From what I understand, NYC already allocates funds to sites on a basis of the demographic needs of the school — so the “backpack” concept is hardly an innovation nor a change. In SFUSD troubled schools ended up with more money in the old system, so WSF did not substantially change that. (We also use averaged teacher salaries, so the threat to union staffing rules is eliminated.)

What it really does is empower site governance and empower families. The real promise of WSF — at least in SFUSD — lies in the way it empowers site based budgeting. School site councils — with equitable representation of teachers, parents, and administration — are able to make discretionary choices based on local school needs and the informed leadership of the administrators and teachers on site. Does this school need more special ed teachers? reading specialists? librarians? art teachers? WSF pushes the decision making out of the hands of central planners and into the hands of school leaders.

In SF we have near open enrollment, so families have a genuine power to choose their kids’ school. The backpack model is a simple way of ensuring that the money moves with the child. But more importantly it allows families to pick the winners and losers. If a school is run well, with dynamic leaders and competent staff, families flock to it and it thrives — and the budget is not strained by that success. If they make bad choices, they wither away. Believe me, I’ve seen both outcomes. And WSF really does provide a degrees of liberty and choices that makes it work.

What were and are the results of this spending? My northern Queens school consistently produced 3s and 4s on NYS exams for 65-75% of the kids. My Title One school did so in numbers less than 50%.Given a large ESL population, and 75% free lunch this is not too surprising. What to make of this? If the Title One school was not funded the way it is, the results would be horrific. I’m sure lower class size in the middle class school would move the numbers up, but I’m not sure how measurable it would be. I think having the money follow the kid is nuts.It’s not about how much money we spend on a few kids. it’s taking the money and using it to orchestrate an environment that makes teaching and learning more possible. If 50 kids had followed me on my first transfer and brought their title one money with them the effect on their education would have been negligible, aside from being in a calmer environment. But the way that money is deployed in their own school makes its effect greater and more efficient. hope this rambling makes some sense.

1. By far, the leading factor in school failure is poor leadership.
2. Failing schools do NOT always have new, inexperienced teachers. In many instances staffs were made up of a mix of experienced and inexperienced teacher, however, poor leadership overrode the experience of the staff.
3. When the dust settles it will be quite interesting to observe the movement of staff under the Open Market system.
4. The Chancellor’s District, dismantled by Klein, provided 15% higher pay (in exchange for a longer school day and year), teachers chose to be in the District, and, the District had a close working relationship with the teachers union.

In NYC teachers are “charged” to the school budget at the average salary for the school.

Weighted Student Funding will simply create chaos …

Teachers seek to transfer to highly effective schools, regardess of neighborhood … effective princpals seek successful teachers … regardless of age and experience …

And I’m afraid that giving the seniority transfer plan, among many other things, for less than cost of living, was a monumental folly. However you may feel about such programs, it’s simply bad business to give things away for less than nothing.

I remember when we took zeroes for the UFT transfer plan, among many other things.

As you ably point out, having given away the farm for less than nothing has done little do dissuade our critics, who continue to blame unions for everything.