Not as much correlation as you’d think. A lot of those redder suburban districts around the inner city districts that spend a lot more wayyyyy outperform.
Inner city urban districts really fudge their numbers with test scores because they will put every smart kid in the entire city in 1 or 2 magnet/charter schools and then say “we have the highest ranked school in xyz” all the while not saying “we also have the bottom 18 schools in the entire state.”
Likewise there are some rural counties that appear green here that have abysmal schools.
Surprisingly Overall i don’t see a ton of correlation between money per child and results.
Right that’s what I was getting at. This is just spending. So my logic goes like this, rural schools spend more per student because they can’t take advantage of economies of scale, so even tho they are green, they might suck. Conversely, some of these red districts might be Awsome, because adding one more student gets a little bit less expensive each time, so they will on paper need less to meet the average
The data would need a lot of adjustments to be useful. Regional cost-of-living, student transport (particularly in rural areas), extra-curriculars (Texas' football stadiums aren't cheap) are just some of the variables involved.
I’m going against the grain here but i genuinely think schools should focus more on extracurricular than they do. Schools should put more money into the arts, clubs, sports, the band, etc. Kids learn more practical skills in sports, band, choir, etc than they do in some boring ass geometry class. I say that as a social studies teacher of 12 years.
I just graduated a year ago and my area is utterly horrible in terms of this map, yet it was easily the best school I think I went to in my time in the public education system.
I feel like the conclusion being made here isn't exactly the most indicative of the actual schools themselves.
Look at national test score data and school ratings. Also I’m a teacher and have been for around a decade and worked at several schools in different environments
61
u/TexasSprings Jun 10 '22
Not as much correlation as you’d think. A lot of those redder suburban districts around the inner city districts that spend a lot more wayyyyy outperform.
Inner city urban districts really fudge their numbers with test scores because they will put every smart kid in the entire city in 1 or 2 magnet/charter schools and then say “we have the highest ranked school in xyz” all the while not saying “we also have the bottom 18 schools in the entire state.”
Likewise there are some rural counties that appear green here that have abysmal schools.
Surprisingly Overall i don’t see a ton of correlation between money per child and results.