28 responses so far ↓

• 1 Derek Monson // May 29, 2008 at 3:33 pm

  Mr. Shumway’s post is thought provoking, but it is based on backwards reasoning, that reflects the backwards thinking, that is all too common in the public comments of current public education administration: an emphasis on education inputs over education outcomes.

  Mr. Shumway is right at first: the conclusion that money doesn’t matter at all is absurd. However, the argument that the reason it matters is just so we can have smaller class sizes, broader curriculae, and more guidance counselors (all educational inputs) is equally absurd. If putting more money into public education matters, it will be because it leads to higher high school graduation rates, more children going to college, and graduates that are better prepared to be functional, productive citizens (all educational outcomes…which aren’t all synonymous with higher test scores).

  Educational inputs can certainly lead to these educational outcomes, but it won’t happen through magic or simply because a research study says it will. It will only happen if there is a well-thought out plan for leveraging the smaller class sizes and guidance counselors into more and better-prepared high school graduates and Utah citizens.

  If a child’s education is “adequate,” it will be because the outcome of that education–such as a diploma and/or a college degree, and a functional understanding of what it means to be a productive citizen–is adequate, not because the inputs into that education are the same as the rest of the country.

  Certainly having those better educational inputs can lead to better educational outcomes. But as a public officials asking for more money from Utah parents (and who’s paychecks come directly from Utah citizens), Mr. Shumway and other public education administrators have a responsibility to explain to those parents, in a simple way that is specific to Utah, how having smaller classes and more counselors will improve the educational outcomes for their children.

  Until such explanation becomes the norm public education administrators are not likely to get, and frankly have little right to expect, more funding for Utah’s quality public schools.

• 2 Garry Guymon // May 29, 2008 at 11:11 pm

  As a tax payer and property owner I am very distrubed by the announcement that the school district is looking at raising property tax again. They got a windfall tax revenue from property tax last year because of the inflated property value. Now they are wanting even more. With the decrease in property values we had better see a decrease in property tax.

  I have recently learned that our schools get 80% of our property tax, 100%of our income tax plus who knows how much from the federal tax. They are without question the greatest tax burden to the Utah citizen. Last year the citizens had a chance to improve the choice of who schools their children through the voucher program. Our wonderful school board spent millions on a massive propaganda campaign to distort the truth and the use of fear tactics to kill that opportunity. Why? to maintain their control and grip on the educational process in the State of Utah.
  I recently received a report from the Alpine School District. Under their title “Efficient Use of Money” they put both revenues and expenditures in % numbers. I can only suspect that they do not want us to know the dollar amounts. If we knew that there would be a cry of “outrage”! The news paper recently reported that an audit was made of a school district and the school district could not account as to where all the money went. My question is: Why does not the state have an auditor; a “watchdog” to make our schools accountable for the moneys they receive?
  If I cannot make it on my retirement income I cannot go the retirement board and ask for more money. I have to make do. I think the schools should do the same. Rather than finding a better way to provide a quality education with the moneys they have it is just easier for the board to raise taxes.

• 3 Larry Shumway // May 30, 2008 at 12:42 am

  Response to Comment 1 (Mr. Monson)

  That Utah students are not receiving the same services (whether one calls them “inputs” or “services”) as students in other states is indisputable. In regards to class size, Utah parents consistently rank high class size as their number one concern in Utah schools. Worry about large classes on the part of parents — including some charter school parents selecting their schools on the basis of smaller classes alone — can hardly be called “backward thinking by public education administration.” Every parent I know wants their children in smaller classes.

  One “input” or “service” deficiency that is particularly notable in the Foundation report is guidance counseling. The State Board has repeatedly asked for support to increase the availability of this service to students. The Utah model of comprehensive guidance has a research base that shows it improves results, or “outputs” as Mr. Monson calls it. A fully implemented counseling program results in higher student enrollment in college preparatory courses, higher ACT scores, and higher levels of student success both in enrolling in and succeeding in post-secondary coursework. (see the data at http://www.schools.utah.gov/cte/documents/guidance/publications/Research_AnEvaluationUtahsCCGP.pdf) But the Board’s requests for funding to fully implement this program by providing adequate access to counselors have been repeatedly ignored.

  Mr. Monson’s comment above implies that the State Board has not made concrete proposals that are supported by strong experience and research demonstrating the results. The proposals for counseling is just one example among many. I agree that proposals lacking the evidence of effectiveness should not be funded, but I encourage Mr Monson and others to be supportive of proposals supported by such evidence.

• 4 Holly Langton Utah PTA Education Commissioner // May 30, 2008 at 8:13 am

  In response to the charge posted by Gary Guymon. As reported in Utah Foundation Report Number 680, August 2007:

  • Utah’s funding effort for pubic education fell significantly from 1996 through 2004.
  • Before the most recent two years, Utah’s downward trend in funding effort was unprecedented.
  • Part of the reason for lower education funding effort was a change in spending priorities facilitated by loosening the earmarking of income tax for education. Growth in Health, transportation, and prison spending took higher priority in the late 1990 and early 2000’s.
  • After a period of rapid income tax growth, higher education is now receiving very little money from the general fund. Most higher education funds are now distributed from income tax (which used fund only K-12).

