There's still a huge performance gap between rich students and poor students, U.S. study finds

The average performance of the lowest income students in the United States lags about three to four years behind that of the highest income students — an achievement gap that has remained constant for more than four decades, a new study finds.

An analysis of standardized tests given to more than 2.7 million middle and high school students over almost 50 years suggests that federal education programs aimed at closing that gap are falling short, researchers report online March 18 in the National Bureau of Economic Research. Lower achievement in high school leads to lower earning potential throughout adulthood, says coauthor Eric Hanushek, education economist at Stanford University. “The next generation is going to look a lot like this generation. Kids from poor families will become poor themselves.”

***

To categorize students by family income level, the researchers relied on demographic surveys given alongside the standardized tests that included information on parents’ education levels and other lifestyle indicators. For example, a dishwasher in the 1950s was seen as a wealth indicator. More recent signs of wealth include whether a student has a separate bedroom or a personal computer.

Test scores for 17-year-old students in the bottom 10th income percentile were far lower than those in the top 10th percentile — suggesting the poorest students’ learning was about three or four years behind that of the richest, the authors report.

... overall test scores themselves didn’t shift for 17 year olds during the study period. They did improve slightly for 13-15 year olds, but with the lowest-income students still scoring much lower than highest-income students. That suggests that federal programs for younger students have been helpful ...

According to the Forum’s 2019 Local School Finance Study, the state’s 10 highest spending counties spent an average of $3,200 per student compared to $755 by the 10 lowest spending counties.

That’s a $2,445 difference per student and the largest gap since the Forum began tracking the figure in 1987.

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

The average performance of the lowest income students in the United States lags about three to four years behind that of the highest income students — an achievement gap that has remained constant for more than four decades, a new study finds.

An analysis of standardized tests given to more than 2.7 million middle and high school students over almost 50 years suggests that federal education programs aimed at closing that gap are falling short, researchers report online March 18 in the National Bureau of Economic Research. Lower achievement in high school leads to lower earning potential throughout adulthood, says coauthor Eric Hanushek, education economist at Stanford University. “The next generation is going to look a lot like this generation. Kids from poor families will become poor themselves.”  

***

To categorize students by family income level, the researchers relied on demographic surveys given alongside the standardized tests that included information on parents’ education levels and other lifestyle indicators. For example, a dishwasher in the 1950s was seen as a wealth indicator. More recent signs of wealth include whether a student has a separate bedroom or a personal computer.

Test scores for 17-year-old students in the bottom 10th income percentile were far lower than those in the top 10th percentile — suggesting the poorest students’ learning was about three or four years behind that of the richest, the authors report.

... overall test scores themselves didn’t shift for 17 year olds during the study period. They did improve slightly for 13-15 year olds, but with the lowest-income students still scoring much lower than highest-income students. That suggests that federal programs for younger students have been helpful ...

More at the link:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/learning-gap-rich-poor-students-remains-high

Should come as no surprise in a country that spends more on the education of rich kids than on poor kids. I've been saying this is an injustice for decades.

We need to do away with the system that spends education taxes on the areas from which they're taken, and instead fund all schools equally.

This is from the state of North Carolina:

According to the Forum’s 2019 Local School Finance Study, the state’s 10 highest spending counties spent an average of $3,200 per student compared to $755 by the 10 lowest spending counties.

That’s a $2,445 difference per student and the largest gap since the Forum began tracking the figure in 1987.

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:It's not all about the money spent, and private schools have the advantage of being able to select serious students. But it's hard to argue that some students getting $750 per year while others get $3,000 per year is fair.

I think we also need to take a hard look at the businesses that prey upon children's attention spans and whether we feel like they're doing right by us as a society.

Maddog wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:It's not all about the money spent, and private schools have the advantage of being able to select serious students. But it's hard to argue that some students getting $750 per year while others get $3,000 per year is fair.

I think we also need to take a hard look at the businesses that prey upon children's attention spans and whether we feel like they're doing right by us as a society.

It's not fair, but I don't know how much it affects results. What does appear to affect results is how much money parents have, more so than how much the district spends.

