It appears that putting a label to demographics is inflammatory for you, and for that please accept my apology. The Lewis Lemon project was a wonderful, successful example of exactly the point I was trying to make. It seems logical that when funding is limited, teaching to the majority is most cost effective. The test scores there seem to prove that out and are cited in your example.

Please understand that not all demographics are racial. A non-English speaking student requires a different educational approach than an English speaking one and that’s not as easy to deliver in a 700 student environment without proper funding. Factor in physical and mental disabilities, and costs per pupil go up even more. Washington Central doesn’t have any of those issues; I couldn’t even find a significant special Ed entry in their budget, but I’m certainly no accountant.

So let me restate one of my more recent questions, lest we digress:
“…show the argument that the NEA, IFT, and Big Ed in general make about the inequity in funding across the State.”
I’d like to see some of that in the context of this argument, please.

The example given was not infammatory. To me, it was given to dramatically show the argument that the NEA, IFT, and Big Ed in general make about the inequity in funding across the State. It is a bogus argument and that was the point of the comparison. As I stated in my post, if you don’t like the comparison you should get these groups to stop using the generalization of the inequity of funding. They use this argument all the time.

Next, if you and so many others don’t believe it is about money, then why are there so many referendums asking for more? Why are all the districts crying to the State for more money? You arguments here really don’t hold water.

As for your question, “Can a $ in an all white, mid to high income district in Peoria with no special needs produce the same result as a $ in a diverse, low income, high ESL and special needs district in Metro Chicago?”, I believe the answer is yes. All kids call learn at the same rate if taught properly. This is not so much a function of money, but of the instructional techniques used. This has been proven over and over again. It appears you don’t believe other races or impoverished kids can learn as well as what you call your “white, mid to high income district”. Here is a refresher from just down the road in Rockford:

Nearly eight in 10 children who enter Lewis Lemon Global Studies Academy in prim blue uniforms are black. All but 15 percent of the school’s 412 pupils are poor. Don’t dare tell these children that, statistically speaking, they should be struggling in school. Lewis Lemon’s third-grade students ranked No. 2 out of 35 Rockford elementary schools that administered the Illinois Standards Achievement Test in reading and math. … At Lewis Lemon … black third-graders outperformed white counterparts in reading and math in last spring’s tests; 97 percent of black students met state standards, compared with 92.3 percent of white students. And 95.3 percent of students classified as poor met math standards. Compare that to scores around the district: 41.1 percent of black third-graders, compared to 73.7 percent of whites, met state math standards. And 51.9 percent of poor students met third-grade math standards against 74.9 percent of their peers who aren’t poor.

This article gives the details on the scores and the school’s rankings. This article goes into detail about why Principal Parker was removed from instructional duties when she produced these results.

I can go through the 890 some districts and find “pears” (cute pun, huh?) to support any argument. Who ever said that $ = test scores or that test scores = quality education anyway?