  In this most recent information from the Utah Foundation it’s reported, “Utah has the highest number of students per teacher in the nation. Utah’s pupil/teacher ratio is 22.1 while the national ratio is 15.7. Utah’s five peer states all have a pupil/teacher ratio below the national average, ranging from 13.4 to 14.6. Utah’s elementary pupil/teacher ratio is 31.2, more than double the elementary ratio of the five peer states. At the kindergarten level, Utah’s pupil/teacher ratio is 41.5, more than double the national ratio of 17.3.”

  With pupil/teacher ratios this high, it’s not hard to imagine what Utah students are giving up along with small classes:
  • Comfort: Teachers and students often feel more comfortable when the class size is smaller. Students generally feel more comfortable voicing their questions and opinions.
  • Students’ needs met: Teachers can design customized lessons to meet the needs and interests of all of the class members.
  • Student centered: Teaching is student centered and often more communicative than is possible in large classes. Students also have more opportunity to speak.
  • Attendance: Class attendance is usually high because students know they will be missed if they are absent. They also feel like they belong to the group.
  • Tasks Completed: Assignments and homework are more likely to be completed because the teacher is more likely to check.
  • Detailed Feedback: Teachers have time to provide detailed feedback when marking assignments and tests, so students get a better sense of how they are improving and where they need to work harder. Teachers also have more time to answer questions before, during, and after class.

  The PTA understands that we must strike a practical balance between making classes smaller and breaking the bank in these budget-conscious times. But we realize that if we have to wait for a time of greater prosperity and less student growth to begin in earnest the process of reducing the number of students in our classrooms, our students will always attend the most overcrowded classrooms in the nation. What role do you see the Utah State Office of Education playing in addressing this issue?

• 5 Craig Crippen // May 30, 2008 at 10:07 am

  Why no word about how much we are spending per student? That is what is disturbing. I believe right now it’s a little over $7,000 per student in Utah. I don’t care if other states spend $50,000 per student. It’s the system that is messed up, not the amount of money. Quit telling us we aren’t spending as much as other states. $7,000 times an average of 40 students in a classroom (which is what they said on KSL) equals 280,000 a classroom. That should be able to pay for 8 or 9 teachers at the rate we pay them today. That’s way too much money. Private schools on average cost much less. Do a study and call the private schools. What needs to be done is getting rid of the public school system altogether. I say give each student their fair share, and let them go wherever they choose (public, private, home school). Then you will see competition, test scores will rise, prices will fall, and Utah will be the greatest education state in the world! Until that happens, quit your complaining. It’s bureaucracy at it’s finest. I refuse to throw more money at the problem. It hasn’t worked for states like New York that spend 12,000 per child.

• 6 Steve Kroes // May 30, 2008 at 10:50 am

  Craig, I’d urge you to read the report. It does discuss how much we spend per student. By the way, the $7,000 or $7,500 that is sometimes cited is a number that includes capital spending. The interstate comparisons usually focus on operations spending, and that’s what we did here. Yes, when compared against a private school, it’s valid to include the capital amounts, since private schools pay for all of their costs (short- and long-term through tuition). Well, they also do capital drives and seek grants from foundations for capital funding, too.

  Also, in the report, we provide comparisons, not to New York, but to more realistic peer states (those that are demographically like Utah), and you can see significant differences in the service levels provided in Utah vs. those states. Look at our report on test scores from October 2007, which compares to those peer states — they’re eating our lunch!

• 7 Crazy Cooter // May 30, 2008 at 6:09 pm

  I have five kids, all of whom are or will be in Utah’s public education system.

  But I tire of the UEA/PTA rants about how we compare to other states and I find little use for cross-state comparisons (we spend less per student, less as a percent of budget, etc.) , even those that are supposedly “peer” states because we have no real peers in terms of our birth rate. Real per-pupil expenditures have increased significantly over the last thirty to forty years (yes, even in Utah), but I don’t think you’ll find many who would argue that our schools are better than they were thirty to forty years ago.

  NEWS FLASH — This just in…Utah has a lot of kids, which means any per-student, per-capita measure should be interpreted with extremely extreme caution. Each state serves a unique student population and has unique overall challenges. Unlike many other states with infrastructure already built, we’re growing rapidly and on top of school spending we also need infrastructure to deal with this growing population. So every time the UEA/PTA folks complain about “paving over kids” and don’t acknowledge needs in other areas such as transportation, they turn me off. From my perspective as one who often drives in Utah County, we have much more of a crisis in transportation than in education.

  In addition to having many kids in Utah, we have much higher percentages of kids of public….PTA person, please remember the “l” in the future…..schools. Many other states are in the 10-15% range for private and home schools, compared to our 3-4% in Utah….so the student number in the per-student comparisons increases even more, further distorting simplistic cross-state comparisons.

