Increased spending in education has not resulted in improved results

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 11, 2012 4:00 PM GMT
    I don't think it's as bad as this in Canada though there's clearly been a value deterioration at least in Ontario relative to spending.

    http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1061144853&format=&page=2&listingType=opi#articleFull

    while the number of public school students has grown a mere 8.5 percent since 1970, “the public school work force has roughly doubled — to 6.4 million from 3.3 million — and two-thirds of those new hires are teachers or teachers’ aides.”

    That helps explain part of the reason why since 1980 spending on public school education in the U.S. has doubled in inflation-adjusted dollars.

    Twice as many teachers. Twice as much money. But does anybody believe that a high school graduate today is (as a college student might actually say) “twice as much smart?”

    We know they’re not.

    We test students all the time, tests like the National Assessment Of Educational Progress (NAEP). And since 1970, these results in math and reading have essentially been flat.

    For example, the average 17-year-old’s NAEP score in reading back in 1971 was 285. In 2008 it was 286.

    That’s what we got for doubling our education spending.

    When you compare the U.S. to countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the results are even worse. Education reform activist Bill Costello points out that our annual “per-pupil spending in 2006 was 41 percent higher than the OECD average of $7,283, and yet American students still placed in the bottom quarter in math and in the bottom third in science among OECD countries.”

    Or as they say down at offices of the teachers union, “money well spent!”

    And that’s the problem. Despite the deluge of tax dollars, despite having a ridiculously high number of teachers vs. students, and despite the dismal results, the teachers unions and their allies always demand more.

    And, unfortunately they often get it because the public has such a skewed view of what’s really happening in our schools.

    Ask the average American and they’ll tell you our teachers are woefully underpaid, our schools are crumbling death traps and our nation is neglecting its children.

    When I tell people that, just as an example, the average Boston teacher’s salary is around $82,000, they refuse to believe me.

    When I tell them that the teacher-student ratio is lower than it’s ever been in the modern era, they can’t accept it.

    The average person believes the “poor me” propaganda in part because the unions spend so much promoting it. Since 2005, the MTA has spent $4 million on lobbying and political activism in Massachusetts alone. People fall for it, politicians react and the cost of mediocre education continues to rise.

    You want to know who does know the truth? The students.
  • jock_1

    Posts: 1491

    Jul 11, 2012 4:14 PM GMT
    No different here in Wisconsin. MPS (milwaukee public schools) spends $14,000 a year per student which is unreal. There are less students in the system partly because the cities population has declined and parents are pulling kids out on voucher programs if they can get it because the MPS system SUCKS! Yet the cost per student goes up each year. The cost is for labor, no more is spent on the kids than needs to be.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 11, 2012 4:22 PM GMT
    jock_1 saidNo different here in Wisconsin. MPS (milwaukee public schools) spends $14,000 a year per student which is unreal. There are less students in the system partly because the cities population has declined and parents are pulling kids out on voucher programs if they can get it because the MPS system SUCKS! Yet the cost per student goes up each year. The cost is for labor, no more is spent on the kids than needs to be.


    Teachers unions have definitely been very successful at marketing over the last few decades... but given the value gap there's now a significant danger a massive number of them will be disrupted.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 11, 2012 4:32 PM GMT
    The average big labor teacher wage is 53k in WI. Riddler's Dad made more in 1980, 32 years ago. At least, so Riddler once posted.

    However the non-union admins in the education system is about 160K. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 11, 2012 4:45 PM GMT
    meninlove said The average big labor teacher wage is 53k in WI. Riddler's Dad made more in 1980, 32 years ago. At least, so Riddler once posted.

    However the non-union admins in the education system is about 160K. icon_lol.gif


    References please? Your googlefu fails yu or do you normally "forget" to add in benefits to compensation? icon_rolleyes.gif

    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/wisconsin-teachers-earned-average-75587-total-compensation-2010

    Public school teachers in Wisconsin earned a combined $75,587 in total average compensation – wages and benefits – in 2010, according to figures from the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI).

    The average compensation of Wisconsin public school teachers is up 9 percent from $69,321 in 1998, the earliest figures available from the DPI, adjusted for inflation.

    Also, teacher compensation has steadily increased since that year, according to DPI figures, which are collected from each of the state’s 427 school districts.

    Total compensation covers hourly wages and benefits, which include health insurance, life insurance, retirement pensions, and other benefits such as homeowners insurance, auto insurance, and tuition reimbursement, according to the DPI. Not every district offers teachers the full range of benefits allowed by the state.

    Those benefit packages, at the center of a state budget fight among teachers’ and public employee unions and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (R) have also been getting steadily more lucrative, according to calculations by CNSNews.com.

    In 1998, Wisconsin teachers received an average of $18,120 in inflation-adjusted benefits, according to the DPI -- a figure that rose to $26,005 in 2010.


    As for execs in the system? Their salaries should also be slashed to reflect performance.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 11, 2012 4:51 PM GMT


    Oops, silly me, I forgot to post the right-wing site my info came from. http://michellemalkin.com/2011/02/17/watch-wisconsin-part-iv-the-salary-info-big-labor-doesnt-want-you-to-see/

    I also forgot to add that you said in that old post that your Dad wasn't very rich at all. icon_lol.gif




  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 11, 2012 4:58 PM GMT
    meninlove said

    Oops, silly me, I forgot to post the right-wing site my info came from. http://michellemalkin.com/2011/02/17/watch-wisconsin-part-iv-the-salary-info-big-labor-doesnt-want-you-to-see/

    I also forgot to add that you said in that old post that your Dad wasn't very rich at all. icon_lol.gif


    And he is/wasn't. As for the Michelle Malkin link - you missed the part where she does actually reference benefits. Once again, you're too clever by half - or is it that you just enjoy being dishonest? icon_wink.gif

    The irony is that you claim that arguing with me is trying to talk in circles when you have such a poor grasp of the facts.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 11, 2012 5:04 PM GMT

    lol, I said average wage. Keep it simple. You want to talk about benefit packages (often negotiated in lieu of wage increases) then go for it.

    You should also check out the dumbness being injected into school programs. Or are you a creationist?

    Now you go ahead and add those benefits to the wage and consider 32 years of inflation from 1980 and tell me, relative to your Daddy's wage, if these people are wealthy.

    Ta-tah! icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 11, 2012 5:25 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    lol, I said average wage. Keep it simple. You want to talk about benefit packages (often negotiated in lieu of wage increases) then go for it.

    You should also check out the dumbness being injected into school programs. Or are you a creationist?

    Now you go ahead and add those benefits to the wage and consider 32 years of inflation from 1980 and tell me, relative to your Daddy's wage, if these people are wealthy.

    Ta-tah! icon_wink.gif


    Ah - ok let's keep it simple then. To be clear and to make it simple, you once again failed to make your point and didn't understand the underlying data you posted. Benefits are an integral part of compensation - if they weren't they wouldn't have gone to strike in Wisconsin now would they? For a guy who hates others talking in circles - the only one doing so here is you. icon_wink.gif

    As for my father's wages, he had few benefits - and was making less than 50K 32 years ago though I fail to see how you find this relevant and benefits that comprise at least 30% of total compensation for teachers in Wisconsin NOT relevant. But you've pretty much always been dishonest when it comes to issues like this.

    And Ta-tah ms bucket icon_wink.gif