Redstate

Industrial quality control applied to schools?  Somehow I think all the bureaucrats and teachers' unions would get a bit uppity once you started documenting the defects and doing some root cause analysis.

Getting some feedback from the customer would be nice, though.

You're right -- I'd even start with customer feedback -- why not? Every little bit heps.

Just don't tell the NEA.....

maybe even into the mid-'60s, that the KGB had a plan and program to do to American culture and productive capacity what the National Extortion, excuse me Education, Association and the Ed Schools have done, we'd have pre-emptively nuked the Soviet Union to stop it.

While I'm sure it doesn't explain away all the rising spending, I do think that it would be useful to have the data broken down better.  For example, many public schools are now mainstreaming children who have greater physical, emotional, or cognitive disabilities than they had in the past (my son, for instance, has a sweet autistic boy in his class), and the number of children requiring these services has increased in the past twenty years.  (Look at autism rates, for example.)

There is also an odd cycle going on:  as more tests are required, the schools become more demanding of children at earlier ages, and when the kids can't keep up, they qualify for extra services, which cost money.  It's hard to say whether the kids would've caught up in the end anyway, but no parent is going to deny his or her kid help (coming from a mom whose son gets many of these services).

Anyway, the point is that it would be useful to see a breakdown of spending, and whether one particular category of spending drove the stats. This would make it easier to talk about what exactly needs to be done to decrease spending.

I really doubt that the disabled kids are populous enough to do much to change the numbers very much.  And even so, given how much spending has gone up, to see the numbers so stagnant still reeks of complete failure to produce.

As for your second point, I don't see how that defends the situation.  If the kids who fall behind get extra spending and more help, but the spending isn't helping, then that just proves Pat's point all the better: the system isn't working and more money doesn't help.

South Carolina has some of the toughest teacher standards in the country, but is like 49th in public school performance as measured by test scores. Spending is pretty good as well, considering the lower cost of living in the state as compared to many others.

The problem, alas, is the students, often because of parenting (and the lack thereof). No education policy can fix that.

that the Soviet Union provided good basic education on a shoestring, as have nations like India. All we ever accomplish by spending more money is more administrative dead weight in the system.

Is suffering a wholesale breakdown. It's not just the NEA or wide-eyed liberal whacko teachers. We have bad teachers, bad students, bad parents. Where to start?

here in NY is administration costs. Superintendents' salaries along with their many assistants and other non-teaching positions are bankrupting the system (some HS superintendents make over $300K here).  Additionally, the excessive federal and state education regulations result in a legions of non-teaching positions and consultant fees.

We need to reduce the regulations (and the administration staff), establish performance metrics, eliminate tenure (try an employment contract like the rest us) and establish aggressive perfomance based merit pay for teachers.

I'm trying to understand it better.  We don't know if more disabled kids would've lowered the absolute scores over time, or if the money going in helped mildly delayed kids to achieve at grade level (while they would've been below grade level without services in a given testing year).  I'm just saying we need more information.  

I think wholesale breakdown is a huge exaggeration.

You're always going to have bad teachers, students, and parents.  That's unavoidable.

But those scores Pat shows don't seem to suggest a breakdown of any kind.  They show inertia and complacency, but I don't see anything falling apart there.

Los Angeles City 2006 Budget....$6 Billion US Dollars

Los Angeles Unified School District 2006 Budget....$7 Billion US Dollars

It takes a BILION DOLLARS MORE in LA to run the School District then the City of LA, which includes Police, Fire, and emergency services.

LAUSD covers more than just the city itself, but that's still a ridiculous amount of money.

Roy Romer (former Governor of Colorado) is Superintendent of L.A.U.S.D. Remember, Colorado is where we had both TABOR (which caused the ratcheting down of the total state budget in a recession) and Amendment 23 which simultaneously required increased spending for Education every year.

gets the least amount of government funding of any district in the county but has by far the highest scores.  It is one of the best districts in the nation.  It is also in California.  The reason is because the PARENTS in this district take a very active role in working WITH the teachers.  No Child Left Behind is not an issue in our district because we greatly exceed the standards.  

