patrick.net

AJ1201 says

I don't see Cupertino here and most schools are in New England/NY belt. Doesn't seem right?

Any comments anyone?

The reason I put it in RE forum is that most people believe that there is a correlation between school districts' performance and housing prices.

Cupertino is an example specific to a certain household demographic and a specific county in The Bay Area. The house prices and rents are heavily skewed into what that particular demographic can afford to pay and what it thinks is a reasonable portion of household expense to pay for housing is. Those values are peculiar to that demographic and in the view of most Americans are very peculiar indeed.

Being a Bay Area Centric website, Cupertino gets disproportionately more discussion on this website compared to other forums.

CaptainShuddup says

When we're in a country that the best PUBLIC schools in the nation are in the rich neighborhoods. Then I suspect in 20 years we'll have a lot of domestic black workers working in the homes of those privileged few, that got a "Good" education. On the public's dime, including the parent's dime of the domestic help. It's a sick liberal whirld aint it?

I guess it was only wrong when White southern guys did it 50 years ago.

But it's OK for the Liberal elite to establish class inequality.

Oh but they say it's the head honcho at the bank's fault. The 1% and not the 50%.

They sure like to pass judgement on everyone else from behind the safety of their gated community don't they?

Jesus, why do you have to turn everything in to a left vs right rant? Fuck. What does the topic have to do with libs vers Cons? WTF

kt1652 says

What would happen if CA matched NY’s spending per student?
We assume that $/student is the main driver in school’s performance. (No, I do not believe to be valid.) But lets see what would happen anyway.

I don't think its a linear relationship in $ vs performance. I'm sure if you have better ratio of teachers to students you'll get some students to perform better, but only up to a point. If you go over a certain threshold, it becomes a waste of money since your quality of teachers will be too variable/

CaptainShuddup says

When we're in a country that the best PUBLIC schools in the nation are in the rich neighborhoods. Then I suspect in 20 years we'll have a lot of domestic black workers working in the homes of those privileged few, that got a "Good" education. On the public's dime, including the parent's dime of the domestic help. It's a sick liberal whirld aint it?

I guess it was only wrong when White southern guys did it 50 years ago.

But it's OK for the Liberal elite to establish class inequality.

Oh but they say it's the head honcho at the bank's fault. The 1% and not the 50%.

They sure like to pass judgement on everyone else from behind the safety of their gated community don't they?

The reason wealthy districts are permitted to outspend poorer ones within the same state is because of a supreme court case from 1973, San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez. This has nothing to do with liberal vs. conservative. All states do this, regardless of the voting blocks involved. However, IMHO, it was a terrible decision that condemned a large number of our countries children to inadequate educational opportunities, and the deciding vote was cast by a Justice appointed by Nixon, who wasn't exactly one of your much maligned liberals.