Read It and Weep: Gov't School Funding vs Results

[roo_ster]

3X the cost per student (adjusted for inflation), with no improvement. 

[Tallpine]

How much of that is inflation 

My personal observation is that prices have gone up ~10x in the last 40 years.

[Hutch]

Chart sez adjusted for inflation.

[Scout26]

The .gov response is to throw more money at the problem.   However, history has proven time and time again that that "solution" fails everytime it is tried, in every circumstance.

[Tallpine]

Chart sez adjusted for inflation.

Fine print 

So in 1970 they only spent $5-6K per student 

[roo_ster]

Fine print 

So in 1970 they only spent $5-6K per student 

No, $56000 over 12 years, in 2010 dollars.  Or about $4667/year/student in 1970.  A little over $13000/year/student in 2010.

But look at the huge increase in math, reading, and science scores!

[Tallpine]

No, $56000 over 12 years, in 2010 dollars.  Or about $4667/year/student in 1970.  A little over $13000/year/student in 2010.

But look at the huge increase in math, reading, and science scores!

So what are the numbers based on 1970 dollars or 2010 dollars 

Are we spending $1.6 million now, or $5,600 back then ....?

All I know is that a 1970 dollar is only worth about a dime today.

[Monkeyleg]

A couple of years ago I got into an argument with DeSelby about the cost of education, and found stats on a site for teachers in the midwest. It broke down the cost in each state in a variety of ways: class size; cost per pupil; cost per teacher, etc. Wisconsin led the pack in costs, but lagged the other states in results.

[roo_ster]

So what are the numbers based on 1970 dollars or 2010 dollars 

Are we spending $1.6 million now, or $5,600 back then ....?

All I know is that a 1970 dollar is only worth about a dime today.

Looks like 2010 dollars.  And you have the1970 vs 2010 dollar thing backwards, given inflation since 1970.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

heres a peak at some of the forces at play
http://news.fredericksburg.com/newsdesk/2013/05/10/budget-options-discussed-for-stafford-schools/

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

[brimic]

A couple of years ago I got into an argument with DeSelby about the cost of education, and found stats on a site for teachers in the midwest. It broke down the cost in each state in a variety of ways: class size; cost per pupil; cost per teacher, etc. Wisconsin led the pack in costs, but lagged the other states in results.

Well at least in WI, the money paid for a big propaganda machine to tell us otherwise.

[T.O.M.]

I wonder how much this set of statistics is really worth.  Reason I'm asking is that the technology used in teaching today is a lot different than it was in the 1970's, when I was in school.  back then, we watched film strips and movies, used actual text books, and used chalk boards.  Some teachers would use an overhead projector and "slides."  My sons now have no text books.  Everything is done electronically, or with photocopies.  The classrooms have smartboards, wireless printers, computer projectors, and other tech that ain't coming in for free.  the "base" level is costing a ton more now than it used to.

[lee n. field]

A couple of years ago I got into an argument with DeSelby about the cost of education, and found stats on a site for teachers in the midwest. It broke down the cost in each state in a variety of ways: class size; cost per pupil; cost per teacher, etc. Wisconsin led the pack in costs, but lagged the other states in results.

I don't believe it.  Illinois isn't Midwest Number One for this?

[lee n. field]

Don't forget y'all.  Since 1970 we've had a whole new technology arise, to throw education money at.  Personal Computers, notworking and associated stuff.

[Balog]

I wonder how much this set of statistics is really worth.  Reason I'm asking is that the technology used in teaching today is a lot different than it was in the 1970's, when I was in school.  back then, we watched film strips and movies, used actual text books, and used chalk boards.  Some teachers would use an overhead projector and "slides."  My sons now have no text books.  Everything is done electronically, or with photocopies.  The classrooms have smartboards, wireless printers, computer projectors, and other tech that ain't coming in for free.  the "base" level is costing a ton more now than it used to.