Education results are not a linear function of funding though the teachers unions would have you believe that paying more automatically means better educated students.  What they are really trying to tell you is the opposite ... pay us more money or we will make your kids stupid.  It is veiled blackmail.

We spend about $200 a year on homeschool curriculum for our son.  He's the only 8 year old I know who's read The Odyssey (translated) and is studying Greek.  For the kind of money schools around here are getting, every one of our neighbors' kids should be.  Instead, our district bought every kid 2 sets of books - one for school, one for home.  That way nobody has to carry books home.

What got me was the recent debate over the California High School exit exam.  Unless you pass it, you can't graduate.  What the media didn't tell people was that the test is for 8th grade math and 10th grade reading.  Oakland was going up against the state saying the exam was unfair and the students who had passed all their classes should get a diploma ... even if they can't do 8th grade math.

Give me a break.

Well, I imagine that most of those here know that the NEA is mostly responsible for access spending and also creating an ongoing problem with keeping good teachers (actually good teachers - not those rated by the NEA).

Money probably has little to do with it since good teachers would perform regardless of pay scale. That does not mean that we should not pay them appropriately, just that if they are dedicated to students, pay will be secondary.

Today, money goes to such grand efforts at cultral enlightment, minority enlightment, ego enhancement, sex ed., etc.  Most is used to create new and "wonderful" classes - heck with the 4 R's.  Actual education is dropping like a stone while everyone who graduates does at least feel good about it.

If we could get rid of the NEA union that controls public education, actual/real education would increase tremendously - and at reduced cost.  There are lots of good teachers that would love to just teach without the bindings and politics of the NEA.  

Will it happen...hah, not a chance...  Too late and too much money involved.

I just went to hear Pomp and Circumstance for my oldest kid this weekend at a Northwest university which shall remain nameless.  I listened to two hours of self-centered drivel from faculty and smarta*s drivel from students.

These people live in an intellectually dead world.  They only talk to each other and in a language only they can readily understand.  Horowitz is right; the problem is at the university.

We need to throw out just about everything anybody has thought about education since around the 1870s and start over.  Unless I need a specialty, I'd rather hire a kid that dropped out of HS, got a GED and went to work than hire someone who demonstrated that they could put up with four years of inanity.

for a school district, so they just love to qualifiy some kid for an Individual Educational Program.  With all due respect to the genuinely diabled, ADD is just a politically correct synonym for BRAT!  The parents won't discipline, the school won't discipline, and we all get to pay more.

the current situation where kids do Ritalin, adults with a prescription do Aderall and uninsured adults do cocaine, all three being the same kind of psychotropic drug.

can cost as much as 3 times the amount for a regular education student. In Fairfax County, VA, it will cost about 13,000 to educate a student with no special needs. It's about 25-30,000 for special education. One of the main reasons for the increase of cost is class size. For instance, I have about an average of 6-10 students in my class compared to the 25-35 students in other classes.

in special education. The administration in most cases does everything in its power to avoid a student from receiving special education services. More special education students means less services elsewhere for the general education population. The school budget doesn't grow mid-year when we refer another student for special education services but the difference has to be made up somewhere.

Also, another reason why schools tend not to want more special education students is because of NCLB. NCLB has special categories for minorities, special education, and low-income students. If the size of these categories increases, schools have to report those scores according to NCLB standards. School systems quite honestly would want to mask those students with the general education population scores so they can make their Annual Yearly Progress.

  if the kids are helped, that's nice, if not, well there's always sabbaticals and the pension.

       It would be interesting to know the quality of reading material used today compared to forty years ago.  In high school I and other victims were required to read horrors like Jane Eyre and {gulp] Silas Marner.  Not modernized but in the 19th century English idiom.  I'm sceptical of this being true today and if that's so, there might be a skewering of the test results.

"You'll see it has doubled in absolute terms since 1990 and has quadrupled in constant dollars over the last four decades."

Is that per student?  Or overall?

We have a similar problem. Just about very small town and suburb has it's own "Independent School District", each with it's own $uperintendent and $upport $taff. Some cities even have multiple school districts. The public whines about the high cost of school taxes but don't you dare talk about consolidation.

