Human biology is diverse. We can observe ranges of body height, susceptibility to diseases, endurance, melanin expression, intelligence and some more properties, consistent within population groups. The position of GP admits this evidence, it is aligned with reality. Are you? If not, why not? Is your rationality perhaps suppressed through ideology?
The results from Abbott Districts in New Jersey would suggest that increased funding and resources does little if anything to improve results. Abbott Districts in New Jersey have been getting funding at roughly the same level or higher as the wealthiest districts in the state since 1990, and they have nothing to show for it:
The difference in math proficiency for Abbott students vs. non-Abbott students has stayed roughly the same, while thr language proficiency gap has actually increased.
Resources means teachers qualified, able, and willing to teach in those areas. That probably means paying them more than a similarly qualified teacher in an area that is currently doing better and hence more attractive. But it also means finding head teachers (principals in the US?) who can inspire the whole school, staff, pupils, and parents. Such people are not thick on the ground. And then you have to have stability.
Mere money will not do it, everyone has to work for it.
As others have told you, there is no evidence that increased school funding in and of itself results in better results.
Contrary to what is often said, there is no shortage whatsoever of funding for public schools in urban areas. New York City spends more per student than anywhere else in the US. <https://www.silive.com/news/2019/06/how-much-does-new-york-c...> Baltimore, an incredibly poor and run-down city, spends the third most. #4-6 and #8 are all wealthy suburbs of Washington DC, but their schools are all far better than those of Baltimore or NYC on average, despite Baltimore spending slightly more per student and NYC spending 60-70% more.
> though there isn't really any serious dispute about it factually
citation sorely needed
Wow, what a position
Human biology is diverse. We can observe ranges of body height, susceptibility to diseases, endurance, melanin expression, intelligence and some more properties, consistent within population groups. The position of GP admits this evidence, it is aligned with reality. Are you? If not, why not? Is your rationality perhaps suppressed through ideology?
The actual alternative is to provide resources to schools that are in bad areas. And to provide resources for people in those areas themselves.
The results from Abbott Districts in New Jersey would suggest that increased funding and resources does little if anything to improve results. Abbott Districts in New Jersey have been getting funding at roughly the same level or higher as the wealthiest districts in the state since 1990, and they have nothing to show for it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbott_district
The difference in math proficiency for Abbott students vs. non-Abbott students has stayed roughly the same, while thr language proficiency gap has actually increased.
Resources != funding
Resources means teachers qualified, able, and willing to teach in those areas. That probably means paying them more than a similarly qualified teacher in an area that is currently doing better and hence more attractive. But it also means finding head teachers (principals in the US?) who can inspire the whole school, staff, pupils, and parents. Such people are not thick on the ground. And then you have to have stability.
Mere money will not do it, everyone has to work for it.
1 reply →
Because there is such good precedents that providing unlimited resources to troubled areas actually fix problems.
As others have told you, there is no evidence that increased school funding in and of itself results in better results.
Contrary to what is often said, there is no shortage whatsoever of funding for public schools in urban areas. New York City spends more per student than anywhere else in the US. <https://www.silive.com/news/2019/06/how-much-does-new-york-c...> Baltimore, an incredibly poor and run-down city, spends the third most. #4-6 and #8 are all wealthy suburbs of Washington DC, but their schools are all far better than those of Baltimore or NYC on average, despite Baltimore spending slightly more per student and NYC spending 60-70% more.
It sounds like you have some particular groups in mind.