  I’m willing to pay my fair share in taxes and then some because I’m a heavy user of the education system, but I don’t want to throw money down the drain. Directly tie funding increases to student outcome increases, not input or “service” increases, and then you’ll have my attention.

  Tell me what increased taxes (spending) will do IN UTAH, IN TERMS OF STUDENT OUTCOMES because I have no use for a basically meaningless national comparisons. At least the Utah Foundation report begins to look at that issue of what we could buy with increased taxes (spending), but in my opinion it is still heavy on the input comparison side and short on the exactly-what-outcomes-will-we-get side.

  I’ve heard from my teacher relatives and friends so many times - “But we don’t control the types of students we get, so we can’t really change outcomes.” Then don’t ask for more taxes (spending). From a taxpayer’s standpoint, the purpose of the education system is to educate kids, not provide teachers and state administrators with jobs. If the status quo on outcomes is all you can deliver, that’s good information for taxpayers to have.

  Having previously lived in California and having children in that education system, I looked closely at class size reduction there. They spent billions of dollars on class size reduction for nothing. No measurable results. I’m not against class size reduction for disadvantaged kids, which I think could potentially be helpful, but reducing class sizes wholesale across the state is a money pit. It just makes people “comfortable” or “feel good”, but to me, that’s not a sufficiently important outcome to justify the massive tax increases that would be required to fund it. Significantly increasing pay for the best teachers is a much more realistic goal.

  BTW, can I just say that it’s pretty funny the media hype this report generated, being based on spending numbers several years old.

  Having looked at how some education data is calculated - usually to skew things low - I also take a very skeptical look at much of the education data before accepting it.

  As one example, it’s amazing how many teachers the state ended up with when there was a specific amount provided per teacher. Have teacher/pupil ratios been re-calculated to account for all the teachers that suddenly appeared when a per-teacher raise was involved?

  Another example–how much we spend per pupil. As the report mentions, the oft-cited number of around $5,000 excludes capital revenues and some other local property taxes. For this coming school year, TOTAL spending will probably exceed $8,000 per pupil. As taxpayers, we get no respect for that other $2,000 - $2,500 or so that we chip in.

  And, living in the rapidly-growing west part of Jordan district (where I’m guessing we would have some of the biggest class sizes in the state), my son is in a kindergarten class of 20-25. At parent-teacher conferences, I’ve noticed that all the other kindergarten classes at the school are the same size. So let’s just say that 41.5 kindergarten teacher/student ratio may need a second look. How exactly is that ratio calculated? Does it divide in half for half-day kindergarten? How does it count full-day kindergarteners? I suppose my admittedly anecdotal experience in the fastest growing portion of the fastest growing district in the state could be an anomaly, but color me skeptical.

  And to end my (probably mostly incoherent) rant, I say only allow tax (spending) increases (closely linked to student outcomes) when local school boards increase the property tax. The UEA/PTA seems to be big on the state increasing education taxes (spending). Even when the state has dramatically increased education funding over the past several years, there’s little thanks and much angst. Since the voracious appetite for more state spending will never be quenched when someone else is covering the revenue side, let’s have local school board members put their property tax money (and elected positions) where their mouth is.

• 8 Mary Ann Kirk // May 30, 2008 at 7:49 pm

  When presenting to the state school board about our concerns regarding class size, I was handed a paper that reflected class size averages compiled from some kind of district data. It was very deceiving and seemed to indicate the state class size was around 22-23 in the lower grades. I don’t know why it is compiled this way or if someone is trying to make it look better than it really is. But we need to find a more accurate way of reporting class size that truly reflects the load of teachers - not averaged in with other support services. We need to tally the actual count. Then the real story will come forward.

  In addition, we have a system forced on us by legislative action that puts every child into the same peg whole. Each child’s long term educational plan (SEOP) should drive their course selection - not some imposed graduation requirements that shove every kid into traditional university studies. We need to reduce counselor load to help students create a meaningful educational plan that puts them on track for their own interests and post high school plans.

  Our children deserve more one-on-one experiences. If we are going to have children, we need to recognize it costs money to educate them. A quality teacher and individual needs should take precedence - and this means lower student/teacher and student/counselor ratios.

• 9 Bryan Kingsford // May 31, 2008 at 6:38 pm

  I think Derek Monson’s comment is excellent.

  Does money matter? The answer is it depends on whether it’s tied to changes that will achieve the desired outcome. I’ve seen a good deal of money wasted when this was ignored.

• 10 Brady Tanner // Jun 1, 2008 at 11:26 pm

  Dear Larry,
  I am a middle school Language Arts teacher. I appreciate this conversation very much.
  Here is my question: I’ve heard that the CRT tests are normed before the big AYP results come out every year. I started asking questions, and apparently, we basically impose a bell-curve on the state results. My understanding of the NCLB law is that the nation wanted to set a bar, and then the schools would go about ensuring that every student would meet that standard. Do we, in fact, impose a bell-curve on these scores? If so, how does this make any sense, since such a system ensures that a certain percentage of our students would not be regarded as achieving?

