Apples to Apples : Utah's schools stink...

[statman]

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=12632453

They say they want to look into how the money is spent differently in other states that are demographically close to Utah, and why those states perform better? It's not tough to figure out. Those other states don't put 30+ third graders in a classroom - packing them in like sardines - and expect them to learn much. Most states limit elementary school class sizes to ~20. In IL - which aside from Chicago and East St. Louis has very good schools - the legal limit for class sizes K-5 is 21.

The problem in Utah really is that more money needs to be spent on education. Utah needs about 50% more schools/teachers/classrooms to get it's public school system on par with the rest of the country - especially for elementary schools.

Utah education system is not very good. If you want it to improve, you're going to have to pay more in property tax and you're going to have to use that money only to build infrastructure - schools and classrooms. If you can't get classroom sizes down to a level where teachers can teach and kids can learn, Utah will always lag behind where it should be...

[YOhio]

Utah scored worse than Wyoming?

[RobinFinderson]

Too many conservatives will point to some study that was done some time that shows that increased spending on education doesn't improved education outcomes. But you are obviously right, statman. There is some optimal number of students to have in a classroom, and learning outcomes are going to drop steeply as class sizes exceed that number. Fixing teacher to student ratios is all about money.

There is also the problem that the teaching profession does not attract very smart people, because the pay isn't very good. There are many exceptions to this, but it holds true as a general rule.

[TripletDaddy]

This is no surprise, of course. The spending per student is pathetic and the classrooms are overflowing. Even at the nice schools (Alpine school district, for example) the kids might be lucky to have a couple of computers in their individual classes (they have to split time at a computer lab with the rest of the school).

Did anyone find the full report on the website? I clicked on the link but couldn't find that particular one.

[Moliere]

My property taxes are through the roof, but I'm happy to pay them mostly because my kids school is great. It's technologically up to date. There are at least four computers in each classroom dedicated to the kids (each teacher has their own laptop for themselves). There's a Star Board in every classroom. The teachers have exceeded both my and Mrs. Jones (who was a licensed teacher but is not currently teaching) expectations. The kids are challegned. There are no more than 20 kids per class (all my kids are in elementary school).

My only complaint is that the kids only get one 15 minute recess per day and sometimes they don't even get out for recess.

As a fiscally conservative person, property taxes are fine as long as I'm getting a return on them adn I feel like I am. Maybe Utah should raise property taxes and at the exact same time hire more teachers to show that the extra money is actually going to help the kids instead of going to administration.

[Jacob]

More money and more buildings. I just can't buy it. I'll agree with the class size argument and if the only way to reduce the class size is more money, then that needs to be addressed. But they just built what I'm guessing is a world-class jr. high school next to my neighborhood. I can't imagine what that building cost. And I can't imagine why you would spend so much on a jr. high building.

My understanding is that the average private school tuition is less than the average amount spent per pupil in Utah.

$5,500 isn't a pittance for teaching kids how to read, write, and do arithmetic. It's more than 10% of the median family's gross income for the year.

[ERCougar]

Our elementary school in Michigan was by far the best we've experienced. And teacher quality is enormously different, as a public teaching job in Michigan is really competitive because of the salary.

However, I will be a stupid conservative and say that I don't think ending outcomes were any different from Utah. At least measurable ones.

[statman]

As a fiscally conservative person, property taxes are fine as long as I'm getting a return on them adn I feel like I am. Maybe Utah should raise property taxes and at the exact same time hire more teachers to show that the extra money is actually going to help the kids instead of going to administration.

I would generally agree that "throwing money at a problem" isn't usually going to help fix it. But education in Utah is definitely an exception. Classes are too big - big enough that kids really can't learn much. The only way to fix that is with more schools & teachers.

Actually, I take that back...

There's one way - an incremental step that might solve much of the problem without having to build a ton of new schools. Mandatory year-round schools - at least for elementary school students. for that, you'd still need a bunch of new teachers, but you wouldn't have to build new schools.

