Alamo Whites

Norton Grubb argues that inequality and inadequate outcomes from schools cannot be explained by inadequate revenues and financing, contrary to the opinions of many. More money to schools will not solve problems of inequality. Grubb points out that the link between spending per pupil and outcomes has always been weak, so more money should not be seen as the only solution for improving schools.

I find this philosophy interesting given my education experience and background before college. I went to school in one of the wealthiest school districts in San Antonio, known for its lack of racial/ethnic diversity and overall pretentiousness. Students at other schools in San Antonio express a general disdain for this district (Alamo Heights) and refer to it as "Alamo Whites." Most of the students come from upper-middle class families and over 90% attend college upon graduation. Although it has a wide range of accolades and favorable student outcomes, I believe this is largely because of the families/backgrounds of the students who attend this school, rather than because the district itself has money. Most of my friends’ parents were doctors, lawyers, or CEOs with large incomes and many resources to support and encourage their children.

Throughout my time in this school district, many legal practices and policies over the years required my school district to redistribute some of its money to the other schools in San Antonio. While I do think it is important for all schools to have enough money to provide quality curriculum and services to students, I think (and I think this is in line with Grubb’s thinking) that more focus should have been given to other factors. Money alone is not the reason for the success of students who come through this district. Family background, a tight-knit community, and other social factors likely contribute significantly to outcomes. While money is the easy difference to observe and measure, it is not the most significant factor.