Unofficial Voice of the Utah Senate Majority
Welcome to The Senate Site
Monday, March 05, 2007Public Education Funding, 1994 - 2008
posted by The Senate Site at 2:13 PM | Link
|
Your Government 2.0 Lab
Radio Free SenateKeep in TouchCurrent Discussions
Senate Site Feed
|
© 2008. All rights reserved. Designed by Jeremy Wright & His Brother-In-Law
14 Comments:
Wow, that's a disturbing graphic...
Owww, my wallet!
It is intended to be disturbing. When put in context, remember how much you have saved as a taxpayer in the past years while funding students at the lowest amount in the nation and with middling effort. Utah public education also gets a high grade for it's efficiency. The graph indicates it is simply catch up time.
Why do we automatically equate increased spending with better education? Catching up with other states that are spending like crazy on education does not necessarily mean that we are improving education.
Over the same period that spending nationwide has increased 54%, test scores have remained static. We seem to have a disconnect in our logic.
I'm not arguing that teachers should be underpaid or that education should not be properly funded. But surely we should be getting some bang for our bucks.
Scott et al.,
I'm very grateful to all of the legislators who listened to their constituents and voted unanimously to provide these historic funding increases.
To address the concern of escalating costs, consider the meteoric rise to fund other sectors of the economy, such as housing and health care. We don't complain when our homes double in value. This doesn't mean that our homes have doubled in size. I don't find the argument of escalating costs with no return to be compelling. There is a cost of doing business and education is certainly no different.
I suppose the argument to follow will be "what about the waste?" If there is needless bureacracy and waste, I say "Prove it!" These budgets are a lot leaner than you might think. Show me a pattern of waste and "explosion of middle management." I'm not talking about anecdotal examples of a school leaving its sprinklers on too long. Show me there is a systemic problem. Show me how you would trim the fat out of our district's budgets even 1 or 2% while holding the students harmless.
Personally, I don't think you'll be able to. This is because the real issue is not about efficiency, it's about the size of government and whether government should be involved in education at all.
Sincerely,
Craig Johnson
Draper
This is because the real issue is not about efficiency, it's about the size of government and whether government should be involved in education at all.
And the answer is no! :)
Anybody who disagrees should first read some of John Taylor Gatto's works.
Craig,
Thanks for candidly admitting that you don't expect increased education performance even if funding increases rapidly.
Let's see if I get this right. It's OK if government spending increases at a rapid rate as long as my home value and health care costs appreciate at similar rates?
Do you feel the same way about gas prices? "Hey, I don't mind if gas prices are going up rapidly as long as education spending keeps up."
Education is possibly THE ONLY activity where we applaud reductions in productivity. Over the decades, teacher pupil ratios have decreased (increased input) but 12th grade test scores are flat (no change in output). Since productivity change is defined as change in output per unit of input, increasing teachers per student while maintaining stable 12th grade test scores equals reduced productivity.
But I guess that's OK as long as my home continues to increase in value.
Anonymous-
Thanks for your comments. I think you know that wasn't my point.
As long as we are committed as a society to public education we must be willing to absorb rising costs. The costs of textbooks, supplies, construction and maintenance of facilities to name a few have risen sharply.
I find your reasoning bizarre. Teachers are not machines and children are not units of output. A great education is measured by a heckuva lot more than a score on a standardized test. Successful implementation depends on smaller classes - I've yet to meet someone (until you) who thinks otherwise.
I think our legislature understood these issues this year and took action! I applaud their efforts.
Thanks...Craig.
Craig,
You seem to be arguing that reducing class size is the end, not the means. The primary beneficiaries of this strategy are the unions, not children and taxpayers.
With all of the advances in education software, we should be focusing on improving productivity. Yes, that means better test scores at the same or lower costs.
Children ARE units of public education output. To say otherwise is to not believe in accountability. The goal of public education is to educate children, not to reduce class size for the sake of reducing class size.
It's interesting how (most) companies and industries over the decades have learned to do more with less. Most of this has to do with technology. K-12 education is just the opposite. We get the same output (12th grade test scores) with more inputs (adjusted for inflation and enrollment growth).
Quite frankly, your attitude of "let's spend money and reduce class size for the sake of reducing class size" is almost a parody of government inefficiency.
Anonymous -
If the beneficiaries of class size reduction are unions and not students, why then have both Republicans and Democrats alike sponsored class-size reduction bills year after year? Do you really think that Republican legislators are trying to bolster the teacher's union?
You're right - the goal is to educate - and educators, parents, and even students have demanded smaller class sizes. It is silly to even debate this as the positive effects of reduced class size are clear to all it seems except for you.
