5 ms·

>Public schools are starved of funding.. That made me laugh, too. Somehow this has become received wisdom for the press, but not only is it false, it's very f

by tsotha 14y ago

>Public schools are starved of funding.. That made me laugh, too. Somehow this has become received wisdom for the press, but not only is it false, it's very false. Here in CA we're spending twice what we spent per student in 1970 (in constant dollars), and if anything outcomes are worse.

ChuckMcM 14y ago
I point that out to people and it annoys them. I ask how is it we've doubled the funding per student and our results are so bad, maybe funding isn't the issue. It is a hard thing for folks to hear though. If the thing you are telling them means there isn't an "easy" (or even imaginable) solution to the problem they care deeply about, they really can't accept it. It feels like accepting defeat.
- jeremymcanally 14y ago
  The problem isn't the amount we're spending, it's how it's being spent. Everyone I know who is a teacher has severe issues funding class activities and are usually told they have $0 for supplies for the entire year. That tells me the money is being used in largely unproductive ways. Where is the extra money going? Probably to pay for a bureaucrat to enforce the new standardized testing and feedback crap that isn't really helping all that much. Probably to fund more sports because sports, amirite? Probably paying for iPads that, while useful, aren't being use the way they're supposed to because of untrained teachers. Wherever it's going, it likely isn't going to fund classroom equipment that teachers actually need or quality textbooks for students.
  - keithpeter 14y ago
    Yup: UK we spent huge amounts of money on new school and college buildings which did not actually improve anything. Some College managements are so precious about their new buildings that they have regulations about putting things on walls. Yes, even art Colleges!
  - antidoh 14y ago
    I haven't looked into it. My speculation is that it's going to labor: pay and benefits. That's the largest cost in almost any endeavor.
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  We've doubled the funding per student, but less of that funding ends up advancing education. More of it goes on administrators, metal detectors, security guards, textbook publishers, educational software vendors, and giant wall-mounted computer displays, which cost a lot [1] but don't really provide much day-to-day benefit over blackboards. 1. https://www.google.com/shopping/product/12258719876160431293?q=interactive%20whiteboard&hl=en&prmd=imvnsb&sqi=2&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=1a4e2db41ece184d&bpcl=35277026&ion=1&biw=1164&bih=882&tch=1&ech=1&psi=F0R6UIf-E4WFiALZpoCIDQ.1350190103564.3&sa=X&ei=dUR6UKLcBKShiQKF-YDoCQ&ved=0CJwBEPMCMAk https://www.google.com/shopping/product/12258719876160431293...
  - rhizome 14y ago
    Oh but they employ more IT people, and require a CTO for the district, and all kinds of other spongers. Teachers should be getting paid at least double what they are now, and I have no problem with teachers starting at high five figures like a web developer can. I don't know if this means they're underfunded, funded enough but in the wrong places, or what, but for all that teachers have to work under, it is criminal what they are paid. What if, like say corn subsidies, teachers are guaranteed to be paid enough to be able to buy an average price house within a mile of the school they work at? What if we had to stop bombing one country, let's say Yemen, in order to pay for it? Rhetorical. These are the most trusted people in society, much more so than the police and politicians, and should be compensated commensurate with both their responsibilities and experience. You gonna leave your 5 year old at the police station or city hall all day?
    - waterlesscloud 14y ago
      One problem is that many of the teachers of today don't deserve to be paid double. They aren't the cream of the crop. I'd be fine with dramatically raising teacher pay if you hired the good new people who would be attracted by the pay and ditched all the not-so-good people who are in the field now. Where the problem comes in is that we all know that's not what would happen.
      - 14y ago
- narrator 14y ago
  A core tenant of the American ideology is that any problem can be solved and only solved with more money. Telling people that more money is not the only solution will simply not compute.
  - rohamg 14y ago
    You forgot consultants. Always have more consultants. And slides. Need them slides.
zecho 14y ago
$1 in 1970 would cost $5.94 in 2012, so, there's that. http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=1&year1=1970&year2=2012 http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=1&year1=197...
- civilian 14y ago
  He already said: > (in constant dollars)
- msgilligan 14y ago
  He said "in constant dollars".
wallflower 14y ago
> Public schools are starved of funding For a different take on this, some urban school districts are consistently underfunded compared to their more well-funded suburban counterparts simply for the reason that their property-tax base does not exist (for the main reason of people who live in subsidized housing don't really pay property tax - and if they do, it is a fraction of what is paid in more affluent suburbs). This is a touchy topic, for sure.
soldermont001 14y ago
Just doing a quick check on WA, which has the 1992-2009 figures for CA and NY: CA spending per pupil in 1992 was $5380, and in 2009 was $11652. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=compare+ca+spending+per+pupil+in+1992+vs.+2009 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=compare+ca+spending+per... Adjusted for inflation is $8225, so ($11652-$8225)/$8225 = ~42% increase in spending. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%245380.12+1992+in+2009+dollars http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%245380.12+1992+in+2009... NY spending per pupil in 1992 was $8710, and in 2009 was $21,264. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=ny+spending+per+pupil+1992+vs.+2009 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=ny+spending+per+pupil+1... Adjusted for inflation is $13317, so ($21264-$13317)/$13317 = ~60% increase in spending. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%248710+1992+in+2009+dollars http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%248710+1992+in+2009+do... EDIT: corrected NY percentage.
- hudibras 14y ago
  I think your Wolfram Alpha figures are wrong. This report from the Census Bureau shows public school spending for the U.S. http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/finance_insurance_real_estate/cb12-113.html http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/finance_ins... U.S average is $10,600 per student in 2010. California average was $9,375. New York was $18,618. Lowest was Utah at $6,064.
  - soldermont001 14y ago
    Yes, I think you're right. WA does cite the same report as its source, but appears to have different figures. Looks like for CA (before inflation adjustment in parens): 1992: $7684 ($4697), 2010: $9870 ($9375) = ~28% And NY: 1992: $12267 ($7498), 2010: $19127 ($18618) = ~55% EDIT: re-calculated using data directly from US Census Bureau (http://www.census.gov/govs/school/ http://www.census.gov/govs/school/).
wdr1 14y ago
> That made me laugh, too. Somehow this has become received wisdom for the press, but not only is it false, it's very false. Here in CA we're spending twice what we spent per student in 1970 (in constant dollars), and if anything outcomes are worse. The issue in CA isn't that money is spent on eduction. The issue is that it isn't making it to the students. Here's just one example: a $500 million school in Los Angeles: http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2010/08/los_angeles_unveils_new_578_mi.html http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2010/08/los_angeles_u...
ataggart 14y ago
>Somehow this has become received wisdom for the press, but not only is it false, it's very false. So too with student/teacher ratios. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d11/tables/dt11_069.asp http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d11/tables/dt11_069.asp

