7 ms·

This is a great example of the flaw of using averages in an unbalanced society. Some wealthy districts spend far above the OECD average, while many poor distri

This is a great example of the flaw of using averages in an unbalanced society. Some wealthy districts spend far above the OECD average, while many poor districts are grossly under-funded (and under-achieving).

s1artibartfast 6y ago
Sure, but that is not evidence that republicans have shrunk educational spending. Instead, it is evidence that there is bipartisan support for educational spending, but with uneven beneficiaries. This is a different issue and the solutions to the first problem are not the solutions to the second. Last, this isn't really a partisan federal issue. Most school spending is determined the state or local level and the same inequality is present in predominantly red and blue states.
- brandmeyer 6y ago
  > it is evidence that there is bipartisan support for educational spending, That does not correspond with the rhetoric that I've seen. Republicans are adamantly opposed to increasing spending for public education, and have systematically cut support for higher education spending in state budgets. Instead, I regularly see the meme that there's tons of fat in the education system; that we spend just as much as everyone else, but have worse outcomes. The fault is in the schools for not spending what they have wisely enough. And I think that the funding story is flatly untrue. Because the dominant source of public education funding is from local taxes, there are vast differences in the per-student level of funding across the country.
  - rayiner 6y ago
    > And I think that the funding story is flatly untrue. Because the dominant source of public education funding is from local taxes, there are vast differences in the per-student level of funding across the country. This is patently false. Local governments provide 45% of K-12 educational spending. State governments spend 47% and the federal government spends 8%: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/styles/optimized_default/public/2020-03/fig_3_6.png?itok=sFXMqDkX https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/styles/optimized_d.... State and federal funding go overwhelmingly to erasing the disparities in local funding. Look at the funding numbers in your own state. Here is mine: https://i2.wp.com/conduitstreet.mdcounties.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Screenshot-2019-02-19-19.37.24-1.png?w=998&ssl=1 https://i2.wp.com/conduitstreet.mdcounties.org/wp-content/up.... The funding differences are based on cost of living, not local income. My solidly middle/upper middle class county has spending near the bottom because it’s pretty rural. Baltimore which is very poor has among the highest. Montgomery and Prince George’s, which are opposite sides of the income spectrum, get almost the same amount of funding. You can also see in that chart how differences in local funding are more than compensated for by differences in state funding.
    - brandmeyer 6y ago
      > State and federal funding go overwhelmingly to erasing the disparities in local funding. And it isn't enough. Not even close. Boulder Valley: 13.8k/student. Pueblo: 10.5k/ea. Fort Morgan: 9.5k/student. Those are sufficiently widely varying that looking at "average spending" paints an inaccurate picture. Durham public schools: 10.5k/ea. Chapel-Hill/Carrboro: 15k/ea. https://ballotpedia.org/Analysis_of_spending_in_America%27s_largest_school_districts https://ballotpedia.org/Analysis_of_spending_in_America%27s_... Range of total spending per student spreads by over a factor of 4x.
      - rayiner 6y ago
        First, you look at the whole country, there is in fact not a difference in most states: https://apps.urban.org/features/school-funding-do-poor-kids-get-fair-share/ https://apps.urban.org/features/school-funding-do-poor-kids-... Second, I’m not sure what your Colorado example is supposed to prove. Boulder is a much more expensive city than Pueblo. Land for schools is cheaper, salaries are lower, etc. Those costs seem roughly comparable accounting for local costs. Third, comparing spending across states is deeply misleading. The cost of schooling in Idaho (which makes up several of the lowest spending school districts in your link) bears little relation to the cost of schooling in New York (which makes up several of the highest spending school districts in your link). The irony of your example is that Idaho spends about 1/3 of what New York spends per student, and Idaho students outperform New York students: https://www.sde.idaho.gov/assessment/naep/files/general/naep-2017/NAEP-2017-Idaho-Results.pdf https://www.sde.idaho.gov/assessment/naep/files/general/naep... Fourth, even the low spending school districts in your examples spend more than European countries: https://www.statista.com/statistics/381745/education-expenditure-per-pupil-england-region-uk https://www.statista.com/statistics/381745/education-expendi.... School spending in London is about $7,402 per student. That’s substantially less than Pueblo or Durham, and only a bit more than the state average for Idaho ($7,100). I guarantee you that money goes a hell of a lot further in Durham or Boise than London!
