It does make a difference. The question here was whether it covers the gap between the funding for schools with affluent parents and non-affluent parents in NYC public schools.

Yeah, that’s why people have that misunderstanding. But a surprising number of New Yorkers also have it.

Just give me a concrete example of a school with wealthy parents that raises so much money that it outstrips the funding gap between it and a much less wealthy title I school. I don’t think you’ll find one. There are only a handful of schools with PTAs that could possibly raise enough money to make the exercise of comparing worthwhile to even attempt. Generally speaking the wealthiest schools get the least amount of money, even when private fundraising is included. Happy to be proved wrong.

(Also, note that the spreadsheets of data from 2019 that came out of Treyger’s law are known to be inaccurate. I’m not aware of any good data on PTA fundraising, but maybe the data got better after 2019.)

It doesn’t. Look at the amount that PTAs raise at the wealthiest public schools. Add that to their total state, federal, and city funding. Compare that total to any Title I school in NYC. It will be lower on a per pupil basis.

And that article does not say what you think it says. It just says that some school PTAs raise more money than others. Specifically, it says that Mark Twain’s PTA raises approximately $250 per student. If you think that is enough to erase the gap in total funding with much less affluent schools, you are very wrong.

> Public schools full of wealthy kids end up better funded not because the state gives them more money, but because of fundraising.

You’re correct that the state doesn’t give those schools more money than schools with less affluent parents, but you’re wrong to think that fundraising makes up the difference. It doesn’t.

Title I schools in NYC get a lot more funding than schools with more affluent students.

>If you put lots of richer kids with more resources in one building, they will perform better. It is an argument for a better distribution of richer children and resources.

>Because it pulled from a huge population and aggregated the highest performing kids and gave them the best resources.

Generally speaking, public schools in NYC with more affluent students do not have more or better resources.

People just import whatever understanding they have about school financing from the suburb they grew up in.

It’s not for everyone.

People without kids in NYC schools have no clue about how “resources” are spread among schools.

Sleepy

I do. You’re a bit odd.

Better yet, rather than rant about what conservatives do, you should write or call your state senator or assemblyperson and say that you believe there should be a dangerousness standard. Let them know that their progressive constituents disagree with them on this so they don’t just assume it’s only conservatives who feel that way.

Just make an argument about bail reform on its merits. Guilt by association is a weak argument.

Things do happen, like public defenders’ offices who support bail reform also opposing NY’s gun restrictions. But guilt by association is an unreliable heuristic.

Not always true. I dislike bail reform and I’m pro gun control.

And like I said, some of the people who lobbied for bail reform were directly involved in the Second Amendment case that overturned NY’s gun restrictions. I’m talking about the Bronx Defenders and other defenders’ offices.

I don’t understand what you’re trying to say in this comment.

So a story about how bail reform defenders are lying about bail reform, with discussions of specific crimes, that’s ok, too?

And people who wanted these bail reform laws also argued before the Supreme Court in favor of invalidating NY’s gun restrictions.

It’s a case study in four crimes.

Why isn’t this in the crime thread?

It did not.

Why waste all these words? Just say you want quotas.

Edit: I re-read your comment and thought about it and I tend to agree with your main point that the only thing that could substantially narrow disparate outcomes for black Americans versus other Americans is something like a second Reconstruction. I also agree it’s unlikely to happen.

Uncited infographics now allowed!

“Sorry, you have to leave, we don’t allow disabled people in here.”

Is that how it went?