Via: MAT@USC | Master’s of Arts in Teaching
Of the 12 nations listed, the United States spends the most on education. In total, the U.S. spends $809 billion on education with Japan a distant 2nd with $160 billion. Per child, the United States spends $7,743 per child per year. In second is the U.K. with $5,834. Sadly, America ranks 3rd in literacy above age 15 after Finland ($5653/child/year) and ... get this ... Russia, which spends a paltry $1,850 per year per child. The U.S. is fifth in school life expectancy at 16 years. Australia (third in spending per child) leads with 21 years of school. We are 10th in math and 9th in science.
I'm not getting it. If we're spending so very much on education, why aren't we the top? Why aren't we the best educated people on the planet? Why do we keep trying to throw more money at it as if that will fix it? If throwing more money at it has not improved education, why do we continue to think that's the answer? Or is that a learning problem, too?
13 comments:
In doing a little research, I see that, in the US, Maryland (and then Florida, Delaware and Massachusetts) were improving at a rate comparable to these other nations who are doing better. I think a good question to ask would be, "What is Maryland doing differently than other states?"
I don't know that answer, but that might be a helpful starting point towards finding some answers.
Of course, blindly throwing money at problems is never going to be an answer, but investing money WISELY in problems is probably never unwise.
Isn't it odd that, according to testing, the best educated kids in the country are homeschooled. That is, they're taught by untrained, unpaid volunteers with nothing approaching $7,700 each per year and still get taught well. It is my suspicion that the answer isn't in more money, but elsewhere.
Is it odd that the "best educated" kids are home-schooled? No, it's not at all. The number one predictor of academic success is parental involvement. Obviously, homeschool parents are involved.
Is homeschooling "cheap?" I don't think so, not if you value the parent's time who do this. Their "job" becomes largely homeschooling. If you value that parents' time at even just minimum wage, to homeschool one child would be valued at something over $10,000 per child. And that's just for their time, not counting any supplies they may use.
Of course, in larger families with more children, the per child cost would go down somewhat.
Also, with homeschooling, you have that EXTREMELY small class size which can greatly increase the educational experience. If we increase our spending and decrease the class size to a home-school-sized class of 1-6 kids per teacher, do you think we'd see improvements in academic performance? Almost certainly.
Homeschooling is not "cheap", but it is absolutely less expensive than the amount spent on children in public (or private) schools. Since most parents homeschooling kids have more than one, it is very economical. And for the reasons you listed and more, it seems like a good thing.
You also have to factor in paying for the "school building," for meals, for transportation, for educational materials, books, supplies, for computers, for testing costs, PE equipment... I wonder what the average homeschool cost is, actually.
There is also a cost associated with public schools that homeschools don't account for: Public schools offer a way/place for those whose homes couldn't support the educational process to be included in with that price tag, whereas homeschooling costs do not factor in those societal costs. But someone's got to pay for it.
This pro-homeschool site, puts the parental time cost at $40,000 - what an average teacher makes - and divides it by 3 (assuming 3 kids - which seems like a high average to me) to get a salary cost of ~$13,000 per kid. They add in $500 for educational material (sounds low to me, but okay) and they don't account for building costs.
It would be an interesting question to hash out some specifics on. The main problem with homeschooling, to me, is that it is not a universal solution, it leaves too many of our most at-risk kids behind.
I still would like to learn more about what Maryland's doing right to help their numbers...
In the USA our money is spent less on actual education and more on indoctrination in abortion, sexual immorality, the homosexual agenda, self-esteem, revisionist history, and every other politically-correct ideology of the left.
That's why we are so behind in actual education.
While class size might indeed be shown to affect achievement, I wonder why it should. That is, it makes for a cheap excuse. As regards the public school system, tax monies are spent to easily and the nation's economy requires cut-backs, not additions. Thus, promises to add teachers and reduce class size might not be the most feasible focus at the present time. Plus, what if it just plain isn't possible to reduce class sizes? What then? Are we to just throw up our hands and tolerate poor performance?
My three daughters were highly motivated to achieve. We didn't push them, they were motivate on their own. The results have been a great source of pride for the missus and me. Our own grades weren't great at that age, and desire is the most obvious difference. Some parents can instill it. Some kids are inspired for one reason or another. But if it isn't there, ten teachers for every student won't make a difference.
Actually, Dan, factoring in the "school building" or meals doesn't make sense. First, homeschooled children need to have a home whether or not they are homeschooled, so the "building" isn't additional cost. Same with meals. Indeed, in some (many?) schools today parents are obligated to pay for school meals when cheaper, home-made food could suffice. But, seriously, you're not actually arguing that homeschooling parents spend nearly $8,000 a year on each of their kids, right?
Note, also, that homeschoolers that own homes also are paying for public education in their property taxes.
It's all well and good to factor in "salary cost" to, say, a mom who stays home and schools the kids, but that's not a real number. There is no actual outlay. There is a potential loss of income if she had been working, but then there's the additional cost of child care not needed.
Sorry, I don't think that there is any way the argument can be made that a homeschooled family spends as much per year on each of their children's education that the public spends. And the question is further than that. Would a homeschooled family be better educated if they spent more? (That was the original question, you see.)
I'm not a homeschool fanatic. I'm not advocating it for everyone. I'm simply holding it up as an example of how, while spending less than the national average on per-child education, quality education can be achieved. It's not the money..
Glenn, without even arguing whether or not your claim is true, clearly the money spent on educating children doesn't go mostly to educating children. It includes administrators, boards, staff, etc. long before it gets down to buildings, electricity, computers, and all that may or may not be of value to a child's education.
Marshall Art, class size becomes a factor as parents abandon their responsibilities to properly raise their children and then limit the capability of teachers and administrators to do any more. Now you have 2nd graders threatening the lives of teachers and 4th graders discussing raping their girlfriends (Seriously? I didn't even like girls in 4th grade!) and all sorts of disciplinary problems standing between a teacher and his or her students. The more students (class size), the more problems occur.
For reasons such as this (and more that are similar), I can't bring myself to conclude that throwing more money at it will be of any value.
I homeschooled two kids. Our annual outlay was about $150 for text books - total for the both of them. Since my wife was a stay-at-home wife before being a stay-at-home mom, our lifestyle in that regard did not change - no loss of pay. The textbook costs were the only costs above and beyond our normal expenses, so could say our kids' education was almost free!
We had a lot of free time which public schoolers never had. Our kids could finish their academics by lunch time, unless they dallied on something. My daughter went on to college to become a school teacher, majoring in music and elementary education. She kept a 4.0 average and made the dean's list, so apparently we didn't do too badly educating her at home. Our son eschewed college because he loved woodworking, and apprentice with a craftsman instead; he is an excellent craftsman himself now.
There we have a real accounting from an actual homeschooler. Thanks, Glenn.
Here's the real rub. Homeschoolers get no tax breaks for homeschooling. If Dan is right, and 1 on 1 really is the best way, then why not use tax incentives to have more of it? Of course that question assumes that the education system is about education... and of course we all know it is not. It's about consolidating power; and to that end the system is very efficient.
Post a Comment