        brandmeyer 6y ago
        And yet, we still can't afford 5 full days per week of school. 60% of all districts in our state only have funding for 4 days per week. Many of the remainder are on 4.5 days/week. > Third, comparing spending across states is deeply misleading. This is why you cannot use averages to talk about school funding relative to the rest of the OECD. That's my point. You asked for statistics in my state. I gave them, in my most recent two states of residence.
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    >Because the dominant source of public education funding is from local taxes, there are vast differences in the per-student level of funding across the country. This is what I said as well. There is also vast difference in per-student spending within blue states and blue counties. This is evidence that the problem crosses party lines.
  - bluGill 6y ago
    You hear that rhetoric often. However the truth is different. If both the democrats and Republicans propose increasing spending, but one increases less than the other, the one that increases less is said to cut spending. I've seen cases where the larger spending passes and they take credit for it the next year even though the states budget didn't balance (the state has a balanced budget requirement) and so what was actually spend was less than what the spending cut party proposed. (we don't know what would happen if the other party had won, since they claim they would have delivered by spending less elsewhere)
timgilbert 6y ago
> Instead, it is evidence that there is bipartisan support for educational spending, but with uneven beneficiaries. I'd see it rather as evidence that most educational spending happens at the state and local level, not the federal level. https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/education_spending https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/education_spending
rayiner 6y ago
On a state-by-state level, rich districts do not spend more than poor districts: https://apps.urban.org/features/school-funding-do-poor-kids-get-fair-share/ https://apps.urban.org/features/school-funding-do-poor-kids-... Obviously high-cost states spend more than low-cost states. But their education spending is consistent with the size of their economies. Mississippi has a GSP per capita of $35,000 and spends $8,700 per student. Italy, Spain, and New Zealand have similar GDP per capita and also spend a similar amount per student.
- wutbrodo 6y ago
  Thank you, the claim that our educational outcomes are poor due to underfunding is a huge pet peeve of mine. Its really terrifying to see people confidently and passionately argue about politics while pulling their "facts" from an alternate universe.
  - smegger001 6y ago
    I think it is in large part due bad spending priorities at schools. Several years ago I lived small rural community and the school district passed a heavy levee on homes to pay for a new football field and a far larger than needed grandstand/bleachers and field lighting. Turns out the high schools roof was needing replaced at the same time but they purposefully waited until they got the levy for the field through first to put forward the one to repair the school because they figured that they could get them both that way but could not get the field after replacing the roof. The highest paid government employees in most states are football coaches for the state schools? Why? I thought schools job were to educate not cause brain injuries in their students? Why pay millions of tax payer dollars earmarked for education for someone to coach a game that injures the mental capacity of the students. Why not hire more professors with that money? why not pay teachers more or fix facilities buy material and equipment make teachers not have to spend their own money on basic supplies?
    - wutbrodo 6y ago
      > The highest paid government employees in most states are football coaches for the state schools? Why? I thought schools job were to educate not cause brain injuries in their students? Why pay millions of tax payer dollars earmarked for education for someone to coach a game that injures the mental capacity of the students. Why not hire more professors with that money? why not pay teachers more or fix facilities buy material and equipment make teachers not have to spend their own money on basic supplies? I used to feel this way too, but my understanding is that investing in sports programs tends to _bring in_ more money for universities, on net. I don't think it's accurate to consider it as trading off against academic investment. At any rate, this is a bit tangential: American universities are the best in the world, so the conversation is more about high school and lower, where our educational outcomes lag by some metrics.

