School spending myth

[Dandelion_Wine]

Rather, what they are paying for is a safe learning environment for their children.

My colleague’s wife was a teacher (she’s retired now). He speaks of a meeting his wife attended. It was with some parents of students that were bussed in from the inner city. The students weren’t doing well and the teachers thought if they spent some time with the parents teaching them how they could help their children do homework, etc. Well after a bit one mother raised her hand and said something to the effect of - ‘you don’t understand. We don’t have our children to come to your school for an education. We have them come to your school so that they don’t get shot and can live to see tomorrow’.

Of course it’s too bad that they’re not looking further than that.

 

[manualman]

Some if not many states still have rather draconian restrictions on homeschooling. Here in Illinois, homeschooling parents cannot share any of the burden. Homeschool kids cannot be taught by anyone except parents. No cooperative agreements such as three moms each choosing their best subject and teaching it to all three families.

We pay an amazing $3,800 per kid at our catholic school (plus endless fundraisers). The state gives us back a tiny tax break and a few bucks in transportation reimbursement. Our parish kicks in 30% of the tuition in the form of reimbursement at the end of the year. We pay for the rest by having my wife work one weekend a month and taking drive/camp vacations instead of fly/hotel ones.

It works, but its tough. Its especially tough to pay my home taxes knowing that the local public schools flush $11,000+ per student to acheive the status of one of the worst districts in the state. No wonder the admin and unions FEAR the idea of parents being able to CHOOSE where to send their kids AND the money they spend on it.

The article is quite on. The teachers at our school aren’t the primary income for their families. They can’t be. But they love doing it because they have AUTHORITY in the classroom and parents who CARE about their kids. In the rare event of a repeat problem, the problem child/parents can be eliminated instead of crippling the entire class. THAT is worth every penny we pay AND the ersatz facilities the kids must endure.

 

[Vaclav]

In short, what private school parents are paying for is not better resources, or higher-paid teachers (in fact, teachers are paid less in private schools). Rather, what they are paying for is a safe learning environment for their children. What our public schools need is not more money, but a re-ordering of priorities and the institution of the disciplinary measures used by private schools to provide a safe learning environment, slashing of the unnecessary and wasteful bureaucracy and return of authority to teachers.

Out of curiosity, if I am to believe this, why do the states with the best public school systems spend the most money per student on their schools? That would seem to argue that there is a correlation between public spending an better public schools.

 

[vern_humphrey]

My colleague’s wife was a teacher (she’s retired now). He speaks of a meeting his wife attended. It was with some parents of students that were bussed in from the inner city. The students weren’t doing well and the teachers thought if they spent some time with the parents teaching them how they could help their children do homework, etc. Well after a bit one mother raised her hand and said something to the effect of - ‘you don’t understand. We don’t have our children to come to your school for an education. We have them come to your school so that they don’t get shot and can live to see tomorrow’.

Of course it’s too bad that they’re not looking further than that.

I think my response would be, “If you want your children out of that environment, then help us educate them – because if they don’t learn, they’ll wind up right back there when they fiinish school.”

 

[bilop]

Out of curiosity, if I am to believe this, why do the states with the best public school systems spend the most money per student on their schools? That would seem to argue that there is a correlation between public spending an better public schools.

I think realistically they spend it because they have it. It’s the nature of government, they will tax and spend as much as the people will bear.

In my area, public schools spend $20-30,000 per student. The Catholic School in the next town over (where will will send our future kids, God willing ) costs $6,000 for non-parishoners. This is one of the few Catholic schools in our area that is doing well (it’s a rich town and people can afford the tuition on top of the $15,000 plus they pay in property tax).

I think it is a tremendous statement about school quality that parents who are already spending $10,000 plus a year in school taxes, spend even more to send their kids to a school that spends only 25% as much as the public schools.

God Bless

 

[Vaclav]

I’m not disparaging Catholic schools in any way, shape, nor form. In fact, I think they provide a priceless service, especially in areas where schools are poor or even non-existent.

My point is that there is a direct statistical correlation between the amount of money spent per student by a state (plus local governments) and the performance of those students. Yet, for some reason we are told that it is a “myth” that more spending helps make for better schools.

A case in point is New York, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts. All of those states spend far more per student than many other states, yet their students also perform far better on the standardised tests, as well as college entrance exams, than states that spend far less such as Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, and California.

Like it or not, spending per student is a good indicator of how well a school system will perform.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Out of curiosity, if I am to believe this, why do the states with the best public school systems spend the most money per student on their schools?

Because that’s not true. Washington, D.C., for example, spends more per-pupil than any state, and it’s schools are among the worst in the nation.

That would seem to argue that there is a correlation between public spending an better public schools.

Then you should be able to easily calculate the Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient and present it here, along with the Level of Significance.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’m not disparaging Catholic schools in any way, shape, nor form. In fact, I think they provide a priceless service, especially in areas where schools are poor or even non-existent.

