The goal of spending 65 percent of every education dollar “in the classroom” sounds worthy. That’s what prompted Kansas legislators to set such a target during last summer’s special session on school finance. But in practice, according to a new national analysis of 10 states’ data by Standard & Poor’s, there is “no significant positive correlation between the percentage of funds that districts spend on instruction, and the percentage of students who score proficient or higher on state reading and math tests.” Whether this will halt the faddish legislation around the country in support of the “65 percent solution” — promoted by Overstock.com president Patrick Byrne — is an open question.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Jed on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
10 Comments
Rhonda, if you had read the “Statewide Education Insights” for Kansas on the same website, you would have found (on page 3) evidence that the level of spending — not just the percent spent in the classroom — has little to do with student achievement:
“The scatterplot below illustrates the relationship between spending and student proficiency for the state’s school districts. The lack of a discernable pattern suggests that the direct relationship between spending and student proficiency is not very strong.”
But evidence like this doesn’t prevent your newspaper from calling for even more spending.
I looked at the website (firstclasseducation.org) and there are some interesting things in what is considered in and out of the classroom, the most interesting being that athletics are counted as “in the classroom” while librarians are not. Yeah. That makes sense.
It’s interesting how nobody points out that funding and achievement are not directly proportional until long after the ‘adequate funding’ debate.
So if we spend nothing on education, we’ll get the same results as if we had spent 25,000 per kid?
Obviously, spending is an important factor among a number of important factors.
Galahad, in differential equations the ‘zero solution’ is called the trivial solution. Which sums up your argument and math skills nicely.
A failed public school teacher who doesn’t even pay for his own kid’s education doesn’t belong in any kind of discussion about schools. Leave this to the adults.
Ptoudman,
Interesting answer to Galahad’s post. The problem is it does nothing to answer it other than to flog the blogger. In effect, it’s as bad as Galahads post.
You are correct, though that spending no money accomplishes nada. Spending a reasonable amount per student can accomplish much. Above that, the returns fail to live up to expectations.
What will provide the most bang for the buck is discipline. That, along with qualified teachers, will assist greatly in bringing student skills to the level NCLB expects.
The left like to claim that Bush started a program and failed to fund it. The truth is Bush has increased education spending by 100% over what was spent during the Clinton administration. And schools are still failing to provide quality education for our children.
So the connection isn’t money; it’s discipline, qualified teachers, and strong parental oversight.
I agree qualified teachers are a huge factor. The question is how do you get and keep the best people? The American way is high enough pay and benefits to attract the best. Does being a teacher fit that description? If the pay isn’t the problem, then why isn’t teaching attracting the best talent?
I have to laugh when people get all pissed off that more money for schools goes towards better salaries and benefits. What do you think the biggest part of any school budget is? Duh. By far its salaries and benefits, to the tune of 70-80% of a total budget in most cases. All the technology and tons of curricular materials and such are great, but it boils down to having good people in the trenches. A computer and a consultant doesn’t get the job done. Rolling up your sleeves and getting involved in the lives of kids (good, bad, and everywher in between) is a personal, time-consuming, and often frustrating venture. And so many times you have no idea who you have made an impact on until years later when the kid you thought was a lazy goof off comes back to thank you.
That’s the conundrum, isn’t it: How to get and keep the most qualified teachers? There is an answer that the Liberals don’t like: Make damn sure the teachers that are hired have passed all the requirements needed to teach that class. Too often the teachers union has battled all attempts to set solid standards the ensure the teachers DO know what they are teaching.
While the teachers union has the interests of the teachers at heart, it would be better for them to have the interests of the students at heart. They are the ones that need the quality teaching that only the qualified ones can give. Too often, the teachers union is busy playing politics, when they should be educating the minds of the children.
This is not an indictment against teachers by any means. They have one of the toughest jobs in the world, especially in Kansas. But they also need the tools to do their job, and those tools include a quality education that fully prepares them for the job ahead.
I’m a believer that once the law allowed public employees to unionize it was a big step in the wrong direction. After all, why would you need a union to deal with your boss when you already can vote yourself a new boss? Now these unions are a major political powerhouse.
Back on the point of teacher quality, I think if you could enforce some real discipline in the schools you wouldn’t have the best and brightest leaving for better pay and less stress.
Where should the money be spent, if not in the classroom? Is there a study that shows “positive correlation” between money spent on administration and students performance?