On June 23rd, I sent an email to Washington state representative Dave Quall, asking him about an op-ed he had written. In the op-ed, Quall said:
Bottom line: Most school districts do not have the resources they need to provide our children with the quality basic education they deserve.
So I asked Quall to tell us, roughly, how much more in resources the school districts needed. And what kind of gains we could expect in test scores, if the school districts got those additional resources.
To date, Quall has not replied. Feel free to speculate on why not. Some will think that he did not reply because he is aware of these numbers:
American teachers are heavily unionized, and the most common structure of teacher contracts identifies teacher education levels and teacher experience as the driving force behind salaries. Thus, as teacher inputs rise and as the numbers of students per teachers decline, expenditure per pupil rises. As seen in the bottom row of Table 2, real expenditures per pupil more than tripled over this period.19 [1960-2000] In fact, this period is not special in US schools. Over the entire 100 years of 1890—1990, real spending per pupil rose by at a remarkably steady pace of 3.5% per year [Hanushek and Rivkin (1997)]. Over this longer period, real per student expenditure in 1990 dollars goes from $164 in 1890 to $772 in 1940 to $4,622 in 1990 — roughly quintupling in each fifty-year period.20
Or Quall may not have replied because he knows about these results of those additional
expenditures, which I have taken from the same
paper:
The measured achievement varies, but in patterns that appear to have little to do with the rising expenditures.
If you happen to know Representative Quall, or if you live in his district, I hope that you will urge him to answer my two simple questions.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(Paper by way of Stuart Buck.)
Posted by Jim Miller at July 09, 2008 02:06 PM | Email ThisSo, by increasing the resources an unknown amount, we will provide our children with only a quality basic education.
Then, by adding additional resources of an unknown amount, we might be able to exceed the quality basic education?
What level of funding will guarantee a quality, exceptional education for our children? Why do kids have to suffer through decades of substandard education while this answer remains unquantified?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on July 9, 2008 03:30 PMQuall writes the op-ed but doesn't know how to respond. Figures.
Posted by: swatter on July 9, 2008 04:27 PMThe WEA is quickly responds with, "Well you don't get the "problem students" in the private schools, and you typically have students whose parents are move involved in their child's education than in the public schools. Therefore, it isn't a fair comparison.
So I guess what happens is that the public school system is afraid to kick the problem students out of the classroom and instead just keeps promoting them (if they drop out the school loses precious federal tax dollars) and continues the "dumbing down" of the curriculum to where even the kids that pay attention in class get a second rate education.
That's the mess we have today, and if anyone thinks that throwing money at the problem is going to solve this core problem in the classroom, they are deluded.
Posted by: Smoley on July 9, 2008 06:29 PMExample:
http://www.stcatherineschool.net/admissions.htm#tuition
In this state since the last time Reps. had control back in the early '80s we went from near the top to the bottom of the list as far as class size. All the Dems' money has gone towards moving teacher pay towards the top in the nation while shorting the schools so that our relatively small class sizes are now relatively the largest in the nation.
Posted by: Doug on July 9, 2008 10:00 PMIs the teacher student ratio better at St. Catherines?
How many special education students are part of their population?
Is their school day longer or shorter?
is their school year longer or shorter?
Not enough information here to make any valid comparison.
Posted by: BA on July 9, 2008 10:00 PMBut at the same time, the schools and teachers are not given the leeway to use serious discipline and authority to set boundaries and enforce behavior in the same way that a good parent does. So instead we blow about $10K per year per student, which would go a long way towards the best private school tuition, and a lot of the money is wasted in overhead, high administration costs, dues to unions, big fancy and lavish campuses, etc. Very little makes its way to the actual education product which is the teachers. And so there's very little incentive for good hard working people to become teachers. Most would rather work in tech or other private sector jobs where they can make a much better wage. And especially when they have to baby sit the kids of bad parents, who cause trouble.
Until we get rid of the broken record of decades of Progressive leadership entwined with unions, the WEA, etc. there won't be any new solutions. Only more of the same, at an ever increasing price.
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 9, 2008 10:03 PMi'm willing to bet that SC does things differently--like:
--ACADEMIC RESULTS first & foremost
--no dumbing-down of entire class
--kick out troublemakers
--MAKE parents involved and accountable
--less wasteful diversity and pc training like our beloved 2-full-day native amer. extravaganza in the public system
--not celebrating the process, but getting results
--no union interference
--teacher authority to discipline and to change cirriculum
--added (woven in) moral values with basic teaching lesson resulting from a religious inst. that public can't incorporate
--focus on efficiencies during mission, not assuming more money will solve all;
--realizing parents have limited purses & watching school budgets;
---less admin bodies and useless bureaucrats and questionably-qualified "aides"
The only thing necessary for attaining a "basic quality education" is a qualified educator and an involved parent(s)interested in the child's educational development.
