Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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.

3

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?

1

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.

0