My point is that there is a direct statistical correlation between the amount of money spent per student by a state (plus local governments) and the performance of those students.

There is** not** a direct statistical correlation between the amount of money spent per student by a state (plus local governments) and the performance of those students.

If there is, present the the Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient, along with the Level of Significance.

 

[bilop]

I’m not disparaging Catholic schools in any way, shape, nor form. In fact, I think they provide a priceless service, especially in areas where schools are poor or even non-existent.

My point is that there is a direct statistical correlation between the amount of money spent per student by a state (plus local governments) and the performance of those students. Yet, for some reason we are told that it is a “myth” that more spending helps make for better schools.

A case in point is New York, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts. All of those states spend far more per student than many other states, yet their students also perform far better on the standardised tests, as well as college entrance exams, than states that spend far less such as Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, and California.

Like it or not, spending per student is a good indicator of how well a school system will perform.

I think you have the causation wrong. Those states are rich. Rich kids do better on standardized tests. Rich states can afford to spend more on schools, plus everything costs more: teacher salaries, real estate etc.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I think you have the causation wrong. Those states are rich. Rich kids do better on standardized tests. Rich states can afford to spend more on schools, plus everything costs more: teacher salaries, real estate etc.

When you study educational achievement, you must stratify the population studied – you cannot compare the Spanish-speaking child of a recent imigrant with the child of a poor Black sharecropper with the the child of a weathy Boston Brahmin with the child of a wealthy Hassidic Jew.

When we group children by race and socio-economic group, we find no correlation beteen spending and student achievement.

If there is someone here who knows of a properly conducted, peer-reviewed study that does show such a correlation, please post it here.

 

[bilop]

When you study educational achievement, you must stratify the population studied – you cannot compare the Spanish-speaking child of a recent imigrant with the child of a poor Black sharecropper with the the child of a weathy Boston Brahmin with the child of a wealthy Hassidic Jew.

When we group children by race and socio-economic group, we find no correlation beteen spending and student achievement.

If there is someone here who knows of a properly conducted, peer-reviewed study that does show such a correlation, please post it here.

I’m agreeing with you in my post above; I may not have been super eloquent in the way I said it The states that score well in standardized tests tend to have large concentrations of affluent upper-middle class professionals, who’s kids will tend to do well in school, and on tests. Since the areas are affluent, they can get away with high taxes and spending a lot on schools. BUT, if they didn’t, the kids would still do well.

As I said in an earlier post, the next town over from me has a Catholic school where lots of parents choose to spend extra to send their kids to a school that spends $6000 per student instead of the public school which spends $25,000 per student.

 

[Vaclav]

Because that’s not true. Washington, D.C., for example, spends more per-pupil than any state, and it’s schools are among the worst in the nation.

Washington D.C. is an outlier, for nearly every other state it seems to be the case. There are a few low spending states that seem to do well on one of the tests too.

If there is, present the the Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient, along with the Level of Significance.

 Correlation 	Covariance

SPN & GRD R4 0.61 65.4
SPN & GRD M4 0.47 67.1
SPN & GRD R8 0.60 67.5
SPN & GRD M8 0.50 65.8

The Pearson’s means that 61% of the 4th grade reading test data can be accounted for by changes in the spending between states.

 

[Vaclav]

The states that score well in standardized tests tend to have large concentrations of affluent upper-middle class professionals, who’s kids will tend to do well in school, and on tests. Since the areas are affluent, they can get away with high taxes and spending a lot on schools. BUT, if they didn’t, the kids would still do well.

What do you base that on?

By the discussion here, children from well-to-do backgrounds can attend horrible schools and do well. Yet, children from poor backgrounds can attend wonderful and updated schools and will still do horribly.

That does not seem to be the case.

 

[bilop]

What do you base that on?

By the discussion here, children from well-to-do backgrounds can attend horrible schools and do well. Yet, children from poor backgrounds can attend wonderful and updated schools and will still do horribly.

That does not seem to be the case.

I’m saying there is little correlation between spending and school quality. Public schools in NYC spend $15,000 per student and are horrible. Catholic schools spend $4000 and are great. Public schools in the suburbs spend $25,000 per student and are great. Catholic schools in the suburbs spend $5000 per student and are great.

If $ mattered, those NYC public schools should be way better than the suburban Catholic schools, but they are not.

If you have children from good families who care about education they will do well given any minimal attempt at a decent education.
Catholic schools in NYC have shown this by getting 95% of their inner city student to go to college while spending a tiny fraction of what the public schools do. They can do this b/c the parents of those kids care enough to scrimp to pay tuition, so care about their kids education.

If you took the kids from the best suburban school, and switched them with the kids from the worst urban school, the results would follow the kids, not the school. Part of this is likely genetic, but mostly it is a culture and attitude about education and its importance.