As a partner in a software company, I can appreciate your point about the efficiencies that can arise from technology. The legislature's decision to fund $50M in one-time spending for technology is a great step forward.
I also find your efficiency argument to be unsupported by actual facts. As a contrast, consider the fact that education officials from across the country have visited the Jordan School District to find out how they can do so much on so little. Our administrator:staff ratios are among the lowest in the country - which flies in the face of the bogus "wasteful middle management" argument.
If the funding increases and class-size reductions as championed by both sides of the aisle, are, as you suggest, a "parody of government inefficiency," are you then suggesting that you know better than every legislator in the state?
Craig,
Don't pin the "middle management" straw man argument on me. If you re-read my comments, you'll see I never said that. Besides, administrative costs are not the ultimate measure of efficiency and productivity. As stated previously, productivity is measured output per unit of input.
You sound like a teenager when you say that reducing class size is a good idea because "everyone else" thinks it is.
Please explain the following: if reducing class size is so effective as you claim (without citing any facts I may add), then why are 12th grade NAEP scores not improving even though U.S. pupil teacher ratios have decreased over the past thirty years? Please respond to my point with facts instead of dismissing them without factual basis as silly.
Before you blame the Mexicans et al for stagnant 12th grade test scores, remember that a large percentage of Hispanics drop out before they reach 12th grade so these students are not dragging these scores down.
Andrea
Provo
Reminder: Thoughtful policy discussion is helpful. Crossing the [sometimes very thin] line into personal insult is not. Remember to play nice.
All: Thanks for the dialogue. Insightful.
Craig, thank you for your responses. Andrea, thank you for your cogent questions.
I too find the home valuation analogy a bit of a mismatch with respect to education. In 1960 Utah spent $429/student on education. Adjusted for inflation, that's $2772 in 2005 Dollars. In 2005 we spent $6185/student. That means that over a period of 45 years, real education costs have soared 223% in our state. And, as Andrea points out, we have nothing to show for it.
Home values have risen over this period as well, but not 223% in real Dollars. The cost of the average home has gone up quite a bit over this period because homes have gotten bigger and homeowners demand more and nicer features in their homes. We get more bang for our buck. But increased facility costs hardly explain the 223% rise in real education cost.
When I see my kids using ancient trashed textbooks, I wonder where all of that $6185 is going. Those that have studied organizational behavior can tell you that the basic organizational structure is lending to this problem. We are doing something wrong, or at least not quite right.
The difficulty in finding 1-2% waste is partially due to the fact that we can't imagine a healthier structure. Spending more on doing more of what we are already doing is obviously not going to produce better results. As I said before, I'm not arguing against properly investing in education, but we need true innovation rather than simply increased funding.
Scott and Andrea,
This is an interesting dialog. Ric, no worries on this getting personal - this is simply an exchange of differing philosophies.
I think 1960 and 2007 are *very* different times. It's tough to compare such disparate generations but if we did I imagine we'd find cost anomalies in many different sectors of the economy.
I have in my hand a copy of the Jordan School District budget. Yes, it is large. Yes, it is detailed. There is always room for improvement. However, after reviewing the budget and seeing school operations up close for many years I see no evidence that dismantling what our society has built up and learned over the last 100 years is necessary to provide an excellent, "efficient" or "productive" education.
If you stop by the district offices, they are hardly an example of waste and mismanagement. If you compare the district's operation, with its thousands of employees, to a business of similar size, I think you would find, as I have, that the "executives" in the district are paid far less than their private industry counterparts. The offices themselves are spartan and hardly the Taj-Mahals that we often see in industry.
These hard-working folks take their jobs of honoring the public trust very seriously. I for one am tired of the constant attacks as my experience is so different from what I hear from the thinktanks, soundbites, and blogs.
I guess my point is that the system is simply not dysfunctional as you describe. We have much to be proud of in our public schools and we do it on less money than any other state. The recent infusion of funding will absolutely help our children to obtain newer textbooks, greater opportunities for differentiation, and to attract and retain highly qualified teachers. Hats' off to the legislature!
Finally, regarding innovation, I completely agree that more can be done. However, it's not like I'm sitting around doing nothing. I founded a charter school and now advise another. I also serve on my children's School Community Council and am helping to write our school's Comprehensive School Improvement Plan. The funding increases give more to both charter boards and to community councils to direct at the local level. There are many opportunities available for interested parents to help improve public schools. Instead of complaining, I'm going to put my money where my mouth is and do my part to make our schools better.
Thanks...Craig.
Post a Comment
<< Home