Standard & Poors releases data on state's public schools

LANSING, Mich. (AP) -- More than half the school districts that spent more per student than the state average had below-passing rates on the Michigan Educational Assessment Program test, according to an analysis of the state's public schools.

Standard & Poor's School Evaluation Services released a report Monday that analyzed trends in the state's public education system from 1996-97 to 2000-01. It's the second comprehensive report about Michigan's public schools.

The division of Standard & Poor's, known for rating businesses, government agencies and even other countries, tracks where taxpayer dollars go and analyzes if spending increases boost student performance.

The Statewide Insights report showed that of the 181 school districts that spent more per student than the state average, 92 had below-average passing rates on the MEAP. Of the 343 school districts with below-average spending, 171 had above-average MEAP passing rates.

--The graduation rate increased from 80.7 percent of students in 1997 to 86.3 percent in 2001.

--Per-student operating expenditures grew by 19 percent from 1997 to 2001, nearly twice the cumulative inflation rate of 10.2 percent.

-- The average administrator's salary rose 12.3 percent while the average teacher's salary increased by 8.4 percent.

http://fyi.cnn.com/2002/fyi/teachers.ednews/05/23/school.spending.ap/

N.J., N.Y. spend most per pupil on education

May 23, 2002 Posted: 1:51 PM EDT (1751 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- If money buys good public schools, New Jersey and New York are buying the best, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, which said both states spend more than $10,000 per student each year, far above the $6,835 national average.

The figures, taken from spending in the 1999-2000 school year, are the most recent available, but state budget crunches could change the school funding landscape in coming years.

"There's clearly pressure on state budgets, and since education is the single largest line item in every state budget, there's pressure on education budgets," said David Shreve of the National Conference of State Legislatures.

He said 17 states cut education funding in their 2002 budgets, while 12 have already cut it in their 2003 budgets.

The annual survey was released Thursday. The Education Department issued similar figures earlier this month.

Better funding doesn't equal better schools The Census survey shows that heavily populated states such as New Jersey, New York, Connecticut and Massachusetts tend to spend more per pupil, while rural states, such as Alabama, Arizona, Utah, Idaho, Mississippi and Tennessee, spend far less.

But better funding doesn't always buy better schools, said Mary Conk of the American Association of School Administrators.

"You've got to look at what money gets you and where you're spending it," she said.

Construction and living costs, for instance, can drive up spending in urban areas, with schools essentially spending more to get the same goods and services that rural ones get.

"Clearly it's going to be more expensive to build a school and staff it (in New York) than it would in Kansas," Shreve said.

Getting the attention of Congress

Also, spending within a state is often higher in more affluent suburbs, which can draw from higher local property taxes. State legislatures have spent the past decade tackling the problem, but it's just now getting the attention of Congress. Lawmakers on Thursday were scheduled to hear testimony on the inequality of state funding formulas.

"A child's education should be determined by the size of their dreams, not the numbers of their ZIP code," said Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Connecticut, who heads the Subcommittee on Children and Families. "We need to fundamentally change the way we deal with education in this country so that all children have the same opportunities and chance for a successful and productive life."

President Bush and Education Secretary Rod Paige have for months pointed out that spending more money per pupil doesn't necessarily guarantee better results -- an idea that has gained support in Congress. The idea is still hotly debated in schools.

National Education Association spokeswoman Denise Cardinal pointed out that higher per-pupil funding can translate to more teachers and smaller class sizes, which have been shown to help student achievement.

But the Census figures show that the struggling Washington, D.C., school system spends virtually the same per pupil as New York and New Jersey, while its students lag behind many others in several areas, including skill levels and graduation rates.

"D.C. being on there points out that you can make foolish investment decisions with big resources and the kids don't benefit," said Amy Wilkins of the Education Trust, a Washington group that advocates for urban and minority students.

Can more money make schools better?

TownHall.com ^ | Tuesday, January 21, 2003 | by Phyllis Schlafly

President Bush is celebrating the first anniversary of his No Child Left Behind Education law and hopes it will give a significant boost to his re-election in 2004. Speeches about improving public schools are always crowd-pleasers because it is common knowledge that they desperately need major improvement.

