|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Nov 1, 2011 12:09:15 GMT -5
The graphic below is from Investor's Business Daily showing a 375% increase in public school spending over four decades, with no change in reading, math and science test scores. Reason? A bloated, bureaucratic, unionized public school monopoly that is sheltered from competition.  Question: If President Obama is concerned about "price gouging" for prescription drugs, will he sign an Executive Order that will expose the public school monopoly to greater competition, and end the "taxpayer-gouging" that has increased the cost of public education by 375% with no change in educational outcomes? news.investors.com/Article/589975/201110311848/Education-Vs-Bureaucracy.htm?ven=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:%20EditorialRss%20%28Editorial%20RSS%29Waste: How can a 375% education spending increase over four decades result in flat-lined reading, math and science scores? Because all that largesse feeds a bureaucratic monster sheltered from competition. According to Neal McCluskey, the associate director of the Cato Institute's Center for Educational Freedom, the education spending much of the American public believes to be a vital investment in the country's future, actually "gives money to a catatonic heap of warm bodies and says, 'Stay the way you are.'" In touting his jobs bill, President Obama calls on audiences to "tell Congress to pass this bill and put teachers back in the classroom where they belong." But speaking to a Cato policy conference in New York City last Friday, McCluskey made no bones about federal education spending being bad for kids and bad for the economy — a big reason being that much of the spending goes not to real teachers or principals but to those holding an array of bureaucratic "support" positions. McCluskey, author of "Feds in the Classroom: How Big Government Corrupts, Cripples, and Compromises American Education," praised the Senate for last month defeating the $35 billion education employee portion of Obama's so-called American Jobs Act (while warning that a $30 billion school infrastructure measure might still pass). "How can it be good for students throughout the country to lose teachers, principals, secretaries," McCluskey asked, not to mention "periodic assessment associates (a real New York City job), labor support unit consultants, talent research and evaluation managers, and, employees for the Law and Order Administrative Trials Unit?" Because those "jobs" are what the real federal spending per pupil of 375% since 1970 has largely gone toward — the invention and support of mysterious bureaucratic positions like "instructional aide" (of which there has been an almost 12-fold increase per-pupil) rather than to honest-to-goodness teaching. Public school employment has increased at 10 times the rate of enrollment, with a massive expansion in administrative staff. All this dwarfs the much-bemoaned "cuts" achieved from time to time over the years. click IBD link for full story. |
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,417
|
Post by thyme4change on Nov 1, 2011 12:13:05 GMT -5
Does a 375% increase in federal spending equate to a 375% increase in spending? Or did we just move the payer from local to federal?
|
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Nov 1, 2011 12:16:10 GMT -5
It is total spending on public school education.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 7, 2024 14:12:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2011 12:19:35 GMT -5
The student demographic has changed a lot though. Part of that is from immigration and part of it is a huge cultural shift. Not to mention court mandated education for special needs children. The spending on special ed has really grown. Sometimes you'll see student/teacher ratios that don't look bad until you realize that your average kid is in a class with 35 other kids while the special ed classes have a much smaller teacher/student ratio.