That's per-pupil spending, as you can see from the chart.

If schools are run for the benefit of teachers, why are so many quitting or retiring even in the small cities?

Simply stop sending kids to the local government schools.  I would love to see the day where the schools/teachers/bureaucracy/politicians are demanding mega $$$$ for educational needs and only a dozen children are showing up.    

 

Private schools? Some parents would not be able to afford that. If the demand went up for private school education, wouldn't that raise prices in the short term?

Home school? That's not an option for most families that need two incomes. Also, you still have to become a certified teacher in most states (that's the case in VA, at least).

But you are right. It is definitely an option for some families.

is right on cue.  Yes, many if not most private schools cost $$$$ especially out east.  On the other hand I send my three kids to a K-8 for $1000 total per year.  Granted I live in Wisconsin and the cost for HS is going to be $6,000 a year per child.  The problem is, and this is where the socialism/ liberalism paradigm fails, is that innovation and necessity, along with a credible voucher system will solve those issues you mention over time.  We don't live in a 100% brick and mortar world anymore and even ideas like the 9 month school year can't hold up to serious scrutiny.  

I wouldn't anticipate complete "cut and run" but would allow a "phased withdrawl" on this front.  Yet in the meantime it may make more sense to simply cut a state check to every kid for say $3000 then to blindly spend $9000 on average, for example in the current mold (again, adjust numbers accordingly to your state).

I would also add that the bigger costs are in high school, in which we could set up a system similar to a tax free college savings program such as EdVest but for secondary school tuition and fees.  We need more solutions like that instead of the usual drivel.                

Take Government Out of Education

Before the mid 1800s, elementary and secondary education (except for slaves) was largely parent financed. Today, taxpayers spend more than $8,000 + a year per student, more than virtually any other country, including Japan. With what result?

• Poor test scores
  
• high dropout rate
  
• Kids unable to pass exit exams
  
• kids incapable of filling out employment applications.

Why can't the private sector assume this responsibility? Let's cheer anything, including vouchers, that takes us in this direction.

and good response. $1000 a year for three kids is nice.

Here are some questions to pose for you:

What happens with NCLB and standards? Private schools are not held up to the same standards of the state and federal government. I know that private schools can have their own standards and that they scrutinize their applicants but there will be no accountability except from the school itself. Are we not trying to move away from that?

With state funded vouchers are we opening up private schools to public funding and would that not ruin their sovereignty as a private school. I have no problem with bonds supporting religious schools. But I do have a problem with the state being able to pry into private schools.

Lastly, what would happen to students with learning disabilities? They are entitled under IDIEA to have a free and apporpriate education. Some private schools will not accept them. Where would there education be located?

Thanks for the meassured response above. As an educator, I like to hear different solutions from all sides and I agree that throwing money at us is not a solution.

"Here are some questions I pose to you"...sorry I'm trying to write a paper at the same time.

...to see the errata list for a particular school if such a move were to happen.  :)

(If you don't know what I mean, semiconductor manufacturers catalog a list of bugs in their chips, known as errata, detailing every miniscule flaw in a particular batch so as to help troubleshoot unexpected behavior.  Such a list for your typical public school would probably be of a length that would make both Intel and AMD feel very happy about their level of quality control.)

Get the federal government out of the education business entirely.

I do believe there is a small place for state and local government in education but not the fed.

different schools are going to cater to different needs.  If your child has special needs, send him/her to one.  Start a school yourself, hire someone to teach them, engage in capital formation, recruit kids to go there and be a successful model.  Tap people with similar circumstances to fundraise and give to foundations.  Look at the way Boys Town or Hershey foundation is set up to cater to orphans, for example.  I think the last place to look for charity is the government since it is coercive by nature, but there would be nothing wrong with the state helping to write the check to cover fees in limited fashion when people cannot help themselves.        