The public school establishment, however, is developing acute paranoia as accountability deadlines in the plan start creeping up on them. By the end of January, states must give the U.S. Department of Education their plans for holding schools accountable and for reporting progress in student proficiency. Under the plan, states are required to test students three times in reading and math during their K-12 schooling.

Beginning in the fall of 2005, states must give reading and mathematics tests to every child each year in grades three through eight. Schools with scores that don't measure up will get more money, but their students must be offered the option of transferring to other schools. If the school is judged to be failing for three years, the school district must pay for tutors (called supplemental service providers) chosen by the parents. The bill was far and away the most expensive federal education bill ever passed, but Sen. Ted Kennedy. D-Mass., refers to it as a "tin cup" appropriation and claims public schools cannot overcome their problems "on the cheap." He would make the same complaint if No Child Left Behind doled out double the money.

Billions of dollars of federal money poured into public schools over the last 20 years show no correlation to improved performance or better scores. The government's own evaluations report that Title I, the mammoth program for disadvantaged children, is a failure. Congress created a program called E-Rate in 1996. It offers subsidies of 20 percent to 90 percent for schools to buy telecommunications services such as Internet connections and wiring for classrooms. (NOTE E-RATE is now $6.00 on your phone bill)

The E-Rate program is paid for by a tax on everyone's telephone bill, dubbed the Gore tax. According to a new report by the Center for Public Integrity based on Federal Communications Commission investigations, the $2.25 billion program is "honeycombed with fraud and financial shenanigans."

The current passion for accountability doesn't seem to cover how money is spent. But quite apart from who may or may not have been lining his pockets with easy E-Rate money is the question, did it advance education?

Did computers improve students' performance or grades? We can't find any report about that.

England's Department for Education, however, has just completed a comprehensive study on this very subject and found that equipping schools with a million computers connected to the Internet has had little if any impact on education standards. Despite the government spending more than a billion pounds over the past five years, "no consistent relationship" was found between computer use and pupil achievement in any subject at any age in primary or secondary schools. Technology is wonderful, but it's not the key to remedying the problems within U.S. public schools or raising students' scores. The crucial, overriding problem with schools is that they fail to teach children to read in the first grade.

Teaching children to read in the first grade doesn't even appear on the agenda of education reform! It was not one of the famous education goals of Goals 2000, and all Republican and Democratic politicians pontificating about school reform consistently say that they want children to be able to read by the third grade.

So what are they doing in kindergarten, first and second grades? Spending their time on sex education or playing with computers? Teaching children to read is not rocket science and it doesn't require expensive equipment, materials or professionals. Any parent can teach his child to read with a good $50 phonics system.

Teaching a first-grader to read requires teaching the child the sounds and syllables of the English language so he can put them together like building blocks and read multi-syllable words like hamburger or toothbrush. For decades, schoolchildren have been taught to guess at the words by looking at the pictures, a fraud called "whole language."

That's why third-graders can't pass reading tests and why students fall farther behind each year as their schoolbooks contain more and bigger words. Of all the injustices that have been perpetrated on minorities, none is as devastating to their chance to live the American Dream as keeping them in failing schools for 12 years without teaching them to be good readers. No Child Left Behind requires schools to administer reading tests to students in the third grade. Yet no real progress will be made in improving scores until schools teach children to read in the first grade by a systematic, logical, straightforward phonics system.

The crucial, overriding problem with schools is that they fail to teach children to read in the first grade.
Teaching children to read in the first grade doesn't even appear on the agenda of education reform!...
So what are [children] doing in kindergarten, first and second grades? Spending their time on sex education or playing with computers? Teaching children to read is not rocket science and it doesn't require expensive equipment, materials or professionals. Any parent can teach his child to read with a good $50 phonics system.

... no real progress will be made in improving scores until schools teach children to read in the first grade by a systematic, logical, straightforward phonics system.

Viva Phyllis the Great!

See also Sandra Stotsky's fine book, Losing Our Language: How Multicultural Classroom Instruction is Undermining Our Children's Ability to Read, Write, and Reason.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.