The Weekly Addresses

Comments (9)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

1. Steve Newton says:

   April 27, 2013 at 10:30 am

   Another exercise in Governor Markell suggesting that the problem is not school funding, widespread poverty, large class sizes, inadequate building funds, or lagging technology.

   If we recruit better teachers (which is a left-handed way of saying the ones we’ve got now really suck and are just placeholders for the bright minds we’re looking for), everything will be better.

   We’ll pay them $20K bonuses to teach in high-poverty schools with no flagship academic programs and decaying classrooms, where children take home Food Bank backpacks every weekend so they can eat, and our test scores will soar…

2. Andy says:

   April 27, 2013 at 11:15 am

   Another reason why he is Mr. Corporate

3. Truth Teller says:

   April 28, 2013 at 12:24 pm

   Why are we not cheering the President on his failure to veto the FAA bill after all he has created three positive effects by his inaction first meals without wheels, leaving all kids behind and the reduction in medical coast by not treating cancer patients so congress and their rich friends won’t be stalled before take off. My question is can we now believe Obama when he says he is on the side of the middle class???

4. Dave says:

   April 28, 2013 at 2:45 pm

   While there is not doubt that poverty is a significant factor. In 2009-2010 (based on Census data) Delaware spent $1,695,556,000 on elementary and secondary schools which is $12,383 per pupil, tied with NH for 12th place (the lowest being Utah; the highest DC). That data does not suggest that school funding is a factor.

   Perhaps what the funding is being spent on is an area that should be examined. But more importantly, I wonder if are asking too much of our schools. Are they being asked to be a gap filler to satisfy missing basic needs? Maybe our model for public education needs to change to one that better meets the needs of the community.

   An interesting study would be to have people define a model public education system starting from scratch to see the contrast between the As Is condition and Should Be condition.

5. cassandra m says:

   April 28, 2013 at 3:15 pm

   In 2009-2010 (based on Census data) Delaware spent $1,695,556,000 on elementary and secondary schools which is $12,383 per pupil, tied with NH for 12th place (the lowest being Utah; the highest DC).

   I *really* want to know what this bit of data tells anyone. It doesn’t tell me anything about the % of these dollars that are spent on admin vs classrooms. It doesn’t tell me anything about what schools are doing to close the achievement gap in high poverty schools. It doesn’t tell me anything about what schools are doing to challenge their high-achieving kids. It doesn’t tell me anything about the state of facilities or the age of the equipment or the quality of the books the kids are using. It doesn’t tell me anything about the teachers or local administrators — whether the system is retaining the best and cycling out those who can’t cut it. In short, I find it remarkably difficult to assess whether or not there is enough money in the system unless I can see how that money is used and the outcomes of its use.

6. Dave says:

   April 28, 2013 at 5:51 pm

   Instruction: 901,200,000 (Salaries, Wages, and Benefits)
   Support Services: 499,586,000 (Salaries, Wages, and Benefits)
   All other functions: 79,328,000
   Capital Outlay: 192,826,000

   These categories are broken down further, such as: Pupil support
   services, Instructional staff support services, General administration, School administration, Operation and maintenance
   of plant

   But you can read the full report at: Public Education Finances: 2010 (http://www2.census.gov/govs/school/10f33pub.pdf)

7. John Young says:

   April 28, 2013 at 9:25 pm

   Hyper focus on the achievement gap is its own problem…just like SB51…and this is from a self proclaimed education reformer, so it really is a a problem:

   http://www.nationalaffairs.com/doclib/20110919_Hess.pdf

8. cassandra m says:

   April 29, 2013 at 9:25 am

   Thanks for linking to that report, Dave — I’ve seen that report (and others), and it sorts out the accounts but doesn’t attach to it any data on outcomes or quality which is how you know enough (or too much) is being spent.

9. Dave says:

   April 29, 2013 at 9:43 am

   “any data on outcomes or quality which is how you know enough (or too much) is being spent.”

   Very true. Therein lies the rub. What are the measures by which one can evaluate the data? Is it quantitative, qualitative, both? Do we use student testing scores; teacher evaluations; facility maintenance backlog? Delaware spent $27,490,000 on “Child Nutrition.” What measure(s) should be applied to determine whether that is enough or too much?

   From what I’ve seen, there is lack of consensus on any measure. So we spend money that is not tied to outcomes because it seems like every measure is disputed. To me, the consequence of this is that people throw up their hands and ultimately fall into two camps; more money and less money, with neither camp able to define any viable outcome measures.

   If you can’t measure the effect, how do you make the case for more, less, shifting, or stay the same?