Also anecdotal: my grandfather (along with many other rural students in the country) went to school in a one-room schoolhouse. The funding was extremely limited. This didn't hold back their educational performance.
It's the Heritage Foundation so obviously it has an angle to push, but here's a study about school funding and performance: http://www.heritage.org/education/report/does-spending-more-...
This is extremely prevalent in diverse urban areas dominated by liberals, such as New York City.
Blue states still have better public schools than red states https://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/articles/...
So even if they are sending them to private schools, the public schools that "they won't send them to" STILL do better than the public schools in conservative states.
> while at the same time bashing conservatives who wish to do the same.
Those wealthy liberals pay for both the local public school and the private school. They aren't exempt from taxes because they send their kids to private school. This is why they bash conservatives, for their desire to defund public education.
> That's because the link between funding and performance is tenuous at best
So if funding is irrelevant and liberal states provide better education, what's the next post-rationalization to justify downvotes for unsubstantiated political claims?
I don't think the metric used gives the entire picture. It's pointing out the percentage of nationally-ranked schools and ignores everything below that threshold.
>So even if they are sending them to private schools, the public schools that "they won't send them to" STILL do better than the public schools in conservative states.
The urban school that the wealthy whites are avoiding probably isn't nationally ranked.
>for their desire to defund public education
Who wants to do that? It's about the amount spent, not defunding.
"My city the segergation is increased through Private and Charter Schools. One charter school has 93% Latino population. Another Private School near me has over 90% Caucasian population."
These are the people who preach that "diversity is our strength" but will spend a LOT of money to avoid this "strength".
Though it is I think broadly acknowledged that simply throwing money at the problem won't solve anything. The Brookings Institute side of the argument even acknowledges that. [1]
However, the Brookings Institute does argue for long-term state education finance reforms changes, with linked studies that show some improvement with overall school performance, with funding equalization structures. Another Brookings article [2] argues for spending on resources that matter where they are lacking, particularly well-qualified teachers and high-quality curriculum. Seems reasonable to me.
That does not change the socioeconomic factors that also are a large factor in current school performance. This is unfortunately a lot harder to solve.
But it's not going to be solved by being too broad in scope. "One school was 100% Asian-American and a neighboring school was 100% white" is too broad. After all, Appalachian whites currently have an educational gap, and Cambodian Americans currently having an educational gap. There are many other factors involved in school performance, such as socioeconomic status, parental and community involvement, etc.
[1] https://www.brookings.edu/research/its-not-nothing-the-role-... [2] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/unequal-opportunity-race-...