I was a bit shocked when I first heard (from this Cato post) about how much DC students cost taxpayers on a per pupil basis. According to Table 11 of the Public Education Finances: 2010 Report from the Census Bureau, in 2009-10, DC students cost taxpayers a whopping $27,263 per pupil! This from an education system which is ranked near or at the bottom in terms of test scores. Just to put things into perspective, the next highest spending level is in NY state at just over $20,000, a whopping 25% lower. My town, which ranks near the top of all schools in New Jersey spends only $14,100 per pupil, almost half the level for DC students. You really have to go to the level of uber-elite private schools to surpass what is spent on DC students. Tuition at Philips Academy is $32,850, while higher, is closer to what DC spends than DC spending is to all other states in the country. Are DC students getting a Philips Academy education? Obviously not. They're practically not even getting a Libya-quality education. Okay, maybe its unfair to compare the two systems as private school faculty tend to be non-union and the school doesn't have to operate under state or union rules. If Philips were public, spending per pupil would probably be twice as much as it is as a private institution. Then how do you explain my town's public school system, with unions and all, achieving so much more with just half the money? The amount of waste and corruption at the DC school system must be absolutely mindboggling.
Two minutes googling reveals that Phillips Academy Andover has an endowment of $850,000,000. The annual income from that would be well in excess of what is raised annually from fees. In other words Andover already does spend double what you report.
ReplyDeleteTwo minutes thinking will remind you that when a school like Andover needs a new lab or gym, they don't pay for it out of the budget, but through direct alumni contributions outside the endowment.
Public schools spend significant portions of the budget on remedial programs and special needs programs for students with learning disabilities. Specialists in these areas are very well paid compared to ordinary teachers- whether at public schools or the Andovers of the world. Students at public high schools are frequently under-prepared, lack family support. and are often mal-nourished. Many of them are very undisciplined, rendering it difficult for the best of teachers to teach the other, more motivated students. At an Andover type school class-room disruptors will quickly be on the bus home.
I can't argue that every dime spent by the public schools is as cost-effective as it might be, but the comparison you make here, between fees at Andover and cost per pupil in D.C., not only fails to take their different issues into account, but is profoundly misleading regarding the amount such private schools actually spend.
I also make a comparison in my town where we spend about half per pupil in the public school system and yet students seem to get a much better education. Same rules, less funding, better results.
DeleteThere are many different reasons for cost divergences in different cities and towns- I'm sure you know that. As far as results go it's well known that the most important factor in student success is parental involvement. D.C. is famously poor and with enormous numbers of broken and disfunctional families. Again, I don't know that those schools are doing as well as they ought for the money they spend, and I will agree with you that some school districts , perhaps yours, seem to get a better bang for the buck.
DeleteWill you at least agree that the comparison to Andover on the basis of spending versus fees is misleading, and (I hate to be harsh) absurd?
If the students got a voucher for 28k they could clearly afford a superior education at some elite private schools
DeleteIt would take perhaps twenty years to establish enough private schools in D.C. to create spaces for the current demand. Schools of that sort, of course, will not accept "difficult" students- unprepared, disruptive, disengaged, learning disabled. Perhaps a sort of private boot-camp could be established for children who failed to fit the new main-stream model. Our experience of private care for the elderly shows how easy it is to hire caring and reliable people to run such places. It would be fascinating to see how well they could do with no positive role models in the environment- a whole new form of social engineering. Perhaps it will work out like one of those Hollywood movies where tough seargents turn a bunch of misfits into a crack team.
ReplyDeleteThat's a mite sarcastic- once you eliminate the problem of "difficult kids" (by no means a negligible problem, that might actually comprise 40% of the students in an urban system these days) I will certainly admit that many private schools do much better for the same money.
In the mean time will you admit that the comparison to Andover, a school that has a net worth of perhaps 1.5 billion dollars between endownment and physical plant, which they use to cater to only 1,100 hand-picked super-elite students was just a tiny bit silly?
The only thing I was comparing was the enormous amount spent per pupil to Andover, so I dont think that was silly.
