They Spend WHAT? The Real Cost of Public Schools by Adam B. Schaeffer
Mike
They Spend WHAT? The Real Cost of Public Schools
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa662.pdf
by Adam B. Schaeffer
Although public schools are usually the biggest item in state and
local budgets, spending figures provided by public school officials
and reported in the media often leave out major costs of education and
thus understate what is actually spent.
To document the phenomenon, this paper reviews district budgets and
state records for the nation's five largest metro areas and the
District of Columbia. It reveals that, on average, per-pupil spending
in these areas is 44 percent higher than officially reported.
Real spending per pupil ranges from a low of nearly $12,000 in the
Phoenix area schools to a high of nearly $27,000 in the New York metro
area. The gap between real and reported per-pupil spending ranges from
a low of 23 percent in the Chicago area to a high of 90 percent in the
Los Angeles metro region.
To put public school spending in perspective, we compare it to
estimated total expenditures in local private schools. We find that,
in the areas studied, public schools are spending 93 percent more than
the estimated median private school.
Citizens drastically underestimate current per-student spending and
are misled by official figures. Taxpayers cannot make informed
decisions about public school funding unless they know how much
districts currently spend. And with state budgets stretched thin, it
is more crucial than ever to carefully allocate every tax dollar.
This paper therefore presents model legislation that would bring
transparency to school district budgets and enable citizens and
legislators to hold the K–12 public education system accountable.
Jeffrey Turner
> http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11432
>
> They Spend WHAT? The Real Cost of Public Schools
> http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa662.pdf
The Cato Institute? There's an unbiased source. Not. When they make
stements like, "The low-income Lawrence Union Free School District in
New York, for instance, spends about $30,000 per student. That certainly
seems like far more money than is needed to provide a child with a good
K–12 education," without a more detailed accounting, their analysis is
totally useless except as the typical right-wing scare tactics.
I recommend spending no more than $5 per year to educate each child of
an employee of the Cato Institute.
--Jeff
--
Love consists of overestimating
the differences between one woman
and another. --George Bernard Shaw
Rowley
Martin
Mike wrote:
> http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11432
>
> They Spend WHAT? The Real Cost of Public Schools
> http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa662.pdf
>
> by Adam B. Schaeffer
>
> Although public schools are usually the biggest item in state and
> local budgets, spending figures provided by public school officials
> and reported in the media often leave out major costs of education and
> thus understate what is actually spent.
>
> To document the phenomenon, this paper reviews district budgets and
> state records for the nation's five largest metro areas and the
> District of Columbia. It reveals that, on average, per-pupil spending
> in these areas is 44 percent higher than officially reported.
>
> Real spending per pupil ranges from a low of nearly $12,000 in the
> Phoenix area schools to a high of nearly $27,000 in the New York metro
> area. The gap between real and reported per-pupil spending ranges from
> a low of 23 percent in the Chicago area to a high of 90 percent in the
> Los Angeles metro region.
Would have been interesting if he (the author) had mentioned some of the
things he found on in his review of the budgets / state records that was
driving those figures. What was New York spending money on that Phoenix
was not?
> To put public school spending in perspective, we compare it to
> estimated total expenditures in local private schools. We find that,
> in the areas studied, public schools are spending 93 percent more than
> the estimated median private school.
But what is that 93% buying?
> Citizens drastically underestimate current per-student spending and
> are misled by official figures. Taxpayers cannot make informed
> decisions about public school funding unless they know how much
> districts currently spend. And with state budgets stretched thin, it
> is more crucial than ever to carefully allocate every tax dollar.
>
> This paper therefore presents model legislation that would bring
> transparency to school district budgets and enable citizens and
> legislators to hold the K–12 public education system accountable.
What ever happened to the five "W"s of journalism? Use to be a news
article was suppose to inform you of;
Who?, What?, When?, Where? Why? and How?