• 11 Larry Shumway // Jun 2, 2008 at 2:26 pm

  Much of the conversation here has seemed to rest on the premise that public schools continue to aske for increased funds without specifics. Nothing could be further from the truth. Each year, requests are made that are very specific, with support from experience and research that make clear the expected results. I’ve give examples in previous posts.
  The service of the Foundation’s report is that is points out the results of the funding level for Utah schools in terms of the educational experience for students. If people are happy with that experience–large classes, few counselors, no nurses to speak of, big schools and districts–then no change is needed. From what I hear, few parents feel that these things are okay. To those that charge that these are “inputs”, I’m willing to concede. The reality is that, inputs or not, these are things that most school parents want changed.

  To Mr. Tanner:
  The CRTs are “Criterion Referenced Tests.” The scoring that you, a clasroom teacher, see is a report of the number right for each set of items. No norming is involved. You are right, though, when you express concern for the way these tests are used in NCLB. Across the country, every state sets its own standard for what can be called “competency.” Many states, though NOT Utah, have changed the standards if too few students made the necessary score. I think you can be confident that Utah has been fair and transparent in the process, not “gaming the system” like some have.

• 12 UtahTeacher // Jun 2, 2008 at 3:23 pm

  To some of the earlier commentors,

  The Utah Tax Payer’s Association numbers on per student spending are not an accurate picture of what is spent on individual children. The millions of dollars in construction bonds from individual districts are building physical facilities. The money being spent on Saratoga High School is not being divided and spent on individual students in Alpine District, let alone the whole state as UTA’s figures imply. The averages of WPU being sent to districts include Special Ed., ESL, and other categories with higher costs.

  Utah Districts mostly rank in the top 20 nationally in terms of financial efficiency and fewest amount of administrators per student. This efficiency does come with some trade-offs as more district work is assigned to local principal committees, leaving less time for their on-site work.

  Also, the newspapers reported that the financial audits accounted for every dollar spent according to the law that Utah Legislators themselves loosened in previous years to avoid too many reports. The reports found that funds were being spent correctly and that funding was not, and never had been, keeping up with growth.
  http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695237166,00.html
  http://magicvalleymormon.blogspot.com/2008/01/class-size-reduction-funding-in-utah.html
  http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2008/01/administration-costs-class-size.html

  Finally, inflation in all areas (healthcare, energy, housing, etc.) has matched or outpaced inflation in public school costs. Costs and prices have been rising just as quickly at private universities. We have never “thrown money” at schools. In fact, we have barely kept pace with growth or inflation and the Utah Foundation reported that k-12 expenditures went down as a percentage of state budget for over a decade from the mid-nineties on. Public ed. funding will always be a challenge in Utah with our unique demographics. I don’t think we reasonably can or that we should get to the national average of per student funding. But let’s base our discussion on reality rather than false accusations of a whiny, inefficient system.

  (And vouchers were a dishonest scam to defund public schools that fooled a lot of people with false cookie ads based on incorrect understanding of student funding.)

• 13 Brady Tanner // Jun 3, 2008 at 8:59 am

  Mr. Shumway,
  Why is it then, I wonder, that I can see raw scores now, but the official scores don’t come out until September. One way to spend a little money and produce major results, I think, is to release the official scores in late Spring or early summer–in time for me to receive, analyze and use them to change my classroom instruction.

• 14 Crazy Cooter // Jun 3, 2008 at 9:23 am

  I don’t understand the big deal Utah Teacher makes about K-12 expenditures as a % of the state budget dropping in the late 1990s/early 2000s. K-12 enrollment declined during that time period and other areas received funding increases (which people in those areas perceived as “catching up” after all the funding required by the last big wave of students). Now that student enrollment is increasing, K-12 expenditures are making up a greater percentage of the state budget again. This doesn’t seem like too much of a mystery to me. And there’s a difference between inflation and state budget spending increases. REAL per-pupil spending (i.e., per-pupil spending adjusted for inflation) has consistently increased over time.

  I’m sure there are probably a few who think Utah’s public education system is a “whiny, inefficient system”. On the efficiency issue, I, for one, think our system does a good job for most kids with the very limited resources they have.

  However, I also wish those with interests within the education system were more open to the views of those whom they perceive to be “non-experts”, including many parents and taxpayers. Probably because all they see is the limited resources they’re working with, many within the system view ANY suggestion for change of any aspect of the system (other than funding increases) with extreme hostility. They often essentially shout down any who dare say that things aren’t perfect within the system.

  As one mild example, see PTA commissioner’s choice of words - a “charge” posted by Gary Guymon. This suggests an adversarial relationship with someone expressing a valid concern about tax levels. As another, somewhat less mild example, “vouchers were a dishonest scam to defund public schools”. With vouchers now in the rear-view mirror and not likely to return any time soon, rather than considering that 40% of voters have serious concerns with the current education system that should at least be acknowledged in one way or another (even if one opposes any and all forms of vouchers), the overall attitude conveyed is adversarial rather than cooperative.

  I think a more cooperative and let’s-work-this-out-together attitude would go a long ways towards engaging a taxpaying public that often feels excluded and disregarded in the public education system (intentionally or not).

