School Finance Reform Website
- on 10.29.05
- General
- 12 Comments
- Digg
- Del.icio.us
There is a website I would like to point out to everyone. It is a school funding reform site in Dekalb County. They also have many links to local attractions if you are planning to head out that way. (Hat tip: Extreme Wisdom)
Please visit and read some of their great information. They present some great arguments on school finance reform with one of the best being the following chart:
It clearly shows that the District having lowest expenditure per student at $4,177 has over a 12% more students who meet or exceed State standards than the 11th ranked District spending $13,617 per student. That is $9,440 more per student with worse results. That alone gives a very good indication that the argument for equal funding across the State is bogus. It also show that the amount of money you spend does not equate to a good education.
You’ve got to be kidding, right? What do these 2 districts have in common besides being in Illinois? One is a 700 student elementary district and the other a 7,000 student High School district. And that’s just for starters! Look for yourself…
ftp://ftpirptcard.isbe.net/ReportCard2004/140162070_e.pdf
ftp://ftpirptcard.isbe.net/ReportCard2004/530900510_e.pdf
Do you research this stuff first, or just post it?
Per student expenditures is a simple way of comparing all districts. It is used many times to support increased funding across the board for all districts. That is what School Funding Reform is doing.
I am always amazed by how Big Ed supporters will use and argument that supports their position, i.e. Equity in Funding across all districts, but as soon as somoe one points out the fallacy in their argument they immediately attempt to change the argument, i.e. you can’t compare those districts with each other.
Let’s entertain the size and grade distinctions here for just a moment. We’ll also ignore the economies of scale argument as well. Let’s compare Washington Central District to Winthrop Harbor District 1.
Students:
Washington Central 689
Winthrop Harbor 848
Expenditures per Student:
Washington Central $4,177
Winthrop Harbor $6,686
Percent Meeting or Exceeding State Standards:
Washington Central 79.9%
Winthrop Harbor 76.4%
Source Data (2004 Illinois Report Card):
Washington Central
Winthrop Harbor
Even using your definition of comparable districts one district is spending $2,500 more than the other with a close but still lower result percentage. The premise of my article was that the amount of money spent does not equate to a better education. No matter how you want to change the argument it is still true.
Ok, YouveGotToBeKidding has a legitimate point. The comparison is apples to oranges. Spending needs in elementary vs. high school districts are very different. Is there some worth in spend-per-student as a simple yardstick? Sure. Is this particular example flawed? Yes. Who is who to say which argument has the fallacy? It’s a matter of opinion. You’ve gone on to compare Washington Central to Winthrop Harbor ( a current district under the spotlight). That comparison weighs in the direction of your opinion. Going back to the report cards, one could easily find two districts to compare that would come out the other way. Bottom line, there are many factors going into the per-pupil spend and quality of education ‘formulas’.
I’m not so sure the the D1 to D51 comparison does weigh that direction, but you do make a good point. The first argument was certainly apples to oranges, and the second gets close; say Macintosh to Delicious. 1st, look at the geography and consider its affect on finance. Then, look at the demographics and you’re back to apples and oranges.
I can go through the 890 some districts and find “pears” (cute pun, huh?) to support any argument. Who ever said that $ = test scores or that test scores = quality education anyway?
But if we are going to evaluate the school system for ‘performance’, you have to look at what is put in (money) and what comes out (quality of children educated), right? Other thoughts on how to objectively evaluate ‘how they are doing’?
Not necessarily. Can a $ in an all white, mid to high income district in Peoria with no special needs produce the same result as a $ in a diverse, low income, high ESL and special needs district in Metro Chicago? And will the test scores accurately reflect the effort if you compare them? It’s going to take more dollars in the later to produce the same score as the former. What I said was, $’s don’t necessarily = test scores and test scores don’t necessarily = quality education. Assessment needs to be authentic.
Agreed. There are many other factors besides $$$s in and test scores out.
There’s more money (in terms of land value/EAV) in the Maine West district, including Des Plaines, than in the Washington District in Peoria. The argument has been made by the NEA and IFT that indeed it is money that results in a better quality education. Therefore the comparison chart is relevant, perhaps not as apples-to-apples but certainly dollar-for-dollar. Do test scores equal a quality education? No. But who makes the argument test scores (ISAT) matter?
I think it’s pretty clear that the Maine West and Washington Central example in the original graph was meant to be nothing more than inflammatory; the argument was ludicrous. As far as the NEA and IFT advocating that more money results in a better quality education, I’d be interested in the context. Lastly, I’m not certain what you mean by the statement, “But who makes the argument test scores (ISAT) matter?”. Could you elaborate?
YGTBK,
The example given was not infammatory. To me, it was given to dramatically show the argument that the NEA, IFT, and Big Ed in general make about the inequity in funding across the State. It is a bogus argument and that was the point of the comparison. As I stated in my post, if you don’t like the comparison you should get these groups to stop using the generalization of the inequity of funding. They use this argument all the time.
Next, if you and so many others don’t believe it is about money, then why are there so many referendums asking for more? Why are all the districts crying to the State for more money? You arguments here really don’t hold water.
As for your question, “Can a $ in an all white, mid to high income district in Peoria with no special needs produce the same result as a $ in a diverse, low income, high ESL and special needs district in Metro Chicago?”, I believe the answer is yes. All kids call learn at the same rate if taught properly. This is not so much a function of money, but of the instructional techniques used. This has been proven over and over again. It appears you don’t believe other races or impoverished kids can learn as well as what you call your “white, mid to high income district”. Here is a refresher from just down the road in Rockford:
This article gives the details on the scores and the school’s rankings. This article goes into detail about why Principal Parker was removed from instructional duties when she produced these results.
If “It is a bogus argument and that was the point of the comparison.”, then its purpose must have been inflammatory. Otherwise, it wouldn’t have been presented as relevant.
It appears that putting a label to demographics is inflammatory for you, and for that please accept my apology. The Lewis Lemon project was a wonderful, successful example of exactly the point I was trying to make. It seems logical that when funding is limited, teaching to the majority is most cost effective. The test scores there seem to prove that out and are cited in your example.
Please understand that not all demographics are racial. A non-English speaking student requires a different educational approach than an English speaking one and that’s not as easy to deliver in a 700 student environment without proper funding. Factor in physical and mental disabilities, and costs per pupil go up even more. Washington Central doesn’t have any of those issues; I couldn’t even find a significant special Ed entry in their budget, but I’m certainly no accountant.
So let me restate one of my more recent questions, lest we digress:
“…show the argument that the NEA, IFT, and Big Ed in general make about the inequity in funding across the State.”
I’d like to see some of that in the context of this argument, please.
Upon further research, I need to withdraw and reserve my positive review of the Lewis-Lemon project in Rockford.
http://www.rrstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050222/NEWS0107/502220321/1011 , and,
http://www.greatschools.net/modperl/achievement/il/3566
Let me further state that nowhere in my comments did I ever even HINT that “It appears you don’t believe other races or impoverished kids can learn as well as what you call your “white, mid to high income district”. ”
I never said one couldn’t learn;I alluded to the fact that one might not learn or might not test as well as another in an underfunded environment.