Martin
Toni
> http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11432
>
Toni
>
> They Spend WHAT? The Real Cost of Public Schoolshttp://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa662.pdf
What tax payers need to be informed about is the large academic
achievement gaps that are found between races and socioeconomic
status. This article highlights one important budget issue... what the
public schools are spending (whether it is higher or lower than they
report) is not sufficient for inner-city, poor African American and
Mexican American children! It should not be surprising to see a large
gap between what each state spends as this parallels the fact that it
costs more to live in certain areas.
The figures also should not be looked at as a "state" or "district"
expenditure because that assumes that all children are "equal" and
that an equal division of financing will "adequately education
everyone." This again is obviously not the case as shown through the
test scores of these "disadvantaged" children. Each child and the
circumstances need to be evaluated. There unfortunately is not a "one
size fits all" approach to educating all children, and this should be
our priority...
If we are going to grow, develop and maintain as a society, then we
need to recognize the importance of education. What we spend now
should be looked at as an investment. When John Locke was advocating
for common public schools he said, "you can build schools or you can
build jails..."
~Toni
Bob LeChevalier
>> Citizens drastically underestimate current per-student spending and
>> are misled by official figures. Taxpayers cannot make informed
>> decisions about public school funding unless they know how much
>> districts currently spend. And with state budgets stretched thin, it
>> is more crucial than ever to carefully allocate every tax dollar.
>>
>> This paper therefore presents model legislation that would bring
>> transparency to school district budgets and enable citizens and
>> legislators to hold the K�12 public education system accountable.
>
>What tax payers need to be informed about is the large academic
>achievement gaps that are found between races and socioeconomic
>status.
DC schools showed some of the highest gains in reading test scores on
the NAEP reports that just came out. Not because of more money, and
not because of a significant change in racial or socioeconomic
factors.
>This article highlights one important budget issue... what the
>public schools are spending (whether it is higher or lower than they
>report) is not sufficient for inner-city, poor African American and
>Mexican American children!
Probably true, but not really having to do with education. Inner city
students need more money spent on them because the schools are the
avenue of choice for providing many social services that aren't really
educational in nature (but which are often needed in order for kids to
academically thrive)
lojbab
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
Juan M
"Toni" <trka...@wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:bbff08ef-c79d-4458...@z35g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
As the bumper sticker says,
"If you think education is expensive, try ignorance."
Pubkeybreaker
> "Toni" <trkai...@wisc.edu> wrote in message
> What tax payers need to be informed about is the large academic
> achievement gaps that are found between races and socioeconomic
> status. This article highlights one important budget issue... what the
> public schools are spending (whether it is higher or lower than they
> report) is not sufficient for inner-city, poor African American and
> Mexican American children!
So what? No amount of money will ever suffice for them for one
simple reason: Their attitude toward education.
They don't CARE if the learn. They treat learning with disdain.
No amount of money will ever suffice to teach children who are NOT
interested in learning.
Their attitude comes from their parents. Maybe if we offered tax
breaks to
PARENTS whose children show improvement, we might see some
improvement.
The problem is social. Schools can not cure it.
Rowley
> On Mar 29, 9:55 am, "Juan M" <juanmSPAMME...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"Toni" <trkai...@wisc.edu> wrote in message
>
>
>>What tax payers need to be informed about is the large academic
>>achievement gaps that are found between races and socioeconomic
>>status. This article highlights one important budget issue... what the
>>public schools are spending (whether it is higher or lower than they
>>report) is not sufficient for inner-city, poor African American and
>>Mexican American children!
>
>
> So what? No amount of money will ever suffice for them for one
> simple reason: Their attitude toward education.
>
> They don't CARE if the learn. They treat learning with disdain.
> No amount of money will ever suffice to teach children who are NOT
> interested in learning.
That attitude ("They don't CARE if the learn. They treat learning with
disdain.") isn't just limited these days to some specific races and
socioeconomic status.. I saw it at the high school at the rural district
where I taught for 11 years.. and it seemed to be growing more so in the
children of the upper / middle class population.
> Their attitude comes from their parents. Maybe if we offered tax
> breaks to
> PARENTS whose children show improvement, we might see some
> improvement.
>
> The problem is social. Schools can not cure it.