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Maddog wrote:

It's not fair, but I don't know how much it affects results. What does appear to affect results is how much money parents have, more so than how much the district spends.

That's also true. Richer parents not only tend to provide a more stable home life, but they can also afford all sorts of tutoring not available to poorer students, as has been shown in the wake of the college scandal.

veya_victaous wrote:Also let put these figures into perspective NSW, my state, spends $13,318($US 9,448) per student

it is pretty to see why education standards in the US have dropped so low in recent decades

veya_victaous wrote:Also let put these figures into perspective NSW, my state, spends $13,318($US 9,448) per student

it is pretty to see why education standards in the US have dropped so low in recent decades

Maddog wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:Also let put these figures into perspective NSW, my state, spends $13,318($US 9,448) per student

it is pretty to see why education standards in the US have dropped so low in recent decades

So less than the US average.  Seeing how we spend more than pretty much everyone, that's no surprise.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:


So less than the US average.  Seeing how we spend more than pretty much everyone, that's no surprise.

The figure that veya put up there is the annual spent, combined state and federal...

Which means in two years, NSW has spent more per student, than the USA spends over the students entire 12 or 13 years of education..   In the USA, the average spent is obviously being dragged down by having to rely on locally-sourced funding --  while Federal funding lags way behind,  being shortchanged by so much of your tax dollars going into fighting foreign wars and propping up failing regimes and crooked bankers.

The USA may spend more on average/student than in Africa, China or India --  but how does it compare with Canada, NZ, Japan, S. Korea, Britain or Western Europe in general ?

Also, schools down here are regulated at a state level, with a national curriculum  --   without those pesky local school councils that seem to so effectively keep the US out of the top 30 or 40 performing countries in the world..  Even little ol' commie Cuba outdoes the USA in literacy and maths standards, (and probably at less cost)  !

veya_victaous wrote:@Maddog
 

no mate, like Wolf said the number i posted is the yearly spend, from Primary top Tertiary the figure you quoted is 13 times that approx $123,000 USD.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

IF You look at the total funding for schools in both the USA and Oz, to help this discussion along, one might divide the sources of school funding into 3 levels :

* Federal --  bugger all in the USA (where the US guvm'nt spends much more on the military, than they do on education and health combined..), while here in Oz federal funding goes mainly on buildings, and special programmes like technology and special needs;

* State --  the main source of funding down here,  while over in the USA, as previous examples above have shown, there is a great disparity across the USA --  where richer neighbourhoods are much better off, and poorer zones are left begging;

*  Local --  down here, that is only a small % of a school's funding,  whereas over in Amerika it can often well be a major part of school funding (hence the existence of local school "boards"/ councils interfering in the schools running..).

Bottom line --  at the end of the day, the average combined spend/ student down here is much greater than over in the US.

Oz remains in the top 20 countries education-wise (in the top 10 in some subjects..), while America struggles to break into the top 40..   The US needs to increase their education spend at both the state and federal levels...

Maddog wrote:WASHINGTON The United States spends more than other developed nations on its students' education each year..................

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-education-spending-tops-global-list-study-shows/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/07/us-education-spending-finland-south-korea

The issues are systemic, says Marc Tucker, the NCEE president, and getting worse. The problem, Tucker says, is that US schools were developed on a “factory model” – originally teachers were mainly female graduates with few other options in the workplace. The US still treats its teachers as if that were the case while the world’s most successful school systems have become “professional” and treat the recruitment and development of highly qualified teachers as integral to their education system.
“In the US what they did in 1910 made a lot of sense. They created a huge pool to teach who did not know a lot and wouldn’t be around for long,” said Tucker. The US “got lucky” in a world where college-educated women had few other options. Now those options are opening up and people who could have made great teachers are choosing other options.

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:WASHINGTON The United States spends more than other developed nations on its students' education each year..................