The problem with thinking about education overall is that its been done the same way for years and getting people out of their mindset takes time.  Special interest groups that stand to lose big time get in the way also.  Every time the voucher issue comes up here in the Milwaukee area, which largely benefits inner city black and hispanic kids, WEAC and NEA suggest "siphoning of public funds" is taking place, as if more customers not frequenting your store should result in more subsidies for your institution.  The debate ends up stifled for a few quick cliche driven PR ads (for that matter insert any left wing movement here).              

Amen brother.   Just look at what they spend in NYC to educate one kid.   And Johnny still can't read.   Here in North Carolina we are in about the middle of the pack in spending and our scores are climbing every year.

I actually know what an errata list is. Great comment, LOL, all too true.

And they said Pentiums couldn't divide...

Fair point. It occurs to me that the spending you're talking about might even be counted separately, i.e., in special needs/special ed kinds of categories, don't know, but possible.

    America isn't made up of cities.  There are, for example, surburbs.   I would be curious to know what the % of teachers who quit is as against those who stay.  Your formulation, even the small cities, at least implies that larger cities have the same problem, to the extent that it is a problem.  The reasons are or could be many, not the least of which is the inability to educate those who don't wish to be educated.

     Be that as it may your your statement isn't a negation or contradiction of mine.  Because some, a minority, quit, doesn't mean that in administration and policy the wheels aren't greased for the teachers.

up by administration costs.

I can't remember what City it was now, but I remember reading on another blog about a story on a school district where the adminstration and administration offices were consuming a huge portion of the budget.

Although you are right that often money gets wasted on touchy feely type programs that are politically correct and have little to do with reading, writing, math or other academic subjects.Also, curriculum choices are often done at a one size fits all-for instance some teachers don't care for the workbooks, they would prefer to mostly create their own worksheets to support the concepts being taught in the curriculum, but somebody at the administrative level has decided that all classrooms should have a workbook for every student.

That said I am not a fan of teacher's unions and think they often cause more harm than good.

the poorer districts, which often have a disproportionate number of kids with special needs or a need of aditional services.

One of the best predictors of school performance is the percentage of children in the school who are on free/reduced lunches.  

The poor tend to have a higher percentage of kids with disabilities, they tend to have a higher percentage of parents with little education, and they often have parents who do not value education.  

So, at least in poorer districts more kids with IEP needs does mean more money being spent towards services.

For instance a 1 on 1 aid is probably about 25-30k a year in additional expense for the district.  If the school needs to hire a new one on one for a student, that is a pretty good chunk of the school budget-the more 1 on 1's needed, the more money is spent.

But it is also important to remember that the $5k per pupil is an average, a child who has very little educational need beyond the typical classroom isn't actually getting $5,000 worth of education, they are probably getting less, because the kid who need OT, ST or and or an aid is actually using more than the 5k average.

But additional SPED students can and do place a burden on the budget, especially in a district that is strapped for cash.

qualify a child for an IEP.  And in some cases it often doesn't even qualify you for a 504.

I do however take exception to your comment that ADD=brat.

While I have a child who has an autism spectrum disorder he doesn't have "autistic" stamped on his forehead.  If you saw him when he is having problems, you would likely label him "brat" without knowing the situation.

Are some of the kids diagnosed ADD really just brats without a disability-maybe, but unless you are a qualified doctor, you aren't in a position to decide which is which.

Also, there isn't a magic money tree that gives a district every dime they need to provide services for a special needs child.  More often than not, any extra money from the state budget isn't going to cover all the costs for the education of the identified child.

Well you start with the one thing the government can most easily control and that is the bad teachers.

The state can't mandate easily what parents should do, but they can hold teachers accountable.

I am not so sure I agree that the students are bad, although I do think the schools have overly tied their hands, when it comes to disciplinary options.  I know from experience supervising kids on probation, that suspension is a desired school consequence.

The parents I think are a huge problem, and the weakest link in the whole triangle.  The sad thing is there isn't a lot government can do to make parents value education, read to their kids, and make them do their homework or come to parent teacher conferences.  The most schools can do is seek to get parents as involved as possible, and try their best with the children of the parents who don't care.

exam over the course of high school.

