The performance of a student is mostly dependent on the student's ability themselves, their social groups and how much their parents are able to give a shit, especially in today's age of the internet where access to information is not a limiting factor. A good school district that performs well is mostly a function of how much of the population is composed of that kind of student & parent combo and safe environment.
Beyond a bare minimum service level of functioning buildings, adequate nutrition, adequate medical care, adequate psychological testing, some basic school supplies and semi-competent, non-abusive teachers the finances do not matter.
If a classroom has a 1:10 ratio or 1:40 ratio or a 10 year old building vs a 90 year old building, big fancy gym vs an empty field, cool robotics lab or none at all, that barely matters in comparison and that what shows up as the difference in a well funded district vs a badly funded one.
A well funded good school district causes a shift in the student population, it's not the money that causes improvements in outcomes compared to population shift, so it is easy to mix the two.
Because the USA has a history of the above statement also being used for crypto-racist segregative bullshit, everyone thinks this really saying racist shit, but this applies the world over, including places without a long history of racism.
> A good school district that performs well is mostly a function of how much of the population is composed of that kind of student & parent combo and safe environment.
And that's tied to the school district, and is partially a function of how well funded the school is. People will money aren't going to send their children to poorly funded schools.
> Because the USA has a history of the above statement also being used for crypto-racist segregative bullshit, everyone thinks this really saying racist shit, but this applies the world over, including places without a long history of racism.
Outside of the US, funding for schools is often centrally planned, so most schools are relatively similar in funding, so you can't really properly compare.
Yes, this is tied to racism (white flight, segregationism/desegregationism), but this also applies to communities that are white and poor too.
Really, though, you're not very well educated on this subject. Your arguments don't reflect studies on the topic. You're making bold claims based on surface level thoughts; this is why people get angry when you say things like this.
Beyond a bare minimum service level of functioning buildings, adequate nutrition, adequate medical care, adequate psychological testing, some basic school supplies and semi-competent, non-abusive teachers the finances do not matter.
If a classroom has a 1:10 ratio or 1:40 ratio or a 10 year old building vs a 90 year old building, big fancy gym vs an empty field, cool robotics lab or none at all, that barely matters in comparison and that what shows up as the difference in a well funded district vs a badly funded one.
A well funded good school district causes a shift in the student population, it's not the money that causes improvements in outcomes compared to population shift, so it is easy to mix the two.
Because the USA has a history of the above statement also being used for crypto-racist segregative bullshit, everyone thinks this really saying racist shit, but this applies the world over, including places without a long history of racism.