|
DesideriScuri -> RE: Education in the US (7/2/2012 9:39:59 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: servantforuse
That is one big reason the cost per pupil is so high. They might cut a music class or lay off a teachers aide, but the top heavy administration always stays in place.
Actually, this is only partly true.
The bigger portion of the higher costs is the relative lower incomes in the inner city areas. Lower incomes means free/reduced cost lunches, breakfast programs, etc. That stuff adds up, and adds up quickly. Suburban schools don't typically have all those same costs and have parents who tend to be more involved. That adds up to better outcomes.
Lucas County, Ohio School Districts; per pupil spending 2010/'11 school year (school rating):
Anthony Wayne: $8259 (Excellent)
Maumee: $10,626 (Excellent)
Oregon: $10,365 (Effective)
Ottawa Hills: $14,266 (Excellent)
Springfield Local: $9,320 (Excellent)
Sylvania: $11,574 (Excellent)
Toledo: $13,859 (Continuous Improvement)
Washington Local: $11,584 (Effective)
Other than Ottawa Hills (which is the "rich" area) almost all of the best ranked schools are in the lower spending/pupil category (Oregon does spend less but hasn't the top scores). Other than Ottawa Hills, Toledo City schools spend an average of more than $2,000 per pupil more than the other schools, yet have the lowest rated school District in the County. This is squarely on the reduced incomes in the District, the strength of the Teacher's Unions, the relatively high number of single family homes, and the lack of involved parenting.
I get it. Costs rise. Revenues have to keep up with costs. But, when costs keep going up faster than inflation, and outcomes aren't rising in relation to the cost, it starts to get really hard to keep throwing mo' money, mo' money, mo' money at the problems.
|
|
|
|