  One question for Larry Shumway….as I understand it, most of the money that schools receive from the state can basically be used for any school purpose, including nurses and counselors. It sounds as if you’re suggesting that the state should direct what that school funding is used for (in other words, less for WPU, more for counselors, nurses, etc.) But couldn’t one interpret the current counselor and nurse ratios as evidence that schools don’t see these activities as a high priority because they don’t spend available funding increases on those activities? In other words, if these funding increases would be so beneficial, do school districts not know about these studies, do they know about the studies and consciously spend money where it will not be of as much use? Or, as I suspect, are they simply allocating their limited resources to the areas they think will be of most benefit (which includes less nurses and counselors and more of something else)?

• 15 Steve Kroes // Jun 3, 2008 at 10:17 am

  I commend the commenters for putting some detailed reasoning into all your postings here. These have been thoughtful comments. I do think it’s true that there is too much animosity in education discussions, and Cooter is right that “a more cooperative and let’s-work-this-out-together attitude would go a long ways towards engaging a taxpaying public…”

  Later this month, we’ll release a report showing trends since the early 1990s in all state spending categories, as well as the tax burdens on Utahns. I’ll be interested to see more discussion then about what spending categories were growing faster when education growth was slowing down and whether people think the priorities were correct.

  I also want to emphasize that the most recent two fiscal years have seen tremendous growth in education funding, adding up to more than $1,000 per pupil, and the Governor and Legislature deserve credit for really focusing a large part of the surpluses from those years where it would do a lot of good. It took guts to raise spending by 20%+ over two years.

  I also agree with the postings here saying that more spending should be connected with better results, and I think many of our legislators are trying to do that, trying to focus new spending in ways that will improve teacher quality, including designing a workable way to introduce performance pay for teachers.

  When we did our report last summer on teacher attrition, we felt the analysis was compelling enough to warrant some specific policy recommendations, including focusing on improving mentoring and comprehensive training for new teachers to keep more of them in the profession and to increase their skills. We also recommended differentiated pay for teachers in positions that are hard to fill, such as math, science, special ed, or positions in higher-poverty or rural schools. We took a little flak because we said these things were more important than reducing class size, but we still stick with that recommendation. In a time of teacher shortage, like we have now, reducing class size will make the shortage worse and reduce the quality of our teachers. I think the Governor and Legislature are generally on the right track in recent years, with a focus on teacher pay and quality.

• 16 David Cox // Jun 5, 2008 at 2:40 pm

  A couple thoughts:
  1. Overall spending on education HAS gone up significantly over time. Unfortunately it hasn’t gone up for the normal, average student much. Most of the big spending increases have been spent in consequence of federal and court mandates, not for what local districts value most. Programs and personnel have had to be implemented to come into compliance with court interpretations of federal laws. Very few of these mandates have come from our state legislature.

  Local board members, administrators, and especially teachers, feel very frustrated when some court decision, usually not even in our state, dictates how funds will be spent. Taxpayers and those not directly associated with the schools become frustrated when they don’t see results improve from increases in spending. Unfortunately they usually vent that frustration against the local school, district, and even state officials. They cry for legislators that will get TOUGH with those educators. This usually only makes it more difficult to do what the citizens want.

  Another thing that has increased costs are the more serious problems in society. Do we ignore students who have big problems because of their parents behavior? If we ignore them, we will pay more later.

  Finally on costs, one of the most expensive things is the philosophy expressed by one person above that we need to individualize everything. We teach school in classes precisely because it is more economical. We CAN’T afford to tutor every child differently. In fact it is detrimental to make everything center around the child. Doing that does not prepare them for real life. Real SEOPs, for instance, done correctly cost more in time and money than parent conferences. Mandating them without additional funding only increases time and energy pressures on teachers, without really individualizing them, which takes time away from making teaching more engaging. The schools can’t do everything for the students. They can’t become the parents, as many elected leaders try to make them.

  2. We cannot effectively cut class size until we build more schools. School buildings are a capital investment that increases in value over time. Sufficient numbers of appropriately-sized schools also reduce busing, daily traffic and parent transportation costs. A great deal of research shows that they also reduce violence, and substance abuse. They increase parental and citizen involvement and improve graduation rates and test scores.

  I feel that the state education officials are prioritizing other things ahead of getting enough schools built. If we build enough appropriately-sized schools, we will be more likely to lower class size. This single thing will build better support from the public, improve outcomes, and it will probably prevent the build-up of less valuable district programs in the big districts.

• 17 Dave Hansen // Jun 5, 2008 at 5:20 pm

  PER STUDENT SPENDING & CAPITAL COSTS
  I’m not sure why capital costs aren’t included in per student spending calculations. It makes seem like the bureaucracy is trying to make spending appear lower than it already is. This might not be the case, but that’s how it appears.

  I understand that capital costs are funded differently and aren’t spread out evenly in a single year among all students and districts, but regardless, it’s still a cost that goes towards education. In the current system, you can’t have classrooms without buildings.

  My company can’t exclude office rent from our overhead, so why should public schools?

