Skip to main content

What to do with $400 Million?

 Apparently, the city of Boston is getting $400 million in federal relief for its schools in the near future. Debate rages among parents - should we spend it on art programs? Middle school sports? How can we plan for such a large amount of spending? 

I, of course, think we should spend it on equity. Here's an idea:

$150 million for funding long-term positions where they are most needed: teachers in inclusion classrooms and AP classes in non-exam high schools, librarians, counselors, etc. And let's fund them for 10-20 years, not just one year. 

$100 million for deferred maintenance. Let's fix up our buildings today so that we can pay for teachers, books and innovative programs tomorrow. Fix leaky roofs, rebuild when needed - let's not lose any more buildings because we failed to take care of them!

$25 million split among all Boston schools. Or divided on a per-pupil basis. Either way, give some "play money" equally to each school to decide what they want to do with it this year (that comes out to about $500 per kid, if you were wondering). 

The percentages in these first three categories could be played with - I'm not really sure if those numbers are right for long-term teacher salaries or maintenance, but it seems like a good start. 

Last, $125 million to fund cash payouts to Boston's poorest families. Yup, you heard me right. Let's take that last chunk of cash and funnel it right to the families that need it the most. Some quick Google calculations tell us that if that money was invested, we could disburse $10-$20 million dollars a year. Research tells us that small cash infusions of a few thousand dollars can make a huge difference, particularly to the poorest families- and even change their educational outcomes.  For people really focused on test scores - yes, this has a good chance of raising these kids' test scores. 

 Some back of the napkin calculations: there are about 65,000 children in Boston public schools, of which about 80-90% are low income.  If we estimate an average of 2 kids per household, and plan to offer $3-4,000 in a yearly lottery to the poorest 50% of families using Boston's public schools, we could easily offer payments to a quarter of those families each year. And if we got some of Boston's big philanthropists to donate each year, or even some of our ordinary citizens and parents, we could keep that fund going for a long, long time. 

This could be a game-changer in Boston. Why? Decades of research has consistently found that increasing families' incomes also increases their children's educational attainment. 

Boston has the seventh-largest income inequality of any city in the US, and White families have a median wealth of $240K to Black families' $8 (yes, that's eight dollars) (Don't @ about the numbers - go look it up yourself!). As housing prices skyrocket, more of our poorest families are at risk of homelessness and housing instability. This could be the cheapest and most direct way to improve our city's education outcomes - if kids aren't worried about eviction or having their power shut off, it'll be easier to focus on school. And it could relieve a huge amount of human suffering - allowing teachers to focus on other things in their classrooms. 

And yes, I think this money should go out with zero strings attached. Just give it to the families. They'll know how to spend it. 

That's how I think we should spend the relief money we're getting from the feds. 




Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Rating and Testing Part II: Could it Be Poverty Itself?

This is the second article in a series. See Part I . I think the next question we need to ask ourselves is: is there something about poverty itself that interferes with learning?  There are many pop-psychology explanations of why poor kids do worse in school: poor kids don't do as well as rich kids because their parents are too busy to help them (or not well-educated enough), or that  they don't have access to enrichment activities . These are the more generous ones. Others simply lean on negative stereotypes about low-income families: they don't value education, they are trapped in a culture of poverty, or, my personal favorite, the debunked theory that they simply don't talk to their kids enough (the "word gap theory" [insert eye roll here].  So let's unpack some of these a little. First off, let's just knock off the beating up on families of low-income kids. Yes, parents may be busy but poor and/or marginalized families care just as much, if not mo...
Post a Comment
Read more

Rating and testing Part I: "failing schools"

 I think one of the biggest takeaways from making the BPS timeline is how much test scores matter. Our state test - the MCAS - plays a majority role in a school's ranking (Tier 1, 2, 3, or 4),  or if it is turned over to state receivership (State level 5). It determines if a school is labeled "underperforming," which, given our current budget allocation where money follows students , can mean decreased funding if parents choose to send their students elsewhere (which, of course, can mean decreased resources for the remaining students, which can mean decreased scores, lower ratings, fewer students, etc., etc. etc. until it closes or is put in receivership).  At the very least, it can lead to parents typing away in frustration on social media, "These schools are failing our students!" Some would say they have led to over 70% of BPS schools being moved, closed, reformulated or otherwise disrupted in the past 20 years . I think it's worth it to ask: given all th...
Post a Comment
Read more