This is how I imagine legendary comedians Abbott and Costello would discuss public education:
Costello: I want to help public schools. Which state is last in education funding?
Abbott: That’s Utah, but Idaho falls close behind.
Costello: Wait, so Idaho’s behind? That makes them last.
Abbott: No, Idaho’s almost last. But Oklahoma says they’re second-to-last, too. And Florida and Arizona.
Costello: So who’s behind who?
Abbott: They’re all behind.
Costello: You’re not telling me who’s last but who’s not last?
Abbott: There’s no competition for last, but five are almost last, 49th.
Costello: Idaho, Oklahoma, Florida, Arizona...that’s four.
Abbott: North Carolina makes five.
Costello: But I thought there were four.
Abbott: Now there are five. But there used to be 8.
Costello: Eight states are last?
Abbott: No, 8 states are next-to-last: 49th.
Costello: But now there are 4?
Abbott: Five.
Costello: So who’s last?
Abbott: No, Who’s on first...
Various states and media outlets have been essentially parroting Abbott and Costello’s famous “Who’s on First” routine this way for years. Since 2007, local media in five states have named their state “49th” in education funding. In 2005, eight states were crowned 49th. While we all argue over who is second-to-last in funding, we ignore the larger problem: Despite decades of increasing education funding, student achievement is no higher today than it was 40 years ago. In Arizona, real per-student funding more than doubled between 1969-70 and 2008-09, but test scores are flat.
Competition to be named next-to-last in education funding distracts from real education reform. Voters should reject the education union’s initiative to raise Arizona’s sales tax and instead demand reforms that give all parents the power to choose the best educational experience for their child. That will help put Arizona on first.
• Jonathan Butcher is education director for the Goldwater Institute.
Leon Ceniceros posted at 7:54 pm on Thu, Jun 21, 2012.
The Teacher's Union and the Liberal/Progressive/Democrap "Gang of Three" are always moaning and groaning about teacher pay and per-student funding in Arizona. Are they genuinely concerned about student performance or about getting some of the Tax-Payer monetary "slops" that might fall out of the trough for them to engorge on?
If as in the case when per-student funding is at a higher level that there is no change in the per-student achievement level than when at a lower level...then per-student funding is not the major reason for per-student achievement.....period. What I would think is the major reason for per-student achievement is the average family income of the states with the highest per-student performance. Sadly, the higher family income = the higher per-student achievement.
When we old "geezers" were going to school in the 1940's and 1950's per-student achievement didn't go hand-in-hand with family income. Parents (or in my case = parent = divorced Mom sending 3 sons to Catholic Grammer Schools) oversaw their children education with a belt. Yes, a belt. Immigrant families, newly arrived in the United States made sure (with a belt or a spanking) that their non-English speaking children become English proficient in 6 months. The children would read to these immigrant parents from magazines or newspapers to show their evergrowing proficiency every week if not every day. The first book that immigrant familes purchased wasn't the Bible it was Webster's Dictionary. I remember having to read to my Mom as she was cooking or baking or ironing from Collier's Encyclopedia. She would tell me to get letter "M" or letter "Z" and start reading from page one. If there was a word that she or I did not know then the Dictionary was cracked open. Math and Science were alien subjects but those were for the good Nuns or Sisters to teach.
But the key to education was ...........READING and COMPREHENDING. If a child could read well then everything else fell into place.
Contrast those days to Today. There was no Spanish Television back then....only English. Government forms and Driving Tests and Voting Ballots were only in English. The only newspaper in Spanish was La Prensa. The TV Guide when it came out was only in English. There were only English TV commercials. There was just one Spanish Radio Station not like Today were there are zillions of them far outnumbering the English ones on AM Radio.
Just look at the Spelling Competions (Bee's) of Today. Who wins them = Indians, Pakistanis, Koreans, Chinese, Taiwanese, Vietnamese young students year after year after year. Why, because of the old-fashioned emphasis on studying and love for the English Language.
Mike McClellan posted at 4:56 pm on Thu, Jun 21, 2012.
Why don't you specify those "wasteful spending in education history"? Let's hear some of the most egregious examples from over the years.
Is there waste in schools? Sure, just like in any other large institutions. But this right wing meme of "long history" is attractive to some but often has no proof behind it.
As to the spending, that amount is for everything related to a school, including maintaining buildings, transportation costs, food, janitors, the whole nine yards.
And despite how low the state ranks in funding -- whatever the low number is -- as John Huppenthal has pointed out, we rank in the middle of achievement for the country.
So you could make the argument that we actually get more education bang for the buck, especially when you consider the high portion of ESL students that factor into those achievement scores.
