Taxpayer Calculator: Education Spending in Obama's 2012 Budget

American · Apr 11, 2011

Link

by William LaJeunesse | April 11, 2011

By most measures, America's education system ranks among the best. Our classrooms, computer labs, athletic fields and 'enrichment programs' for under-achieving and special education students are the envy of the world.
In fact, the U.S. spends more on education than defense. [Don't forget state spending] On a per pupil basis, we rank only behind Switzerland and Norway.
And that's not likely to change under President Obama. His 2012 budget increases federal education spending by 21 percent to $77 billion dollars.
Yet critics say that's a mistake, since there is no link between spending and student performance.
"There really is no correlation between spending per pupil and achievement per pupil," argues Neal McClusky with the Cato Institute Center for Educational Freedom. "Both parties have done this for many decades - they talk about spending money on schools as if that is synonymous with actually educating people but it isn't. What we've seen that money go to is just bigger and bigger staff, better paid teachers or other employees but nothing in terms of outcomes."
Since 1985, federal education spending tripled, yet studies by the National Assessment of Educational Progress show reading, math and science scores remained flat. Internationally, our 8th graders rank 14th in reading, 17th in science and 25th in math. Almost 30 percent of our teenagers don't finish high school, according to the National Center for Education Statistics, and half who enter college drop out, even though per pupil spending nationally averages more than $10,000 a year. America has fallen to 9th in the proportion of young people with a college degree.

So what 's the money being spent on? Why aren't our children benefiting from the spending? Could it be outside entitiies influencing our education system? How about what is being taught to our kids? Maybe it's worthless in the real world. How about the school book publishers, are they getting fat?

lpast · Apr 11, 2011

Disclaimer: This is merely the uneducated opinion of someone that doesnt really know the answer

Having said that I believe a large part of our students under performance is the political agendas that have been included in educational curriculums. Instead of just "TEACHING" they are indoctrinating. We need political correctness out of the classroom and just get back to teaching what kids need to be successful.

cpwill · Apr 11, 2011

wait, so we're seeing ever increasing costs combined with flatlining or slipping results?

is there a public-sector union involved in this somewhere?

American · Apr 11, 2011

Well I was trying to stay clear of the union part, because I know the libs would come in here and discuss nothing but the unions, because liberals will protect them even if we're last in the world of education. Liberal are into education solely for the money.

haymarket · Apr 11, 2011

And what exactly is the measurement stick to determine the success of the various tens of thousands of American educational systems?

Boo Radley · Apr 11, 2011

More nonsense. Frankly, education is as bad as some like to say. And second, while money is not the solution to every problem, it is certainly not an area to short change too much. If you really want children to be educated, you might look at holding them responsible as well. Not to mention their parents. In a country where being educated and smart is frowned up on too readily, we need a major socialital change, and not more demonizing of teachers and education.

Hicup · Apr 11, 2011

To me, education has become a breeding ground for the mundane.

There should only be several areas to teach from grades K through 4. 2 hours on reading, 2 hours on writing, 2 hours on arithmetic, and an hour of scientific method, and logic. This ALL kids need to meet the demands of education. From grades 5 through 8, they should have a firm grasp on reading, writing and arithmetic, and you can scale it back, and increase teaching the scientific method, with advanced training on logic. Grades 9 through 12 should offer specialization in areas kids (By this time) want to pursue into college, with civics, and economics being mandatory. Kids need to learn about credit, and money, plains and simple, and they need to learn about our political process. Throw in some basic sex education, keep up with advanced reading, writing, and arithmetic. Instead of teaching things like history, or geography separately, most of these things can be incorporated into curriculum designed around advanced reading and writing courses.

There's too much going on, and kids are finding it harder and harder to retain what they're learning, and lose interest.

Education should be a simple process, and at ages where appropriate, it should ask children to choose what they want to do, and offer specialized ways to get there. We need to start trusting our kids by listening to what they are telling us!

