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

[lee n. field]

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

Yup.  The little school (500-ish students, K-12) I support has at least 3.  One is for a early primary grade kid with severe motor problems (pushed around in a contraption).  

[Tallpine]

Yup.  The little school (500-ish students, K-12) has at least 3.  One is for a early primary grade kid with severe motor problems (pushed around in a contraption). 

Around here that would be a really big school 

[lee n. field]

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.

Actual PeeCees are a fraction of the total education IT expense. 

The State of Ill mandated some computerized testing, to start a couple years from now.  To meet the requirements, the little school I support is going to need to spend over a hundred grand on infrastructure.  Much of it to replace a half assed cabeling job from the '90s.

[Strings]

I used to do network cabling.

The last school job that the company I worked for (a job that drove my company under, actually), made me lose any hope I had for this state.

The network we were installing was funded via a referendum. When my team got into the first school (to help the team that was already there), we found several thousand feet of Cat5 cable, in a huge bundle. When I asked the site lead where that had come from, he responded "the last referendum they passed".

Further questioning revealed that another network HAD been installed, a couple years previously. Nothing wrong with it: they tested the cables, everything there was in spec. But they decided they needed a new network... in an elementary/middle school. Several million dollars worth of new network, for every school in the district...

[Perd Hapley]

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.

How are paper text books cheaper than digital media?

How expensive were chalk boards, old-school projectors, mimeograph machines, and such; compared to the new stuff?


I would expect that increased costs for breakfast and lunch programs, and even newer safety gear for athletics are significant, as well.

[makattak]

Why are we dancing around the obvious?

here is a pretty good explanation of a school district budget

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

Note, 80% of the budget is on employees. Materials, supplies, texbooks and capital outlay are 10%.

Now look at the originial chart's employment line.

Yes, computers are probably pretty expensive.

Actual PeeCees are a fraction of the total education IT expense. 

The State of Ill mandated some computerized testing, to start a couple years from now.  To meet the requirements, the little school I support is going to need to spend over a hundred grand on infrastructure.  Much of it to replace a half assed cabeling job from the '90s.

A hundred grand for that capital expense is less than two teachers according to Charby's link. Several million? that's 60 teachers. And that's just salary, it doesn't take into account benefits, pension, etc...

All these expenses that have been mentioned are likely instances of waste, but as with the Federal Government, eliminating "waste, fraud, and abuse" won't fix the budget.

Making the schools smaller will. We need fewer people working for the government, whether in the schools or otherwise. 

[Fitz]

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. 

I recently learned that other kids refer to these aides as "tard wranglers"

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

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...)

It's the cost of administrators. They have increased at a ridiculously high rate in recent years, while the increase in teachers has been much slower.

[Ron]

Government is one of the hardest places to control the number one place considered the most significant in order to control costs, labor.

[CNYCacher]

So, which test was given out in 1970 that they re-used n 2010? 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

in dc they had dedicated "time keepers" in the schools. sole function turn in payroll and keep track of hours. one pour over worked women's sole job was handling 6 people.

they also had 400 ghost employees.
this was at the end of mayor for life barry's regime

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

[zahc]

Any argument about how much money is appropriate for schooling is irrelevant, because no amount of money is appropriate. For example, I was homeschooled which cost exactly $0 of government money. Ergo, any amount of money spent on schooling is excessive.

[roo_ster]

So, which test was given out in 1970 that they re-used n 2010? 

Looks like hte NAEP.  Also looks like one could search fo rthe title at Dept Ed's Website.

[CNYCacher]

Looks like hte NAEP.  Also looks like one could search fo rthe title at Dept Ed's Website.

Yes but my point is that the test shares a name, but it's not the same test.

We look at the graph, and we arrive at the conclusion that the graph is meant to convey to us. To wit, that we have spent extra money on education but the children aren't learning any more things.

Imagine if you will, a society which spent 100% more on education, and because of that, their high-schoolers were now learning what 40 years ago you had to go to college to learn.  What would this graph look like?

Do you honestly believe that the past grades would be adjusted to the curve?  Or would they start making the highest possible score on the test 140% instead of 100% for the sole purpose of making the grades relevant historically?

Of course not. Every year the test is created to rate individual students on a scale of 0 to whatever is in the curriculum.

You can't take a test that's designed to compare students with their contemporaries and assume that you can use it to compare to people of the past.

Extend this graph out to the year 2070.  Maybe middle-school children are designing cold fusion reactors for the science fair. High school seniors are landing moon rovers and 3-year-olds (in their second year of school) are reading at today's 5-th grade level.  The stupid is going to look exactly the same.  That line is never going to be anything but flat, because every year the test is designed so that X standard deviations to the right of the bell curve score 100% and X to the left score 50%, or whatever. Are we going to look at the graph and say "Children aren't learning anything new in the past 100 years!"?

Is education in america heading to my imaginary 2070 view?  I don't know.  I'm not even saying that.  I'm just saying that the graph is *expletive deleted*it.

[MicroBalrog]

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

If nothing else, to accustom the students to using the devices.

But I suspect very, very much, the main cost increase is wages and bureaucracy.

