Came across this while reading the news: http://articles.philly.com/2014-04-14/news/4910097...
Some key highlights:
"This school year Camden spent $27,500 per pupil, $9,000 more than the state average, to educate a district of 15,000 students, about 11,700 of them attending district public schools. Twenty-three of the district's 26 schools appear on the state's list of the 70 lowest-performing schools, but the city will spend almost as much per pupil in the current school year as the state's highest-spending districts, Avalon and Stone Harbor, spent in 2012-13. Camden made headlines earlier this year when the superintendent said only three high school students of the 882 who took the SAT in 2011-12 tested "college ready.""
Noting that it costs more to educate students in a high-poverty district,
"Using a weighted per-pupil formula that takes into account special-needs costs, Camden spent $11,034 for the 2013-14 school year, only slightly higher than the state weighted per-pupil average of $10,749, according to ELEC."
Thought this was interesting as I feel like people are perpetually complaining that schools are underfunded. I'm sure there are some cases where that's very true, but I thought it was shocking that a school district in one of the worst cities in America is actually funded quite while, albeit terribly managed.
Curious what WSO's opinions are on this since discussion here is (usually?) more intellectual and informed than the comments on the average philly.com article...