suing for equity in school funding

this analysis by my (wish i were his) friend over at electablog* is simple and to the point, yet reminds me of something out of an urban fiscal policy class i took in college. he argues that, just as you'd station more cops in areas with high crime rates, school districts should invest more dollars in schools with lower-performing schools. it's not an argument for "throwing money at the problem;"

Money, it is often said, doesn't solve the problem. On the other hand, the problem can rarely be solved without money.

the analogy doesn't transfer perfectly -- putting more cops in high-crime areas can only help you so much, as criminals will simply move to other parts of town -- but it is the case that investing in education, and in specific types of education, has been proven to reduce crime and all sorts of other long-term urban problems.

it's well known that it takes more money to educate a poor kid than one who has more resources at home. that's the rationale behind title I, and behind the "foundation budget" approach to education funding, and also the "education adequacy" suits that dave pell cites. but legislators (and those who vote on school budgets, where applicable) are loath to give more money to a system that, to them, looks much like this.

but i don't think anyone would argue that money itself is the solution. personally, my expert opinion is that the solution is better teachers and principals in schools that need them most. and you're not going to attract a great teacher with lots of options to an unsafe, geographically distant school simply by offering higher pay. but it would help.

but really, it all goes back to the fact that you're not going to have equity in education until you fix the problems that caused the inequity. you're not going to staff a school with >90% poverty with all great teachers for any amount of money. most teachers who live in the suburbs want to teach in the suburbs. most teachers from middle-class backgrounds ultimately want to teach middle class kids.

meanwhile ....

it's starting to dawn on me that there's a limit to how much i can understand about education policy, and how far i can go in this field, without having taught myself. recently a friend's mom basically told me that until i've taught in a public school and in a private school, i'm basically talking out of my ass when i rant about schools. i always figured that i knew i was talking out of my ass, but it was okay because i was young.

but now i'm a year out of college. i've loved teaching, in the capacity that i have taught. i know that i want to teach high school someday. i always imagined doing it once i've done everything else - worked in d.c., worked abroad, run a marathon, written a dissertation, started a nonprofit organization, and acquired a second source of income through the acquisition of a spouse. part of that was because i wanted to really understand the way the world works - have a coherent outlook on life - before presuming to go teach it to others. but i'm starting to realize that i can't presume to understand how the world works before i teach in an urban school. it's all so paradoxical.

working on education policy in DC without having taught is okay because federal education policy itself is so removed from reality. but if i want to work anywhere else i'm woefully unqualified.

it's happened several times lately that i've wanted to post to this blog about education, but stopped myself. maybe i've learned all i can learn from my internship. it is clearly time to move on.

i just need to GET A JOB.