Does Increased Government Spending Improve Educational Achievement? - New England Patriots Forums

State · 01-29-2010, 12:00 PM

I should say not. The link includes a devastating graph by Andrew J. Coulson in his Cato Institute blog entry. Wow!

It's a shame government has a monopoly in education. It should not be a state activity. If it wasn't driven by property taxes, people would have the money to invest in their own children's education as they see fit. And there would be this whole market to cater to people's needs and desires. Fathers would be in charge of their children's education, not educrats.

Competition would have made educational opportunities as common as it has made the automobile.

Now we also have had a dumbing down effect that's been ongoing for decades. Leftist politics jammed down unsuspecting pupils' throats.

But luckily the establishment of the federal Dept. of Education in 1979 has made a huge improvement. Yeah, right.

***Patters*** · 01-29-2010, 02:43 PM

This article appears to fail to take into account how much of the increased spending was for infrastructure issues (getting rid of asbestos, building and renovating schools, adding computers, etc.), how much was for security (security guards, metal detectors in some cases, and so on), and what impact increased educational access for immigrants and others had on test scores. For instance, if there was a large influx of illegal immigrant children that would tend to lower scores, but still be arguably a good investment. So, we need to know what the federal money was for, and also whether it enabled cheap communities to cut local school budgets. What would be relevant is to look at communities where the student population remained the same, local per capita spending remained the same (inflation adjusted), and federal spending increased. But, of course, that kind of serious investigation risks interfering with the simplistic conservative meme spoonfed to its conservative followers by the politically conservative Cato institute.

***patsfan13*** · 01-29-2010, 05:22 PM

The increases were for teacher and bureaucrats salaries and unbelievable benefits.

***Patters*** · 01-29-2010, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

The increases were for teacher and bureaucrats salaries and unbelievable benefits.

Do you have any evidence of that? How much of this money was used to hire teachers and how much was used to hire bureaucrats and how many were hired?

***patsfan13*** · 01-29-2010, 08:46 PM

Salaties and benefits > 80% of school budget this may not count retirement benefits since teachers are typically covered by the state IIRC.

link to a typical school district:

BSD Annual Budget : Financial Services : Departments : Bellevue School District

Quote:

83 percent of the budget goes to salaries and benefits

Schools are run for the benefit of the NEA and unions not the teachers. This district is in Bellvue Wa, wana bet the figures are higher in NY & NJ....

link for NM: http://www.ped.state.nm.us/div/fin/s...ts%20TOTAL.pdf

***DarrylS*** · 01-30-2010, 05:11 AM

You are all wrong, it is due to over regulation by the feds in the name of good..

In 1975 the Congress passed, and the president signed PL 94-142 the Education of all children act... there was a huge spike

In the past decade there was the heralded No Child Left Behind, with all of its regulations.. and there once again was a huge spike..

Blame unions, blame teachers or blame janitors.. the reality is that there should be no Cabinet level position for education, and all of this power should revert to states... it is absurd to continue to pass bills that dictate what schools should do, without the accompanying funding...

Really surprised that CATO did not annotate that, as they usually rail about big government and big government rules...

***DarrylS*** · 01-30-2010, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

Salaties and benefits > 80% of school budget this may not count retirement benefits since teachers are typically covered by the state IIRC.

link to a typical school district:

BSD Annual Budget : Financial Services : Departments : Bellevue School District

Schools are run for the benefit of the NEA and unions not the teachers. This district is in Bellvue Wa, wana bet the figures are higher in NY & NJ....

link for NM: http://www.ped.state.nm.us/div/fin/s...ts%20TOTAL.pdf

You pick a "typical" budget from Bellevue Washington, and try to extrapolate it to what is going on nationally.. this is anecdotal at best..

You obviously did not read the whole article, and just started the Pavlovian response.. if you read the whole thing 52% goes toward teachers and 20% goes toward support services..

Your captioned article further states..

Quote:

The biggest contributor to negative spending over the past few years has been the increase in general health care costs, as well as in the number of employees who are participating in the health care benefits program.

Teacher salaries are established by the state and are generally uniform across the state. Washington may be the only state that uses a statewide salary schedule and caps the amount that can be paid by all districts. A teacher in Bellevue earns about the same amount of money as a teacher in Moses Lake. Regional cost-of-living differences are not taken into account. The main way a teacher’s salary can increase is by working additional days beyond the 182 the state funds. In 2008-09, a beginning teacher in Bellevue earns $42,305 for working 206 days. A teacher with five years of experience and a masters degree earns $52,133.

Like most school districts, Bellevue spends about 80 - 85 percent of its budget for salaries and benefits. The remaining 15 - 20 percent goes to the day-to-day operations of the district, schools and the programs that support them. The district funds go toward curriculum development, textbooks, professional development and classroom supplies, fuel for busses and other vehicles, heating, lighting and other utilities.

Teacher salary is where the money should go, but your argument is somewhat disengenuous as you do not indicate a better breakdown...

sdaniels7114 · 01-30-2010, 06:11 AM

I'm of two minds on this one. On the one hand there's concrete proof that doing things Obama's way produces results. Virtually every state by state ranking of educational achievement shows an inordinate number of blue states at the top with red states bringing up the rear. Mass often comes in at #1 with Sara Palin's Alaska coming in generally at 50th btw.

So I suppose that if State prefers that people who think like him continue to produce ditch diggers while people who think like me produce Doctors and Lawyers, that's fine. But my thinking is that children deserve the very best educational opportunities available, even children of Republicans.

***patsfan13*** · 01-30-2010, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarrylS

You pick a "typical" budget from Bellevue Washington, and try to extrapolate it to what is going on nationally.. this is anecdotal at best..

You obviously did not read the whole article, and just started the Pavlovian response.. if you read the whole thing 52% goes toward teachers and 20% goes toward support services..

Your captioned article further states..

I told Patters that the bulk of cost were for teacher & ADMINISTRATION salaries and benefits, the data provided supports this contention. If you have different data for other parts of the country that contradicts this please present it.

Quote:

Teacher salary is where the money should go, but your argument is somewhat disengenuous as you do not indicate a better breakdown...

My point is that increased spending on education goes towards teachers & administrators salaries and benefits not towards students. My point is that the point of public education has become benefitting the NEA not the students. You statement supports this statement. You think the $$$ should go to teachers not books infrastructure and so on.

***patsfan13*** · 01-30-2010, 06:59 AM

[QUOTE=sdaniels7114;1713726]I'm of two minds on this one. On the one hand there's concrete proof that doing things Obama's way produces results. Virtually every state by state ranking of educational achievement shows an inordinate number of blue states at the top with red states bringing up the rear. Mass often comes in at #1 with Sara Palin's Alaska coming in generally at 50th btw.

So I suppose that if State prefers that people who think like him continue to produce ditch diggers while people who think like me produce Doctors and Lawyers, that's fine. But my thinking is that children deserve the very best

Data to support your claim please.