Equity: Arkansas has a positive wealth - neutrality score, meaning that, on average, property - wealthy districts have slightly more revenue
than poor districts do.
Rich districts may choose to spend more than their foundation budget out of locally generated funds, but on average they still spend less
than poor districts do.
Not exact matches
If the grant only serves
districts with more
than half their students from families
poor enough to qualify for the free and reduced lunch program, as some of the grant programs
do, J - E, at 34 percent, would not qualify.
The state's score is positive, meaning that, on average, wealthy
districts in the state have more revenue
than do property -
poor districts.
Nevada is one of only 10 states with negative wealth - neutrality scores, meaning that, on average, property -
poor districts actually have more state and local revenue for education
than wealthy
districts do.
A negative score means that, on average, students in property -
poor districts actually receive more state and local funding per pupil
than students in more affluent areas
do.
In L.A., however, where most charters serve
poor and minority students — and appear to be
doing a better job of it
than many of their
district - school counterparts — there is more at stake.
But Oklahoma is one of only 10 states with negative wealth - neutrality scores, meaning that, on average, property -
poor districts actually have more state and local revenue for education
than wealthy
districts do.
Even students in the
poorest districts appear to
do better in a competitive system, as exists in the Boston area,
than they
do in areas in which one or two
districts dominate a metropolitan area, like Miami.
The NCLB law gives parents the choice to withdraw their students and send them elsewhere, rather
than address the concentration of low - performing minority students — typically
poor ones — that
did not have the resources to get find their way to more distant schools in their own
districts.
The Obama Administration's decision to allow states to implement supposedly «ambitious» yet «achievable» proficiency targets — usually with lower proficiency rates for
poor and minority kids
than for middle - class and white counterparts — allow
districts and schools to
do little to help those kids succeed.
But in many cases, suburban
districts are
doing only marginally better
than big city peers in improving student achievement, and
doing terribly by kids from
poor and minority backgrounds.
Probationary teachers with more
than one
poor observation would be given limited support and then terminated if they
do not improve It's time for
districts to take advantage of this time period to weed out ineffective teachers.»
In
district - level analysis, the Education Trust finds that nationally
districts serving high concentrations of low - income students receive on average $ 1,200 less in state and local funding
than districts that serve low concentrations of low - income students, and that gap widens to $ 2,000 when comparing high - minority and low - minority
districts.17 These findings are further reflected by national funding equity measures reported by Education Week, which indicate that wealthy school
districts spend more per student
than poorer school
districts do on average.18
As with black and Latino families from the middle class,
poor families of all backgrounds move into suburbia thinking that traditional
district schools in those communities will
do better in providing their kids with high - quality teaching and curricula
than the big city
districts they fled.
Given that the percentage of low - income suburban fourth - grade young men struggling with literacy is only seven percentage points lower
than that for big - city counterparts (and only six points lower for suburban fourth - grade young women peers
than for big - city counterparts), suburban
districts are
doing as poorly as big - city counterparts in providing the
poorest kids with high - quality education needed for success in an increasingly knowledge - based economy.
One way it has
done this is to establish schools in
poor districts, which may receive more funding
than rich ones in some states.