If you've never been exposed to it, it works like this: the school is divided into three groups - A, B, C. At any given time, two of the three groups are attending school, and one group is on vacation. Usually the rotation changes either every three weeks, so kids have 6 weeks on, 3 weeks off. There are some weeks where things have to be juggled a bit because alll the kids need 36 full weeks / 180 days of school per year, and there are the Christmas Holidays when everyone needs 1-2 weeks off. But I know it can be done. We lived in a district in TX that did it with all their elementary schools.

Some parents love it - we did. One of our travel destinations is Europe (my wife is German - we have an obligation to go visit Oma). It's a lot cheaper to travel there off season than in the summer. A year round schedule gave us the ability to go in April or October instead of having to pay the premium to go in June or July.

Some parents HATE it - it makes day-care a lot more difficult for the numerous vactions. Instead of finding someone for one long 13 week summer break and a few single weeks here or there, you've got to find someone 4 or 5 times a year for a three-week period. That's a lot harder. On the good side - it does create a cottage industry of people who do daycare for kids on break - they just rotate through three different sets of kids for three weeks at a time throughout the year. For those daycare providers, it can become a real full-time job, not just something they do in the summer...

Bottom-line on year round schools - they'd still need to hire more teachers to do it. 50% more teachers. And Utah taxpayers aren't likely to do it.

How bout if I pay 50% more in property tax, and my kid gets to be in a class with only 20 students? I'd be up for that. Or just charge me a supplemental tuition charge for a smaller class size. I'd pay $150 a month for the school year to get my kids into a smaller class.

[TripletDaddy]

More money and more buildings. I just can't buy it. I'll agree with the class size argument and if the only way to reduce the class size is more money, then that needs to be addressed. But they just built what I'm guessing is a world-class jr. high school next to my neighborhood. I can't imagine what that building cost. And I can't imagine why you would spend so much on a jr. high building.

My understanding is that the average private school tuition is less than the average amount spent per pupil in Utah.

$5,500 isn't a pittance for teaching kids how to read, write, and do arithmetic. It's more than 10% of the median family's gross income for the year.

You don't buy that we need more money and more buildings, yet you acknowledge that the current buildings are too packed to house all the kids.

You don't know what the jr high cost but you can't imagine why anyone would spend as much as they did to build the jr high.

$5,500 IS a pittance. It is awful. How much is that same family investing in entertainment, travel, or other non-essentials? Likely more than 10%.

[DrumNFeather]

Too many conservatives will point to some study that was done some time that shows that increased spending on education doesn't improved education outcomes. But you are obviously right, statman. There is some optimal number of students to have in a classroom, and learning outcomes are going to drop steeply as class sizes exceed that number. Fixing teacher to student ratios is all about money.

There is also the problem that the teaching profession does not attract very smart people, because the pay isn't very good. There are many exceptions to this, but it holds true as a general rule.

They mentoned this on NBC nightly news last night and shared a stat that stated that 47% of all teachers in the U.S. are from the bottom third of their respective college graduating classes.

[KillerDog]

I would generally agree that "throwing money at a problem" isn't usually going to help fix it. But education in Utah is definitely an exception. Classes are too big - big enough that kids really can't learn much. The only way to fix that is with more schools & teachers.

Actually, I take that back...

There's one way - an incremental step that might solve much of the problem without having to build a ton of new schools. Mandatory year-round schools - at least for elementary school students. for that, you'd still need a bunch of new teachers, but you wouldn't have to build new schools.

If you've never been exposed to it, it works like this: the school is divided into three groups - A, B, C. At any given time, two of the three groups are attending school, and one group is on vacation. Usually the rotation changes either every three weeks, so kids have 6 weeks on, 3 weeks off. There are some weeks where things have to be juggled a bit because alll the kids need 36 full weeks / 180 days of school per year, and there are the Christmas Holidays when everyone needs 1-2 weeks off. But I know it can be done. We lived in a district in TX that did it with all their elementary schools.

Some parents love it - we did. One of our travel destinations is Europe (my wife is German - we have an obligation to go visit Oma). It's a lot cheaper to travel there off season than in the summer. A year round schedule gave us the ability to go in April or October instead of having to pay the premium to go in June or July.

