Cost Of Education

[bcuzbcuz]

Why is the cost of of education lower in Utah than in any other state? Do You really get more than pay for?

[Calm]

CFR please. Not sure what you are talking about.

My memory says that Utah is fifth in highest amount spent on education in total, but low per student due to the high number of kids in the state.

Edited December 15, 2012 by calmoriah

[bcuzbcuz]

CFR please. Not sure what you are talking about.

My memory says that Utah is fifth in highest amount spent on education in total, but low per student due to the high number of kids in the state.

http://www.nationalj...matter-20121016

On the other end of the spectrum, states that spent the least per student in 2009 were ranked fairly low on education. Nevada, ranked lowest at 50, spent just an average of $8,363 on each student and is second-to-last in spending. Utah, ranked 27th, claims the lowest spending at an average of $7,217 per student.

As far as total amount spent on education, Utah ranks somewhere around spot 30 out of 50.

This page adds perspective: http://rossieronline...ld-infographic/

The Math test results and Science test results are very interesting. Another page that highlights that spending is not the only factor of good education is: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/46643496.pdf

Finland scores consistently higher than almost any other country in the world, in reading skills, math skills and science skills.

My current country of residence where I work as a teacher scores miserably, ranking below the US. Sweden's current minister of education has pushed through reforms to make the Swedish school system more like the US, when we should be copying Finland instead. Canada, ranks around spot 5, also a country to emulate.

Edited December 15, 2012 by bcuzbcuz

[thesometimesaint]

Spending per pupil isn't the only factor but it is an important one. It is really just a baseline for the importance of education to a population.

[Calm]

My memory....which is at a low point right now...says that the most important factor to influence the success of educating a child is a parent's involvement. Maybe tss who I believe has discussed this with me before remembers a study demonstrating this.

[Erin15]

In my experience the amount of money spent per pupil is almost irrelivant. The most important factors by far are whether or not the child has a stable family and home life, and the level of participation the parents take in the child's education (doing their homework with them, reading to them, studying for tests with them, etc.)

If a child comes from a broken home and the parents do nothing, that child is almost certain to fail irregardless of how much money you thow at him/her.

[bcuzbcuz]

In my experience the amount of money spent per pupil is almost irrelivant. The most important factors by far are whether or not the child has a stable family and home life, and the level of participation the parents take in the child's education (doing their homework with them, reading to them, studying for tests with them, etc.)

If a child comes from a broken home and the parents do nothing, that child is almost certain to fail irregardless of how much money you thow at him/her.

"Broken home" is a non sequitur. People apply that reasoning to statistics within their realm, such as within US boundaries, but has shown no relevance to studies in other countries, Sweden or Finland, for example. Divorce rates, alcohol abuse, single parenting, for example, are very similar between these two Scandinavian countries but the overall outcome of their education systems are widely divergent.

[Erin15]

"Broken home" is a non sequitur.

In my experience as an educator it is the single greatest factor.

[Stargazer]

My current country of residence where I work as a teacher scores miserably, ranking below the US. Sweden's current minister of education has pushed through reforms to make the Swedish school system more like the US, when we should be copying Finland instead. Canada, ranks around spot 5, also a country to emulate.

I quite agree with you that Sweden should not be copying the US system. It is said in some quarters in the US that if a foreign government had imposed the system we have now, it should have been considered an act of war. I had so many negative experiences with respect to my children's "education". A high school math teacher who couldn't teach math; a grade school teacher who couldn't maintain classroom discipline; an art teachers who singled out and treated one of my very artistic and quite intelligent sons as if he were mentally retarded -- for no discernable reason. There were good teachers, of course, but the system (mainly because of the teachers union) did not make it worthwhile for any teacher to excel. And I know that there will be those here who will get all upset about this assessment, but there it is.

On the other hand, I have heard it said that the US university system is the envy of the world. Which is why we have so many foreign students.

[Stargazer]

In my experience the amount of money spent per pupil is almost irrelivant. The most important factors by far are whether or not the child has a stable family and home life, and the level of participation the parents take in the child's education (doing their homework with them, reading to them, studying for tests with them, etc.)

If a child comes from a broken home and the parents do nothing, that child is almost certain to fail irregardless of how much money you thow at him/her.

I hate to be snarky (or maybe I don't, really) but were you unaware that "irregardless" is not a word? That some people use it in place of "regardless" (as you have just done), when the prefix "ir-" is used to signify negation, rendering your sentence above nonsensical? I hope that you are not an English teacher.

Although I think I agree with the premise of your post, nevertheless.

[Erin15]

"irregardless" is not a word

It is now.

[Calm]

Canada, ranks around spot 5, also a country to emulate.

