Unofficial Voice of the Utah Senate Majority
Welcome to The Senate Site
Wednesday, October 24, 2007Utah's Increasing Student Population
By Curt Bramble
Utah Senate Majority Leader In this op-ed piece, I wrote that we will experience a tsunami in student population growth over the next ten years. The number of new students entering our system will increase by 450 percent. One of the Tribune's less accurate writers tried to make people believe I was saying the entire student population will increase by four and one half times. That's not what I wrote and I don't believe anyone reading my comments in context would come to that conclusion. Here is what is true: From 1995 to 2005 we had an increase in enrollment of 34,423 students. Starting in 2005 we project enrollment over 10 years will grow by 154,752 students. That is a staggering 450 percent increase. Here's what else is true: From 1990 to 2005 we averaged a 7.3 percent increase in education spending per year. (In 2007 it was higher.) I think we should continue that march. However, according to a recent study, to continue increasing education funding at the current rate would require us to triple our income tax revenue. Increasing it five percent per year, would require us to double the income tax revenue. You can begin to see why we are looking for innovative solutions. Here's another factor to consider: Your income tax pays teacher salaries, supplies and other operational costs, but new school construction is going to come out of your property taxes. If you have 150,000 more students, you're going to need to build schools to house them, which costs about $20,000 per student. Do the math. One way to try to avoid higher income and property taxes is to offer parents the option to have their children move into the private sector and take some pressure off our public schools. I attended a town meeting in Springville tonight. The same thing happened there that is happening everywhere vouchers are given an honest hearing. A significant number of people who started the evening opposed to vouchers discussed the numbers and the reasoning and left with a different point of view. I hope ALL voters will arm themselves with the facts, determine what is true and what is false, and join us in voting yes on Referendum One.
posted by The Senate Site at 10:28 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
25 Comments:
It does seem to be pretty clear to anyone who read the whole op-ed that Rolly's article is a cheap shot.
That said, unclear sentences like this weren't super helpful:
"While we don't expect our family sizes to decrease, it's not hard to see what a 450 percent increase in student population is going to do to public education."
That does seem to be a glaring error for a CPA to be making in an op-ed. Proof-reading helps. Maybe you should blog more. It has helped me :-)
Paul Rolly is a gossip columnist. He conveys the bitter impotence of a small collection of unreliable public employees, but not much else. He is loose with his facts and reckless with his insinuations, and they all slant the same way. He also seems to have a personal vendetta against you. I wouldn't lose any sleep over this. The Tribune's other journalists are some of the best. They should be embarrassed the Tribune keeps Paul Rolly on payroll.
I don't think Rolly has misinterpreted the article. The OpEd clearly states, " . . . it's not hard to see what a 450 percent increase in student population is going to do to public education." And, "The obvious solution is to increase taxes. If our goal is to maintain per student spending increases that we have enjoyed over the last decade, we would have to triple education taxes in Utah. That means tripling our state income tax."
Thanks Jeremy. I agree that the sentence would have been bullet proof had I added a word like growth or new (as in ... "a 450 percent increase in student population growth ..." or " a 450 % increase in new student population").
Nonetheless, I still think my meaning is clear and that honest readers get it. The entire thesis of my article was the stunning contrast between the rate of growth of students entering Utah's public schools during last 10 years and the next ten years. In fact, to even follow Rolly's mis-guided analysis or conclusion, you would have to assume or insert the term "total student population", something that was not mentioned, implied, or intended in the context of my comments.
I don't know which way you voted (although I have a good guess) but wear that sticker with some pride.
Curt
Gotta say that your use of numbers is pretty difficult to follow? When you say to maintain a 7.3% funding growth we must triple income taxes, do you mean to imply that 1.073^10 = 3? Cause it doesn't. Nor does 1.05^10 = 2. But that would seem to be what you are saying in your article. While I think I might understand what you are getting at with some of your numbers, the article is extremely difficult to follow.
Looks like a poorly edited readers digest version of a treaties that might have been a very good argument.
I am a fifth grader. We are studying percentages in school. Can you show me the calculation you used to figure that 154,752 is a 450 percent increase over 34,423? That doesn't look right.