It is these two untapped resources that are the primary reason for the generational decline in education, while peripheral issues like School funds; smaller class sizes; Teacher's salaries; et al, are often the scapegoat for parent's and teacher's alike not living up to their obligations.
Once the excuses stop, so too will the decline. Posted by: Rick D. on July 10, 2008 07:12 AM
Wowsa!!!
Speaking from experience at the grade school and middle school so far, I take that to be an uneducated insult at my efforts to be involved with my kids.
It is the schools and teachers that don't want to involve the parents. You wouldn't believe the efforts I have gone through to be involved. Most of the teachers don't want you there. Oh, you hear the lip service, but when the rubber meets the road, it is a whole different story.
You tell me why I need to have a personal relationship with the principal before I can get a teacher to talk to me? It took me almost a year before I started getting answers and after WASLs, the teachers checked out teaching since there was only two or three weeks left.
BTW, since I work in one district and live in another, I have removed the middle school kid and placed her in the work district (BTW- it ain't much better).
Posted by: swatter on July 10, 2008 07:52 AMThe answer to improved eduction is increasing the quality of our teachers. Unfortunately, the current unionized system does just the opposite. Years of service and level of education determine pay instead of teaching talent.
Teaching is no different than any other vocation. Some people are just better at it than others. Until we fix the system so these really great teachers are rewarded, we will continue to have mediocre results.
I know from personal experience the difference a great teacher makes. I had the good fortune to be taught by an absolutely outstanding biology teacher in high school. This guy made learning interesting, funand challenging. If only all my teachers had had this talent!
Posted by: RJK on July 10, 2008 08:09 AMTake the time/money spent from the propaganda and put it back in reading and math. Posted by: PC on July 10, 2008 08:16 AM
Take that arithmetic a little further. $10k per student x 30 students per class room = $300 k a month x 9 months = $2.7 million per year. OY VEY! That's just for 1 class room.
The problem is not the lack of money, it's the lack of teaching.
Now, how much money do schools need Mr. Quall?
Posted by: kim in vancouver on July 10, 2008 10:11 AMWhere are you getting $10k per student per month? Those are annual costs.
In the general sense, smaller class sizes doesn't do much. Going from 25 kids per class to 17, doesn't affect the quality of education much. However, having 8 students in a math class rather than 25 does make a huge difference. The problem is scheduling. Most elementary schools can offer 8-10 student math and reading classes, just as long as the PE, art, history class time have 30+ students. Teachers won't allow it.
Posted by: Doug on July 10, 2008 04:44 PMThe private school had smaller class sizes, a healthy teacher ratio (teacher and aides), plus highly involved parents - the kids benefited from the vast diversity of parental experience, vocations and expertise. The school encourages parental involvement.
In the public schools (one of the best districts in the state) the classes were generally a bit bigger, teachers a bit more varied in experience and attitude but mostly top notch, and parental contact encouraged. I always had phone numbers and email addresses at my fingertips, plus access to class websites to see homework schedules, plus parent nights to review expectations, curriculum and avenues for help if our kids needed it.
In their AP classes on parent nights the room was full, in their general studies classes the room less full of parents (guess which ones were there...)
I read all the comments here and it is disheartening.
Was our experience such an anomaly?
I think the key to a child getting an excellent education IS parental involvement - whether it is encouraged by the school or demanded by the parent.
Parent's fault? At the end of the day yes. Parent's responsibility.
If I'm going to entrust my child with ANYONE for any part of their day - particularly to become educated, I'm going to be as involved as I can.
If the trade off needed to be made, we can take the nicer vacations in the future, buy better cars someday.
The system wasn't broken for our kids - really too bad it seems to be for most others.
Posted by: BA on July 10, 2008 05:17 PM
I'm not a teacher, but I've been married to a solid dedicated teacher for over 25 years; one who has been seriously tempted many times to "cross the line" and bring some of her children home with her because of poor home situations. I've also known many of her fellow teachers; the vast majority are intelligent, dedicated and genuinely care....but dismayed by poor support from the home and sometimes their own administration. As a former military leader, I've also inherited many of YOUR children who were sent out of their homes unprepared. Again, check the MIRROR. Put up and contribute constructively...or shut up if you just prefer to sit back and complain. Posted by: steve on July 13, 2008 12:17 AM
only they measure the quality of the effort not by the results, but by the inputs.
Posted by: Das Baron Von Zippee on July 14, 2008 04:57 PM