The school system in Canada wasn't that bad, but I didn't find it all that much different than what we had in the States...at least Kansas where we were prior to moving for three years (I volunteered extensively in both so got a good feel for both, I believe). What was different was the culture and the expectation level, especially among the immigrant population which really pushed their children to adapt and excel. Children were forbidden in fact from using their native tongue at school so strong was the commitment to adapt to their new homeland. Also I felt that Canada was about ten, maybe fifteen, even twenty years behind the US in the changing child culture in the sense of how children were behaving in regards to moral issues such as having sex (last year we were in the States one of the fifth graders I had tutored got pregnant the following summer), stealing, abuse of others, drug use, presence of guns, modesty issues etc. In the thirteen years we were up there, we unfortunately saw the trend of becoming more and more like the States as far as culture went. Disregard of teachers and education went up according as well, however the strong immigrant influence including providing a very competitive atmosphere among students no matter how hard the teachers tried to make that disappear slowed down the trend to a great extent.

It is also possible that the differences are much more pronounced at the higher grades as I did not tutor junior high or high school during the time period right before we moved up, just elementary and university.

Edited December 15, 2012 by calmoriah

[Stargazer]

Spending per pupil isn't the only factor but it is an important one. It is really just a baseline for the importance of education to a population.

Spending per pupil must of course be a factor, but sometimes it doesn't seem to count for much. I have heard that one of the highest spending per pupil rates is found in Washington, DC, but that place is among the lowest when it comes to scholastic outcomes.

Spending is not necessarily predictive of success, in other words. It has been shown that class size is also one of those things that don't necessarily translate to scholastic success.

I believe that teacher quality and motivation, combined with parental interest, are probably the most important factors in a success program of education. And are far more important than how much money is spent per pupil.

My daughters math teacher in 10th grade took an entire classroom week to attempt to teach a particular arithmetic operation (don't remember which after all these years), and she finally came to me in desparation for help (normally, she avoided this like the plague). It took me five minutes to successfully explain the operation to her, whereupon she asked incredulously "Is that ALL?!?" "Yep," I replied. She was shocked. So was I, actually. In other words, her math teacher couldn't teach math. This mathematical operation in question was not at all esoteric.

There are too many so-called teachers in this country who don't really know the subjects they are supposed to be teaching -- and perhaps there are some who do know the subjects but are just lousy teachers.

And of course there are sometimes new and bizarre curricula that come out -- when some "educator" imagines some new thing to be taught, or some old or esoteric thing to be taught in a new way. I recall the so-called "New Math" that came out in the 60's. My 8th grade math teacher, Mrs. Armstrong, was quite enthusiastic about math in general, and really took to teaching us these "new" things. She was actually good at it, but some of the information she passed on was utterly useless. I remember being taught how to do arithmetic in several different bases, such as binary arithmetic, base-4, base-5, and so on. The "explanation" for the usefulness of this multi-base arithmetic was that it was used in computers. Such as: base-2 arithmetic was used in computers that had two "electronic cables". Base-3 for computers with "three electronic cables". And so on.

Except that whoever dreamt up this explanation didn't have a clue what they were talking about. Mrs. Armstrong dutifully parroted this information from the textbook, all the while being unaware that there was no such thing as "electronic cables" in the context the book was speaking about. What's an "electronic cable"? Sounds technical, doesn't it? Hah. No such term has ever been in use in computer science. A complete invention of a textbook writer. Anyway, it's just a wire. Nothing more complicated than that. And there is no computer anywhere that does arithmetic using any other base than base-2 (binary). In short, this expensive math textbook was misleading and lying to students and teachers alike. And then there is the complete waste of time and effort teaching 8th graders to do arithmetic in any other base than 10 or 2. And don't try to tell me that computer science works in octal or hexadecimal because even there nobody actually tries to do arithmetic in those bases -- all math in computers is binary, and only chip designers care about it.

[Stargazer]

It is now.

Who says? You?

[Calm]

Spending per pupil isn't the only factor but it is an important one. It is really just a baseline for the importance of education to a population.

I think the time invested in volunteer work in regards to education is a much better baseline for the importance of education. Not everyone has money to give to the programs, but in general most everyone could find time to help out in some way (if not during the day in school, through afterschool programs, fundraising, etc.)

[Calm]

In other words, her math teacher couldn't teach math.

Back in 73, I had a geometry teacher fresh out of unversity. Not only did the students surrounding me turn to me for help with their homework because they didn't understand some stuff and some moved their desks to be able to do so, but I 'translated' some of the textbook for the teacher as well from time to time. I was shocked that here a guy who had just been trained to teach this stuff was clueless about it. Really nice guy, but what faith I ever had in the school system I was in then was forever gone. That was a wasted year for me in math, except for being able to help others. Grade 8 had been a repeat of math for me as we moved to CA from IL and IL was at least one year ahead.

