Many educators are concerned about the state of Utah education after reading the latest report from the US census.
From UPI:
New York, New Jersey and Washington, D.C., spent the highest amount per pupil in 2007, while Utah, Idaho and Tennessee spent the least, census figures indicate.
New York spent $15,981 per pupil in 2007, followed by New Jersey ($15,691) and the District of Columbia ($14,324); while Utah, at $5,683 per student, Idaho ($6,625) and Tennessee ($7,113) were at the other end of the spending scale, the U.S. Census Bureau reported Monday.
The average amount of state spending was $9,666 per pupil in 2007, a 5.8 percent increase over 2006. State governments contributed 47.6 percent of that amount, followed by local sources, which contributed 44.1 percent, and federal sources, which made up the remaining 8.3 percent, census officials said.
But before we all start wringing our hands, let’s consider a few things first. Does more money necessarily equate better education? And if so, why do so many well-funded schools fail to achieve satisfactory results? After all, some of the “worst” schools in the nation are located in large cities which typically receive a great deal of state and federal funds.
After analyzing the evidence, it seems that good results are dependent on a good education (yeah, brilliant, I know), not simply more money. Even if a school is well-funded, it doesn’t necessarily equate better results; and conversely, even poverty isn’t a determining factor for failure. What should alarm most Americans is that even though we are spending more on education than ever before, the country continues to fall behind foreign competitors when it comes to education.
According to John Hood of Reason, the United States is not “underinvesting” in education at all, if anything we are spending more and getting worse results:
There has never been a time in recent U.S. history when government (federal, state, and local) has stopped “investing” in education. From the 1929-30 school year, the first on which comprehensive data are available, to the 1986-87 school year, total real expenditures per pupil in American public schools rose by 500 percent.(2) More recently, total real expenditures shot up from $2,229 per pupil in 1965-66 to $4,206 per pupil 20 years later, an 89 percent hike. Keep in mind that this increase was after inflation, meaning that actual buying power available to schools almost doubled during that period. Real spending in the 1980s, during all the Reagan-era cuts we hear so much about, actually grew at a faster rate–21 percent between 1981-82 and 1986-87–than in the previous decade, when it increased by “only” 16 percent.
Naturally, the reform chorus tries to downplay the fact that spending is up, has always gone up, and given current trends, will continue to go up. Some of the more unscrupulous choristers use measures, such as year-to-year changes expressed as gross dollar amounts, to show that spending increases have been less than steady.(3) That practice, of course, ignores the effect of the baby boom–there were significantly fewer students in the 1980s than there were in the 1960s. Adjusting for expenditure per pupil is the only way to relate spending to the number of students enrolled.
Try as they may, researchers have not been able to prove the common assumption that the richer schools are, the better taught are their students. More precisely, while it is obvious that a school that spends $4 per pupil a year will probably do a poorer job than one that spends $4,000 per pupil, it’s not so clear that a school that spends $2,500 per pupil is less capable of providing a good education than one that spends $4,000. That magnitude of difference does not appear to be a significant predictor of educational success.
Certainly the historical trends fly in the face of the spending-equals-learning thesis. As noted above, total real spending on education grew by 89 percent from 1965-66 to 1985-86. Yet during the same period, average Scholastic Achievement Test scores of college-bound high school seniors fell 16 points on the mathematics test and 30 points on the verbal test;(16) the percentage of 17-year-olds who graduated from high school fell;(17) and other measures of educational achievement also showed a downward trend.
The Washington, D.C., area is a perfect case in point. In 1987 D.C. public schools spent over $5,700 per pupil– compared with the national average of about $4,000.(18) In the same year Maryland spent $4,400 per pupil and Virginia spent $3,800. But are D.C. students that much more educated than their peers in Maryland and Virginia? Quite the contrary: D.C.’s graduation rate was 55 percent, Maryland’s was 75 percent, and Virginia’s was 74 percent (the U.S. average was 71 percent). D.C. students had, on average, lower scores on the SAT and achievement tests as well. There is obviously a better prescription for educational success than government spending.
We should always be concerned about the state of education in Utah, but maybe we should accept that more money isn’t a silver-bullet.
- Marc
I have long held that the number one factor in a child’s education is family. When the parents take an active roll in a kids education, that child is far more likely to not just succeed but excel. There is a reason that homeschooled kids have begun to gain the reputation of being somewhat nerdy. It’s because when they do if ever enter the public system they are often well beyond their peers.
This is not to say that quality professional teachers and educators are not important. In fact the materials that most homeschooling parents rely on was developed by educators. Still the evidence that parental involvement is an overwhelming factor in education a child has been staring us in the face for, well… EVER! If it where not true, Utah would not be the underfunded, over achieving model that it is.