|
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Nov 1, 2011 12:20:42 GMT -5
The student demographic has changed a lot though. Part of that is from immigration and part of it is a huge cultural shift. Not to mention court mandated education for special needs children. The spending on special ed has really grown. Sometimes you'll see student/teacher ratios that don't look bad until you realize that your average kid is in a class with 35 other kids while the special ed classes have a much smaller teacher/student ratio. The taxpayers are getting no results. |
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,493 
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 1, 2011 12:38:43 GMT -5
It is total spending on public school education. From the link: ...federal spending per pupil of 375% ... Overall, per-pupil spending has risen from $5,671 in 1970, according to McCluskey, to $12,922 in 2007-08 — a 128% rise — |
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on Nov 1, 2011 12:41:14 GMT -5
It is total spending on public school education. From the link: ...federal spending per pupil of 375% ... Overall, per-pupil spending has risen from $5,671 in 1970, according to McCluskey, to $12,922 in 2007-08 — a 128% rise — OK, so it's only a 128% increase with zero results. I feel so much better now...  |
|
|
|
Post by bubblyandblue on Nov 1, 2011 12:50:28 GMT -5
Is the 128% rise after adjustments for inflation, increases in pay etc. or is this just raw per pupil spending increase.?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,493
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 1, 2011 12:51:40 GMT -5
From the link: ...federal spending per pupil of 375% ... Overall, per-pupil spending has risen from $5,671 in 1970, according to McCluskey, to $12,922 in 2007-08 — a 128% rise — OK, so it's only a 128% increase with zero results. I feel so much better now... The percentage of 17 year olds who care enough to mark correct answers on a standardized test has remained constant over the past 40 years (and I would guess for 4000 previous years before that). |
|
wyouser
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:35:20 GMT -5
Posts: 12,126
|
Post by wyouser on Nov 1, 2011 12:51:48 GMT -5
The student demographic has changed a lot though. Part of that is from immigration and part of it is a huge cultural shift. Not to mention court mandated education for special needs children. The spending on special ed has really grown. Sometimes you'll see student/teacher ratios that don't look bad until you realize that your average kid is in a class with 35 other kids while the special ed classes have a much smaller teacher/student ratio. Do not forget the UNFUNDED mandates coming out of federal programs along with the courts. I recall in the late 1970's a mandate to mainstream challenged children in regular classes. One result was having one or two special needs children in a 12th grade government class. With 35 students in a 12th grade reading level class (2 of which were on a 3rd grade reading level) one was mandated to develope a separate lesson plan for each special student while teaching the other 33 students. It was discovered that progress could be made with each of the 2 special students with a one on one approach..but what was one to do with the other 33 students? |
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on Nov 1, 2011 12:59:30 GMT -5
OK, so it's only a 128% increase with zero results. I feel so much better now... The percentage of 17 year olds who care enough to mark correct answers on a standardized test has remained constant over the past 40 years (and I would guess for 4000 previous years before that). So the increased spending is providing zero return. That's sad... |
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,493
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 1, 2011 13:01:16 GMT -5
The percentage of 17 year olds who care enough to mark correct answers on a standardized test has remained constant over the past 40 years (and I would guess for 4000 previous years before that). So the increased spending is providing zero return. That's sad... If your goal is to get kids to care more about marks on a piece of paper, you are one hundred percent correct. |
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on Nov 1, 2011 13:02:55 GMT -5
So the increased spending is providing zero return. That's sad... If your goal is to get kids to care more about marks on a piece of paper, you are one hundred percent correct. Oh, it's the kids' fault, I see. You're not a teacher by any chance, are you? |
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Nov 1, 2011 13:08:37 GMT -5
From the link: ...federal spending per pupil of 375% ... Overall, per-pupil spending has risen from $5,671 in 1970, according to McCluskey, to $12,922 in 2007-08 — a 128% rise — OK, so it's only a 128% increase with zero results. I feel so much better now... 375% - 128%. Close ennuff for a kwality publik edjakashun. |
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,493
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 1, 2011 13:17:03 GMT -5
If your goal is to get kids to care more about marks on a piece of paper, you are one hundred percent correct. Oh, it's the kids' fault, I see. You're not a teacher by any chance, are you? You don't deal much with 17 year olds, do you? |
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Nov 1, 2011 13:18:12 GMT -5
OK, so it's only a 128% increase with zero results. I feel so much better now... 375% - 128%. Close ennuff for a kwality publik edjakashun. It is 375%, not 128%. The calculation is incorrect. |
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Nov 1, 2011 13:19:36 GMT -5
Oh, it's the kids' fault, I see. You're not a teacher by any chance, are you? You don't deal much with 17 year olds, do you? There were 17 year olds in the 1940s, 50s and 60s. |
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on Nov 1, 2011 13:22:52 GMT -5
You don't deal much with 17 year olds, do you? There were 17 year olds in the 1940s, 50s and 60s.  |
|
|
|
Post by bubblyandblue on Nov 1, 2011 13:23:23 GMT -5
Lets see, Banks would have crapped out without taxpayer money...it's the borrowers who are to blame.
Poor people are poor because it's the fault of the poor person.
Banks are forging documents and forclosing on homes without being criminaly convicted of fraud because - it's the borrowers fault, the little guy, he is the problem.
TBTF firms defrauded investors...it's the governments problem.
Those kids who are undernourished and living in poverty...it's the kids fault.
Because all these problems are caused by government...it's the governments fault.
I am sorry, I am having a hard time reconciling all these problems and all these solutions. Drug test welfare recipients because, they are drug users and lazy. Wait, wait ... get rid of government and let the invisable hand of the market prevail.
