school experience, poor dumb people shouldn't bother reading ther children or supporting teachers because it only changes kids about 5%[shared environment]. Instead, the poor dumb folks should magically change their "non-shared environment" by moving into better off suburbs so their kids can reach their genetically stunted level and be good haulers and toters.

Absolute rubbish
/rant]

Posted by beyond_left | December 6, 2006 1:52 AM