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-education-spending-tops-global-list-study-shows/

but the real spend is only

"the state’s 10 highest spending counties spent an average of $3,200 per student compared to $755"

Not the system nationally with all the bureaucrats included

that is the per student spend in state funded schools which is the majority (we do not have county divisions for education)

there is a federal level on top of that here too.
The USA is fudging it's figures

this article that you posted literally goes on to say how the US is not paying the front line teachers enough

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/07/us-education-spending-finland-south-korea

The issues are systemic, says Marc Tucker, the NCEE president, and getting worse. The problem, Tucker says, is that US schools were developed on a “factory model” – originally teachers were mainly female graduates with few other options in the workplace. The US still treats its teachers as if that were the case while the world’s most successful school systems have become “professional” and treat the recruitment and development of highly qualified teachers as integral to their education system.
“In the US what they did in 1910 made a lot of sense. They created a huge pool to teach who did not know a lot and wouldn’t be around for long,” said Tucker. The US “got lucky” in a world where college-educated women had few other options. Now those options are opening up and people who could have made great teachers are choosing other options.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

To explain the apparent discrepancy in Maddog's bullshit Trump-sucking claims, compared to other contrary ref's in other links through this thread...

Down here, the bulk of our schools funding is done at a state level --  so, even though Oz may seemingly rank lower than the US on a purely  federal spending  comparison,  the average total-combined spend per school student is still much higher here than in the USA..

What Maddog should be asking himself is --
(a)  Where has the bulk of the USA's federal funding disappeared to before reaching the schools themselves;   and
(b)  Why is America getting such poor returns on their spending  ?


The contempt that the Trump administration holds for the Amerikan education sector was well proven by his choice to be his secretary/minister for education --  a braindead anti-science 'flat earth' creationist billionaire oil heiress.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/mar/12/betsy-devos-interview-schools-60-minutes-video

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/26/betsy-devos-education-secretary-trump

http://fortune.com/2016/11/24/donald-trump-betsy-devos-school-choice-secretary-education/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/education/wp/2018/02/12/devos-seeks-massive-cuts-from-education-department-to-support-school-choice/

Possibly the most stupid, inept and unqualified education minister that this planet has ever seen...

Maddog wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:WASHINGTON The United States spends more than other developed nations on its students' education each year..................

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-education-spending-tops-global-list-study-shows/

but the real spend is only

"the state’s 10 highest spending counties spent an average of $3,200 per student compared to $755"

Not the system nationally with all the bureaucrats included

that is the per student spend in state funded schools which is the majority (we do not have county divisions for education)

there is a federal level on top of that here too.
The USA is fudging it's figures

this article that you posted literally goes on to say how the US is not paying the front line teachers enough

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/07/us-education-spending-finland-south-korea

The issues are systemic, says Marc Tucker, the NCEE president, and getting worse. The problem, Tucker says, is that US schools were developed on a “factory model” – originally teachers were mainly female graduates with few other options in the workplace. The US still treats its teachers as if that were the case while the world’s most successful school systems have become “professional” and treat the recruitment and development of highly qualified teachers as integral to their education system.
“In the US what they did in 1910 made a lot of sense. They created a huge pool to teach who did not know a lot and wouldn’t be around for long,” said Tucker. The US “got lucky” in a world where college-educated women had few other options. Now those options are opening up and people who could have made great teachers are choosing other options.

I agree teachers are not getting enough money.  That's not because the US doesn't spend huge sums on education. Its because its not spent on teachers.  

We spend more than just about anyone on education. We just don't spend it wisely. That's why saying we need to spend more money is patently false. We need to spend it where it actually helps the students.

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Maddog wrote:


I agree teachers are not getting enough money.  That's not because the US doesn't spend huge sums on education. Its because its not spent on teachers.  

We spend more than just about anyone on education. We just don't spend it wisely. That's why saying we need to spend more money is patently false. We need to spend it where it actually helps the students.

Then where oh where is this money being spent? On textbooks? Poor kids are still studying from science books that name Pluto as the ninth planet.

Certainly not on teachers; we've established that. Principals make a good salary but there aren't that many principal jobs out there, so they can't be eating it all up.

But wait! The biggest expense of any institution, public or private, is its employees. That's why when companies' executives get scared of their shadows, they lay off 1,000 workers just to be on the safe side of profitability.

It turns out that teachers' salaries are indeed what most school district money is spent on. And it's not enough.

Perhaps it's enough in countries where the private sector doesn't pay a mathematician 100 times more to program mobile apps than to teach children, but it's not enough here. And this is where I start going on about how we're not just an economy, we're a country.