Just my observations!

Tim-

DontDoIt · Apr 12, 2011

There is no link between increased spending and increased scores among students of public schools, or probably private schools although I'm not sure, quite an interesting graph.

Hicup · Apr 12, 2011

DontDoIt said:
There is no link between increased spending and increased scores among students of public schools, or probably private schools although I'm not sure, quite an interesting graph.

That's because the money isn't being spent on ways to improve their education, it's going to things like buses, school lunches, unions, equipment, administration, "special" education programs that schools try desperately to fit your child into (Means more money), some new books, pencils, erasers, glue.. All of which does nothing to improve the curriculum, quality of teachers, or basic understanding that education isn't rocket science. Teach them to read, write, and do math, and the thinking for themselves part will follow naturally. Maybe they don't want them to think for themselves, as a cursory glance at the curriculums of most publics schools is riddled with things kids never need to be taught. If they know how to read, and if they catch the bug for reading writing, and math, they will figure out exactly what it is they want to do all on their own. Once they get the high-school we should ask them what they want to do, and gear curriculums around specializing in several fields of education.

Think about it. rather than have schools that "do it all", we have schools that specialize in fields of education. Think about the quality of the college education when the child is coming in completely prepared!

We approach education in this country very poorly in my opinion. It doesn't mesh with the real world!

Tim-

lpast · Apr 12, 2011

haymarket said:
And what exactly is the measurement stick to determine the success of the various tens of thousands of American educational systems?

McDonalds having pictures of hamburgers instead of prices on its registers

Taylor · Apr 12, 2011

DontDoIt said:
There is no link between increased spending and increased scores among students of public schools, or probably private schools although I'm not sure, quite an interesting graph.

Data is spotty, but it seems much of the increase in spending has gone to teachers and special education programs. Teachers make more money, work fewer hours, and handle fewer students than they used to. They also pass on their skyrocketing health care costs to taxpayers. Investment in the special ed has grown substantially with specialized teachers, equipment, and programs designed to meet the needs of a small but growing group of students that have been diagnosed with special needs.

Special needs spending does little to improve the average student's test scores, but proponents could argue that investment in such programs may benefit in the long run via increased productivity and reduced government dependence (never seen data on this).

Missed AB · Apr 12, 2011

DontDoIt said:
There is no link between increased spending and increased scores among students of public schools, or probably private schools although I'm not sure, quite an interesting graph.

I can go a step further and suggest that expenses are inverse to student outcomes.

Look at private vs public schools on any level.

Teacher salary:
Public School: $49,630
Private School: $39,690

CATHOLIC SCHOOL STUDENT-TEACHER RATIO: 14.7:1
PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENT-TEACHER RATIO: 15.7:1

AVERAGE DISTRICT PUBLIC SCHOOL PER PUPIL EXPENDITURE: $12,018
AVERAGE PRIVATE SCHOOL TUITION: $8,549
AVERAGE CATHOLIC SCHOOL TUITION: $6,018

Center for Education Reform - K-12 Facts

Boo Radley · Apr 13, 2011

It must again be noted that private schools can be selective, and do not deal with the general population. We should not try and suggest spending is the only issue.

UtahBill · Apr 13, 2011

American said:
Well I was trying to stay clear of the union part, because I know the libs would come in here and discuss nothing but the unions, because liberals will protect them even if we're last in the world of education. Liberal are into education solely for the money.

would you teach for free? if not, you might be a liberal....

washunut · Apr 13, 2011

Boo Radley said:
It must again be noted that private schools can be selective, and do not deal with the general population. We should not try and suggest spending is the only issue.

You are correct that there are many issues that make up why students learn or not. I also know that how much you pay teachers is not an automatic to better our education. people go into teaching for many reasons. People who teach in parochial schools are probably the worst paid teachers in the U.S. but their students on the whole do well.

