Group items tagged

When it comes to outside groups dumping money into the race to succeed outgoing Rep. Ed Towns, Assemblyman Hakeem Jeffries says, "Thanks, but no thanks" -- even if their spending is meant to bolster his chances of victory. More specifically, the campaign says of spending by education advocacy group StudentsFirstNY, "We did not seek it, do not want it and will win without it."

"There continues to be much bluster out there in ed reformy land that money really isn't all that important - especially for traditional public school districts. That local public schools and districts already have way too much money but use it so inefficiently that any additional dollar would necessarily be wasted. An extension of this line of reasoning is that therefore differences in spending across districts are also inconsequential. It really doesn't matter - the reformy line of thinking goes - if the suburbs around Philly, Chicago or New York dramatically outspend them, as long as some a-contextual, poorly documented and often flat out wrong, blustery statement can be made about a seemingly large aggregate or per pupil spending figure that the average person on the street should simply find offensive. Much of this bluster about the irrelevance of funding is strangely juxtaposed with arguments that inequity of teacher quality and the adequacy of the quality of the teacher workforce are the major threats to our education system. But of course, these threats have little or nothing to do with money? Right? As I've explained previously - equitable distribution of quality teaching requires equitable (not necessarily equal) distribution of resources. Districts serving more needy student populations require smaller classes and more intensive supports if their students are expected to close the gap with their more advantaged peers - or strive for common outcome goals. Even recruiting similarly qualified teachers in higher need settings requires higher, not the same or lower compensation. Districts serving high need populations require a) more staff - more specialized, more diverse and even more of the same (core classroom teacher) staff, of b) at least equal qualifications. That means they need more money (than their more advantaged neighbors) to get the job done. If they so happen to have substantially less money, it's not a matter of simply tradin

"The nation's overall education spending grew at a slower pace in 2009 than at any other time in more than a decade, amid deepening state fiscal woes and flatter tax revenues, according to new census figures released Wednesday. "

Congressman Jared Polis, D-Colo., said Tuesday he will soon introduce a bill that would eventually require the federal government to pay for 40 percent of the cost of educating students with disabilities. The money would come from cuts to defense spending.

The U.S. Department of Education won't cut South Carolina's share of federal special education dollars by $36 million-at least not yet-prompting questions about whether such penalties for states that cut education spending without federal approval are meaningful.

A few weeks ago, I wrote about how the federal Department of Education has given school districts rather broad permission to cut special education spending and never restore it. The move alarmed some in the special education community. But one group of objectors broke the new guidance from the Education Department down into the simplest terms I've read on this somewhat complex topic.

A year ago yesterday, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg appeared on "The Oprah Winfrey Show" to announce he was making an unprecedented $100 million donation to help reform Newark's struggling school system. A year later, the spending of the "Facebook money" - as it's become known in Newark - has gotten mixed reviews. The process got off to a bad start when the first $1 million was spent on a public survey that critics called a waste of money. That was followed by months of political missteps and public-relations debacles related to politically linked firms hired to help spend the donation. But in recent months, the Newark-Facebook team seems to have gotten its act together, according to interviews with community leaders and education experts inside and outside of New Jersey. With a new Newark schools superintendent on board and a new head for the nonprofit group overseeing the project, the first Facebook dollars are showing up in Newark classrooms.

At a recent Shanker Institute conference, a guest presenter from the United Kingdom was discussing the historical relationship between public spending and democracy. I don't remember the exact context, but at some point, he noted, in a perfectly calm, matter-of-fact tone, that one U.S. political party spends a great deal of effort and resources trying to suppress electoral turnout.

"By ranking schools on a wide spectrum of factors, such as test scores and per-pupil spending, the new system will more clearly show where a school is excelling or falling behind, empowering parents with the information they need to ensure their children are not trapped in failing schools." But some say rankings can be misleading and it's difficult to factor in differences in student populations and spending levels when making comparisons.