We let decisions as important as the education of our children be made on the basis of profits, and that's why we have no right to complain that our children aren't getting good educations.

Maddog wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Then where oh where is this money being spent? On textbooks? Poor kids are still studying from science books that name Pluto as the ninth planet.

Certainly not on teachers; we've established that. Principals make a good salary but there aren't that many principal jobs out there, so they can't be eating it all up.

But wait! The biggest expense of any institution, public or private, is its employees. That's why when companies' executives get scared of their shadows, they lay off 1,000 workers just to be on the safe side of profitability.

It turns out that teachers' salaries are indeed what most school district money is spent on. And it's not enough.

Perhaps it's enough in countries where the private sector doesn't pay a mathematician 100 times more to program mobile apps than to teach children, but it's not enough here. And this is where I start going on about how we're not just an economy, we're a country.

We let decisions as important as the education of our children be made on the basis of profits, and that's why we have no right to complain that our children aren't getting good educations.

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2017/cb17-97-public-education-finance.html

60% goes to teachers. 

Let's not forget we need 500K a year superintendents and 50 million dollar high school football stadiums.  

Arlington ISD bought a 10 million dollar piece of property near AT&T for a new sports building.  They already had land set aside, but this new tract was better. They also paid twice as much as the owner paid for it a few months later. But who gives a fuck. Its not their money they are wasting. And spending money translates into better educated students, right?

Cass wrote:

Maddog wrote:

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2017/cb17-97-public-education-finance.html

60% goes to teachers. 

Let's not forget we need 500K a year superintendents and 50 million dollar high school football stadiums.  

Arlington ISD bought a 10 million dollar piece of property near AT&T for a new sports building.  They already had land set aside, but this new tract was better. They also paid twice as much as the owner paid for it a few months later. But who gives a fuck. Its not their money they are wasting. And spending money translates into better educated students, right?

I don’t begrudge Superintendents having high salaries. They are experts in their fields, have the qualifications, and basically CEOs running sometimes huge organizations. They are needed.

Multi-million dollars sports stadiums are not.  That shows how screwed up their priorities are.

Maddog wrote:

Cass wrote:

I don’t begrudge Superintendents having high salaries. They are experts in their fields, have the qualifications, and basically CEOs running sometimes huge organizations. They are needed.

Multi-million dollars sports stadiums are not.  That shows how screwed up their priorities are.

Georgia has a law, that I hear has a loophole, but is an excellent idea.  Teachers are required to receive 2/3 of the education budget. Want to spend more money in a stadium? The teachers get a raise too.  

But I still think 500K is too much for a superintendent. And let's not forget football coaches need a good salary too.  

Maddog wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:WASHINGTON The United States spends more than other developed nations on its students' education each year..................

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-education-spending-tops-global-list-study-shows/

but the real spend is only

"the state’s 10 highest spending counties spent an average of $3,200 per student compared to $755"

Not the system nationally with all the bureaucrats included

that is the per student spend in state funded schools which is the majority (we do not have county divisions for education)

there is a federal level on top of that here too.
The USA is fudging it's figures

this article that you posted literally goes on to say how the US is not paying the front line teachers enough

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/07/us-education-spending-finland-south-korea

The issues are systemic, says Marc Tucker, the NCEE president, and getting worse. The problem, Tucker says, is that US schools were developed on a “factory model” – originally teachers were mainly female graduates with few other options in the workplace. The US still treats its teachers as if that were the case while the world’s most successful school systems have become “professional” and treat the recruitment and development of highly qualified teachers as integral to their education system.
“In the US what they did in 1910 made a lot of sense. They created a huge pool to teach who did not know a lot and wouldn’t be around for long,” said Tucker. The US “got lucky” in a world where college-educated women had few other options. Now those options are opening up and people who could have made great teachers are choosing other options.

I agree teachers are not getting enough money.  That's not because the US doesn't spend huge sums on education. Its because its not spent on teachers.  

We spend more than just about anyone on education. We just don't spend it wisely. That's why saying we need to spend more money is patently false. We need to spend it where it actually helps the students.