I don't think schools alone can cure it either. But I think that if "we"
(society) want to attempt to combat it. I think that there is going to
have to be a concerted effort made by a number of factions in society -
and that there will need to be a centralized point of focus / leadership
- which I'm guessing that "schools" will be the most logical to take
that role.
Makes me wonder at times - all the time / effort / skill / expense that
goes into getting a kid to want / desire some material product produced
by a company - compared to what little effort "we" put into getting that
same kid to develop a similar want / desire for getting an education...
Martin
Toni
> On Mar 29, 9:55 am, "Juan M" <juanmSPAMME...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Toni" <trkai...@wisc.edu> wrote in message
> > What tax payers need to be informed about is the large academic
> > achievement gaps that are found between races and socioeconomic
> > status. This article highlights one important budget issue... what the
> > public schools are spending (whether it is higher or lower thanthey
> > report) is not sufficient for inner-city, poor African American and
> > Mexican American children!
>
> So what? No amount of money will ever suffice for them for one
> simple reason: Their attitude toward education.
>
> No amount of money will ever suffice to teach children who are NOT
> interested in learning.
>
> Their attitude comes from their parents. Maybe if we offered tax
> breaks to
> PARENTS whose children show improvement, we might see some
> improvement.
>
> The problem is social. Schools can not cure it.
I would not solely blame the parents for instilling a sense of "non-
interest in learning." True, they have probably been scared from
inequitable learning experiences, but that does not give people in the
culture of "power" to judge them for their hostility or non-faith in
the "system." The decision and implementation (or should I say lack
of) Brown vs. Board is still very recent in historical context.
I think it is more important to reflect on these children's
"attitudes" and how we can help them, be it financial or not.
When teachers provide applicable lessons that are relevant for the
child it makes them WANT to learn. This may call for a divergence from
the "traditional" or "direct instructional strategies" that are
encouraged by individuals (board of education, textbook publishers,
etc) far removed from the classroom and/or the students! Children
should be at the center of the curriculum. If lesson plans are
connected to their home lives, then we can provide them with an
intrinsic value for learning. This needs to be done in the early
years, so this attitude and value can be carried out throughout their
lives and break the repetitive cycle of poverty.
Pubkeybreaker
> On Mar 29, 12:09 pm, Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybrea...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 29, 9:55 am, "Juan M" <juanmSPAMME...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Toni" <trkai...@wisc.edu> wrote in message
> > > What tax payers need to be informed about is the large academic
> > > achievement gaps that are found between races and socioeconomic
> > > status. This article highlights one important budget issue... what the
> > > public schools are spending (whether it is higher or lower thanthey
> > > report) is not sufficient for inner-city, poor African American and
> > > Mexican American children!
>
> > So what? No amount of money will ever suffice for them for one
> > simple reason: Their attitude toward education.
>
> > Theydon't CARE if the learn. Theytreat learning with disdain.
> > No amount of money will ever suffice to teach children who are NOT
> > interested in learning.
>
>
> When teachers provide applicable lessons that are relevant for the
> child it makes them WANT to learn. This may call for a divergence from
> the "traditional" or "direct instructional strategies" that are
> encouraged by individuals (board of education, textbook publishers,
> etc) far removed from the classroom and/or the students! Children
> should be at the center of the curriculum. If lesson plans are
> connected to their home lives,
A direct connection to CURRENT home lives does not prepare students
for the FUTURE.
Students do not have the experience to determine what may or may not
be
needed for them in the FUTURE.
The old complaint "I don't need to study 'this'; I won't ever need to
learn 'that'"
is wrong.
If we only teach students what is immediately applicable, or only
teach what they
believe they will need in the future, we will have an (even more)
ignorant world.
Students should accept it when teachers tell them to learn something
because it will
be needed to have a successful career in the future. Well paying jobs
depend on a
good, broad education.
One trouble with the economic underclasses today is that are too
heavily focussed on
what benefits them TODAY, and don''t see the gains that hard work
(studying) will yield
in the FUTURE.