• 18 Dave Hansen // Jun 5, 2008 at 5:21 pm

  COMPARING UTAH TO THE NATION… HOW ABOUT THE WORLD?
  For the purpose of comparisons, it’s acceptable to exclude capital costs so long as everyone else’s figure excludes it, too (which I understand the US Census Bureau does, but the US Dept of Education does not).

  But this hides the real cost. As Craig points out, even if we’re the lowest in per student spending in the US, it’s still a lot of money per classroom when you do the math. And it’s especially a lot of money when you consider that most Utahns think we spend less than $3,000 per student, buildings included.

  Now perhaps Utah is spending the money more efficiently than the rest of the U.S., but should “the rest of the U.S.” be the standard, especially considering our performance on international tests? Every nation that outscores us (besides Switzerland) spends less per student. It would be interesting to see how Utah compares internationally both on test scores and spending because in today’s flat world, we’re competing against everyone for jobs. I realize that Steve compared us to other states with similar demographics to try and control some of the variables, but how do they do internationally as well?

• 19 Dave Hansen // Jun 5, 2008 at 5:21 pm

  REDUCING CLASS SIZE
  This is probably one of the biggest distractions in the education dialogue. From what I’ve read (and I’m not expert), class size reduction is one of the most inefficient ways to improve student performance. Supposedly, it doesn’t have any significant effect on student performance until you get the class size below 17 or so. Not only would doing this put Utah in a deep financial hole, but dramatically reducing class size can negatively affect teacher quality. We supposedly already have a teacher shortage. If we were to add thousands of classrooms to the state, from what pool of potential employees would we be hiring thousands of new teachers? As California learned the hard way, just having smaller class sizes doesn’t matter when you don’t have enough quality teachers to work in those classrooms.

  The classroom size debate also makes me wonder why it is that charter schools, which spend less per student, are often able to have smaller class sizes than traditional public schools? This leads me to the following

• 20 Dave Hansen // Jun 5, 2008 at 6:11 pm

  CHANGING THE PARADIGM
  The initial question that Steve’s report addresses is an interesting one, and I think he’s done a great job of researching it and presenting the findings. But unfortunately, it’s limited to the current system, one that’s built on a 19th Century model. So of course, when you compare it to other state’s with a similar model and similar control variables, you’ll find that spending more money could increase student outcomes because in some ways, that’s what the current paradigm demands.

  And the reason for this (and I know educators cringe when I say this) is because the current system is monopolistic, heavily bureaucratic, and centrally controlled (and by this I don’t just mean the Federal government or State Legislature, but the school districts as well. Principals aren’t making as many budgetary, staffing, and curriculum decisions as they should be allowed to). These features will always require higher spending than more efficient systems.

  Does money matter? Yes, of course it does. But ultimately, if we want to dramatically improve student outcomes and do it within the realities of a state that has more kids per adult than any other, it’s going to take a paradigm shift.

  Let’s take Dave’s comments that it’s impossible to cater to the needs of every child. In the current paradigm, he’s absolutely right. But it doesn’t have to be that way. Online education providers have made leaps and bounds in providing individualized instruction. Why can’t we combine that with a traditional bricks and mortar school?

  That’s what I’m doing right now with a GRE course I’m taking. My classroom lectures are supplemented by individualized course work online that’s based on my performance on homework and quizzes. (As a side note, a read recently that a Harvard business professor thinks that 50% of high school courses will be taken online by 2019)

  Using technology is just one way to shift the paradigm. Another is giving individual schools more local control like they do in Edmonton. This has resulted in schools with varying focuses and teaching models, allowing parents to find the right fit for their kids. Edmonton schools score on par with the rest of Alberta, which scores at the very top on international tests.

  To sum up, of course money is important, and as long as we confine ourselves to the current paradigm, a lot of solutions will require more spending. But it doesn’t have to be that way.

• 21 Dave Hansen // Jun 5, 2008 at 6:23 pm

  QUESTION ON TEACHER ATTRITION
  Most of the teachers I know who are my age are LDS women who always intended to teach until they started having kids. Have you accounted for this in your research on teacher attrition?

  And if this is one of the major reasons for so many teachers leaving after a few years, I doubt that there are any effective ways to address it. I know my own experience that when we were ready to have kids, no monetary compensation would have made my wife reconsider quitting her job to be with the baby, and my wife wasn’t initially sure if she would want to be at home after having kids.

  Just a thought, as if I haven’t shared enough of them as it is

• 22 UtahTeacher // Jun 6, 2008 at 2:13 am

  Good post Cooter and I agree with what you wrote and Steve repeated about having to work together to overcome distrust from the voucher issue. But it needs to go both ways as in”UEA/PTA rants.” And I don’t know that my throwaway about vouchers being a scam was overly adversarial when responding to this “cooperative” assertion: “Our wonderful school board spent millions on a massive propaganda campaign to distort the truth and the use of fear tactics to kill that opportunity. Why? to maintain their control and grip on the educational process in the State of Utah.” I’ll say I disagree.

