The Inefficiency of Public Education

hmmm...I am not sure if this is really just about inefficiency. Cost has gone up. I think that might also be a factor.

And remember, studies like these are just correlational, not cause and effect. I could say, for instance, when I drink more soda, I also watch more TV. It doesn't mean that they are causing one another, it means they are both moving in a positive direction. Correlational studies really are just circles.

Holy crap Will never told me how smart you are.

Where do you think he gets it from

shotgunkell wrote:

hmmm...I am not sure if this is really just about inefficiency. Cost has gone up. I think that might also be a factor.

And remember, studies like these are just correlational, not cause and effect. I could say, for instance, when I drink more soda, I also watch more TV. It doesn't mean that they are causing one another, it means they are both moving in a positive direction. Correlational studies really are just circles.

While I agree you seem fairly intelligent, I think you are missing the point the chart is showing. While the cost of public education had ratcheted up big time, faster than the rate of inflation, the results have flat-lined/declined. Every year when the Utah Congress is in session we here how the schools are 'under-funded', and how the students are 'suffering' as a result. Yet there is NO correlation to increased results and increased spending per student. In fact, there is evidence the exact opposite correlation exists, that as spending increases results decrease. A better comparison with your soda intact would be that as your soda consumption and your time in front of the TV increases, so does your waste size. At least that is what the overwhelming evidence supports in my case.

Again though, my point is that it is a correlation. When it comes to research, correlational studies are not the most concrete. In this case, I would agree with the information given if it was a cause and effect. But a correlation NEVER is a cause and effect so it really is just speculation, no matter how you try and spin it. Is it scientifically proven through the scientific method? Nope. SO I still stand by what I said in my first comment. The more money spent per student is not causing lower scores. They just correlate. Which doesn't have much standing, in my opinion. Prove to me that one causes the other and I will agree, but that information was not what was represented here.

This isn't about cause and effect. It is about the FACT that increased spending does NOT correlate with better results, yet that is what we are told year after year; we need to spend more per student to get better results. If spending increases do NOT result in better results, why the hell do we keep increasing the amount spent per pupil? We can go round and round on cause:effect, but the bottom line for me is the results from existing actions.

proutdoors wrote:

This isn't about cause and effect. It is about the FACT that increased spending does NOT correlate with better results, yet that is what we are told year after year; we need to spend more per student to get better results. If spending increases do NOT result in better results, why the hell do we keep increasing the amount spent per pupil? We can go round and round on cause:effect, but the bottom line for me is the results from existing actions.

So where are the facts? I am not saying I agree or disagree, but I hate charts like this because I can manipulate almost any numbers to look like I want them too. Also kids can only learn so fast. So do you expect that it should grow right along with the amount of money spent. So in fifteen years kids in fifth grade should be doing calculus? Testing changes, so in this study did they use the exact same test, you know apples to apples. Just curious, I am always way skeptical with this kind of crap.

jahan wrote:

So where are the facts? I am not saying I agree or disagree, but I hate charts like this because I can manipulate almost any numbers to look like I want them too. Also kids can only learn so fast. So do you expect that it should grow right along with the amount of money spent. So in fifteen years kids in fifth grade should be doing calculus? Testing changes, so in this study did they use the exact same test, you know apples to apples. Just curious, I am always way skeptical with this kind of crap.

You are about to lose your Yoda status! My point is: there is NO correlation in better results from increased spending, so WTF do we keep increasing the amount spent? As for learning calculus in 5th grade, my home school kids learned geometry in the 4th grade that I didn't learn until the 9th grade in a public school/ Kids are capable of learning far more than we give them credit for. It is often the system that fails to allow them to learn more. Yes, I know it is difficult for a public school to meet all the needs of every student. That is why spending more and more is NOT the answer. We need to shuck the shackles of the unions and the PC bureaucrats and get to teaching the three R's and stop teaching all this propaganda nonsense that takes up huge amounts of a students day.

