Schools are often directly affected by the resources of the community in which they are located. This reveals itself as a wide disparity in educational resources between rich and poor neighborhoods, as more affluent neighborhoods pay more property tax-a usual stream of revenue for school districts. A recent study of families who participated in the Move To Opportunity (MTO) program, revealed that school reforms are helping to bridge this gap in resources. Those who moved to neighborhoods with less poverty did only slightly better than those who did not move away from high-poverty areas. The study credits part of this lack of difference with "aggressive school reforms." Ironically, many who moved stayed in the same school district. Those that moved to a different school district were more likely to do better academically.
Picture J.J. from the 80's television sitcom, Good Times, saying "DY-NO-MITE!"
A New York Times article describes ambitious (explosivef) plans in Flint, Michigan. Due to city shrinkage and many foreclosures, some areas of the city are falling into urban decay. The city has plans to raze entire city blocks in order to "start over," and shift remaining tenants into a new development. What do you think about this? It is quite a variation from urban renewal.
.
.
.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Another good reason that taxes for schools should be pooled and distributed on an equal basis. Tying school quality to neighborhood net worth is pure insanity.
ReplyDeleteAmen. They could be distributed per capita. Why are we not doing that? Is it the same reason we still have the BCS in college football? (Those with the money don't want to unclench their fists.)
ReplyDeleteMany of those with money rarely unclench their fists! Money is as addictive as any substance, sugar, you can imagine. Just the promise of it is enough to addict some [gambling]. Tying school funding to neighborhood property taxes was short sighted, given the fluidity of our economy.
ReplyDelete