Education funding disparities
By John Horgan
Thursday, March 15th, 2007 at 9:44 am in Uncategorized.
If you want stark evidence of the sometimes gross inequality in public education finance in California, you need not go very far. San Mateo County is ground zero for such proof. According to County Superintendent of Education Jean Holbrook, the differences in spending per student from district to district here on the Peninsula are stunning. She says elementary dollars per child range from $6,325 all the way up to $14,572. At the high school level, those figures run from $7,006 to $10,121. The question is: What can be done to equalize those numbers (or even come close), if anything? Taking from the rich (usually property-tax-based districts) to benefit the poor (typically revenue-limit districts) will be met with fierce opposition by the former. One of the sad ironies of this situation is that, often, the youngsters who need the most assistance have the fewest fiscal resources behind them. And vice versa. It’s not healthy no matter how you care to slice it.
[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]
March 19th, 2007 at 8:01 am
There is a recent study showing the quality of a child’s education does not improve in relation to the amount of money spent per child. The study, also, points smaller class size does not improve the quality of education. Washington DC has the highest per student cost and the lowest outcome within the United States.
The CTA and NEA needs to realize the facts; there are some very good teachers helping to improve our children’s lives, but they are not rewarded for their effort in fact they are ostracized for their efforts. The CTA and NEA need to stop blotting the system with under qualified or under achievers. Raise the bar and cull out those teachers who are not doing their job and reward those who are doing their job. The numbers of private schools are on the increase because parents are becoming more and more concerned about their child’s education.
The CTA and NEA, also, need to look to the US Auto Industry to see what inferior quality will accomplish. The US Auto Industry sat back and produced an inferior car and the European and Asian car industry changed the paradigm started importing quality cars. US Customers changed the buying practice; they started to spend the same amount for a car, but they bought quality.
April 8th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Rich,
We are not making cars. We are educating children. When Ford gets transmissions that don’t meet their standards, they send them back. Public schools take everyone and we do a better job than anyone else. Chris and Sarah Lubienski’s study can be found at:
http://www.ncspe.org/readrel.php?set=pub&cat=126
Incidentally, this study also shows that even when parents do exercise choice, they don’t always choose the best school for their child. In fact you undermine your own argument by using a cars analogy. Even when European and Asian car manufacturers were making better and cheaper cars, American cars were still being bought.
Some of your claims are supported however, like the lack of significant change due to smaller class sizes (see the Rand Corp).