by tsotha 14y ago

ChuckMcM 14y ago

I point that out to people and it annoys them. I ask how is it we've doubled the funding per student and our results are so bad, maybe funding isn't the issue. It is a hard thing for folks to hear though. If the thing you are telling them means there isn't an "easy" (or even imaginable) solution to the problem they care deeply about, they really can't accept it. It feels like accepting defeat.

jeremymcanally 14y ago
The problem isn't the amount we're spending, it's how it's being spent. Everyone I know who is a teacher has severe issues funding class activities and are usually told they have $0 for supplies for the entire year. That tells me the money is being used in largely unproductive ways. Where is the extra money going? Probably to pay for a bureaucrat to enforce the new standardized testing and feedback crap that isn't really helping all that much. Probably to fund more sports because sports, amirite? Probably paying for iPads that, while useful, aren't being use the way they're supposed to because of untrained teachers. Wherever it's going, it likely isn't going to fund classroom equipment that teachers actually need or quality textbooks for students.
- keithpeter 14y ago
  Yup: UK we spent huge amounts of money on new school and college buildings which did not actually improve anything. Some College managements are so precious about their new buildings that they have regulations about putting things on walls. Yes, even art Colleges!
- antidoh 14y ago
  I haven't looked into it. My speculation is that it's going to labor: pay and benefits. That's the largest cost in almost any endeavor.
anigbrowl 14y ago
We've doubled the funding per student, but less of that funding ends up advancing education. More of it goes on administrators, metal detectors, security guards, textbook publishers, educational software vendors, and giant wall-mounted computer displays, which cost a lot [1] but don't really provide much day-to-day benefit over blackboards. 1. https://www.google.com/shopping/product/12258719876160431293?q=interactive%20whiteboard&hl=en&prmd=imvnsb&sqi=2&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=1a4e2db41ece184d&bpcl=35277026&ion=1&biw=1164&bih=882&tch=1&ech=1&psi=F0R6UIf-E4WFiALZpoCIDQ.1350190103564.3&sa=X&ei=dUR6UKLcBKShiQKF-YDoCQ&ved=0CJwBEPMCMAk https://www.google.com/shopping/product/12258719876160431293...
- rhizome 14y ago
  Oh but they employ more IT people, and require a CTO for the district, and all kinds of other spongers. Teachers should be getting paid at least double what they are now, and I have no problem with teachers starting at high five figures like a web developer can. I don't know if this means they're underfunded, funded enough but in the wrong places, or what, but for all that teachers have to work under, it is criminal what they are paid. What if, like say corn subsidies, teachers are guaranteed to be paid enough to be able to buy an average price house within a mile of the school they work at? What if we had to stop bombing one country, let's say Yemen, in order to pay for it? Rhetorical. These are the most trusted people in society, much more so than the police and politicians, and should be compensated commensurate with both their responsibilities and experience. You gonna leave your 5 year old at the police station or city hall all day?
  - waterlesscloud 14y ago
    One problem is that many of the teachers of today don't deserve to be paid double. They aren't the cream of the crop. I'd be fine with dramatically raising teacher pay if you hired the good new people who would be attracted by the pay and ditched all the not-so-good people who are in the field now. Where the problem comes in is that we all know that's not what would happen.
    - 14y ago
narrator 14y ago
A core tenant of the American ideology is that any problem can be solved and only solved with more money. Telling people that more money is not the only solution will simply not compute.
- rohamg 14y ago
  You forgot consultants. Always have more consultants. And slides. Need them slides.