s1artibartfast 6y ago

Sure, but that is not evidence that republicans have shrunk educational spending. Instead, it is evidence that there is bipartisan support for educational spending, but with uneven beneficiaries. This is a different issue and the solutions to the first problem are not the solutions to the second. Last, this isn't really a partisan federal issue. Most school spending is determined the state or local level and the same inequality is present in predominantly red and blue states.

brandmeyer 6y ago
> it is evidence that there is bipartisan support for educational spending, That does not correspond with the rhetoric that I've seen. Republicans are adamantly opposed to increasing spending for public education, and have systematically cut support for higher education spending in state budgets. Instead, I regularly see the meme that there's tons of fat in the education system; that we spend just as much as everyone else, but have worse outcomes. The fault is in the schools for not spending what they have wisely enough. And I think that the funding story is flatly untrue. Because the dominant source of public education funding is from local taxes, there are vast differences in the per-student level of funding across the country.
- rayiner 6y ago
  > And I think that the funding story is flatly untrue. Because the dominant source of public education funding is from local taxes, there are vast differences in the per-student level of funding across the country. This is patently false. Local governments provide 45% of K-12 educational spending. State governments spend 47% and the federal government spends 8%: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/styles/optimized_default/public/2020-03/fig_3_6.png?itok=sFXMqDkX https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/styles/optimized_d.... State and federal funding go overwhelmingly to erasing the disparities in local funding. Look at the funding numbers in your own state. Here is mine: https://i2.wp.com/conduitstreet.mdcounties.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Screenshot-2019-02-19-19.37.24-1.png?w=998&ssl=1 https://i2.wp.com/conduitstreet.mdcounties.org/wp-content/up.... The funding differences are based on cost of living, not local income. My solidly middle/upper middle class county has spending near the bottom because it’s pretty rural. Baltimore which is very poor has among the highest. Montgomery and Prince George’s, which are opposite sides of the income spectrum, get almost the same amount of funding. You can also see in that chart how differences in local funding are more than compensated for by differences in state funding.
  - brandmeyer 6y ago
    > State and federal funding go overwhelmingly to erasing the disparities in local funding. And it isn't enough. Not even close. Boulder Valley: 13.8k/student. Pueblo: 10.5k/ea. Fort Morgan: 9.5k/student. Those are sufficiently widely varying that looking at "average spending" paints an inaccurate picture. Durham public schools: 10.5k/ea. Chapel-Hill/Carrboro: 15k/ea. https://ballotpedia.org/Analysis_of_spending_in_America%27s_largest_school_districts https://ballotpedia.org/Analysis_of_spending_in_America%27s_... Range of total spending per student spreads by over a factor of 4x.
    - rayiner 6y ago
      First, you look at the whole country, there is in fact not a difference in most states: https://apps.urban.org/features/school-funding-do-poor-kids-get-fair-share/ https://apps.urban.org/features/school-funding-do-poor-kids-... Second, I’m not sure what your Colorado example is supposed to prove. Boulder is a much more expensive city than Pueblo. Land for schools is cheaper, salaries are lower, etc. Those costs seem roughly comparable accounting for local costs. Third, comparing spending across states is deeply misleading. The cost of schooling in Idaho (which makes up several of the lowest spending school districts in your link) bears little relation to the cost of schooling in New York (which makes up several of the highest spending school districts in your link). The irony of your example is that Idaho spends about 1/3 of what New York spends per student, and Idaho students outperform New York students: https://www.sde.idaho.gov/assessment/naep/files/general/naep-2017/NAEP-2017-Idaho-Results.pdf https://www.sde.idaho.gov/assessment/naep/files/general/naep... Fourth, even the low spending school districts in your examples spend more than European countries: https://www.statista.com/statistics/381745/education-expenditure-per-pupil-england-region-uk https://www.statista.com/statistics/381745/education-expendi.... School spending in London is about $7,402 per student. That’s substantially less than Pueblo or Durham, and only a bit more than the state average for Idaho ($7,100). I guarantee you that money goes a hell of a lot further in Durham or Boise than London!
      - brandmeyer 6y ago
        And yet, we still can't afford 5 full days per week of school. 60% of all districts in our state only have funding for 4 days per week. Many of the remainder are on 4.5 days/week. > Third, comparing spending across states is deeply misleading. This is why you cannot use averages to talk about school funding relative to the rest of the OECD. That's my point. You asked for statistics in my state. I gave them, in my most recent two states of residence.
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  >Because the dominant source of public education funding is from local taxes, there are vast differences in the per-student level of funding across the country. This is what I said as well. There is also vast difference in per-student spending within blue states and blue counties. This is evidence that the problem crosses party lines.
- bluGill 6y ago
  You hear that rhetoric often. However the truth is different. If both the democrats and Republicans propose increasing spending, but one increases less than the other, the one that increases less is said to cut spending. I've seen cases where the larger spending passes and they take credit for it the next year even though the states budget didn't balance (the state has a balanced budget requirement) and so what was actually spend was less than what the spending cut party proposed. (we don't know what would happen if the other party had won, since they claim they would have delivered by spending less elsewhere)

timgilbert 6y ago

> Instead, it is evidence that there is bipartisan support for educational spending, but with uneven beneficiaries. I'd see it rather as evidence that most educational spending happens at the state and local level, not the federal level. https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/education_spending https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/education_spending

rayiner 6y ago

On a state-by-state level, rich districts do not spend more than poor districts: https://apps.urban.org/features/school-funding-do-poor-kids-get-fair-share/ https://apps.urban.org/features/school-funding-do-poor-kids-... Obviously high-cost states spend more than low-cost states. But their education spending is consistent with the size of their economies. Mississippi has a GSP per capita of $35,000 and spends $8,700 per student. Italy, Spain, and New Zealand have similar GDP per capita and also spend a similar amount per student.

wutbrodo 6y ago
Thank you, the claim that our educational outcomes are poor due to underfunding is a huge pet peeve of mine. Its really terrifying to see people confidently and passionately argue about politics while pulling their "facts" from an alternate universe.
- smegger001 6y ago
  I think it is in large part due bad spending priorities at schools. Several years ago I lived small rural community and the school district passed a heavy levee on homes to pay for a new football field and a far larger than needed grandstand/bleachers and field lighting. Turns out the high schools roof was needing replaced at the same time but they purposefully waited until they got the levy for the field through first to put forward the one to repair the school because they figured that they could get them both that way but could not get the field after replacing the roof. The highest paid government employees in most states are football coaches for the state schools? Why? I thought schools job were to educate not cause brain injuries in their students? Why pay millions of tax payer dollars earmarked for education for someone to coach a game that injures the mental capacity of the students. Why not hire more professors with that money? why not pay teachers more or fix facilities buy material and equipment make teachers not have to spend their own money on basic supplies?
  - wutbrodo 6y ago
    > The highest paid government employees in most states are football coaches for the state schools? Why? I thought schools job were to educate not cause brain injuries in their students? Why pay millions of tax payer dollars earmarked for education for someone to coach a game that injures the mental capacity of the students. Why not hire more professors with that money? why not pay teachers more or fix facilities buy material and equipment make teachers not have to spend their own money on basic supplies? I used to feel this way too, but my understanding is that investing in sports programs tends to _bring in_ more money for universities, on net. I don't think it's accurate to consider it as trading off against academic investment. At any rate, this is a bit tangential: American universities are the best in the world, so the conversation is more about high school and lower, where our educational outcomes lag by some metrics.