did not know CA schools were funded equally. if this is the case, the next question would be: why is there still an academic gap then?

for example, between Clairemont and Henry High schools? for the school year 2006-2007, Clairemont ranked in the 30th percentile and Henry in the 70th in terms of API (average performance index).

Henry spent an average of $4900 per student with a student body of 2500. Clairmont spent $5300 per student with an enrollment of 1446. the teacher to student ratio is more or less the same (79 teachers @ clairmont, 117 @ henry).

finally, la jolla high school has 1680 students, 77 teachers and spends $4800 per student. however, they rank in the 90th percentile.

so, where's the achievement gap coming from? just trying to make a point that more spent per student doesn't necessarily equal better achievement.

i've been to la jolla and it's a pretty affluent area (at least from what i've seen). so my guess is that parents can have more involvement. so, just swtiching to a "better" school won't necessarily help either.

everyone should have an equal shot at an education, but throwing more money at a failing school isn't the answer.

(source: http://studata.sandi.net/research/sarcs/index.asp)

Reply

I agree with the above commenter...there's definitely still gaps regardless of equal funding. Funding for extracurricular activities, supplies, and the best staffing you can hire are still only one set of factors.

What about parental involvement? What about the attitudes that families in the community place on their school? If the community itself isn't an active partner with the school it's going to show.

Here in NY where schools are funded through taxes budgets are also frequently voted down by taxpayers. That's not always a fault of a district. If the taxpayers had voted down the budget then the money just plain wouldn't be there to spend per student for those activities. The only way to obtain would be to make cuts. So you'd still lose in the end.

http://parents2parents.org

Reply

Here in the Saint Louis area the average cost to per child per year is around $10,000. I could send my child to the best public school in the area and pay $12,000 per year in tuition. Seems pretty crazy to me. In the more affluent areas the schools are in better shape. One of the reasons is because they only have to educate 60 percent of the local population. The others are in private school. Those that can afford $400,000 for a less than 1,000 square foot home are doing it for a chance at a better education for their children and hopefully spend less money than they would by sending their children to private school. Seems crazy right? Are we in Saint Louis or California?

I am all for a better education for all. But what would this do for the housing market? I am sure Saint Louis is not the only area where people are flocking to a certain city in hopes of a better public education for our children. Better schools have always had an influence in the housing market. The housing market has a direct link to our economy (as we have seen recently). I am all for creating a better education for all, just concerned that it will come at a high cost to all.

Reply