My personal view is parental involvment is very important, having a teacher who truely loves their job and a school principle who can organize a great team.

My son went to public school until 8th grade and got a great education, very good foundation. So it can be done.

Something else that is always avoided in all these threads is that education is a LOCAL not federal issue. Parents who care about their childs schooling will move to a town or school district that has the best schools.

liblady · Apr 13, 2011

American said:
Link

So what 's the money being spent on? Why aren't our children benefiting from the spending? Could it be outside entitiies influencing our education system? How about what is being taught to our kids? Maybe it's worthless in the real world. How about the school book publishers, are they getting fat?

maybe, i hear neil bush has a stake in school books. lol.......

irony aside, i agree our system should be overhauled.

Taylor · Apr 13, 2011

washunut said:
Something else that is always avoided in all these threads is that education is a LOCAL not federal issue. Parents who care about their childs schooling will move to a town or school district that has the best schools.

I'll go one step further to add that these communities probably attract the best teachers, too. Seems like a positive feedback loop, especially when you consider the effect on property values, increased tax revenue, etc.

(This of course has long been an issue in the "fairness" debate, leading to busing policies that in turn probably helped to promote white flight.)

Boo Radley · Apr 13, 2011

washunut said:
You are correct that there are many issues that make up why students learn or not. I also know that how much you pay teachers is not an automatic to better our education. people go into teaching for many reasons. People who teach in parochial schools are probably the worst paid teachers in the U.S. but their students on the whole do well.

My personal view is parental involvment is very important, having a teacher who truely loves their job and a school principle who can organize a great team.

My son went to public school until 8th grade and got a great education, very good foundation. So it can be done.

Something else that is always avoided in all these threads is that education is a LOCAL not federal issue. Parents who care about their childs schooling will move to a town or school district that has the best schools.

I agree with much of what you say. I will point out that knowing many a teacher in parochialschools, it is the difference in student population that attracts some. It is much easier to deal with a select population that has solid parental support.

And while I do agree there is a serious local element to the issue, the entire nation has interest in a good education for everyone. The rub is how to do that. We can't really effectively legislate parents into being attentive, caring, and involved.

UtahBill · Apr 13, 2011

Boo Radley said:
I agree with much of what you say. I will point out that knowing many a teacher in parochialschools, it is the difference in student population that attracts some. It is much easier to deal with a select population that has solid parental support.

And while I do agree there is a serious local element to the issue, the entire nation has interest in a good education for everyone. The rub is how to do that. We can't really effectively legislate parents into being attentive, caring, and involved.

way back, 1977, we got out of the navy and moved to a small town near a big town, in Idaho....
the small town was a farming community, and the farmer mentality was that math beyound arithmetic was not needed....the farmers assumed that all the kids could become farmers, I guess. The supt. was a jock in his youth, his kids were jocks, so the school had a good atheletic program, but a pathetic record at producing college ready students.
We moved away from there.....

celticwar17 · Apr 13, 2011

UtahBill said:
would you teach for free? if not, you might be a liberal....

I actually do for my university. I tutor for free and give students physics help, even though im just a student myself.

washunut · Apr 13, 2011

Taylor said:
I'll go one step further to add that these communities probably attract the best teachers, too. Seems like a positive feedback loop, especially when you consider the effect on property values, increased tax revenue, etc.

(This of course has long been an issue in the "fairness" debate, leading to busing policies that in turn probably helped to promote white flight.)

I totally agree with your teacher comment. As to the fairness debate, you might find this interesting. We now have 5 elementary schools in our town. One schoolcoes the best and last year was school of the year in the state. Within the area that kids can go to this school is a large multifamily complex. I think it is the only one in town. I know for a fact that people have moved into that complex so that their kids can go to this school. Property taxes in that part of toen have also risen. We have heard first hand that asian families who come over on a job assignment have been told to get an apartment so their kids can get into that school. The funding is the same in each town school. But the one I mentioned has a great principle and highly motivated teachers.