Some parents HATE it - it makes day-care a lot more difficult for the numerous vactions. Instead of finding someone for one long 13 week summer break and a few single weeks here or there, you've got to find someone 4 or 5 times a year for a three-week period. That's a lot harder. On the good side - it does create a cottage industry of people who do daycare for kids on break - they just rotate through three different sets of kids for three weeks at a time throughout the year. For those daycare providers, it can become a real full-time job, not just something they do in the summer...

Bottom-line on year round schools - they'd still need to hire more teachers to do it. 50% more teachers. And Utah taxpayers aren't likely to do it.

How bout if I pay 50% more in property tax, and my kid gets to be in a class with only 20 students? I'd be up for that. Or just charge me a supplemental tuition charge for a smaller class size. I'd pay $150 a month for the school year to get my kids into a smaller class.

I like this idea. I would totally support additional teachers and year round schools. I would also support an increase in school days a year. 180 seems pretty short. Maybe the kids would do better if school was 220 days a year.

Also, I really like your pay extra for an extra benefit idea. I say, allow the public schools to accept a nominal fee directly from parents for extra education for their kids. That's a geat idea.

[Jacob]

$5,500 IS a pittance. It is awful. How much is that same family investing in entertainment, travel, or other non-essentials? Likely more than 10%.

3 kids gets you to 30%. I don't think many families spend near 30% of their gross income on the non-essentials you mention.

I still think $5,500 is a lot of money. You say it is a pittance, so what is enough? Twice that much? That's getting absurd, IMO.

[Jeff Lebowski]

3 kids gets you to 30%. I don't think many families spend near 30% of their gross income on the non-essentials you mention.

I still think $5,500 is a lot of money. You say it is a pittance, so what is enough? Twice that much? That's getting absurd, IMO.

This is one of the reasons I think we should cut back on big-family welfare (child tax credit) in Utah. There should be a bigger cost for having 12 kids.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Utah is not going to put money into buildings. Have you been in an LDS wardhouse?

Utah is fine with 30+ kids in a class. It makes it just like Primary.

Teacher pay? Ha, ha. How much do Sunday School teachers get payed?

Oh yea, and then there are the hordes of parents who think that because they went on missions and/or serve in the Church, and have lots of kids, they know better than do the professional educators.

Utah schools are doomed.

[statman]

I like this idea. I would totally support additional teachers and year round schools. I would also support an increase in school days a year. 180 seems pretty short. Maybe the kids would do better if school was 220 days a year.

Also, I really like your pay extra for an extra benefit idea. I say, allow the public schools to accept a nominal fee directly from parents for extra education for their kids. That's a geat idea.

The problem with the 220 day school year (over the current 180 day) is that it requires more schools - all students would have to be in school 44 weeks a year instead of 36. You can't really get much of a benefit from year round school in such a system.

But there is another potential solution. Take 2 hours off the school day, have one set of students meet from 7:30 - 11:30 and then have a second block meet from 12:00 - 4:00. Then increase the number of school days to around 220. School would be about the same amount in terms of total instruction - you'd have less recess, no lunch, etc.

This would DOUBLE the number of kids that could use a school, and would shorten the summer break by a month (2 months instead of three). Win, win...

But - If you really wanted to push this idea, you could really squeeze two shifts (early/late) into a school day, AND do year round school. Cut out as much fluff as possible. Maximize instruction time. Do it all in 5.5 hours instead of 6. Early shift comes in at 7:00 and is done at 12:30 - with lunch & recess for the last hout of the day. Late shift comes in at 11:30 and stays until 5:00 pm. For an hour the two sessions would overlap and the school would be swarming with kids, but you'd have one shift all be in their classrooms and the other shift in the cafeteria / gym / playground.

The two-shift idea would be a big departure from the norm - and might prove really tough for families with two working parents. But it would definitely be a way to keep building costs down. 7:00 am also seems early for elementary school kids, but in Europe, a lot of schools start that early. And in TX, our kids elementary school started at 7:20...

Two 5.5 hour shifts & Year-round school could TRIPLE the number of kids using one school...