  Why I made a big deal about the budget percentage dropping during that time is because I didn’t know that until I read this foundation’s report. I grew up hearing we had one of the highest tax burdens in the nation and that we devoted the highest percentage of our taxes to education of any state in the nation. The report showed that we had slipped to the middle of the pack (late teens I believe) in percentage of budget to education. I heard my previous belief proclaimed many times during the voucher debate. The truth is important for any policy discussion. I can see where you are coming from on “catch up” for the other areas of state budget. But I think it would be as easy to argue that most have never viewed that strained level of funding when we had student population booms as good. The ease in demographics could have provided an opportunity to fund areas of need in schools more adequately as well. The next report that Steve mentioned will definitely be interested. As he said, we’ll see if the actual expenditures match public perception. I also agree with your other post about Utah County transportation problems. I can see us hitting crisis mode as soon as they start that I-15 rebuild down here.
  I think that is a real, hard decision that has to be made at times. If a friend or legislator is honest and just tells me they don’t support funding education priority x because they want to spend that tax dollar on y which is also an important public priority, I don’t feel slighted.

  I have a problem with the supposed per-pupil spending increases adjusted for inflation as well.
  I don’t see them. I attended Utah schools with classes of 30+ from mid-elementary on, and now teach classes of 30+ students. I don’t think salaries have outpaced inflation either (the last two years may have improved this)–teachers aren’t any comparatively richer than 20 years ago with food, energy, college costs, andhealthcare increasing as fast or faster than pay. If the lump-sum per student funding has increased, I can see that what Dave Cox said above may be true, that the money is getting absorbed in special programs like special ed. and ESL. Technology may be another necessity that is a mixed blessing when it comes to funding. I remember a gifted pull-out while attending school in a different state where we got to use DOS and Turtle…and most of the students didn’t. Then back to Utah where we had a small lab that the whole school could take turns using. Technology and people to service it are a significant “new” expense in terms of what funding gets to classrooms.

  Cooter, I have seen some examples of what you said about educators not always listening to taxpayers and parents. However, while obviously only seeing the parent/school interactions in my sphere, I have honestly not felt educators “shouted down” those who disagreed in most instances. But maybe that is a result of my own biases or perspectives and your perceptions of educator rants are what the public sees too. Are you speaking more on a general public policy level like on vouchers, or of disagreements in more localized settings such as district meetings or individual schools?

  To all:
  Like I said above, I can see that smaller classroom size is very difficult to attain. Each success makes the next money have to stretch further to more teachers, more physical facilities, more computers, etc. while making it more difficult to find high quality candidates.

  Large class sizes may be an inescapable reality with our demographics and shortage of teachers, but it’s a paradox when you want to retain teachers. Salary is not the number 1 reason new teachers leave. I think that comes into play more with people never going into education in the first place and after the first few years as their families grow. I seriously considered going into something else after my first year because of classroom management issues and workload. Those problems are directly related to class size. Money was a very small part of the decision to continue in this career as job conditions would affect my happiness and that of my family for life. More kids crowded into class magnifies every mistake and detracts from every effective practice and lesson. (I think this is common sense–think of any group of kids or teens: scout troop, club, church class, birthday party, etc. Add 5 more kids. Your stress level, preparation, logistics, and ability to supervise are all affected negatively.) It also contributes directly to burn-out of great teachers who overcome the initial learning curve and constantly work to meet the needs of 180-200 kids (for a Jr. High teacher). If I honestly look at the budget and feel the state is making effort, I can deal with it. We need roads, prisons, and everything else. But it contributes to teacher disillusionment and burnout when their real need for smaller classes is dismissed as “the union wanting more power” or small increases in classroom reduction money are dismissed as “feel good, do nothing” bills. (True statement from my generally good House rep.)

  We can’t afford it is understandable. You don’t need it is insulting…and disingenuous. I don’t know one parent who wouldn’t choose for their student to be in a class of 25 rather than 35, all else being equal. Reducing classes to 17 is not necessary for improvement when class sizes are already over 30. My “core” classes are slated to hit an average of 35 students next year, up from 30-31. If you were to reduce my class size to 25 each, I can guarantee more on one-on-one attention, better behavior in class, and increased amounts of personalized feedback to my students, translating to a guaranteed overall rise in performance. I would also be less stressed (35-70 fewer students to prepare for, grade, etc., class is easier to manage) and have more time for innovation and individual adaptation.

• 23 David Cox // Jun 6, 2008 at 11:19 am

  P.S. to my earlier comment:
  Research shows greater results from smaller school size than from smaller class size. There is a balance of course, and every student over 30 in a class SIGNIFICANTLY increases the task. (I have between 32-35 each year in my class.) But we keep focusing on class size and ignoring school size. If we reduced school size in Alpine, class size would automatically go down as we got off productivity models. Just having enough schools would reduce class size in elementary schools upper grades from about 32 to 25. Of course that would put teacher salaries back to a traditional salary. We shouldn’t talk about reducing class size without talking about school size reduction in the same breath. We are further behind in school size than in class size.