What is clear, in study after study after study, is that an increase in spending per student does NOT ensure an increase in results. The more money schools districts have, the more waste that occurs. The nicer the Admin buildings are, the newer the auto fleet is, the higher paid the 'lifers' are, but the students see NO improvements in the quality of education.

My take on this problem is double edged. While I believe that my kids are receiving a good education from the local public schools, I see way to much waste... Do to budget cuts in Iron county are school district was forced to cut some positions. Now while no teachers were laid off in the process. The amount of teachers retiring this year was quite high.(Fear of losing benefits, etc) Instead of hiring replacements for the retiring teachers the district just shifted teachers around so that across the board each school lost 2 to 3 teachers. Now the results of that are larger classroom sizes. I am all about doing what you have to do but upon looking at my kids yearbooks and I have a kid in all 3 age brackets of school... elementary, middle, and high school. I couldnt help but notice how many aid positions there were. WTF do these schools need so many aids for. My kids elementary school alone had 32 aids. Now its been awhile but as I recall when I was in elementary school we had no aids. The teacher job was to teach and once in a while we had a student teacher but I dont recall all of these aids. It seems to me that a school without teachers is kind of like a prison without prisoners... without the teachers school does not get taught....

On another note are school district is doing massive spending on building construction. During the boom we voted on and passed several bonds do to a massive influx of new students....well the apex was reached 3 years ago and the population has leveled off and or declined since then.... Yet they are still building like its going out of style. A few months ago I asked a member of our local school board why the hell we were still breaking ground on new buildings. Her reply to me was the bond was passed so we have to spend the money..... Now that logic to me is bassakwards as hell. My follow up question to her was you cant even afford to staff the buildings you have with teachers how do you plan on staffing these expansions. Her answer to that was we will cross that bridge when we get there....Not much foresight to that plan in my mind....

I agree with you guys that the teacher unions suck and there is a lot of waste, but that is digressing from my point that this chart doesn't really mean crap IMO. I think throwing money at the problem would work if it was spent wisely. I agree, what ever happened to a teacher teaching a class without three aids. In my home town, when I was in elementary school we had three elementary schools and one private school that was k-12. When I was going into High School they got rid of the one elementary school and eventually the private school went away. They tore down the old school and now there is still just a giant open field of weeds where the school use to be and now the other two elementary schools are holding classes in janitor closets until they can get some more trailers so they can make more classrooms. I just see lots of bad decisions, but I think if the money hit the area it was suppose to you would see major improvements.

Yoda Out!

I agree teacher unions are a drain on the system and the teaching of propaganda is a huge waste of time that could and should be used to teach the three R's. I have to wonder though if there is a correlation between the influx of non-english speaking students and the flatline in the testing scores with the increased spending. I have to wonder because instead of students passing or failing according to their ability to learn the material in the curriculum the entire class is held up and forced to study the same material over and over until every student has grasped the material. This is nothing new it was going on when I was in school and I will be attending my 25 year reunion next month. I might add we didn't have the problem with non english speaking students to the degree that it exists now.

Come on people....This chart is not hard to read! The REAL cost (inflation adjusted) of educating a kid from K-12 increased proportionally from roughly $40K in 1970 to roughly $150K in 2010. The costs are real....meaning they have been adjusted for inflation. This chart is showing that depite the huge and steady increase in the cost of education, test scores in reading, math and science have not changed significantly over the same period. This chart is not depicting correlation.

NHS wrote:

Come on people....This chart is not hard to read! The REAL cost (inflation adjusted) of educating a kid from K-12 increased proportionally from roughly $40K in 1970 to roughly $150K in 2010. The costs are real....meaning they have been adjusted for inflation. This chart is showing that depite the huge and steady increase in the cost of education, test scores in reading, math and science have not changed significantly over the same period. This chart is not depicting correlation.

It is taking a complex issue and simplifying it. luv2hnt&fsh made a great point about illegal immigrants in the equation. I am not is disagreement that we are spending more per pupil and that it isn't effective, but it could be.