[makattak]

Yes but my point is that the test shares a name, but it's not the same test.

We look at the graph, and we arrive at the conclusion that the graph is meant to convey to us. To wit, that we have spent extra money on education but the children aren't learning any more things.

Imagine if you will, a society which spent 100% more on education, and because of that, their high-schoolers were now learning what 40 years ago you had to go to college to learn.  What would this graph look like?

Do you honestly believe that the past grades would be adjusted to the curve?  Or would they start making the highest possible score on the test 140% instead of 100% for the sole purpose of making the grades relevant historically?

Of course not. Every year the test is created to rate individual students on a scale of 0 to whatever is in the curriculum.

You can't take a test that's designed to compare students with their contemporaries and assume that you can use it to compare to people of the past.

Extend this graph out to the year 2070.  Maybe middle-school children are designing cold fusion reactors for the science fair. High school seniors are landing moon rovers and 3-year-olds (in their second year of school) are reading at today's 5-th grade level.  The stupid is going to look exactly the same.  That line is never going to be anything but flat, because every year the test is designed so that X standard deviations to the right of the bell curve score 100% and X to the left score 50%, or whatever. Are we going to look at the graph and say "Children aren't learning anything new in the past 100 years!"?

Is education in america heading to my imaginary 2070 view?  I don't know.  I'm not even saying that.  I'm just saying that the graph is *expletive deleted*.

Are you of the opinion that high school students are learning MORE today than they were 40 years ago?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Are you of the opinion that high school students are learning MORE today than they were 40 years ago?

can't speak to 40 years ago    35 years ago?  absolutely   and i'm not guessing     or reading a white paper

[roo_ster]

CNYC:

Yeah, not buying that.  English language proficiency and math are the basics for most of these tests.  Not many big moves in the last few decades to add to the K-12 experience.

Also, hacking out bad Powerpoint briefings by elementary school kids is not exactly Earth-shattering new material.  More likely a waster of classroom time and part of the problem.

OK, here you go:
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/about/

Assessments are conducted periodically in mathematics, reading, science, writing, the arts, civics, economics, geography, U.S. history, and beginning in 2014, in Technology and Engineering Literacy (TEL).

Really, not all that much different in content between a 1970 test and a 2010 test, unless one biases the test heavily toward present/current developments:

* civics, US Hist: +43 years , ~+22% of content. (Assuming start point of 1776AD)
* arts, science, econ, math, geography: +43 years, ~+2.2% of content. (Assuming start point 1AD)
* writing, reading: +43 years , ~+3.2% of content. (Assuming start point of 700AD)

Imagine if you will, a society which spent 100% more on education, and because of that, their high-schoolers were now learning what 40 years ago you had to go to college to learn.  What would this graph look like?

Like a fiction, as such a thing has not happened. 

Actually, the reverse has happened.  My great grandfather was learned enough to sit on the local school board, despite (because?) of his 8th grade education.  Which, to judge by his battered English grammar & comp text, was equal to if not superior than the advanced 12th grade E&C text I used my senior year in public HS.  His daughter was learned enough with a 2 years associate's degree to teach K-12.  I was employable with a 4-year degree and promotable with another 2 years and a graduate degree.

I would not be surprised to see a study showing that an early 20th century grammar school education roughly equivalent to an early 21st century 4-year degree when comparing math and English (writing, lit, grammar).  And that the sciences and history lag only due to the science and history that had yet to happen...but the depth of the science and history taught in the early 20th century grammar school education was superior.  Don't even get me started on geography.

[AZRedhawk44]

The number of aides, tech support, clerical workers and such is staggering in a modern school district.  Teacher to student ratios have remained stagnant, while non-certified staff ratios have skyrocketed.

Probably the only industry more bloated with non-productive members of its trade would be medicine.  For every doctor or nurse or MRI tech there's at least one biller, receptionist, IT guy or janitor.  Or more.

[roo_ster]

The number of aides, tech support, clerical workers and such is staggering in a modern school district.  Teacher to student ratios have remained stagnant, while non-certified staff ratios have skyrocketed.

Probably the only industry more bloated with non-productive members of its trade would be medicine.  For every doctor or nurse or MRI tech there's at least one biller, receptionist, IT guy or janitor.  Or more.

I would quibble with your first bit.  The teacher:student ratios have increased with the addition of beau coup teachers.  The problem is that the addition of so many state-certified teachers to increase the ratio has not helped kids learn more.

You are entirely correct in the admin and support staff bloat.

[CNYCacher]

Are you of the opinion that high school students are learning MORE today than they were 40 years ago?

Irrelevant to my point, which is simply that if they are learning more than they were 40 years ago, it would not be reflected in this graph.

[makattak]

Irrelevant to my point, which is simply that if they are learning more than they were 40 years ago, it would not be reflected in this graph.

Of course. Unless the test had not changed since 1970, the test scores are not comparable: if they were learning less and the tests had been adjusted to reflect that, it would also be missed.

Since you didn't provide that counter example, I wanted to make certain you were not making the claim and just providing an example.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

locally my kid will be in what in my day were college level math classes by 12th grade

they learn less in areas like history it seems though