Learning and Spending (Education Crisis is not Money)

Wall Street Journal ^ | Updated December 15, 2003 | Editorial Staff

[shrinkermd]

The latest evidence of a weak connection between education spending and academic achievement comes courtesy of the Census Bureau's American Community Survey. A report released last week found that rural states in the West and Midwest tend to have the highest rates of high school graduation. So here's a pop quiz: Guess where most of those same states rank in per-pupil spending?

[shrinkermd]

The answer to the question posed is easily determined from Murray's and Herrnstein's The Bell Curve(1994)

[ChocChipCookie]

If money were the solution, there would be no problems.

[ladylib]

And the fact that districts spend their money for different things. A crime-ridden inner-city district can spend as much as an affluent district. The only difference is one spends its money on security (inner city) and the other spends its money on the things that contribute to academics.

[ClearCase_guy]

District of Columbia ($12,046) : they seem to spend so much on security (without achieving it) that they lack money for textbooks. Which really begs the question: why waste the money on government schools in such a hopeless situation? Why not give up and go to vouchers?

But the Dems won't hear of it. They prefer to spend $12046 per pupil, which results in an unsafe environment where kids do not learn. But (they tell us) it beats the alternative!

[cookcounty]

Different states have different standards for graduation (though I doubt that New Jersey's standard is higher than, say, Utah's).

A standardized test would be a better measurement.

[The Electrician]

A crime-ridden inner-city district can spend as much as an affluent district. The only difference is one spends its money on security (inner city) and the other spends its money on the things that contribute to academics.

Do you have any evidence to support that assertion, or is it just a rationalization that you invented?

[cwb]

"The only difference is one spends its money on security (inner city) and the other spends its money on the things that contribute to academics."

Unfortunately, many schools are also going broke simply because of the barrage of lawsuits and lawyers that many schools now have to hire as standard employees. The settlements, whether guilt or innocence is established, is astronomical in some cases. When you have students/parents suing the schools because their child didn't make the cheerleading squad...or baseball team, the settlements hurt the entire school district. We need to get a handle on this problem, that is draining the resources from just about every school district.

[ladylib]

Several years ago, there was an article in The Bergen Record (county newspaper) that compared a very affluent district, Ridgewood, NJ, with Paterson, NJ.

What's your problem?

[ladylib]

You also have teachers suing districts and even school board members suing one another.

[ladylib]

My niece goes to a private school in Baltimore County. The tuition is $12,000 a year. I'm sure her experience is much different than a kid living in Washington, DC -- and basically, the same amount of money is being spent on both of them.

[ClearCase_guy]

And of course, that is why vouchers work. For the price of existing per-pupil costs, students can receive a quality private school education. The riff-raff and trouble-makers can be kept out and the kids who want to learn can be given the tools to build successful lives. Public schools can (and should) be abolished.

[ladylib]

I'm ambivalent about vouchers. I like the idea but I'm afraid of government interference.

[ClearCase_guy]

I understand the ambivalence. However, I see three paths to take

1) Taxes pay for government schools, people have no control (current situ)
2) Tax money given to parents to spend at schools of their choice (vouchers)
3) Massive tax cuts, no gov't spending on schools, parents spend their own money at schools of their choice.

We know #1 is a bad thing.
The Democrats are fighting like Hell against #2.
I'd say #3 could not possibly be achieved for the next few decades.

Government Interference is total at Public Schools. Government Interference is less at voucher-paid schools. I understand ambivalence, but don't understand non-support for vouchers.

[Kuksool]

I prefer tax credits for education expenses to be preferable to vouchers.

[blanknoone]

Tax credits would limit the ability to flee failing schools to those with at least moderate income. I think to be fair, you would have to have property tax credit as opposed to income tax credit.

I would rather get everyone out of failing schools...vouchers for all!