Price gouging in public education... no wait, price gouging in private education....no wait, price gouging in the free market...price gouging in the private board room, price gouging on derivative contracts, no no.
I get it, privatize everything so that the private free market will be our government. That ought to work.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,493
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 1, 2011 13:26:11 GMT -5
375% - 128%. Close ennuff for a kwality publik edjakashun. It is 375%, not 128%. The calculation is incorrect. What else did the author incorrectly calculate? |
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,493
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 1, 2011 13:28:19 GMT -5
You don't deal much with 17 year olds, do you? There were 17 year olds in the 1940s, 50s and 60s. Yes, and only a small percentage of them have ever cared about marking correct answers on standardized tests that make no difference to their grades. |
|
Deleted
Joined: May 7, 2024 14:12:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2011 13:33:08 GMT -5
The standardized tests are pretty easy. It may make no difference to their grades but I know that at some states, including mine, mandate you take tests until you pass. So the kids have some motivation to do well, otherwise it's remedial work and retesting.
I went to a public university that was supposed to be for the top 10% of the students in the state. Something like 60-70% of kids needed remedial english in order to continue after freshman year. You either had to pass the AP English test in HS, do well on the placement test, pass the remedial test, or take enough remedial classes to get to freshman english level. They posted lists every quarter of the kids who weren't up to snuff yet. Pretty pathetic for the better state universities to have such a large proportion of kids lacking such a basic skill.
I remember taking an upper division course taught by a professor who got his Ph.D. at Harvard. He made the class do basic grammar and contraction worksheets after telling us "Sloppy writing equals sloppy thinking" when he graded the first essay he assigned.
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Nov 1, 2011 13:43:11 GMT -5
375% - 128%. Close ennuff for a kwality publik edjakashun. It is 375%, not 128%. The calculation is incorrect. Close ennuff for a kwality publik edjakashun. |
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Nov 1, 2011 14:08:31 GMT -5
In my area, every time there is some scandal with a poor school district or the school district looses it's accredation, you always find out that the top brass were earning close to a half million in salary, along with a bloated administrative and custodial staff, and top brass getting to go to 'conferences' in exotic locations on the taxpayer's dime.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Nov 1, 2011 15:35:33 GMT -5
What else did the author incorrectly calculate? It came from IBD so I wouldn't put much faith in it from the start- everything out of there needs to be scrutinized. |
|
Deleted
Joined: May 7, 2024 14:12:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2011 15:49:20 GMT -5
I read the IBD editorial. It's pointing out that while overall education spending has gone up 375% per pupil spending has gone up 128% - they are trying to factor in increasing enrollment in order to make a better comparison. If you read the whole thing it talks about the explosion in administrative and other non-teaching staff.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,493
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 1, 2011 16:05:40 GMT -5
I read the IBD editorial. It's pointing out that while overall education spending has gone up 375% per pupil spending has gone up 128% - they are trying to factor in increasing enrollment in order to make a better comparison. If you read the whole thing it talks about the explosion in administrative and other non-teaching staff. If you look at the graph in the OP, the orange line that goes up to the 375% is labeled in the key as "Federal spending" and the graph is titled as, "Inflation-adjusted federal K-12 spending per pupil ...". Not sure why some think that it doesn't identify inflation-adjusted federal K-12 spending per student. |
|
|
|
Post by bubblyandblue on Nov 1, 2011 16:07:03 GMT -5
So it's not a union thing as SF was trying to make-out ? "unionized public school"
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 7, 2024 14:12:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2011 16:10:34 GMT -5
Unions have been strong supporters of the status quo, which doesn't seem to be working for the students. A local union turned down a 2.5 million dollar grant from the feds that was contingent on tracking teacher achievement, not just student achievement. That's a helluva lot of money to turn down in these times where school budgets are being slashed left and right.
edited: the chart is definitely mislabeled
|
|
handyman2
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 23:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,087
|
Post by handyman2 on Nov 1, 2011 18:20:20 GMT -5
When I went to school it was a country setting. We had no computers, took one field trip a year. We had a teacher for each grade, a principal, a county superintendent and five people in the county office. No school nurse and simple school activities.
Today there are 50 people in administration, a whole health department and teachers with aides and a principal and an assistant principal.
Our generation created the computer and put a man on the moon.
What of note has this generation done? Spent a lot of money and cannot keep a job.
|
|
