doc89 t1_jdzolcz wrote
Reply to comment by NonIdentifiableUser in Mad about book bans in school libraries? Philadelphia has a solution - no libraries at all! Only 7/217 schools have libraries for their kids. by youngbuck215
We spend ~$20k/student/year, which is more than what most of the suburbs spend.
NonIdentifiableUser t1_je03t98 wrote
From the Inquirer
> The district spends close to the state average per student, but when adjusted for student need, it ranks below many districts. Philadelphia’s weighted, per-student expenditure — a need-adjusted measure of what districts actually spend — is $10,796 per student; the state average is $13,688. Lower Merion, by comparison, spells $26,362 per student.
> Because many Philadelphia students require special education services, are homeless, live in foster care or in distressed communities, the cost of educating them is high, Monson said. City students often lack “things that should be basic in order to be prepared for education. We have to supplement in order to make up for that.”
doc89 t1_je0485l wrote
Yeah I find this kind of analysis silly and ridiculous.
"We may be getting the same amount of money as other schools, but when you factor in how much money I actually wish I had, we should be getting much more!"
NonIdentifiableUser t1_je05s1n wrote
Why is it ridiculous? That’s not what the quote I picked out of the article is saying at all. The point is that, on average, it costs more to educate children in Philadelphia, where a large percentage of the population is living in poverty and thus facing a number of externalities that complicate things, than a wealthy suburb.
doc89 t1_je065ii wrote
>The point is that, on average, it costs more to educate children in Philadelphia, where a large percentage of the population is living in poverty and thus facing a number of externalities that complicate things, than a wealthy suburb.
Why does it cost more? Most of the expenses (teacher/admin salary, books, etc) should be largely the same no matter where they are paid for.
signedpants t1_je0da06 wrote
The good news is that the above commenter posted the article that answers your questions. Not exactly shocking, but a lot more intensive teaching is required when you have a large amount of students who are homeless, lack internet access, require special education etc.
doc89 t1_je0e8te wrote
>homeless
What percentage of Philadelphia public school children are homeless? And how much more does it cost to educate a homeless child than a housed child?
​
>lack internet access
Why does this increase the cost to educate children?
The district could literally just pay ~$50/mo to get every family free internet and it would represent like 2% of the total budget.
​
>require special education etc.
That is the entire question I'm asking here: what is so "special" about Philadelphia children that they cost 50% or 100% more to educate than suburban children?
signedpants t1_je0fow4 wrote
I have not found a single website that comes close to your 50 or 100 percent numbers. What source are you getting these numbers from? Since we're discussing relative spending, the answer to your questions don't need to be hard numbers. Just that those numbers are higher in the city compared to the suburbs. Which certainly you can understand?
doc89 t1_je0hcav wrote
>I have not found a single website that comes close to your 50 or 100 percent numbers. What source are you getting these numbers from?
I'm just spitballing based on numbers in the inquirer article.
In reality, the philadelphia district and lower merion have roughly the same per student expenses:
https://www.niche.com/k12/d/philadelphia-city-school-district-pa/
https://www.niche.com/k12/d/lower-merion-school-district-pa/
...but the article implies that this number actually would need to be increased thousands more in Philadelphia in order to get up to the state average, or to get to what Lower Merion "spends":
" a need-adjusted measure of what districts actually spend — is $10,796 per student; the state average is $13,688. Lower Merion, by comparison, spells $26,362 per student."
Which gets back to my original point about why this type of analysis is so silly and ridiculous. Measured in dollars (which is how most people measure spending usually...), these districts spend similar amounts but measured in this mysterious "Needs Based Adjusted" metric, the numbers come out wildly different. It just seems dishonest and bizarre.
signedpants t1_je0jaod wrote
The poverty rate in Philadelphia is 23%, it's 3% in lower merion. Average household income in LM and median salary are double that of philadelphia. That obviously puts a massive strain on the school system. Does that really seem all that bizarre and dishonest?
doc89 t1_je0jxy6 wrote
>That obviously puts a massive strain on the school system. Does that really seem all that bizarre and dishonest?
Yes, I think it's dishonest to pretend that the schools are "underfunded" when they are funded at the same/similar dollar amount as other schools or to pretend that poor kids need to have double or triple the amount of money spent on them as non-poor kids.
realityhofosho t1_je11758 wrote
It is required. I agree. But does it happen? I've never seen this.
(and I'm not saying it doesn't, but I've been in education for 25 years in the city, and I've yet to see it.)
Instead, I see (sadly) a "you get what you pay for" model in action. These schools are the worst funded, and you can tell.
justanawkwardguy t1_je0104a wrote
Suburban schools also don't have to provide as much to their students because they come from better backgrounds, so your point is moot
[deleted] t1_je048om wrote
[deleted]
doc89 t1_je01wwq wrote
The point I was trying to make is that it is simply false to pretend like the problem is "federal policies siphoned away money to suburban schools" when the schools are in fact getting more money than suburban schools.
If you think that the schools in the city need/deserve more money than suburban schools, that's a fine argument to make/have, but I'm so tired of hearing about this fantasy of the schools being "underfunded".
realityhofosho t1_je11jy2 wrote
I would love to know what suburban school are providing that the city's are not. Not being snarky, just literally have no idea.
justanawkwardguy t1_je12ed8 wrote
I’m saying the opposite of that, city schools provide a lot of services that suburban don’t. More city school students need help with food and technology, issues that suburban schools don’t typically tackle
chciKaspp t1_je2dvbp wrote
Nurses, librarians, therapists, teachers aides, special education teachers for starters.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments