Department of Education Home Page Chart (I can't believe this is there!)

U.S. Department of Education Web Site ^ | Dept. of Education

[jayef]

The sad part about this is that that straight line does not reflect what you think it does. These tests are consistently dumbed down every year to be sure kids can pass it. In absolute terms, that line is really a downward curve. Believe me when I tell you, the next American generation will be, at best, semi-literate.

[mbynack]

I finished my Master's in Education last December and several classmates did research in this area. They found that there was very little correlation between the money spent per student and the results.

The biggest factor seems to be the parental support and involvement. If the parents are involved in the students education the student seems to do much better. If the parents either don't care or have a negative attitude toward education the student's work reflects it.

[bmwcyle]

The Dept. of Ed. has not educated one child. Get rid of it now before it is too late for our children.

[not_apathetic_anymore]

Is this for real? This isn't one of those sites that was victim of yesterday's Hacker Olympics targeting 6000 sites in 6 hrs? If it's for real, and considering the above comments about per capita rather than total expenditures and tests changing it's a frightening commentary.

[FreedomPoster]

It's frightening, alright.

[Salvation]

BTTT!

[Outlaw76]

Bump

[DAnconia55]

ROFL Nice

[deport]

Accountability

[DAnconia55]

AH!

It's a ploy.

For ANOTHER Federal Goverment education program.

"See, the first one didn't work - so we need to spend even MORE... "

Read the highlight text on the picture.

[Spiff]

Here's the caption for the chart. You can only see it if you hold your mouse over the chart graphic (or view source as I did).

Chart shows that since 1965, when Congress passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), through 2003, the federal government has spent more than $242 billion to help educate disadvantaged children. Yet, according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the average reading score for 9-year-olds across the nation in 1975 is not significantly different from the 1999 score. During those years, the annual appropriation for ESEA increased six-fold -- from $2.3 billion in 1975 to $13.8 billion in 1999 -- while the average reading score for 9-year-olds was 210 in 1975 and 212 in 1999. ESEA appropriations for 1966-1974 and for 2000-03 are provided in the chart, but average reading scores for 9-year-olds are not shown because they are not available for all of those years. The president's 2004 budget request of $22.5 billion for ESEA is shown.

[FreedomPoster]

Oh, yeah, I read the caption text. But to any thinking person, their chart just proves their mental bankruptcy.

This is an issue with which I have major issues with the Bush Administration.

[Motherhood IS a career]

My graph reading comprehension is quite adequate, thank you. Yes, the measurements are on two different Y-axes, but you can't have two different Y-axes on one two dimentional graph. And you most certainly can't have two different Y-axes which depict two different types of units of measurement - i.e. dollars and reading scores. The reading score measurement was arbitrarily placed at a low point on the Y-axis. It could have just as easily been placed near the top of the graph. However, as it is, the graph provides a more dramatic visual effect.

However, the graph does accurately convey the fact that reading scores have remained unaffected by $$s. Please see my previous post again.

[Motherhood IS a career]

The sad part about this is that that straight line does not reflect what you think it does. These tests are consistently dumbed down every year to be sure kids can pass it. In absolute terms, that line is really a downward curve.

Good point.