So where is exactly does the money go? What percentage goes toward administration? How much actually trickles down to the classroom? Just a few questions I would like answered.

jahan wrote:

NHS wrote:

Come on people....This chart is not hard to read! The REAL cost (inflation adjusted) of educating a kid from K-12 increased proportionally from roughly $40K in 1970 to roughly $150K in 2010. The costs are real....meaning they have been adjusted for inflation. This chart is showing that depite the huge and steady increase in the cost of education, test scores in reading, math and science have not changed significantly over the same period. This chart is not depicting correlation.

It is taking a complex issue and simplifying it. luv2hnt&fsh made a great point about illegal immigrants in the equation. I am not is disagreement that we are spending more per pupil and that it isn't effective, but it could be.

How the hell "could it be"? There is NO evidence that I have seen to date that shows where increased spending as directly resulted in increased results, yet there are numerous studies showing the opposite. Is it really that hard to grasp? The illegal immigration mess is likely to have an impact in some states, but the inner cities, which tend to spend the most per pupil, have fewer illegal immigrant issues. they do however, have many social ills that affect scholastic success/failure. This is something that money can't/WON'T fix. That and the incredible waste from the school districts and unions are why spending more does NOT equate with better ROI's.

Yonni wrote:

So where is exactly does the money go? What percentage goes toward administration? How much actually trickles down to the classroom? Just a few questions I would like answered.

I SHOULD have posted this as well in the original post:

Increase in the number of public school students from 1970 to 2010: 9%


Increase in public school employees in that period: 98%


Increase in cost-per-student (inflation adjusted) in that period: 275%


Increase in test scores in that period: 0%

So anyone with any sense can see that all that has happened is that we have DOUBLED the number of school employees and paid LOTS more for the same product and gotten NO improvement in test scores.

fatbass wrote:

So anyone with any sense can see that all that has happened is that we have DOUBLED the number of school employees and paid LOTS more for the same product and gotten NO improvement in test scores.

What are you trying to say, I can't decipher. Are you actually contending that increased spending hasn't increased the quality of education?

proutdoors wrote:

fatbass wrote:

So anyone with any sense can see that all that has happened is that we have DOUBLED the number of school employees and paid LOTS more for the same product and gotten NO improvement in test scores.

What are you trying to say, I can't decipher. Are you actually contending that increased spending hasn't increased the quality of education?

Obviously, if Jahan can't see a correlation, nobody can.

fatbass wrote:

proutdoors wrote:

fatbass wrote:

So anyone with any sense can see that all that has happened is that we have DOUBLED the number of school employees and paid LOTS more for the same product and gotten NO improvement in test scores.

What are you trying to say, I can't decipher. Are you actually contending that increased spending hasn't increased the quality of education?

Obviously, if Jahan can't see a correlation, nobody can.

First off I don't buy the numbers. Do you really believe only a 9% increase in students from 1970 to 2010. I agree with you guys for the most part but I get annoyed with the extreme mindset.

Pro you are smart enough to know that if more money was hitting the classroom you would see improvements. So if you had better teachers, better books, better classrooms and ways for students to excel and not be held with the rest of the pack do you really think they wouldn't perform better? That is the could be better. Like I said the system is screwed up right now, I agree, but I am pointing out my dislike for these kinds of charts is all. There are too many unknowns. If this kind of a chart was posted by a Democrat you guys would tear it apart.

jahan wrote:

fatbass wrote:

proutdoors wrote:

fatbass wrote:

So anyone with any sense can see that all that has happened is that we have DOUBLED the number of school employees and paid LOTS more for the same product and gotten NO improvement in test scores.

What are you trying to say, I can't decipher. Are you actually contending that increased spending hasn't increased the quality of education?

Obviously, if Jahan can't see a correlation, nobody can.

First off I don't buy the numbers. Do you really believe only a 9% increase in students from 1970 to 2010. I agree with you guys for the most part but I get annoyed with the extreme mindset.

Pro you are smart enough to know that if more money was hitting the classroom you would see improvements. So if you had better teachers, better books, better classrooms and ways for students to excel and not be held with the rest of the pack do you really think they wouldn't perform better? That is the could be better. Like I said the system is screwed up right now, I agree, but I am pointing out my dislike for these kinds of charts is all. There are too many unknowns. If this kind of a chart was posted by a Democrat you guys would tear it apart.