If it's not working, why do they need all that then?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

and we feed and provide before and afterschool care.alomg with a host of mandated special services

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

[makattak]

I wonder how much this set of statistics is really worth.  Reason I'm asking is that the technology used in teaching today is a lot different than it was in the 1970's, when I was in school.  back then, we watched film strips and movies, used actual text books, and used chalk boards.  Some teachers would use an overhead projector and "slides."  My sons now have no text books.  Everything is done electronically, or with photocopies.  The classrooms have smartboards, wireless printers, computer projectors, and other tech that ain't coming in for free.  the "base" level is costing a ton more now than it used to.

Look at the second line in the graph: "Employees". All that "Technology" you are talking about is capital equipment that allows fewer workers to accomplish the same amount of work.

Yet, there are far more people on staff PLUS the new technology.

In other words: it ain't the technology driving the costs.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

If it's not working, why do they need all that then?

it works some places quite well. much to my surprise

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

[makattak]

and we feed and provide before and afterschool care.alomg with a host of mandated special services

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

This is one question I have: how much of the increased cost per student is due to special education requirements?

My sense is they do add a to the cost, but I doubt they are responsible for a significant portion of the cost.

My guess is administrators, counselors, and the like. (Gee, I thought having larger districts was supposed to cut administrative bloat. Yet somehow there are more administrators per student at the large districts than the small ones...)

[makattak]

it works some places quite well. much to my surprise

But could it work as well for less? My guess is yes.

[Tallpine]

This is one question I have: how much of the increased cost per student is due to special education requirements?

My sense is they do add a to the cost, but I doubt they are responsible for a significant portion of the cost.

My guess is administrators, counselors, and the like. (Gee, I thought having larger districts was supposed to cut administrative bloat. Yet somehow there are more administrators per student at the large districts than the small ones...)

I do know that locally they hire one adult (not a teacher) to aid each of certain special ed kids. 

They can't put them in their own special class now with 1 teacher and 1 aide, so each special kid has to have his or her own aide. 

[Balog]

I do know that locally they hire one adult (not a teacher) to aid each of certain special ed kids. 

They can't put them in their own special class now with 1 teacher and 1 aide, so each special kid has to have his or her own aide. 

LAdy I know used to teach special ed kids, who actually did have significant issues. I think the limit there was 2 kids per teacher, but that was based on the legitimate "When the kids get violent the teacher needs to be able to physically be able to control them." But the number of actually retarded/Down's/etc kids is low enough that I doubt the extra effort much affects budgets.

[Tallpine]

LAdy I know used to teach special ed kids, who actually did have significant issues. I think the limit there was 2 kids per teacher, but that was based on the legitimate "When the kids get violent the teacher needs to be able to physically be able to control them." But the number of actually retarded/Down's/etc kids is low enough that I doubt the extra effort much affects budgets.

I think that there are or were 2 or 3 in our little district which has <50 students K-12. 

[roo_ster]

I wonder how much this set of statistics is really worth.  Reason I'm asking is that the technology used in teaching today is a lot different than it was in the 1970's, when I was in school.  back then, we watched film strips and movies, used actual text books, and used chalk boards.  Some teachers would use an overhead projector and "slides."  My sons now have no text books.  Everything is done electronically, or with photocopies.  The classrooms have smartboards, wireless printers, computer projectors, and other tech that ain't coming in for free.  the "base" level is costing a ton more now than it used to.

Meh, most places don;t have all that and those that do don;t need it.  My kids' private school has one teacher and one common access PC per room.  They are entry-level business class PCs, no more than several hundred dollars/ea.  Get replaced every 5 years, for a capital cost of roughly $100/year.

The computer lab has 20 such critters.

Look at the second line in the graph: "Employees". All that "Technology" you are talking about is capital equipment that allows fewer workers to accomplish the same amount of work.

Yet, there are far more people on staff PLUS the new technology.

In other words: it ain't the technology driving the costs.

A jobs program.  Every left program is a "jobs" program in that it gives jobs to political allies.

FTR, the U Cali system has more administrators than professors.  I reckon large school districts are similar.

[charby]

here is a pretty good explanation of a school district budget

http://www.lsc.state.oh.us/fiscal/ohiofacts/jan2001/ohiosk-12schools.pdf