By the way, your private school point -- any idea how much it costs for one year at Brophy? $14,000. One year at Seton over here in the East Valley? $12,000.
Sure, there are private schools much cheaper than those two. But even St. Mary's costs more than the state aid you cite.
So why don't you also cite the "number of private schools [that cost much less]" and describe the "great outcomes" of those schools?
You guys make claims like this all the time but can never back them up.
For once, do so.
VofReason posted at 12:52 pm on Thu, Jun 21, 2012.
I am hoping we are not pointing to the long history of wasteful spending in education and saying that teachers or former educators are the best financial monitors of the situation. That would fly in the face of reality. Az spends 9K or so per student for public education and generally struggles educating those students. You can put a kid through a a number of private schools for much less and expect great outcomes. Why?
mrconservative posted at 8:21 pm on Wed, Jun 20, 2012.
DemocraticDad,
Most likely because he is smarter than you and every other Democrat..
DemocraticDad posted at 8:05 pm on Wed, Jun 20, 2012.
Goldwater Institute:
WHY is Jonathan Butcher your education director? According to your website he does not have a bachelors, masters or doctorate in education. There is also NO mention of him EVER being a teacher in the classroom or working in a school to educate children. He has NO education background whatsoever!
I have been an educator (teacher and administrator) for over 40 years and having Jonathan Butcher write about education reform is like having me write about the best surgical procedures for doctors to use in the operating room! Who made him an EXPERT?
Arizona Willie posted at 2:59 pm on Wed, Jun 20, 2012.
How many school districts ARE there in the State of Aridzona?
There should be 3.
Tuscon
Phoenix
Flagstaff
That's all.
All districts should be rolled into those 3.
End the endless replication of all the officials in every district.
Lay 'em off. Bye.
That is the problem with education in Arizona ... too many districts and each one loaded with big salaries. Eliminate all those school districts and officals and spread their pay among the teachers actually doing something in the schools.
VofReason posted at 2:42 pm on Wed, Jun 20, 2012.
I think what people want to hear is how much money will ensure that their children will get a good education and why. Not just more than what it is today. I don't think anyone says that teachers are overpaid, I think people think that a lot of money goes to education and money is wasted in the process. When you hear how much money goes into administration it begs the question of what is recieved from that expenditure.
chatmandu002 posted at 10:12 am on Wed, Jun 20, 2012.
More money is not the answer to better education. It's takes effort from the students, parents and teachers to have better education. If part of this equation breaks down the problem is not solved with more money.
Mike McClellan posted at 9:20 am on Wed, Jun 20, 2012.
Three points:
First, Butcher would like his readers to believe his framing of the sales tax supporters as the "education union," knowing full well that supporters for the initiative cut across the spectrum of our state. This is the same tired tactic that Goldwater used last time, which means pretty soon they'll trot out their scare tactic, that the sales tax will result in a loss of jobs in AZ. That's what they told us last time, but in the two years of the sales tax existence, the number of jobs has actually increased in AZ.
Second, if Butcher was honest, he tell you that in the last 30 years, inflation-adjusted funding for education in AZ has actually dropped. And he'd tell you that since 2008, more than a billion dollars has been cut from the K-12 budget.
Finally, since Butcher mentioned "competition," one of his mantras to improve education in our state, since we've adopted Butcher's/Goldwater's plan to have schools compete, as Butcher notes, education achievement continues to flat-lined.
He will, of course, say that the answer is even more competition, a pure voucher system. Which suggests that if we do more of what isn't working now it will somehow work later.
Arizona Willie posted at 8:13 am on Wed, Jun 20, 2012.
Republicans are fond of constantly claiming funding for education doubles between certain years.
But, what does that mean?
Does that mean the gross dollar figure doubled?
Does that mean the gross per pupil doubled?
How about net spending?
Hmm they don't wanna talk about that.
Subtract administrative and executive salaries and what happened to the net? Oh ... it went down cause more was spent on administration and executive salaries and bonuses?
And, if you talk gross amount dedicated to education and divide by number of pupils which skyrocketed ... what happened to per pupil ratio ... yeah they prolly don wanna talk bout dat neder. So education deteriorated just as my language did.
They love to constantly claim teachers are overpaid etc. etc. but they never tell you what the average teacher salaries are .... or what happened to the average teacher salary compared to the cost of living year to year. They don't want to talk about how many armed forces personnel and school teachers qualify for food stamps.
All they want to talk about is gross amount spent and they don't consider inflation.
But the Republicans are quite willing to heap tax breaks on contributions to charter schools ( most of which are religious in nature ) to make it so better off people get tax breaks for sending their kids to private schools.