Doing the math...

[agilebrit]

So, the school voucher issue is heating up here in good old Utah, with the election being three weeks away. So I decided to get my calculator out and do some theoretical figuring.

I based it on a beginning class size of 30 kids, which was not out of the realm of possibility when I was growing up. I don't remember anyone bitching about class size back then either.

Apparently we spend $7,000 per student, per year, here. That comes to $210,000 per classroom.

Now, say 5 kids leave, and they're on the poorer end of the spectrum, so they get all $3,000 they're entitled to under the proposed voucher program (the actual amount is $500 - $3,000, so I'm being generous here). They take $15,000 out of the classroom, leaving it with 25 kids and $195,000, because that extra $4,000 per kid gets plowed back into the classroom.

Which now comes to $7,800 per pupil in that same classroom.

So...we've reduced class size, and increased the amount we're spending per kid. All without increasing the amount we're actually spending.

Seriously, someone explain to me how this is a bad thing?

Comments

[bookishwench.livejournal.com]

Actually, I believe in at least my state the absolute maximum number of kids allowed in a class is 28, which, considering the fact the American attention span has dwindled down to less than 2 minutes in the last ten years, is pretty challenging as it stands.

[agilebrit.livejournal.com]

So, running the numbers assuming 28 kids in the class and five leaving for private schools, that leaves $7,869 and change per kid still in the class. So it's even BETTER, and gets them closer to the "optimal" number of 22 kids per class, which is apparently the number they're shooting for.

[bojojoti.livejournal.com]

You didn't figure in the loss of power...

[agilebrit.livejournal.com]

Ah yes. Wonder what that's worth...

[perseph.livejournal.com]

But the $4000 doesn't get plowed back into the classroom. Assuming the $7000 is based on dividing everything the district spends by the number of students, which is the way it is usually done, anyway.

Your five students are gone, and the class is now 25, which is great. But they still have to pay the teacher the same amount. They can't turn the light off, so they don't save anything in electricity. They still need the principal, and also the secretary in the front office to answer the phone. It's unlikely the special needs students are the ones being accepted at private school, so they probably still need all their aids and special equipment. Five fewer students to clean up after doesn't really transfer to paying the janitor less, and they also need people working in the lunchroom if they serve a hot lunch. Also the building still will need repairs from time to time if a window breaks or the roof starts to leak or something goes wrong with the heat.

I guess they might save a little bit of money in classrooms supplies if they can save a few reams of paper and print five fewer handouts each time.

So basically despite having five fewer students, the cost of running the classroom is basically the same (unless they can actually reduce the number of classes, possibly resulting in even larger class sizes, or shut down a school), only now they have $15,000 with which to do it.

So they cut art. Or maybe music or PE or any other of the things that seem like extras. Or maybe they cut an aid from the special needs programs and start tying students to their chairs to keep control of the classroom.

Unless they can reduce the number of classes or even close school entirely, losing a couple of students here and there from each grade and each school won't actually save the district anything. Losing the money with them will hurt the remaining students.

I actually do support school choice and competition though, so long as everyone has a choice and not just the more privileged students.

[perseph.livejournal.com]

Blah. I fail the writing thing tonight.

"only now they have $15,000 with which to do it."

should be "only now they have $15,000 less with which to do it."

Also, "even close school" should be "even close a school"

[agilebrit.livejournal.com]

I figured that. :)

[agilebrit.livejournal.com]

But the way this law is written, that extra $4000 WILL go back into the classroom. So, I'm still not seeing the bad.

And the way this law is written, the poorest kids get the greatest amount of money for the voucher. In fact, I don't even have a dog in this hunt, because (a) we homeschool, and aren't eligible for the voucher; and (b) even if I wanted to send Da Boy to a private school, I still wouldn't get even the lowest amount of the voucher (which is $500), because we make too much.

I just found out that the average cost of a private school in Utah is $3800, if you take out the two highest priced ones. Which I find very interesting.

[perseph.livejournal.com]

Let me try again.