DeleteIf the DC government does start offering $28k vouchers I have no doubt that the 60% who aren't difficult would very quickly find good schools to go to as there would be a financial incentive for new schools to pop up. If 60% now get very good educations, isnt that preferable to the 0% we are seeing today? And that improvement would be done without spending more money? Id even venture that you could probably give them 20k vouchers and they would still be able to get a much better education
O% is a pretty strong (and unlikely) number to assume. To assume that schools would "quickly" (how quickly do you think?) would spring up and take us from 0 to 60 is an absurdly idealist assumption. Where will they get the land, the teachers, the administrators? From all the now-out-of-work teachers? Where will their profits come from? You'ld need a pretty good profit margin to undertake such an enterprise. Are you thinking that a clever capitalist can take the same amount of money and run a far better school than some dumb government guy, using the same teachers and facilities and still squeeze 5 percent annually out of it? A big assumption also. Go down to $20,000 per kid and make substantial profits? Remember the elite private schools you think these kids could go to with vouchers have 15-20 kids in a class- the public schools have 35 or even 40. You seem to argue that the problem is unions. Does it therefore follow that you think un-unionized teachers, better qualified than the public school teachers will emerge and then accept less than half the salaries of the public school teachers? (Incidentally, remember that almost all the "elite" private schools are NON-profit, AND you're still refusing to take into account that most top private schools have fancy campuses long-ago paid for.)
ReplyDeleteNow my 40% is also a silly number- I don't know how many kids are underprepared, under-motivated, insufficiently socialized to fit into these miraculous schools you've called up with your vouchers. But what happens to them? Do they go to the remaining government schools? Who will teach in these schools? Who will keep order? How will they get any education at all when every kid in the class can't stand to be there? Any teacher will tell you they need a few class-room leaders to create an educational environment. So now we have an increasing number of entirely unsocialized uneducated teen-agers heading out into a world where there are no jobs even for the educated ones. Those noble folks at the primary debate last year chanted, "Let 'em die," about sick folks without health insurance, but most of these kids aren't going to die- they're going to look for a way to make a living in a society they owe nothing. What will happen then?
Don't get me wrong- I share both your rage and outrage that public schools are so unsuccessful. I am damn sure, however, that it's not as easy as just giving students vouchers to go to for-profit private schools. If you're in any doubt, look at the disaster created by for-profit Universities. Students at those schools get government loans, not vouchers. Then they drop out, the schools keep the money, and the students are theoretically liable for the loans, although in reality they can't pay. This happens at the for profit schools at a rate order of magnitudes greater than it happens at either public universities or private not for profit schools. This loses billions every year. You may argue that the government should top lending the money, but then these for-profit places would quickly go bust, or shrink dramatically in size. The same incentives that cause these for-profit universities to behave as they do would also prevail at these soon-to-emerge for-profit private high schools hungry for your voucher money.
I think it's terrific that you're excited about these issues and want to think about ways to improve the situation. Why don't you take a little time and look at some of the real difficulties facing public schools. I was informally researching some of those things when I stumbled on your blog. At the moment I think you're making assumptions that even I, with only marginal knowledge of the facts, can see are untenable. Good luck
First, I never said it was overnight and also I dont think the purpose of this post was to come up with an all encompassing plan to replace the system tomorrow with. The purpose was to point out how ludicrous the system is. Oh and by the way, the student teacher ratio in DC public schools is 13.8 according to the Department of Education (http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/snf_report03/table_02.asp) so besides having elite school tuition they have elite school class sizes and are still completely failing.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is not just unions, though they are the heart of it, its also bureaucracy and the rules of seniority. A private school system based on vouchers would probably not have the same teachers teaching the same kids. The teachers would be younger, more up-to-date and more excited about teaching. In just about any school system that has layoffs its always the young who get fired while the old and tired stay on. I know thats a simple stereotype but I base it on my own experience in school. There were clearly teachers who cared and many who didn't. There seemed to be a correlation with age, though it wasnt perfect.
Anyway thanks for reading the blog and for providing your input, its much appreciated.
The 13.8 ratio refers to the total teachers over total students. Teachers can't teach every class, they have to prepare, grade and participate in administration. Walk into any public school in any large city and you'll find plenty of classes of 35 and up.
DeleteThere are abominations in the public school systems. Have you read about NYC where they keep a room full of teachers who have been drunk or sexually active, but whom they are unwilling or unable financially to face in court? They just pay them a salary to sit around.
Sure young teachers are enthusiastic, and often idealistic. They're paid tiny salaries and are happy to have their first job. They seldomn have kids at home so they have tons of time to grade and think up imaginative classes. Is that a sustainable business model? Hire young people for subsistence wages and have a constant turnover? There are problems with teachers and unions but there are other problems, often stemming from the nature of U.S. society, which produces large numbers of disengaged, disaffected, cynical students, who don't believe that hard work in school can help them. I read a commentator recently who pointed out that the skills required to remain safe in many city neighborhoods are not only different from, but incompatible with academic or main-stream social skills. Something to think about.
Cheers