zecho 14y ago

$1 in 1970 would cost $5.94 in 2012, so, there's that. http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=1&year1=1970&year2=2012 http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=1&year1=197...

civilian 14y ago
He already said: > (in constant dollars)
msgilligan 14y ago
He said "in constant dollars".

wallflower 14y ago

> Public schools are starved of funding For a different take on this, some urban school districts are consistently underfunded compared to their more well-funded suburban counterparts simply for the reason that their property-tax base does not exist (for the main reason of people who live in subsidized housing don't really pay property tax - and if they do, it is a fraction of what is paid in more affluent suburbs). This is a touchy topic, for sure.

soldermont001 14y ago

Just doing a quick check on WA, which has the 1992-2009 figures for CA and NY: CA spending per pupil in 1992 was $5380, and in 2009 was $11652. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=compare+ca+spending+per+pupil+in+1992+vs.+2009 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=compare+ca+spending+per... Adjusted for inflation is $8225, so ($11652-$8225)/$8225 = ~42% increase in spending. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%245380.12+1992+in+2009+dollars http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%245380.12+1992+in+2009... NY spending per pupil in 1992 was $8710, and in 2009 was $21,264. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=ny+spending+per+pupil+1992+vs.+2009 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=ny+spending+per+pupil+1... Adjusted for inflation is $13317, so ($21264-$13317)/$13317 = ~60% increase in spending. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%248710+1992+in+2009+dollars http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%248710+1992+in+2009+do... EDIT: corrected NY percentage.

hudibras 14y ago
I think your Wolfram Alpha figures are wrong. This report from the Census Bureau shows public school spending for the U.S. http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/finance_insurance_real_estate/cb12-113.html http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/finance_ins... U.S average is $10,600 per student in 2010. California average was $9,375. New York was $18,618. Lowest was Utah at $6,064.
- soldermont001 14y ago
  Yes, I think you're right. WA does cite the same report as its source, but appears to have different figures. Looks like for CA (before inflation adjustment in parens): 1992: $7684 ($4697), 2010: $9870 ($9375) = ~28% And NY: 1992: $12267 ($7498), 2010: $19127 ($18618) = ~55% EDIT: re-calculated using data directly from US Census Bureau (http://www.census.gov/govs/school/ http://www.census.gov/govs/school/).

wdr1 14y ago

> That made me laugh, too. Somehow this has become received wisdom for the press, but not only is it false, it's very false. Here in CA we're spending twice what we spent per student in 1970 (in constant dollars), and if anything outcomes are worse. The issue in CA isn't that money is spent on eduction. The issue is that it isn't making it to the students. Here's just one example: a $500 million school in Los Angeles: http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2010/08/los_angeles_unveils_new_578_mi.html http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2010/08/los_angeles_u...

ataggart 14y ago

>Somehow this has become received wisdom for the press, but not only is it false, it's very false. So too with student/teacher ratios. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d11/tables/dt11_069.asp http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d11/tables/dt11_069.asp