PS: learning how to do math in different bases was the highlight of that year for me. I adore playing with number bases.

Edited December 16, 2012 by calmoriah

[Erin15]

Who says? You?

Yep, I made it a word, so it is a word now. I'll give all of you a few days to update your dictionaries.

[bcuzbcuz]

In my experience as an educator it is the single greatest factor.

It doesn't surprise me at all that what you observe coincides to preconceptions of what should be observed. If à "broken home" was the 'single greatest factor' there should be statistical evidence to back it up, and not merely in statistics from the US, but the world in general.

[thesometimesaint]

My memory....which is at a low point right now...says that the most important factor to influence the success of educating a child is a parent's involvement. Maybe tss who I believe has discussed this with me before remembers a study demonstrating this.

There are numerous studies, and anecdotal stories that confirm it.

[Stargazer]

Yep, I made it a word, so it is a word now. I'll give all of you a few days to update your dictionaries.

I love you! Whoever you are.

[Stargazer]

PS: learning how to do math in different bases was the highlight of that year for me. I adore playing with number bases.

Don't get me wrong, I actually enjoyed that little base-x exercise, but it was among the most useless topics ever brought up in the context of a school curriculum.

[Tacenda]

In the schools I work in, as a sub teacher, they have "Title 1" programs that help tremendously with children that have parents that are both at work. After school, they're able to stay at the school for an after school program. What a relief for parents who aren't home at this time. I'm sure this is probably a national program.

But on the OP topic, I think in Utah and I'm sure other states, most teachers go above and beyond in their job to provide for the children and not let them fall through the cracks. I've noticed the class sizes in Utah, aren't as bad as they've been in the past. I think the governer of Utah has made Education number one on his priority list. Parent involvement from those that can, is extremely high where I've taught too. So even if Utah spends a lower amount on Education, because of the high pupil population, the teachers and parents usually fill in the gaps.

Edited December 16, 2012 by Tacenda

[webbles]

Except that whoever dreamt up this explanation didn't have a clue what they were talking about. Mrs. Armstrong dutifully parroted this information from the textbook, all the while being unaware that there was no such thing as "electronic cables" in the context the book was speaking about. What's an "electronic cable"? Sounds technical, doesn't it? Hah. No such term has ever been in use in computer science. A complete invention of a textbook writer. Anyway, it's just a wire. Nothing more complicated than that. And there is no computer anywhere that does arithmetic using any other base than base-2 (binary). In short, this expensive math textbook was misleading and lying to students and teachers alike. And then there is the complete waste of time and effort teaching 8th graders to do arithmetic in any other base than 10 or 2. And don't try to tell me that computer science works in octal or hexadecimal because even there nobody actually tries to do arithmetic in those bases -- all math in computers is binary, and only chip designers care about it.

As a computer programmer, I use base 16 a lot (at least every week). If you are writing c/c++ code and have to debug pointer manipulation, you better be pretty good with base 16 math. If you are dealing with binary flags (which I think is pretty common), you better be good at base 16 math. The only difference between base 2 and base 16 is that base 16 takes a lot less characters and printf() has a hex formatter (%X). Only time I use octal is when I have to do linux file permissons (0644, 0755, 0777 anyone ). I also play a little in base 64. I'm actually teaching my kids, nieces and nephews how to count in base 6 since that is extremely natural with your hands (you can count to 35 with your hands in base 6).

[thesometimesaint]

stargazer:

Spending per pupil must of course be a factor, but sometimes it doesn't seem to count for much. I have heard that one of the highest spending per pupil rates is found in Washington, DC, but that place is among the lowest when it comes to scholastic outcomes.

Spending is not necessarily predictive of success, in other words. It has been shown that class size is also one of those things that don't necessarily translate to scholastic success.

I believe that teacher quality and motivation, combined with parental interest, are probably the most important factors in a success program of education. And are far more important than how much money is spent per pupil.

My daughters math teacher in 10th grade took an entire classroom week to attempt to teach a particular arithmetic operation (don't remember which after all these years), and she finally came to me in desparation for help (normally, she avoided this like the plague). It took me five minutes to successfully explain the operation to her, whereupon she asked incredulously "Is that ALL?!?" "Yep," I replied. She was shocked. So was I, actually. In other words, her math teacher couldn't teach math. This mathematical operation in question was not at all esoteric.

There are too many so-called teachers in this country who don't really know the subjects they are supposed to be teaching -- and perhaps there are some who do know the subjects but are just lousy teachers.

