Thursday, February 15, 2007

More Money Does NOT Equal Better Schools

I've said it before,
And I'll say it again;



MORE MONEY DOES NOT = BETTER SCHOOLS!!!

How dense do you idiots have to be to not get this?



17 comments:

Anonymous said...

I heard recently that California is up to about $11,000 per student per year. Any bets on whether the SAT scores have changed?

Benjamin said...

I'd like to see SAT scores vs. average per pupil spending over the past 40 years... some data compared to this:
http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/edlite-chart.html#3

Anonymous said...

I would like to see this against class size.

Alice said...

Captain, you are so completely right.

Anonymous said...

At the risk of being branded "dense" do you think it's just maybe possible that there are more variables than merely per-pupil spending that affect the differing academic performance of, say, New York students and Utah students?

Anonymous said...

I think the class size things is messed up too. I went to Catholic school and we had 40 kids in our class from kindergarten through eighth grade. We scored between 1250-1600 when we took the SAT tests in high school.

My housemate's girlfriend teaches first grade and she only has 15 children. Kind of a waste of infrastructure in my mind.

Hoss said...

Captain,
That can't be true: the leftists keep telling us that if we "invest" more in education it will ensure that kids actually show up to school; pay attention in school; and grind through all the necessary work to be successful - so it must be so, so we all need to dig a little deeper. I'm sure escalating costs and ever-diminishing performance have nothing to do with the NEA.

rhebner said...

What are the factors used to determine the 'cost' involved in schooling?

Doesn't cost of living come into play here? I'm sure it's much more expensive to school a child in NY than ND.

Ryan Fuller said...

Benjamin, those are some great charts. I've got a sister going into education right now who thinks that school performance is somehow linked to spending. I love sending her stuff like this.

Anonymous said...

You show 2 states labeled as "Miss", but no "MO". Which is Missouri and which is Mississippi?

Jeffro said...

You have to adjust for the different environment variables in the students. The type of kid who grows up in New York is not going to starting off on the same foot as the kid in Utah.

A better graph would be to take similar children (same parental income, etc) and compare them among the different states.

An even better graph would be to correlate how bad the teacher's union (very bad in New York) to other states (I would assume not very bad in Utah).

The_Bad said...

2 things:

1) It always rubs me the wrong way to see a stat that indicates money “per student” because it gives us the warm fuzzy feeling that this money goes to the education of said student. It does not. Money “per administrator” stats would help mobilize the people against the wasteful mismanagement that is our public education system.

2) Benjamin's link was fine and dandy for dollars, but none of the charts indicate how much impact these dollars has on SAT, ACT or any other measurable statistic of educational impact.

The_Bad said...

Something else I forgot to mention:

Notice in the chart the states that are scoring above 10,000:

Wisconsin, Illinois, Minnesota, Iowa (top), Kansas, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah

Aren't these all states that the liberal elites consider to be filled with backwards rubes? Fly-overs? Yeah, New York and California are real solid performers here.

Eeyore said...

Captain, being a Canadian, I'm not familiar with the voting patterns in each state. Just out of curiousity, what would the average results be if you sorted them by Democratic versus Republican voting states? Just curious if there is a link between voting patterns and schooling / intelligence.

The_Bad said...

eeyore: all states are variable in their voting record except one (which isn't a state). That is the District of Columbia. It has never gone for a Republican in any Presidential election. Not surprisingly, it is the worst test score in the lot.

Ryan Fuller said...

Jeffro, you wrote:

"You have to adjust for the different environment variables in the students. The type of kid who grows up in New York is not going to starting off on the same foot as the kid in Utah."

Isn't half of the fuss over education about class sizes? The notion that teachers are overburdened with too many students? Then how is it that Utah, which has a very high ratio of children to parents, has such an advantage? On top of that, Utah is below average in terms of income, too. Trying to correct for those factors would put Utah even further ahead of places like New York and California.

Utah is a great place to raise kids. It also had the smallest percentage of voters go Democrat in the last presidential election. Utah's big advantage is that the Democrats are for the most part a non-issue in state politics.

majgross said...

I'm with you on this. Don't get the wrong idea. But I wonder about the truthfulness of this chart. I notice it only compares SAT Verbal scores, but what about the full SAT. This comes to mind because my daughter attends college in Louisiana and I know that the LA ACT score is one point below the national ACT. 20 vs. 21. SAT scores are probably pretty much in line with that. So why is LA so much higher than the national average on the SAT verbal? What would the full SAT score look like? That being said, more money doesn't make for better schools. Most of my age group (40) probably had between 25-35 people in their classes, overburdened by today's standards, and yet we learned to read and write much better than students today. And cost of living impact on average per student doesn't seem to hold up as an arguement as schools in VA average lower than DC, but DC still can't teach kids to read and write. The real problem is the students who don't want to learn and the teachers who don't want to teach.