Starting from 210,000 per classroom. Five students leave, and there are now twenty-five. That's too many still to combine with the class next door, so the costs for the teacher, janitor, electricity, bus driver, payroll person down at district headquarters, building repairs, etc. are all the same. Maybe you save a $1000 or so total on printing and art supplies and such through the year as a result of having to print five fewer of each handout and such

So the bad would be that subtracting a $1000 for printing and art supplies still leaves a classroom that still costs $209,000 to run, but there is only $195,000 with which to run it.

Perhaps they can find a way to save on administrative costs and keep the small class size. Or if they can't (or won't) do that, raise taxes slightly or take money from some other budget to keep the small class size. More likely though, they'd either find a way to redistribute the students and keep classes large so as to cut staffing costs, or they'd start cutting any special programs they could.

Private schools usually do have funding beyond tuition. Mine did a ton of fundraising anyway. I think they got money from the diocese too, though I could be wrong about that. Private schools also tend to cost less to run due to not providing services for special needs students or transportation to and from school and a variety of other reasons (mine made us pay for textbooks and contracted out the lunch room to a for profit business). Although I suspect they also tend to waste less on administrative costs and such, but I suppose it depends on the school and the district being compared.

I googled the Utah voucher amounts out of curiosity, and it does look pretty fair, especially for the middle class. It leaves the lowest income people with no school choice though since it doesn't cover full tuition and even $800 can be a lot to a family who is barely making ends meet.

[fenchurche.livejournal.com]

Seriously, someone explain to me how this is a bad thing?

Because then the UEA and the state department of education doesn't have a stranglehold on the education of children, of course!

[fenchurche.livejournal.com]

Heh. rackham just pointed out to me that if this passes they should actually encourage people to take the vouchers... because imagine a 28 student classroom with 27 of them taking the maximum voucher amount to go to a private school... which would leave $115,000 for that one student.

And yeah, that's really taking it to the extremes, but just shows that you're very, very right. Where, exactly, is the bad?

[curiouswombat.livejournal.com]

I have a feeling that the bad starts once the number of students in say 5 schools goes down far enough that if you make class sizes right up at the maximum you can squeeze all the kids into 4 schools.

You close one school, and save all that money, rather than giving it to the 4 other schools, and so the amount available per child goes right back down again, class sizes go back up, and children have to travel further to school.

Most of the parents who would take advantage of a scheme to pay most of the fees for them to privately educate their kids are going to be the middle-class ones - as it seems, from A-B's calculation that they would still need to provide about $800 per annum. For a poor family with 2 or 3 kids this is not an easy option - so they will keep sending their kids to the state school.

So the possibility is that the state schools start to become what are known in the UK as 'sink schools' - peopled mainly by kids from disadvantaged backgrounds, often with poorer motivation and home support, and with over-full classrooms and so the results go down. Then parents who actually believe in the state system, or who might have thought even with vouchers it was cutting things a bit tight, decide that they don't want their child to be disadvantaged for life by being at that school, so they find some way of getting the money together to go with the voucher and the situation spirals on downward.

This is not inevitable - but when the Thatcher government in the UK decided to 'increase parental choice' this is what happened to quite a number of schools, so lowering the standard of education available to those living in poorer areas.

The trick is to not cut the number of schools, or teachers, as the number of pupils go down. Then the educational standards in those schools actually go up - but politicians know that they will always get more votes for saving money to reduce taxes, and it seems logical to combine schools and save money if pupil numbers are going down.....

If they really are leaving money at the school the child leaves to go private, how long are they leaving it there? Just for that year, when they then recalculate how many pupils the school has, or for the whole time the child would be there?

How do you calculate numbers including all the phantom children who are receiving vouchers - for example if a child, who has never attended the state school, moves house, does his money as a theoretical pupil stay at his original school, or move to another one where he might be a pupil now if he were still in the system? What if one of the non-attending children dies? I have a feeling that any way the paymasters find to save money, they will.

[texanfan.livejournal.com]

Keep in mind here that I'm for school vouchers.

Doesn't the school get federal money for each child in school? That's why they shove kids through who should be expelled/held back/suspended. Every warm body represents money.

I could be wrong on this front, but it would explain why they are fighting it so hard. The vouchers are better for the students but the administrators don't often really care about that.