God Bless

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Out of curiosity, if I am to believe this, why do the states with the best public school systems spend the most money per student on their schools? That would seem to argue that there is a correlation between public spending an better public schools.

I can tell you I did this analysis with in the state of Texas and found no correlation*. However you may be looking at a wealth affect. If New Mexico has little money that may drive down performance(education needed to compete) and teachers salaries. While Rhode Island do to high cost of living must have highly educated people to drive up this cost of living, and thus must drive students for better education, and will have to pay high teacher salaries because of the cost of living.

• I do not rule out the state may have leveled this issue through past actions of transferring money through districts

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Washington D.C. is an outlier, for nearly every other state it seems to be the case. There are a few low spending states that seem to do well on one of the tests too.

How could it be? Are you saying it is misreported, is a member of another population, or what.

Correlation Covariance
SPN & GRD R4 0.61 65.4
SPN & GRD M4 0.47 67.1
SPN & GRD R8 0.60 67.5
SPN & GRD M8 0.50 65.8

The Pearson’s means that 61% of the 4th grade reading test data can be accounted for by changes in the spending between states.

Did you mean to say spending and reading follow each other 61% of the time? So maybe a wealth affect is usually driving both of them.

 

[Vaclav]

I’m saying there is little correlation between spending and school quality. Public schools in NYC spend $15,000 per student and are horrible. Catholic schools spend $4000 and are great. Public schools in the suburbs spend $25,000 per student and are great. Catholic schools in the suburbs spend $5000 per student and are great.

I’d like to see the data that the Catholic Schools spend only $4000 per student. Remember that tuition may not be their only revenue. They may also get revenue from charitable donations, or from the Church herself.

Yes, inner city schools are struggling and may pay more per student. Part of that is due to the fact that they may incur costs not incurred by many other schools (such as safety and security costs). They may also have to be more cautious about things like illicit drugs and gang symbols. Something a school in Yancey County, North Carolina is just not going to have to worry about.

If you took the kids from the best suburban school, and switched them with the kids from the worst urban school, the results would follow the kids, not the school. Part of this is likely genetic, but mostly it is a culture and attitude about education and its importance.

Interesting. I completely disagree.

Tell me this, why is it that if you take the states with the most abysmal scores on the math and reading tests, they are all states who pay much less than the average per student? (with the noted exception of DC).

Surely you don’t believe that all the kids of Louisiana and Mississippi are genetically predisposed to ppor academic performance or have parents that just don’t care?

 

[Vaclav]

How could it be? Are you saying it is misreported, is a member of another population, or what.

I am saying that if you plotted the points on a graph, Washington DC would be out of the normal distribution of states.

Did you mean to say spending and reading follow each other 61% of the time? So maybe a wealth affect is usually driving both of them.

No. I meant exactly what I said. 61% of the 4th grade reading test data can be accounted for by changes in the spending between states. Where a positive increase in spending resulted in a positive increase in the proficiency on the test results.

It is not a wealth effect. Nowhere is wealth measured! This is strictly state spending per student. You are introducing a variable of “wealth” which has nothing to do with the point in question.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Washington D.C. is an outlier, for nearly every other state it seems to be the case. There are a few low spending states that seem to do well on one of the tests too.

 Correlation 	Covariance

SPN & GRD R4 0.61 65.4
SPN & GRD M4 0.47 67.1
SPN & GRD R8 0.60 67.5
SPN & GRD M8 0.50 65.8

The Pearson’s means that 61% of the 4th grade reading test data can be accounted for by changes in the spending between states.

No, it doesn’t. It means there is a 61% chance that the difference can be accounted for by the independent variable. And the P value, which you don’t show, is above the normal P=.05 that is generally accepted in studies like this as significant.

And let me point out that if your Rs **were **significant, you would be cherrypicking – since two of your Rs are .5 and below = which means a 50% or greater chance of the difference being due to random factors.

And, of course, you have not stratified your samples.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’m agreeing with you in my post above; I may not have been super eloquent in the way I said it The states that score well in standardized tests tend to have large concentrations of affluent upper-middle class professionals, who’s kids will tend to do well in school, and on tests. Since the areas are affluent, they can get away with high taxes and spending a lot on schools. BUT, if they didn’t, the kids would still do well.

That’s correct. One of the good things about NCLB is that the states have to post a report card on the Internet, and they have to show how children of different socio-economic backgrounds are doing.

When you go into that data, you find that the children of affluent whites do well in every state, the children of poor Blacks do poorly.

As I said in an earlier post, the next town over from me has a Catholic school where lots of parents choose to spend extra to send their kids to a school that spends $6000 per student instead of the public school which spends $25,000 per student.

The “poster child” city for this is Kansas City, MO, where a federal judge took over the schools, forced the elected officials to raise taxes, poured in literally billions – and when the smoke cleared, kids in Kansas City had fallen behind other kids of similar socio-economic backgrounds in Missouri.