Maybe, rather than trying to put more money into a system to get class sizes down from 27 pupils per teacher to 25 we should consider funding a few seminar courses taught by the teachers to the parents on the courses that they’re kids are learning at the moment.
If I have to hear one more member of the teacher’s union complain about classroom size or Utah being last in per student funding, I think I will lose it. Someone Has To Be LAST in Funding! Better Utah than some liberal enclave full of broken families, right?
Rich it’s a give-and-take.
Yes homeschooled kids tend to excel academically. There is something to be said however, for the social education that occurs in public schools. That said, the “social education” isn’t always a good one…only adding to the complexity here.
As for your suggestions denying funding to reduce large class size, and divert it seminars on promoting homeschooling…No. That is not THE answer. It is one answer though, and a good one. In the end, you’ll find Rich, that most of the areas where the big bad evil teachers unions are crying about large class sizes are in areas of lower mean income per capita…aka West Jordan etc etc. (Forgive me, if W. Jordan has changed since I last lived in Utah). It’s naive to think that all the non-”broken families” that reside in Utah are even capable of home schooling. That time may be required to be WORKED by a husband and wife barely able to make ends meet. And let’s not even dare talk about all those terrible, Satan worshiping “broken families”…
And as per your “someone’s gotta be last, who care’s if it’s us” attitude…Wow. A quality and meaningful education is absolutely VITAL to the long-term prognosis for a state growing so intensively and steadily. I’m not talking about “we owe it to the children”…No, the implications are far more practical and tangible.
- “Yes homeschooled kids tend to excel academically. There is something to be said however, for the social education that occurs in public schools. That said, the “social education” isn’t always a good one…only adding to the complexity here.”
Homeschooling parents often go to great lengths to ensure that their children get an opportunity to interact often with other people. I would like assemble a group of educated and specifically proficient parents willing to take turns tutoring all of our kids as a group. As for extra-curricular social activities, there are plenty if you know where to look.
There is a direct correlation between class size, success, and funding. Without proper funding, which Utah schools don’t have, you don’t have smaller class sizes. I’m not talking 15 students pre class here either. Presently, in MLMS the average class size runs over 30 students per class. This is a disgrace and a direct result of funding cuts and underfunding to begin with. I don’t have any kids in Cache school district but would love to get taxed at a higher rate for much smaller class sizes. These are the kids who are going to run the show in 20 years and we’re shortchanging the.
Juanita,
I totally agree, and you’re only hitting the tip of the iceberg.
The thing that doesn’t seem to click for (obviously) the majority of Utahns is that the (not so long-term) future economic prognosis for the state will inevitably be terrible if everyone (at best) only possesses the skills to be either a plumber, carpenter, electrician, construction worker or the enigmatic holy-grail “small-business owner”.
@Juanita
– “There is a direct correlation between class size, success, and funding.”
Sure, if your equation assumes about fifty other variables. Not even a peanut butter and jelly sandwich is as simple as you’ve made the entire educational system look like here.
– “Without proper funding, which Utah schools don’t have, you don’t have smaller class sizes. I’m not talking 15 students pre class here either. Presently, in MLMS the average class size runs over 30 students per class. This is a disgrace and a direct result of funding cuts and underfunding to begin with.”
If I were on board with the principle, I couldn’t argue against this. If the goal is to provide a quality education for every child (or even most children), you’re going to have to be willing to spend a lot of money. The question I would ask is, how much money per pupil is going to get us there, and would we ever be able to accomplish better results for less money if we changed the system somehow?
– “I don’t have any kids in Cache school district but would love to get taxed at a higher rate for much smaller class sizes.”
Very noble! Please don’t force me to do the same.
– “These are the kids who are going to run the show in 20 years and we’re shortchanging the.”
I agree with your point, but I sincerely disagree with your proposed solution. I think we’d be much better off if we changed the structure of the system and the content of the required curriculum rather than dumping more money into the current failing behemoth. Valueless information won’t gain value just by being pumped into fewer heads at a time.
@Grumpy
All people are capable of learning more specialized and more valuable skills, but not in public school, not the way it is now. You’d have to make a lot of very serious changes to the structure and curriculum of the system before you’d even see graduates capable of becoming a plumber, carpenter, electrician, construction worker or the enigmatic holy-grail “small-business owner” without a lot of further training and education.
More money doesn’t automatically equal a better education, but it certainly doesn’t hurt. For the most part, I feel that this is a cop out by the far-right crazies who refuse to properly fund education.
More money isn’t a silver bullet, but it is part of the solution.
@James
How much money is the proper amount and by what criteria do you personally measure such a thing?
Also, what do you think should happen to people who don’t want to pay for public education and choose not to put their kids through it?