海角大神

American kids are getting ready to head back to school. But the schools they鈥檙e heading back to differ dramatically by family income.

Which helps explain the growing achievement gap between lower and higher-income children.

Thirty years ago, the average gap聽on SAT-type tests between children of families in the richest 10 percent and bottom 10 percent was about 90 points on an 800-point scale. Today it鈥檚听.

罢丑别听聽of American kids, by income, is one of widest among the 65 countries participating in the Program for International Student Achievement.

On their聽, children from high-income families score 110 points higher, on average, than those from poor families. This is about the same disparity that exists between average test scores in the United States as a whole and Tunisia.

The achievement gap between poor kids and wealthy kids isn鈥檛 mainly about race. In fact, the racial achievement gap has been聽.

It鈥檚 a reflection of the nation鈥檚 widening gulf between poor and wealthy families. And also about how schools in poor and rich communities are financed, and the nation鈥檚 increasing residential segregation by income.

According to the Pew Research Center鈥檚听聽of 2010 census tract and household income data, residential segregation by income has increased during the past three decades across the United States and in 27 of the nation鈥檚 30 largest major metropolitan areas.

This matters, because a large portion of the money to support public schools comes from local property taxes. The federal government provides only about 14 percent of all funding, and the states provide 44 percent, on average. The rest, roughly 42 percent, is raised locally.

Most states do try to give more money to poor districts, but most states cut way back on their spending during the recession and haven鈥檛聽for the cutbacks.

Meanwhile, many of the nation鈥檚 local real estate markets remain weak, especially in lower-income communities. So local tax revenues are down.

As we segregate by income into different communities, schools in lower-income areas have fewer resources than ever.

The result is widening disparities in funding per pupil, to the direct disadvantage of poor kids.

The wealthiest highest-spending districts are now providing about聽per student as are the lowest-spending districts, according to a federal advisory commission report. In some states, such as California, the ratio is more than three to one.

What are called a 鈥減ublic schools鈥� in many of America鈥檚 wealthy communities aren鈥檛 really 鈥減ublic鈥� at all. In effect, they鈥檙e private schools, whose tuition is hidden away in the purchase price of upscale homes there, and in the corresponding property taxes.

Even where courts have requiring richer school districts to subsidize poorer ones, large inequalities remain.

Rather than pay extra taxes that would go to poorer districts, many parents in upscale communities have quietly shifted their financial support to tax-deductible 鈥減arent鈥檚 foundations鈥� designed to enhance their own schools.

础产辞耻迟听聽of the more than 14,000 school districts across America are funded in part by such foundations. They鈥檙e paying for everything from a new school auditorium (Bowie, Maryland) to a high-tech weather station and language-arts program (Newton, MA).

鈥淧arents鈥� foundations,鈥� observed the Wall Street Journal, 鈥渁re visible evidence of parents鈥� efforts to reconnect their money to their kids.鈥� And not, it should have been noted, to kids in another community, who are likely to be poorer.

As a result of all this, the United States is one of only three, out of 34 advanced nations聽by the OECD, whose schools serving higher-income children have more funding per pupil and lower student-teacher ratios than do schools serving poor students (the two others are Turkey and Israel).

Other advanced nations do it differently. Their national governments provide 54 percent of funding, on average, and local taxes account for less than half the portion they do in America. And they target a disproportionate share of national funding to poorer communities.

As Andreas Schleicher, who runs the OECD鈥檚 international education assessments,聽聽the New York Times, 鈥渢he vast majority of OECD countries either invest equally into every student or disproportionately more into disadvantaged students. The U.S. is one of the few countries doing the opposite.鈥�

Money isn鈥檛 everything, obviously. But how can we pretend it doesn鈥檛 count? Money buys the most experienced teachers, less-crowded classrooms, high-quality teaching materials, and after-school programs.

Yet we seem to be doing everything except getting more money to the schools that most need it.

We鈥檙e requiring all schools meet high standards, requiring students to take more and more tests, and judging teachers by their students鈥� test scores.

But until we recognize we鈥檙e systematically hobbling schools serving disadvantaged kids, we鈥檙e unlikely to make much headway.聽