So more money is not the end all be all.

washunut · Apr 13, 2011

Boo Radley said:
I agree with much of what you say. I will point out that knowing many a teacher in parochialschools, it is the difference in student population that attracts some. It is much easier to deal with a select population that has solid parental support.

And while I do agree there is a serious local element to the issue, the entire nation has interest in a good education for everyone. The rub is how to do that. We can't really effectively legislate parents into being attentive, caring, and involved.

I think that is where getting the federal government involved is a mistake. It may have made sense in the 60s when kids in the segregated south definitely were not getting a proper for education. Now with a deverse population of 300 plus million I truely believe that federla funding is misguided.

I say that even though i am fine paying plenty of town taxes that goes for our schools even though i don't have any kids still in the system.

Boo Radley · Apr 13, 2011

washunut said:
I think that is where getting the federal government involved is a mistake. It may have made sense in the 60s when kids in the segregated south definitely were not getting a proper for education. Now with a deverse population of 300 plus million I truely believe that federla funding is misguided.

I say that even though i am fine paying plenty of town taxes that goes for our schools even though i don't have any kids still in the system.

Have you ever been to Holly Springs Mississippi? You should check out the public school there. There's little effort by the community to improve the school. I can't beleive that is the only local school facing such a problem.

I also remember many years ago the argument was do get more government involvement because there was such a difference between local schools. Money in some areas and not in others, and such disparity that there was a demand that something be done. Not sure how much would be available to inform of those times today. So, while I like the idea of local control, I'm not sure we wouldn't return to the problems that led us to have more federal involvement.

DaveFagan · Apr 13, 2011

I believe the education figures include money for facilities as a component. The USA has built new schools, track and field facilities, football fields, tennis courts, baseball fields, lighting sytems, showpiece buildings and includes these costs as educational costs. It is very profitable for contractors and their union employees. Then the state aided bills must be paid. Then taxes increase and you have to lay off teachers because you can't lay off buildings and sports facilities, etc. ADHD kids get special education when they should get a whack on the ass. Teachers get tenure and can't be fired. The one room schoolhouse worked and it has been downhill ever since.

washunut · Apr 13, 2011

Boo Radley said:
Have you ever been to Holly Springs Mississippi? You should check out the public school there. There's little effort by the community to improve the school. I can't beleive that is the only local school facing such a problem.

I also remember many years ago the argument was do get more government involvement because there was such a difference between local schools. Money in some areas and not in others, and such disparity that there was a demand that something be done. Not sure how much would be available to inform of those times today. So, while I like the idea of local control, I'm not sure we wouldn't return to the problems that led us to have more federal involvement.

I think we are talking about trading one problem for another. Does anyone believe that the federal government is honing on some towns such as the one you mention and sending monet there. To the best on my knowledge most of the money goes to states not town. So let's think of this. The government collects taxes ( make believe we are not in a deficit) some if this money goes to some huge bureaucracy that siphons off some of the money to pay for itself. Then these people are bombarded by lobbyists who push whatever, then we have 535 members on congree making sure their state gets their fair share. Then the money goes to the states based on g-d knows what. The states then spread it around. Do you really think that is an efficient way to get mney where it is needed.

This is a tough problem, I do not to even have a guess at the answer. But common sense tells me that more money spewing from washington may make people feel good but will not materially help the kids who need it.

Taxpayer Calculator: Education Spending in Obama's 2012 Budget

American

Trump Grump Whisperer

lpast

cpwill

American

Trump Grump Whisperer

haymarket

Boo Radley

Hicup

DontDoIt

Active member

Hicup

lpast

Taylor

Missed AB

Boo Radley

UtahBill

washunut

liblady

pirate lover

Taylor

Boo Radley

UtahBill

celticwar17

washunut

washunut

Boo Radley

DaveFagan

Iconoclast

washunut