• 24 Steve Kroes // Jun 6, 2008 at 11:54 am

  David,

  Explain briefly what you mean about “class size would automatically go down as we got off productivity models.” What are these productivity models and how do they work?

• 25 David Stringfellow // Jun 6, 2008 at 11:58 am

  The education system is much broader than I usually hear discussed by the public or the media. The production function of education is heavily influenced by three main factors - the school system, family effects, and peer effects. Providing money to the school system will undoubtedly impact the production function, the question is, by how much? As a society we are continually making trade offs between the quality of roads, the level of police protection, which indigent to help, etc. In terms of evaluating where we should place an additional dollar of tax, it is important to consider the incremental societal benefit - should the dollar go to schools, roads, safety? Where will the extra dollar have the most impact? Each interest group, whether school administrators, road builders, or our many public servants feel they can provide the most benefit from an extra dollar of spending - all cannot be right. As a society, our revealed preferences are telling; they do not condem the public school system to mediocrity, nor do they unambiguosly point toward the need for pouring money into education, safety, or roads. Having decided how much we can bear taxation - as a society, let us contintue to work to allocate these resources to their best and highest use with careful study. Our system of allocation should not be disparaged broadly for providing too little money to the school system, unless you want to give representative democracy an F.

• 26 David Cox // Jun 6, 2008 at 2:45 pm

  Steve,
  Thanks for the question. In Alpine we have in place extended day models of productivity - a method of getting more kids in a building. Some models have a regular-sized class (25 for upper grades) come at 8AM until 12 for core classes and then for two hours specialty classes of 45 students or more. An offsetting class starts specialties in the AM and attends core classes in the PM. Specialty teachers get 45+ students all day. Core teachers get two classes of 25, half a day each.

  The other extended-day model has 32 in a class for one teacher, with half coming at 8-2:15 and the other half coming at 9:15-3:30. Typically reading is taught during that hour with half the class. Students also have a 30-40 minute specialty during the day. This allows a prep time for teachers.

  Both models give teachers one hour more pay per day and extend the daily contract accordingly. This gets more kids in the school. If enough schools were built, so that all returned to a traditional schedule, they would return to 25 students per class without additional cost. However, teachers would not get the additional hour pay per day.

• 27 Crazy Cooter // Jun 19, 2008 at 11:33 pm

  In response to UtahTeacher’s question, my comments come from my own experiences and reading teacher comments in the newspapers and other media. I’ve talked with teachers I know personally about the concept of linking student learning and pay. I’m told it’s none of my business (which is funny because I pay taxes that fund education), I don’t know how schools really work. I readily acknowledge that I don’t work in the trenches, I just try to follow the issues. But this is why teachers are best situated to help understand how to best structure a reasonable outcome-based pay system. But, at least with the few teachers I know personally, there’s a complete refusal to even consider changes in how teachers are paid. The perfect becomes the enemy of the good. Interestingly, it doesn’t take too long for parents to figure out who the good teachers are — not the easy teachers, as the complaint often goes, but the good ones.

  As another example, I’ve talked with a family member who’s a teacher about the idea David Cox brings up to use buildings more efficiently, either with different school times during the day or more days during the year. Most working people have to work year-round. Most teachers get the summers off, which is a major benefit few others have. I understand that because we still have a school calendar based on the agricultural era, teachers usually don’t have the option to work all year right now. But I asked, what if you could work during the summer and in turn get more pay? He said he probably wouldn’t do it, because by the end of the school year, he really needs the summer break. He wants the increased pay, but isn’t so much interested in working year round. As someone who works year-round in a high-stress job, let’s just say I have little sympathy.

  Another example, I have a client who lives in Alpine School District and doesn’t like the math program, which is apparently against memorizing times tables. He was told that they are the experts, to butt out.

  About the class size discussion - one of the points I’ve been trying to make and that David Stringfellow brings up is that all else is NEVER equal. There’s always an opportunity cost. When we spend more money on class size reduction, we have taken that money from somewhere else (either additional money from my wallet as a taxpayer or from some other area of government spending). In the end, some may think that’s what we should do. But all else is NEVER equal - which is the point that I don’t think many within the education system really come to understand.

  And, to be clear, opportunity cost definitely goes both ways. If the government cuts taxes like the state has done recently, it doesn’t have that money to spend on government programs.

  I’m sure we’d all love to have very small class sizes. I’d love to have individual tutors in each subject for each of my children. But (because all else is not equal) there are massive implications for that.

• 28 Andrea // Jul 10, 2008 at 8:34 am

  I disagree with Utah Teacher that capital costs are not “real” costs and they are not being spent on individual children. If they are not being spent on children, why are they being spent?

  The specific example of Saratoga High School is irrelevant as well. Just because less than 100% of Utah students attend a specific high school doesn’t mean that those costs should be excluded. They costs for the older high schools were included in previous years.

  When calculating road expenditures, should we exclude the costs of building a road in St. George because the people in SLC don’t use it?

  If we taxpayers have to pay these costs, they should be included.

  If they should not be included because we don’t need them, then we shouldn’t be forced to pay them.

Leave a Comment