I stumbled upon a study from January of this year that examined more than 9,000 school districts and their spending. The U.S. tops the list of countries based on the amount of money spent per student, yet our test scores do not indicate that our students are competitive. The study suggested (among other things) that HOW money is spent is more important than HOW MUCH money is spent. We saw in class that although the amount of money being spent per pupil is increasing every year, their scores are staying stable. So it is safe to say that “efficiency” in spending, as this study calls it, is the most important factor when discussing high returns on educational investments.
Well, thats easy to understand -- but the question is, what is the best way to spend “efficiently”? The Baltimore Sun recently reported that Baltimore County is spending more money on upper-level administration than most other counties in Maryland. Renee Foose, the new deputy superintendent, will take home $214,000 this year. The county’s teachers and mid-level administrative salaries are ranked far lower. Is this the best way to spend money on education? Baltimore County is a notoriously high-performing county in MD, and perhaps focusing rewarding those in upper-level positions pays off. I would be interested to sift through more data on this issue and see if there is some sort of connection, or if Baltimore County is, in fact, unwisely spending its money.
Sources http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/01/educational_productivity/report.html
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/education/blog/2011/03/baltimore_county_administratio.html
2 comments:
This is a very interesting topic, and I wonder what would be the best way to to spend money. In the article I posted about from the NYTimes Nicholas Kristof believes teacher salaries is where more money should be spent. I agree because there have been several studies to suggest that teachers have the greatest impact on student achievement; so why not pay them more and attract the best people to the profession.
Per pupil spending can vary by school. Older institutions have more repair needs. Schools with magnet programs will have different financial needs than those of 99% at risk populations. Salaries aside, it always shocks me when I hear about schools that have the latest in technology, such as smart boards, but no money to pay for training or IT help to manage them. The same schools give a case of paper to each teacher for the entire year or don’t have even enough textbooks for a class set. Misappropriation of funding is a huge problem with the budget, whether left to the individual principal or the district office.
The people who are now in the AU positions are said to be making over $80k a year. That money could have paid for a few more teachers in a few more buildings. That’s the key there. Supplies and resources are a definite need of the educator, but the need of the student is a quality educator in itself. It is hard to teach with almost nothing, creating a positive environment when the building is not maintained or safety is an issue, but dumping money into the system for fancy technology and other various things is not the answer. Each teacher has their own ideas about what is needed and how to spend it, why not give each teacher a budget and that is what they get each year? English teachers could order their books, science teachers their supplies, math teachers their calculators, and history teachers their maps.
Post a Comment