Underfunding!?

The real difference between suburban districts and the urban ones is the size of the administrative staff.  The actual classes get VERY little, mostly because the non-teaching staff sucks up all the available money.

For example:

1) Security - has to be tighter in urban schools - the neighborhoods are more crime-filled

2) Attendance - this takes SERIOUS money - the kids skip, often because they're already behind, or they have family responsibilties.  The attendance people have to make home visits - no landline phone, and often no active service of any kind - to try to cajole them back into school.

School money is based on attendance.  Schools with bad attendance don't get the money, which then has to be split more ways.

Sometimes, schools can get a waiver if there is a medical excuse.  Urban families often can't afford private doctors, and it takes too much to get a sick kid on a bus (with brothers and sisters), go to a free clinic, and wait around for hours to be seen.  Why clinics don't make appointments, I don't know, but they won't.  You have to go early, and may not be seen until afternoon.

So, many times, the kid is just home until they heal.  No medical excuse.  No waiver of attendance.

3) This is SOMETIMES a problem - staff who won't do their job, and, consequently, additional staff has to be hired to do that job.

Why don't they just fire that underperforming/non-performing staffer?  Surely you jest - most administrators won't risk being sued for discrimination.  And, that's something many goof-offs know.  Once on the payroll, the living is easy.

4) Internal pilferage - this is a HUGE problem.  Hard to believe?  I personally saw it, as have most of my fellow teachers.

Seldom is anyone prosecuted.  Seldom are they dismissed.  Sometimes, the principals can get them moved to another school (in NYC, that's called "the dance of the lemons").

I teach in an urban, low-income school.  Our hands are so tied on how we spend money.  For example, we get very little money for technology, but a lot of money for tutoring interventions; almost nothing to improve our horrible, old building but tons of money for professional development.  We spend millions, as a district, on various specialists and "coaches," and mentors but the students see almost none of this.  It's sort of a trickle-down economics approach to funding schools where those at the top get the best resources and students get the worst.  

Since California schools are funded largely (90%) by the state, decisions about how that money is spent varies on a district by district basis. The needs of the district must be weighed against the mandates of the state.

Specific district needs might include social programs such as free/reduced lunch. You should understand that CA participates in the National School Lunch Program, which is funded by the Federal Government, therefore funds from the state of CA are not used in that program. About 10% of our total budget comes from the federal government, but is largely earmarked for special programs such as this one.

When you refer to "the public school system where you live," do you mean a single district where you live or the county, or the state? That makes a big difference since decisions on district spending are guided by the governing bodies (school boards), and what one district does has little impact on another district.

As a rule, schools within a district receive similar funds. Any additional social programs required by a particular school, they are funded through other sources such as federal funds, Title 1, SIP, and LEP. To be clear, those funds are issued on a school by school basis and are separate from the state money provided to districts for their budgets.

As an aside, I have taught in an "innercity" school district for 11 years. While I have seen many instances where I thought money could be better spent, I have never thought feeding children was a poor use of money. For many of my kids, their free breakfast and lunch will be their only meal for the day. Go ahead and blame their parents for not doing their jobs as most people think. At times, that is the case, but the reality of it is: Hungry kids can't learn. My kids need food, counseling, and after-school programs to keep them off the streets. School is their haven and often a soft place for them to land when life is pushing them over. If I am asked to choose textbooks or kids, I pick the kids every time. To me, that IS spending money on "the right things."

What does it mean that American schools are falling behind?  Whom are we falling behind, and in what ways?

There's an interesting book called The Manufactured Crisis that debunks this very claim, among others.  Highly recommended.

Our school system is one of the largest and most diverse innercity school systems in the state.  My school is over 50 percent free or reduced lunch.  It is not uncommon for students to move schools 4 or 5 times in one year because their parent(only one parent) can not afford the rent to stay in their home and must have bus transportation to help their child make it to school while they work 2 jobs to try to make ends meet.

Compare these children with the kids who live in the suburbs in a big beautiful home with parents who have the time and money to put into them.  

I'm not so sure that putting them at the same funding levels is the best for them.

Our school system has a very hard time meeting up to our students needs inspite of all our effort.  We spend a lot of money on remediation for the istep test that judges us so harshly for our diversity.  

Suburban schools are much less diverse and always seem to be doing a better job because of it when the Istep results come out.  Our kids improve for the most part but our schools fail because 1 student in 1 catogory had a score that was 1 or 2 points too low.

Then there is the sports program.  I know that a sports program can keep a kid out of trouble and on the right track but do they need to have so much funding.  Why is it easier to get a scholarship for a B student athlete who never took anything harder then general math, then it is to get a scholarship for an A student who takes the hardest courses available and is involved in academic clubs?  Other things can direct a child like a genuine interest in a club that funds itself and enhances an education.

Then there is the never ending amount of cameras around the school to keep our ever paranoid principle happy.  Let's not even go there.

Maybe we do get enough money and we just use it badly.

Maybe its all of the above and more.