| ▲ | deaddodo 7 hours ago | |
Do you not know that the US is a Federal system and there are (at minimum) 50 different ways that schools are funded? California's schools (for instance) aren't funded by local taxes, they're funded by the state and allocated funding based on a formula[1] of performance, need, population, etc. They can be augmented by local taxes, but in practice that's rare as the wealthy just avoid the system altogether; instead, opting for private institutions. That's at least 12% of the population that is not funded in the manner you outline. | ||
| ▲ | lunar-whitey 6 hours ago | parent [-] | |
Equity remains a valid criticism of LCFF in California specifically. For one unremarkable observation in this area, see the following think tank report: > States often commission cost studies to establish the level of funding required to help students meet state standards. LPI analyzed five of the more recent of these studies [...] All of these studies recommended additional weighted funding to support English learners and students considered "at-risk," which was most often defined by a measure of family income and also included other factors [...] The recommended weights for English learners in these studies ranged from 15% to 40% of the base grant level in each state. The recommended weights for at-risk students ranged from 30% to 81%. Compared to the recommended funding in these states, the LCFF’s supplemental grant weight of 20% is at the lower end of the recommended range of weights for English learners and below the range of weights for at-risk students. | ||