Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Federal spending on education is still only about 8% of the total spending on ed in the public schools. So just b/c the federal spending has gone up by 190% since 1970, that doesn't mean it is a significant source of money for education. Can't find the link right now, but I have posted it previously.
A lot of that is in teacher salaries as well, that huge bump you see at the end of the 70's early 80's. Before then, teachers were making very low salaries where many (most?) qualified for food stamps!
Also consider Special Education.
With if the per pupil expenditure was fleshed out to per "normal kid" without a special education profile, the amount spent on that child would be well below the district/national average. The cost of a special education student is usually twice to three times the amount of the "normal student."
Technology as described before is another HUGE cost.
Don't forget the cost of testing. The amount spent on testing is disgusting. Our school doesn't just do the state tests, but there are two pre-assessments that the students take to make sure they are on track to do well on the state tests.
Good point. There's the spring and fall testing (NWEA) and the NECAPS. NWEA requires (once again) software and computers. There's also the cost of Accelerated Reader programs in our area.
These weren't even remotely thought of in the 1970s. Certainly computers were used in some areas, but obviously they weren't used to the degree they now are.
As far as special ed, one should consider the number of children who require one-on-one aids (and not that they make a lot of money in most areas) and those are salary costs that weren't there in the 1970s as well. I am not advocating the stoppage of special ed btw - simply saying what needs to be paid for now that didn't have to be paid for then.
I don't know. Maybe it's just me, but it seems like the earlier we start many kids on the fast track to learning, the more our Sped costs rise to help those who are perhaps not as quick to pick up concepts. In the interest of test scores, they have to have accomodations made for them or they drag the scores down and the schools lose money.
They knew this way back in the 80s. And it's even more evident...D.C. schools spend more per student than pretty much everyone and they are dismal.
They did better prospective studies in England that showed that putting poorly motivated students with little community, family, and cultural support into top notch schools did pretty much nothing for their performance. They took kids out of the richer schools and put 'em in the poor ones, and they STILL did well.
Pouring money into schools seems to make sense because it looks like you care and that you are 'doing something.' It's a bunch of b.s. If my relatives went to school with slates, pencils, no a/c, no computers (bc they are in a third world country)...and now outcompete american kids at every turn, you can't tell me the problem is money.
And how much of this is due to special ed? Technology that kids need to know to function in society? School security? I don't know how it is elsewhere, but we spend a lot on special ed., security and technology here and none of this is on the test. Special ed kids have to take the test and that pulls scores down. How many kids are being educated who weren't before? How many are graduating now that weren't before? How many are taking the tests who weren't before? How much more do we have to teach kids that isn't on the test (like afore mentioned computer use?) WITHOUT an extra day of instruction per year? Yeah, I can see why the data is flat in spite of more spending.
I don't think you can look at data from 2007 and compare it to 1982 (pulling years off of the chart). It's not an apples to apples comparison.
They knew this way back in the 80s. And it's even more evident...D.C. schools spend more per student than pretty much everyone and they are dismal.
They did better prospective studies in England that showed that putting poorly motivated students with little community, family, and cultural support into top notch schools did pretty much nothing for their performance. They took kids out of the richer schools and put 'em in the poor ones, and they STILL did well.
Pouring money into schools seems to make sense because it looks like you care and that you are 'doing something.' It's a bunch of b.s. If my relatives went to school with slates, pencils, no a/c, no computers (bc they are in a third world country)...and now outcompete american kids at every turn, you can't tell me the problem is money.
It depends on what the money is spent on. For example, teacher education is positively correlated with student success so spending the money to get more educated teachers could help. What we're spending it on is metal detectors, computers and special ed services. None of which serve to raise scores (computers are a necessary tool now but the test doesn't have a computer use section).
To a certain extent, we've had to pour money into schools just to keep from slipping back as more and more kids are included and a higher percentage now stay in school. You have to address issues like student safety. You have to teach them to use the tools of the day. And we have to include students who would not have been included back in the '80's. All of this costs money. That money didn't raise the scores, it kept them from falling. Surely, without technology our kids scores would have fallen. Surely without feeling safe in school scores would fall and surely without extra help, including special ed kids would result in scores falling.
If you want spending money to result in better scores, then you have to spend it on the things that increase scores, like teacher training for one but we've been busy spending the money on other necessities.
In most schools, salaries ( and benefits) account for over 90% of a school's budget.
That explains why positions are cut when a school faces a deficit.
As our Supt used to advise us school board members........."If the budget needs cutting and you are unwilling to cut positions, all you are doing is making " cosmetic cuts" that make you feel good but doesn't accomplish anything "
Could you please back up the statement bolded above? Seriously, I would think building maintenance and utilities would, easily, be 10% of the budget.
Of course, this is all compensation. Compensation for teachers, coaches, bus drivers, maintenance staff, cafeteria workers, etc. But it's all going for people.
Of course, this is all compensation. Compensation for teachers, coaches, bus drivers, maintenance staff, cafeteria workers, etc. But it's all going for people.
This is my school district.
Thanks
I just finished reading the data. That's 91.6% of the expenditures not 91.6% of the budget. Your district is under budget (perhaps because the year has just started). If my calculations are correct, wages and benefits are just under 77% of the budget for your district. The charts are a bit confusing. For example, transportion is shown in the transfers chart but not in the expenditures chart. I would have thought that something like gas for transportation would be an expenditure. This is why I did not go to business school.
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 09-04-2010 at 02:41 PM..
I just finished reading the data. That's 91.6% of the expenditures not 91.6% of the budget. Your district is under budget (perhaps because the year has just started). If my calculations are correct, wages and benefits are just under 77% of the budget for your district. The charts are a bit confusing. For example, transportion is shown in the transfers chart but not in the expenditures chart. I would have thought that something like gas for transportation would be an expenditure. This is why I did not go to business school.
Well, I just paged through it until I came to that page. However, I've heard 80% before from them. Even athletics is 59% wages and benfits (p. 168). People are expensive.
Well, I just paged through it until I came to that page. However, I've heard 80% before from them. Even athletics is 59% wages and benfits (p. 168). People are expensive.
The 2nd thru 4th charts add up to the first one. I'm confused as to why they're split out the way they are but it's clear that the 91.6% is of that portion of the total budget. As I said, there's a reason I didn't go to business school....my head hurts, lol.
I do think people are expensive, I just didn't think they could be that much of the budget. I can't imagine having enough left to pay the light bill if that were the case. It looks like the transfer fund is where they put transportation. I don't get it, lol. I would have budgeted for gas, lol.
On the bright side, they seem to have a healthy reserve. That's a good thing in this economy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would have thought that something like gas for transportation would be an expenditure. This is why I did not go to business school.