Honestly, a student should be able to pass a test by their senior year that covers information required for lower grades, if they want a diploma.

curriculum, but I know my daughter read a variety of material in her 5th grade reading class this year, some of them classics, others current, but well written stories.  Although her class was an advance reading class, and the books were chosen by her teacher.

I admit I don't care for the curriculum the elementary school uses.  What bothers me is how often we find editorial (or at least I hope they were editorial) errors in reading books for the curriculum or in the teaching materials (ie scripts) for them.

The stories we use in second grade are for the most pretty terrible.  I am not overly impressed with the curriculum at all.

I also can't stand our math curriculum-it is used only up to third grade, then they switch to a different one.  And even worse the school board is thinking about extending the curriculum I hate to 8th grade, I am hoping they opt to not do that one.

But overall, I can say I am not a fan of many of the curriculums out there.

Considering teaching is a mainly femal occupation, and women are the ones who have the babies and stay home, if they want an at home parent.

Most of the teachers who quit from our school district quit for three reasons-they were getting a new job (most common), they were having a baby, or for a medical reason.

In the last five years no a single teacher quit to begin a career in something else.

We are in a fairly poor district though, so often we get a lot of teachers who are fresh out of college, work here a couple or so years, then look for jobs in cities that pay more money.

I think one thing the US does that often other countries don't do, is it does attempt to fully educate every child-even those with disabilities.

I do think there is a place for public financing and support of public schools.

I think this should mostly be at a state and local level.

About the only thing that I think is neccessary from the feds is the rights provided under IDEIA, mostly because a change in schools is difficult enough for a special needs child, if continuity if education and care is dissruptive, while the new district gets its act together, the chils will suffer.

I think there is a public interest in making sure every child has the opportunity for a full and complete education through high school.

Although I would like to see more voucher programs, and what I would really like to see is public education funded more like grants for colleges and universities.

So while I think much is broken with the monopoly system we currently have, I don't think the government has no place at all in providing education to its citizens.

when I see one.  Between psychobabble and the modern mommy's inability to deny her brat anything, there are lots of BRATS.  Since it is inconceivable that the kid could just be a BRAT, the psychopimps come up with a diagnosis.

As to the money, maybe it is a state by state thing; certainly here disabled has been a booming business.

1.  Assymetric comparison:  Your data on student performance basically starts at 1996.  Comparing the change in performance here (negligable) to the changes in funding since 1990 or 1960 is unhelpfull.
   
2.  Unaccounted variables:  The NCES intro to the funding stats notes that today's funding for public education is broken down in various subsections like "instructional," "support," etc.  Without accounting for the change of this proportion over time, the change in quantity of spending loses its meaning.
   
3.  Better evidence possible:  The average, nationwide diference in funding over the last ten yeas is relatively small compared to variations between states and variations within states.  A comparison of scores between the top-10 and bottom-10 spending states would provide a bigger spending difference against which to compare results.  A comparison between the top 20% and bottom 20% spending schools within a single state (or set of states) might be even better.  Any such analysis would have to take into account additional variables that would make education intrinsically more expensive for one state over another (urban/rural/suburban differences, etc.) as well as the issue raised in my subpoint 2.

The claim here may very well be true - I just don't find this evidence particularly convincing.

As Walter Olson (www.overlawyered.com)points out, the number of "special needs" kids in the Greenwich (Conn) and other affluent school systems has soared, typically kids who now can't take timed tests.

As Olson says, "Coming soon to a workplace near you...."

Consolidate and give up their local High School football team?  You're either nuts, a Yankee, a soccer fan, or all three! <GRIN>  

Full disclosure:  I am an East Texas home schooler who thinks Gov. Perry just killed our economy with his latest business tax to fund public education.

That special needs children's schools would be competing for business thus driving down the cost per pupil for parents i would have to conclude that would be significantly lower than today's cost. It would also be offset by church groups and charities as added relief to parents.

As I said above i think state and local government does have a small roll to play, this might be one but doesn't necessarily have to be.

Yes, I agree, but therein lies the problem.  The people in charge want more money to hire more people to assist in being in charge.  The ratio between teachers and administrators has become insane.  This is just another of the major problems caused by the NEA.