Why not look at the court case? They proved to the judge that inequitable funding directing harms kids.

I’m honestly not interested in changing your mind. I’ve asked you numerous times about your metric for parent engagement. You’ve ignored it and then ask me to prove myself? You’re clearly not arguing in good faith.

Have the day you deserve, sir. :)

I’m saying fund them equitably for the services they have to provide. How much of the per pupil funding does to debt service? Building maintenance? Special services? How much actually reaches the classroom/student and not legacy costs?

You keep saying “parent engagement” but are not offering one measurable metric besides what some teacher friend told you? That’s not policy, that’s platitudes. There are real, tangible things that can be targeted with increased funding. Money cannot fix everything, but it’s a start to just get them on a level playing field. You don’t even want to do that. I don’t even know what you want other than not adequately find schools for “reasons”. If there was an actual, successful way to increase parent engagement, you don’t think schools would have done that by now? Seriously? Equitable funding is an evidence-based lever they can pull— hence the court case.

You have a viable solution of increasing funding to improve outcomes but don’t want to because it won’t solve all problems. It should be a multi-tiered response that includes an increase of funding to an equitable level.

Where do the kids go? They tried a version that in Michigan (where I am now). They disbanded the district and divided the kids up into neighboring districts. Those districts were NOT happy. They did it once and only once. Charter schools? Those scores aren’t any better. Plus, a lot of those kids return when the parents when they realize what they’re really getting. I wish I had the numbers for that handy.

I misspoke. They set the vision, but, yes, the admin does the day-to-day. If they don’t like how the superintendent does it, then remove them. They just removed one.

How do you improve parent engagement? And to what level? How do you measure it so it’s equitable to other districts? I sure hope you don’t need funds to do it.

Or you could just make funding equal across districts because making kids do more with less just because you can is cruel to say the least.

So, let’s do this— adequately fund ASD and then reevaluate. Let’s see what issues still exist and work on solutions from there. Money doesn’t fix all problems, but it will certainly help eliminate a bunch of them.

I brought up old buildings as a factor. Updated facilities won’t solve the problem, but it will move the needle. The money goes into many different pots for the whole educational experience.

Here’s why I brought up old buildings. No a/c. How many days did ASD have to call off school because it was too hot to have those kids in the buildings? Newer facilities and districts don’t have that interruption. Installing a/c units (if it can be done) is ridiculously expensive. That’s a problem of equity. Poverty doesn’t just hit you over the head. It’s a death of a thousand cuts.

I never said a new building would fix inequity. There are a plethora of factors that go into budget and achievement. Properly funding the district would go a long way to helping children achieve. It’s not properly funded now, and you’d be hard pressed to find anyone to agree that it is.

Parent engagement is vitally important. So is proper funding. Both things can be true.

Once it goes into receivership, it’s in State hands.

The school board does run the district. The superintendent cannot by a pencil is the school board doesn’t approve it. The board has to act as a majority, but it holds the power. Smart admins don’t bring issues to the board vote until they know they have the votes. The board has only one employee— the superintendent. That’s who they hire (and fire) to carry out their vision. But, again, they cannot act individually, only in majority. Taxes? The administration can make recommendations, but the board has to vote. During my time in ASD, the board definitely did what it wanted.

Sitting through multiple board meetings to learn the details? I’m not going to sit here and say ASD does everything perfectly, because not even close. But when you have a district that uses a school building that was built in the Grant administration, it’s apples to oranges.

Receivership isn’t going to help it. Have you seen the state’s track record when it comes to schools in receivership? It’s awful. Plus, if I remember correctly, there’s no cap on raising taxes to get funding. The school board doesn’t get a vote- it’s all in state hands.

They are “facts” without context.

Are you accounting for the overall budget? Number of students? Legacy costs? Buildings? Charter school costs? Allentown had to get money from the state otherwise they’d be insolvent because the property taxes would leave them millions short. Even when they raise them based on the maximum amount allowed, they still cannot close the budget. There’s nothing left to cut. It’s a mess.

Again, you’re over-simplifying and have very little idea of what goes into a school budget.

That’s a gross simplification. Allentown had to beg and borrow every year to get more funding because they were woefully, shamefully deficient. The funding formula needs a complete overhaul.

My husband worked in administration there. Those kids were severely penalized for lack of stable funding. I hope this ruling begins to remedy this.