There is widespread concern that administration consumes too much of the educational dollar in traditional public schools, diverting needed resources from classroom instruction and hampering efforts to improve student outcomes.  By contrast, charter schools are predicted to have leaner administration and allocate resources more intensively to instruction. This study analyzes resource allocation in charter and district schools in Michigan, where charter and tradition public schools receive approximately the same operational funding.  Holding constant other determinants of school resource allocation, we find that compared to traditional public schools, charter schools on average spend nearly $800 more per pupil per year on administration and $1100 less on instruction.

New York Board of Regents Chancellor Meryl Tisch recently announced that beginning next year, the state Education Department will institute a test-security unit that will look for cheating on standardized tests. The chancellor stated that, "This was not done in response to a widespread epidemic. This is about preventing rare and unfortunate cases and ensuring systemwide we have a testing system that works." In other words, the state Education Department will now spend at least $1 million a year to solve a problem that does not exist.

KIPP argues that we counted all of their centralized expenses against them, and counted NONE against the NYC public schools. This is not true. We actually didn't count KIPP regional and national expenses that exist beyond what the locals pay in management fees accounted for on their budgets. Second, as I will show below, even if we count all of the system-wide expenses (& other obligations) of NYC BOE schools, KIPP schools continue to substantially outspend them.

The state's top education official today defended the Christie administration's proposed changes to the school funding formula, including a plan to spend less money on poor students.

Poor school districts are being forced to cut electives, remedial tutoring, foreign languages and other programs and services to balance budgets. Many schools in less prosperous areas face what the state commissioner of education calls "educational insolvency." The obvious losers are students, who will be less prepared for graduation, college and their careers. But ultimately, all New Yorkers will suffer as the lack of skilled workers becomes a long-term drain on economic activity across the state.

Disability advocates are upset that some Wisconsin school districts want to be able to cut special education spending without being punished.

So, I've seen on more than a few occasions these last few weeks references to the recent Dobbie and Fryer article on NYC charter schools as the latest evidence that money doesn't matter in schools. That costly stuff like class size, or  overall measures of total per pupil expenditures are simply unimportant, and can easily be replaced/substituted with no-cost alternatives like those employed in no excuses charter schools (like high expectations, tutoring, additional time, and wrap-around services). I'll set aside the issue that many of these supposedly more effective alternatives do, in fact, have cost implications. Instead, I'll focus my critique on whether this Dobbie/Fryer study provides any substantive evidence that money doesn't matter - either broadly, or in the narrower context of looking specifically at NYC charter schools.

When Gov. Andrew Cuomo presented his budget to the state on Tuesday, he promised a windfall of school aid for poor districts. After years of cuts worth billions of dollars, education advocates hailed the $805 million school aid increase in the governor's spending plan as a restoration sorely needed in classrooms that have lost teachers and programs in recent years. But a closer look shows relief for high-needs districts is still far off, as much of that 4 percent increase will go to mandated expenses and a competition that will render some districts losers. Officials in some districts don't think the tiny increases they will see this year will even cover the jump in employee benefits.

On Wednesday, Gov. Andrew Cuomo appointed himself the students' lobbyist for New York state. A policy paper released Friday suggests that if Cuomo wants to improve students outcomes, he's going to have to increase funding to education. The Albert Shanker Institute released "Revisiting the Age-Old Question: Does Money Matter in Education?" In the paper, school finance expert and Rutgers University professor Bruce Baker assessed the body of empirical research on spending in education.

Contrary to the canned rhetoric flying around public discourse on education finance, high-quality research like that discussed in Baker's review does not lend itself to broad, sweeping conclusions. Some things work and others don't, and so the strength and consistency of the money/results relationship varies by how it's spent, the students on whom it spent, and other factors. Sometimes effects are small, and sometimes they're larger. Nevertheless, on the whole, Baker's review shows that there is a consistently positive effect of higher spending on achievement. Moreover, interventions that cost money, such as higher teacher salaries, have a proven track record of getting results, while state-level policies to increase the adequacy and equitability of school finance have also been shown to improve the level and distribution of student performance. Finally, and most relevant to the current budget context, the common argument that we can reduce education funding without any harm to (and, some argue, actual improvement of) achievement outcomes has no basis in empirical evidence.

"The New Jersey Supreme Court has rebuked Gov. Chris Christie and ordered the state to increase spending on poor schools by an estimated $500 million. "