And of course there are sometimes new and bizarre curricula that come out -- when some "educator" imagines some new thing to be taught, or some old or esoteric thing to be taught in a new way. I recall the so-called "New Math" that came out in the 60's. My 8th grade math teacher, Mrs. Armstrong, was quite enthusiastic about math in general, and really took to teaching us these "new" things. She was actually good at it, but some of the information she passed on was utterly useless. I remember being taught how to do arithmetic in several different bases, such as binary arithmetic, base-4, base-5, and so on. The "explanation" for the usefulness of this multi-base arithmetic was that it was used in computers. Such as: base-2 arithmetic was used in computers that had two "electronic cables". Base-3 for computers with "three electronic cables". And so on.

Except that whoever dreamt up this explanation didn't have a clue what they were talking about. Mrs. Armstrong dutifully parroted this information from the textbook, all the while being unaware that there was no such thing as "electronic cables" in the context the book was speaking about. What's an "electronic cable"? Sounds technical, doesn't it? Hah. No such term has ever been in use in computer science. A complete invention of a textbook writer. Anyway, it's just a wire. Nothing more complicated than that. And there is no computer anywhere that does arithmetic using any other base than base-2 (binary). In short, this expensive math textbook was misleading and lying to students and teachers alike. And then there is the complete waste of time and effort teaching 8th graders to do arithmetic in any other base than 10 or 2. And don't try to tell me that computer science works in octal or hexadecimal because even there nobody actually tries to do arithmetic in those bases -- all math in computers is binary, and only chip designers care about it.

http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0811/most-and-least-educated-states.aspx#axzz2FEbJkl3v

Spending is generally predictive to the extent that the less money that is spent the worse the outcomes become. The ideal class size is dependent on grade level. However in general in elementary schools it's 10-15 pupils in a classroom, I don't have the stats for Jr. HS, and HS off hand but IIRC it is about he same. Given the anti-tax crusades of the last thirty to forty years I don't believe we can expect much better until we're as a country put our money where our mouths are.

Here in California we have some of the highest qualification requirements for teachers of any state(5 years of college, and two years of in-class teaching experience before being credentialed). It's kinda hard to stay motivated when you can make twice to three times as much starting pay in the private sector. When you're constantly told by parents and legislatures how terrible you are. When the ceilings and walls are literally falling down at their school buildings. When basic supplies have to come out of their own pockets. When parents send their kids to school hungry, sick, poorly dressed, tired, and unprepared for that days school work. Parents rarely show-up to parent-teacher conferences. Then expect the teachers to work miracles, and if it doesn't happen all holy hell breaks out.

I'm glad your child finally "got it". Most often it just takes a different way of looking at a problem to see the solution. Unfortunately, like most of us, teachers learn only a few ways to teach. They, like us, become stumped when the old way of looking at a problem just doesn't work. The Pythagorean Theorem gave me fits until I was looking at it in a totally unrelated way, and it finally just "clicked" and after that math up through calculus was easy. wasn't the teachers' fault. I just couldn't make sense of it until then. In my work a day life I seldom needed to do more than simple addition and subtraction. All that extra math wasn't a waste, but I sure didn't use it.

If there is just one that doesn't know the subject then that is too many. Of course there are poor teachers, just as there are poor workers in any field. However those tend not to last. I tried door to door sales. I found out I couldn't sell my way out of a paper bag. So I went in a different direction. Thank Goodness.

I was in the fifth grade when so called "New Math" came out. I was already doing long division, so was completely lost for a while. Maybe if I had a better handle on the "Old Math" it would have been easier. I am glad they dropped that fad after a few years. Now days I just use a calculator and don't worry about it, but I do know enough to know I pushed some wrong button if the answer looks weird.

[Stargazer]

As a computer programmer, I use base 16 a lot (at least every week). If you are writing c/c++ code and have to debug pointer manipulation, you better be pretty good with base 16 math. If you are dealing with binary flags (which I think is pretty common), you better be good at base 16 math. The only difference between base 2 and base 16 is that base 16 takes a lot less characters and printf() has a hex formatter (%X). Only time I use octal is when I have to do linux file permissons (0644, 0755, 0777 anyone ). I also play a little in base 64. I'm actually teaching my kids, nieces and nephews how to count in base 6 since that is extremely natural with your hands (you can count to 35 with your hands in base 6).

Well, good for you! I realize that C++ and suchlike programmers ocassionally have to get into the guts of base-2 math (base-8 and -16 are merely better forms of notation in place of trying to deal with things like 10010001110100 + 10011001010100). I work in C# pretty much exclusively, and don't have to worry about hexadecimal, unless you count RGB color coding in web design.

Although, and paradoxically, I had to worry more about hex arithmetic and binary when I was a COBOL programmer. And IBM mainframe Assembly, of course.

But in my opinion, I still maintain that teaching base-8 arithmetic to 8th graders is not particularly useful.

Edited December 16, 2012 by Stargazer