Race to the Bottom: New Funding Stats Released

25 thoughts on “Race to the Bottom: New Funding Stats Released”

1. We rank 50th in teacher pay parity? If we can’t attract good teachers with decent wages, it’s no small wonder that our kids are falling behind. And for every teacher that decides to look for a job in any other state but ours, that’s their dollars and their families dollars going to another state’s budget and local businesses.  

   Log in to Reply

2. Throwing more money at it won’t help.

   Oh, wait, we’re horribly underfunded compared to other states? Nevermind that, we need to be making sure teachers have no job security.

   Log in to Reply

3. We’re not 50th, down from 43rd in teacher pay parity.

   We’re #1, up from #8 in teacher pay disparity.
   
   We’re #1! We’re #1!   (dammit – why do I never have a big foam finger when I need it?)

   This is amazing for another reason too.  Wyoming has higher severance taxes on O&G than Colorado.  Forget about whether they spend any of that on education (yes they do), why doesn’t their O&G production all come here?  OUr severance taxes are lower.  Could it be that the cost of production in CO is still higher (it is)?

   If the Wyoming model could work here (yes I already know, nothing that works in any other state can ever work here, ever) it would mean we would have to raise severance taxes. ANd spend some of it on education.

   Bahhh  so what?  We can get all the educated talent we need form out of state. And besides, don’t we routinely kick Wyoming’s butt in football? And we have the pro sports.  Whatta they got? pffssht,  education.  Let all the kids go to private schools.
   

   Log in to Reply

4. I think we spend a little under 7K/student on K-12 here. So then Wyoming spends double what we do per kid.

   First off, what difference is there in the classroom? Do they have half the student-teacher ratio?

   Second, how much better do they do on graduation rates, percent going to college, etc?

   Here’s a great way to state the case for additional funding – if Wyoming is doing significantly better than Colorado in its end results.

   Log in to Reply

   1. Wyoming rates number 1 out of all 50 states and gets an overall grade of A-. Colorado is in the middle with a C-.  

      Log in to Reply

      1. Those ratings should make people from all parts of the political spectrum here cringe.

         All I can say is thank goodness we have Amendment 23, because I can only imagine how much worse the underfunding issue would be without mandated increases.

         Log in to Reply

         1. This is appalling and embarrassing to us as a state. We are short changing our kids and if that isn’t shameful, I don’t know what is.  

            Log in to Reply

   2. The Quliaty counts measure something else, not the kind data  DT says he wants.

      DT – try this
      
      http://www.edweek.org/ew/qc/20…

      It’s a pretty slick tool and you can measure all kinds of things. but you still cannot  get the clean apples:apples comparison you want.

      How do you account for the performance variance in two like funded districts where one has a much higher proportion of English language learners or mobility – two factors that affect outcomes but that the schools have little to no control over.

      There are some  factors we know make positive impact.

      – physical safety and functionality (HVAC, weather proof, etc)

      – quality of teachers. Outstanding teachers generate better results than their peers.

      – smaller class sizes, especially at the lower grades.

      I could go on –  maybe I will later.
      
      When we can pay for any of it.

      By the way – you wanna see some thing really creepy?
      
      Check out Grand County schools:

      http://www.skyhidailynews.com/…
      

      Log in to Reply

      1. With the more specific measurement they are bringing in will give us much better measurement. And then when we can bring in specific changes in targeted schools, show the clear improvement from those – we can then bring that in state-wide.

         And where those changes require more money, I think you will find strong support for it. What has killed increased funding, IMHO, is that people have not seen a correlation between funding & results. Once you can show that – then you will see a lot more support.

         Log in to Reply

         1. Let’s say we could agree on good metrics.

            Further let’s say we could get good measurements.

            Here’s what it’s going to tell us:

            – kids in affluent, stable households are going to do better than those not
            
            -kids in classrooms with low percentage of English language learners are going to do better
            
            – Exceptional teachers will outperform their peers
            
            – schools with stable demographics (students and staff) outperform those without

            All of which tells us we need better teachers and better students.

            Net all that out and maybe we’ll get some interesting data on this or that curriculum. Maybe we’ll find out that math majors aren’t the best math teachers. and so on.

            Tell me this DT –
            
            what is the value of education? i.e., How does it fit into the grand scheme of America?

            And then speculate on this  –
            
            which is more likely:
            
            a) the one-size-fits- most 19th century creation of universal public education  and the curriculum and calendar it designed got it right for all time?
            
            or
            
            b) the  pre-industrial curriculum and calendar probably needs to be rethought.

            Log in to Reply

            1. Is there an open market somewhere that we can bid on them?

               Denver Broncos… Still Suck!

               Log in to Reply

            2. Then we will find that teacher A in a given school moves their kids 1.2 grades forward each year while teacher B moves them 0.7 – same school, same demographics.

               That’s gigantic because we can look at what they do differently and get teacher B to emulate teacher A.

               I also agree that one size fits all is not the answer in today’s world, summer vacation is way too long, etc. All of this needs to be reworked.

               Log in to Reply

               1. One is that teacher A consistently outperforms teacher B, which can be true but isn’t always, especially when they teach different classes.