Juan M
"Pubkeybreaker" <pubkey...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:fb45ec10-eef9-4326...@s9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Th difference is, of course, between training and education.
Training becomes obsolete. Education does not.
Rowley
Martin
IMO, it does... to some degree. Kids' home lives shape their world view
/ schema.. both in negative & positive ways (again, IMO). They (kids)
see how the adults in the their lives do / view / feel about things and
I think that goes into building their own ideals of how to deal with
situations and how they will in the future too.
>
> Students do not have the experience to determine what may or may not
> be
> needed for them in the FUTURE.
Actually I would go as far as to say no one of any age does not have the
experience for unexpected future events. I know grown adults that have
had a tough time lately with the downturn in economy because it wasn't
the future they planned for.
> The old complaint "I don't need to study 'this'; I won't ever need to
> learn 'that'"
> is wrong.
So is the adage that "You'll need this later in life.."
> If we only teach students what is immediately applicable, or only
> teach what they
> believe they will need in the future, we will have an (even more)
> ignorant world.
Maybe - maybe not, but at least we would have some people who could at
least support themselves to some degree.
> Students should accept it when teachers tell them to learn something
> because it will
> be needed to have a successful career in the future. Well paying jobs
> depend on a
> good, broad education.
Yeah, but we're (teachers / education) not really telling the students
that. My experience as a vocational teacher was that anything that even
smacked of being vocational was considered non-academic and as such not
worth students time or effort. The purpose of public education should be
to prepare the students to go to college - not get a job. I actually had
councilors and administrators tell me that, and tell students who were
considering taking some of my vocational classes the same thing.
>
> One trouble with the economic underclasses today is that are too
> heavily focussed on
> what benefits them TODAY, and don''t see the gains that hard work
> (studying) will yield
> in the FUTURE.
"Don't see", is the crux - many times when a student asks "Why do I need
to learn this...." what they are wanting is to be shown an example of
where that was the case. Instead of holding up some example for them to
see, all the adults do is tell them something along the lines of "Trust
me....".
>
> Th difference is, of course, between training and education.
> Training becomes obsolete. Education does not.
Most times, training can get you a job, an education may or may not....
I don't see where training & education needs to be thought of completely
separate things.
Martin
>
>
>
Rowley
Here is someting slightly better....
Martin
----------------------------
I wrote:
> Actually I would go as far as to say no one of any age does not have
> the experience for unexpected future events. I know grown adults that
> have had a tough time lately with the downturn in economy because it
> wasn't the future they planned for.
What I should have said was:
Actually I would go as far as to say no one of any age has the
Juan M
"Rowley" <industry...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hpj67...@news1.newsguy.com...
One who trained as a typewriter repairman, but never got a good education
may be employed for a while.
>
>>
>>
Rowley
Sure, that could be true in a case like that. But that some one who
trained in repairing typewriters would / should have transferable
skills. You didn't say if it was mechanical or electrical typewriters...
so I'm going to guess both.
I really don't see why people just assume that people like your
typewriter repairman (or woman) would never learn anything else once
they finished their course of training. IMO, it's more likely that they
would be continually acquiring new knowledge and skill sets the longer
they worked. Some one who started off repairing manual typewriters would
have to have learned new things when electric typewriters came out. And
my guess would have probably then branched out into repairing other
office equipment - copiers, fax machines as those came along.. and maybe
even computers and all the things that plugged into them when those
first showed up.
I've seen a couple of documentaries / news programs in the past year,
where they looked at some of the people who have lost their high paying
mid-management jobs. And who are now having to deal with finding a new
job/career... One show (PBS) I saw, followed someone who had worked
since getting out of college in a large corporate HR department. Now at
age 40+ he's looking for a new job and there just doesn't seem to be one
like his old one anymore (or pays like his old one) and he doesn't have
the knowledge or skill set to do anything different.
IMO, the typewriter repair person would have been more likely to land on
his/her feet after the bottom fell out of the typewriter business than
the college educated person who used their university diploma to get a
nice cushy office job only to find themselves out on the street when the
company went belly up....
Martin
>
>
>>>
>