Those numbers are correct. 9% is the increase in PUBLIC school enrollees. American's have been having fewer children and the increase is mostly from immigrants and in many parts of America, parents are sending their kids more and more to private schools.

It's people willing to ignore the REAL numbers and go with their feelings that are causing America all this anguish.

Jahan, would you be happier if there were a 200% increase in employee numbers and a 600% increase in costs for the same 0% improvement in test scores? If so, vote democrat. It'll happen in no time.

jahan wrote:

fatbass wrote:

proutdoors wrote:

fatbass wrote:

So anyone with any sense can see that all that has happened is that we have DOUBLED the number of school employees and paid LOTS more for the same product and gotten NO improvement in test scores.

What are you trying to say, I can't decipher. Are you actually contending that increased spending hasn't increased the quality of education?

Obviously, if Jahan can't see a correlation, nobody can.

First off I don't buy the numbers. Do you really believe only a 9% increase in students from 1970 to 2010. I agree with you guys for the most part but I get annoyed with the extreme mindset.

Pro you are smart enough to know that if more money was hitting the classroom you would see improvements. So if you had better teachers, better books, better classrooms and ways for students to excel and not be held with the rest of the pack do you really think they wouldn't perform better? That is the could be better. Like I said the system is screwed up right now, I agree, but I am pointing out my dislike for these kinds of charts is all. There are too many unknowns. If this kind of a chart was posted by a Democrat you guys would tear it apart.

Thank you Jahan! You said what I was trying to say just way better! I hate charts like these also. There are way more variables than a dependent and an independent variable, as used in the scientific method. Thus the validity of these charts are not substantial, IMO.

Now, the aide issue is happening cause aides are cheaper. That is why there are less teachers, more aides. You can get 3 aides to one teacher don't ya know. Its awesome! {{insert sarcasm here}}

Here is what I think about unions....
I think everyone has the right to fight for the wages they deserve. I teach children, I know how hard it can be. Teachers do deserve to be paid better. but........

Bad teachers, refusing to reform education, and spending in the wrong places should not be happening and the union contributes to this problem.

I believe the ideal situation would be schools in our community receiving the taxes the community pays and the schools curriculum, rules, employment decided by the community. Of course there should be basic standards and requirements throughout the Nation, but to have the communities running their own schools would be ideal. That is just my dream world with rainbows and glitter. But that isn't reality.

jahan wrote:

Pro you are smart enough to know that if more money was hitting the classroom you would see improvements. So if you had better teachers, better books, better classrooms and ways for students to excel and not be held with the rest of the pack do you really think they wouldn't perform better? That is the could be better. Like I said the system is screwed up right now, I agree, but I am pointing out my dislike for these kinds of charts is all. There are too many unknowns. If this kind of a chart was posted by a Democrat you guys would tear it apart.

I am NOT smart enough to 'know' that more money hitting the classroom would equate with improvements. I don't think money is the limiting factor in a quality public school education. Better teachers would mean doing away with the unions protecting the poor teachers, would mean going to a merit pay system, and give the control of what the curriculum is to the school boards instead of the NEA/UEA. As for having 'better' classrooms; I am not buying it. My step-daughter will be a senior at Stansbury High this fall, the school opened last fall and has start of the art classrooms, but I don't see any improvement with the education quality at this school with all the latest bells and whistles and the 'old' school she attended as a sophomore (Grantsville High) that has 'dated' rooms.

I don't care who posted the chart, EVERY study I have read/seen shows either marginal improvement or a decline in the quality of education in correlation with the amount of money spent per pupil. Simplifying the lack of a better public school system to funding, as the progressives tend to do, is addressing a symptom of the problem, not a direct cause of the sickness that has infested the public school system.

http://reason.com/archives/2011/11/15/now-we-know-why-children-are-getting-dum
Only read if you are in the mood for satire!