Re:The case for expanding rather than eliminating gifted edu...
by ghaff on Wednesday June 08, 2022 @02:56PM
(#31672303)
And, as is often the case, there's a very loose relationship in Massachusetts between per-student spend and educational outcomes as measured by tests. It's common for urban districts in particular to have high spend and generally poor outcomes.
Re:The case for expanding rather than eliminating gifted edu...
by shagie on Wednesday June 08, 2022 @02:09PM
(#31671666)
Property tax in California has its own history and complications that makes it difficult to compare California's funding of things based on property tax to anywhere else in the US.
Re:The case for expanding rather than eliminating gifted edu...
by rats on Wednesday June 08, 2022 @03:24PM
(#31672688)
can you link to an article detailing this issue? i'd love to dig deeper on this topic
Re:The case for expanding rather than eliminating gifted edu...
by shagie on Wednesday June 08, 2022 @03:30PM
(#31672768)
https://www.kqed.org/news/11701044/how-proposition-13-transf...
https://www.kcrw.com/news/shows/greater-la/california-props-...
Late edit: the Wikipedia article would also be something to read up on - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13
Compare California and Massachusetts. It seems to demonstrate the point of the poster you replied to. Despite MA relying nearly twice as much on property tax, as state revenue versus California, it seems to have better outcomes. Mostly because as the article discusses, MA appears to use targeted transfers from state revenue to poor districts.