You're right Justin, Brambles math stinks. He must have attended public school....
154,752 is a 550 percent increase over 34,423. In today's response he mentions that student pop increases by four and one half times (which is true), but a 4.5X increase is 550%.
A note to Bramble. You are doing the pro-choice group a disservice. Maybe you can disappear for the next couple weeks.
oops. 4.5X is a 350% increase.
You're missing the entire point, and you're probably hoping the rest of us do too. All the anti-voucher people need to do is create a fog of fear and uncertainty. They are pathetic at their jobs, but their complaining skills are a finely tuned.
Anon 9:02, the contest is always lost when one side feels it must resort to name calling.
And what makes you think we have jobs?
Dear Math Class:
34,423 X 4.49559887284 = 154,752
Anon 9:02: Be nice. You're right that some people seem to be missing the relevant point, but most get it.
Stacey: I'm sure each and every senator would welcome your editing assistance. May we call you next time?
Bekkieann: Current research does indicate that to continue the last 10 years' average rate of increase in education funding (7.3% per year) for the next ten years, will require triple our current income tax revenues. I believe a five percent increase per year (too low) will require a doubling of that revenue stream. Here's some light reading.
The point is we need to be proactive and prepare for the sudden rise in our student population. School vouchers are only one aspect of what needs to be a much larger solution.
Check this out:
"Huntsman: Utah can afford more students"
http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/241446/
Comments? Sen. Bramble?
It seems Anon. 2:41 only reads the headlines, a common symptom of antivouchermania. Bramble has already commented in the text of the article...
Sen. Curt Bramble, R-Provo and a strong voucher proponent, says that he agrees with Huntsman, to an extent. Worker growth should be able to keep per pupil spending from falling. But during several years of unprecedented economic expansion as well as slower student growth than is expected over the next 10 years, school districts across the Wasatch Front still needed to bond for hundreds of millions of dollars to build infrastructure.
What happens when that student growth booms? An estimated 250 schools will have to be built, totalling billions of dollars.
That outcome is "irrefutable," Bramble said.
So, he maintains, someone has to come up with a solution. That could be a tax increase for more bonds, or he believes, vouchers which will take students out of the public system, easing the burden.
Dear Senate Site:
You wrote 34,423 X 4.49559887284 = 154,752 which is true, but that's not how you calculate a percentage increase. For example, 10 X 2 = 20 but 20 is not a 200% increase over 10, it is a 100% increase.
So, to calculate the percentage increase that 154,752 is over 34,423:
Step 1: Find the difference 154,752 - 34,423 = 120,329.
Step 2: Divide the difference by the origninal number 120,329/34,423 = 3.4956.
Step 3: Multiply the result by 100
3.4956 X 100 = 349.56%
It's easy.
So this is a 350% increase, not a 450% increase. Right?
In fairness to Senator Bramble, he has been presented with lot of numbers about the increase in student population over the last five years. Depending on which 10 year periods you use, you can get different percentages and each year, assuming you move your ten year periods ahead one year, the number changes. This increase has also been referred to as a percentage increase in year over year growth, and sometimes people say "our growth is increasing 4 times faster than the last ten years." Suffice it to say we are experiencing a significant uptick in our student population beginning in 2005 and continuing as far out as projections go right now. The anti voucher folks can't dispute the facts, and the facts don't help their cause. Their plan is to defeat vouchers and then they will do what they always do when times get tough, ask for tax increases, but none of them want to say that right at this moment. Instead they want to argue about whether growth is up 4.5 times or 350% . However you say it, it is over 6 billion in new schools that will come right out of your property taxes, and over $1 billion ongoing every year. AND even if our economy can somehow expand fast enough to keep up with this surge, there will be nothing left to address the current teacher shortage/salary issues or begin to deal with class sizes and the Senator knows these folks are not going to let that fight die either.
Hopefully this whole discussion, bad grammar and math aside, has helped people understand one basic issue - if we don't try moving a higher percentage of our kids into private schools, we can't keep up with the dramatic increase in students without significant tax increases. Period - and that is something the anti voucher folks can't dispute.