                  Another (and more common in my experience) is that teacher A advances a portion of students very much and another portion not quite so much, while teacher B advances all students more equally. You lose the highs in choosing teacher B (which may be the best students, or the worst, or the hardest-working, or whatever), but your worst-case scenario is better.

                  I think your desire to represent these possibilities in terms of one number is symptomatic of the “one size fits all” mentality which you have been trying to apply to teaching for years.

                  You have these theories about education, but you rarely have any evidence for them. And you seem to enjoy “explaining away” any contrary evidence rather than modifying your theory. That’s not very scientific of you.

                  Log in to Reply

                  1. it’s a hard thing to measure well.

                     ONe year A > B
                     
                     Next year B> A

                     and yet the stuff we can all agree on still goes unfunded
                     
                     – smaller class size
                     
                     – modern technology
                     
                     – modern curriculum
                     
                     – local control
                     
                     – solid infrastructure
                     
                     – exceptional teacher recruiting

                     Log in to Reply

                  2. Is just throw money at it and not measure because we can’t do so perfectly?

                     Yes there are multiple ways you need to look at the metrics. You may also find teacher A does best with advanced kids while teacher B does best with the ones that are struggling. So you then mix & match.

                     The trick is to measure, determine what you are learning from those measurements, adjust what you do based on what you know, and adapt your measurement based on what else you need to learn.

                     The fact that something is hard to do and can only be done imperfectly is true of most everything – but is not a reason to just give up.

                     Log in to Reply

                     1. The McInnis approach of “cut waste and fraud, then money will magically appear and our problems will be solved” is not serious, whether it’s said by him or by you.

                        You have the evidence. Colorado is one of the worst states in the country when it comes to spending on students. You want to believe that doesn’t matter. Your approach sounds to me like, “I’ll give hungry people food once they start putting on some weight.”

                        Log in to Reply

                        1. My point is that we need to make a serious effort to improve. That when that effort starts, then money should follow. I say effort first because in the past the money has gone first and the effort never appeared.

                           Log in to Reply

                           1. If we spent less per student than the national average, but got academic results that were about average (e.g., the Quality Counts rank that MOTR posted, flawed as it may be), would that be evidence that educators should be funded better since they’re doing a better-than-expected job, or evidence that they should be funded at the same low level since it seems to be good enough?

                           2. We have been stuck for 10 years with 30% statewide (and 50% in DPS) of our students testing at below proficient. With horrible results like that – we need to see real effort to improve first.

                              To me it comes back to the issue that we have provided more money in the past and have seen no real effort to bring about improvement.

                              I’m hopeful with race to the top we will now see some real changes made to try and improve things. And from that, we will then see more money.

                           3. Thanks. Glad your theories are so airtight.

                           4. I know this affects you personally but we must hold educators accountable for the job they do. And failing to adequately educate 30% of our population is a travesty.

                           5. because you don’t have a solid answer. Colorado educators have been doing an exceptionally good job given the awful resources they’re given and the open hostility of Republicans and you. But it’s not enough for you, and I don’t think it ever could be until they named you dictator of schools. I honestly get no sense that the actual data (all of it) matters to your strategy. That’s not because I think you’re malicious, just that you’re too convinced of the brilliance of the theories you’ve worked out to ever question them.

                           6. Take a look at http://www.davidthielen.info/p… – Colorado educators haven’t wrought any improvement.

                     2. neither because it’s too hard to produce nor because when we do produce it is imperfect.

                        But I infer from your posts here (above and below and linked elsewhere) that you think we know what data to produce because we know the goal and desired value of education in 21st . America.

                        You agree the legacy needs an upgrade – I do too.
                        
                        But I think we gotta start with the a clearly defined goal, that we don’t have.

                        When someone says college ready whether they go or not, I cringe.  That’s not an conclusive answer, it’s a way point.

                        I think we need to teach part content and part how to learn.  Instruments like the CSAP where test takers recount the content they have learned are ok. But they tell us nothing about whether and how students have learned to learn.  

                        Who would you rather hire: the recent grade with perfect SAT and ACT scores who aced CSAP and is fine at mastering content presented to them or the diligent hard worker who has the skills you need to hire but lesser scores and is a wizard at learning?

                        But this implies that the point of education – public education anyhow – should be  to produce acceptable to great employees for the modern economy.  Is this true?

                        I think it’s circular and ultimately difficult to establish metrics away from the content proficiency and toward the ability to learn.  Difficult, meaning it’s hard to measure someone’s progress in the ability to learn, not that we shouldn’t try.

                        and now Ken Fisch

                        http://thefischbowl.blogspot.c…

                        best known for Did You Know and it’s iterations of DYK 2.0, 3.0, 4.0

                        Log in to Reply

                        1. Yo didn’t realty address why we don’t fund the thngs we know make a positive impact

                           – recruiting exceptional teachers
                           
                           – smaller class sizes
                           
                           – solid, modern infrastructure
                           
                           – modern technology and curricula

                           and
                           
                           – local control (this is a weird one because it doesn’t always enhance) but I include because the political environs make it impossible to leave out.

                           Log in to Reply