June 9, 2004
NO ONE WISHES THEIR KID WERE IN NYC SCHOOLS:
Utah is still last in ed spending: But state ranks 26th in nation in ratio of income spent for students (Deborah Bulkeley, 6/09/04, Deseret Morning News)
When it comes to the amount of money spent on each public school student, Utah continues to rank last in the nation, according to a new U.S. Census Bureau report.The report released Tuesday shows Utah's spending per student at $4,890 in 2002 — $7,805 less than the District of Columbia, which topped the list at $13,187. The state closest to Utah is Mississippi, which spent $5,382 per student, according the census.
Utah would have to boost its state spending by more than $300 million just to bump itself off the bottom of the list, said Mark Petersen, spokesman for the State Office of Education.
However, Utah holds steady on its test scores — well above the national average in science, and is slightly above average in reading and math, Petersen said.
"Considering the resources spent, it's a remarkable bargain the taxpayers are getting," Petersen said.
It takes an astonishing blindness not to get the implication when DC spends the most and Utah not much: the amount of money spent has nothing to do with quality of education provided. Posted by Orrin Judd at June 9, 2004 9:30 PM
Mr. Judd;
It's a step function, rather than a slope. You have to have enough for the basics, but once you have that, more doesn't help. Apparently $5K/year/kid is enough.
It has less to do with the quality of the education than the quality of the student. D.C. students (and I was one of them) are just not as smart as those in Utah.
Posted by: Bradley Cooke at June 9, 2004 9:54 PMMy guess is that the average is affected by the higher number of childen per household (unit of taxation) in Utah. The latter being a very good thing.
What's the contributon to education per tax payer (my guess is that it's not as low relative to other states)?
Property taxes in Salt Lake City are $ 8.20 per thousand dollars of tax appraisal value.
In D.C., it's $ 15/per thousand, and the National average is $ 16.40.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at June 10, 2004 12:09 AMHire good teachers and let them teach with a minimum of bureaucracy. The rest is just dessert.
Posted by: Peter B at June 10, 2004 6:30 AMOne of the very few real zingers I've pulled off was expressing the same opinion to my former mother-in-law and her friend, both of whom were teachers, when they were whining about low teaching salaries.
Posted by: Chris B at June 10, 2004 8:02 AMI agree that, above a certain admittedly low basic level of cost, the amount of money spent has nothing to do with quality of education provided. Moreover, I would like to see whether there is indeed an an optimal spending beyond which one only finds diminishing returns.
However, familial and cultural views and expectations of education are the decisive difference, able to negate the effect of under- or overspending. In short, involved and loving (but impoverished) parents can push Abe Lincoln to become a lawyer and then to be President, while drug-addicted and multiply-jailed parent(s) tend to produce only scholastic and occupational failures.
Posted by: Pogo at June 10, 2004 10:02 AMPogo sees the enemy...
Posted by: genecis at June 10, 2004 10:13 AMYes, Pogo has a good point, but I wouldn't let those involved parents off that easily. They may push junior, but many would rather push schools and teachers to solve every little emotional challenge and take charge of making him happy at all times. They also can also demand every modern, expensive bell and whistle and grasp onto every new psychological and educational trend that appears. They want the best for their kids, but they can be very confused as to what the finished product should look like.
Posted by: Peter B at June 10, 2004 1:53 PMIt's racial. No doubt about it.
Posted by: J.H. at June 11, 2004 10:43 AM