Senator Bramble was the victim of a typo in a report. The number in the data tables is clearly 350% but when volunteers prepared the briefing paper used in this discussion, it was mistroked as 450%. Senator Bramble was never presented with the data tables, and didn't have any reason to break out his calculator to proof the executive summary. Nonetheless, the crisis is significant all the same and the rest of the analysis, including the tax impact on Utah homeowners is very real. Don't let a typo get in the way of making a very important decision.
Technicalities.
154,752 - 34,423 = 120,329 (this is the increase in the growth rate)
120,329 / 34,423 = 3.495 or 350%
So, the percent increase in the growth rate is 350%. Or, used in a sentence, "the student population growth rate increased by 350%."
HOWEVER
154,752 / 34,423 = 4.495 or 450%.
So, the new growth rate IS 4.5 times the old growth rate. "In the next ten years our student growth rate will be 450% of the previous decade's growth rate."
Don't get lost. (Splitting hairs on technicalities of math or grammar doesn't change the thesis or conclusion.) We're going to have to deal with a massive increase of new students. Vouchers could help.
RC
PCE says about Vouchers:
Improves public education? False
Helps the poor? False
Levels the playing field? False
Accreditation required? False
College degreed teachers required? False
Improves student achievement? False
Changes behavior of consumers? False
Keeps taxes low? False
Anon 11:40's claim indisputable? False
Senate Site:
It's not a technicality. 450% would be 35,000 more kids than 4.5 times.
4.5 times does not equal 450% no matter how many times you repeat it. Just as doubling does not equal 200% or tripling does not equal 300%. Think about your investments. You be Jed Clampett and I'll be Mr. Drysdale. If you deposit $100 in my bank and I make 450% on it, or $450, so it grows to $550, and I give you back your original investment of $100 plus $350, or $450, your money has gone up 4.5 times, but I made off with $100 of your money, because your real return was $450. I'll take the 450% over 4.5 times every time, because it is bigger!
Get it?
Ask any CPA.
PS I am commencin' to see why so many people get ripped off in Ponzi schemes -- they can't do their gazintas.
Jethro
PPS Say Uncle (Jed) and I promise to stop embarrassing you on your own web site.
Anon 11:40
I don't think you're being fair to the Senator. Why would he "fight" with "folks" about doing something about "teacher shortages", "salary issues" and "class sizes"? I thought these were consensus issues. You seem to know something we don't.
Where do I send my email address? But note, I am a math guy, but I have been known to edit.
And I would think a CPA would be able to catch the difference between a 450% increase and a 350% increase. Even if it wasn't him doing the actual math.
Maybe it is just my super critical math skills. Maybe I should work on my nunchuck skills some more.
Actually, Jethro, seems you got caught in a miscommunication, too. I think what you mean to say is "a 450% INCREASE would be 35,000 more kids than 4.5 times."
According to Webster, "percent" is "a whole divided into 100 parts; 1/100." Therefore, by definition, 4.5 is 450 percent. (Remember those fractions from public school?)
I agree that 4.5 times is NOT a 450% return, nor is it a 450% increase. But it is 450%.
In your parlance, if you invested $100 and earned NOTHING, you would still get back $100, or 100% of your original principle. If you got back $90, you would have 90% of your principle. If you got back $200, you would earn a 100% return, but you would also get back 200% of your original investment.
I fear Granny's gone to get her shotgun 'cause both you AND Cousin Curtis has got too dern big fer yer britches.
Or is it "principal." Should have looked that one up, too.
Curt Bramble has a proven track record of doing or saying just about anything as long as it furthers his agenda or increases his power base. Truth and integrity seldom get in his way as he bulldozes his way to power in the Utah Legislature. Thank heaven we have people like Paul Rolly who will call Bramble on his B.S.
As you say in your article, Do the Math. I think you should do the math. Your statement was misleading and Rolly was right on target. I find it interesting that the top Utah Republicans are so in favor of school vouchers and, for that reason, I am suspicious. Republicans in Utah are only interested in furthering their own, narrow interests at the expense of the voters who elected them in the first place. Utah government needs a big change and the best thing that could happen would be for voters to choose anyone other than a Republican to represent them.
Post a Comment
<< Home