Comments on: Funny You Should Mention It … http://www.showmedaily.org/2010/08/funny-you-should-mention-it.html Advancing liberty with responsibility by promoting market solutions for Missouri public policy Thu, 24 May 2012 16:17:46 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: dempster holland http://www.showmedaily.org/2010/08/funny-you-should-mention-it.html/comment-page-1#comment-7799 dempster holland Tue, 24 Aug 2010 02:34:18 +0000 http://www.showmedaily.org/?p=21251#comment-7799 Parochial schools cost less because they pay their teachers a lot less. Many persons who teach in parochial schools do so because of a committment to their faith, but if you talk to any of them, you will know that many are not happy about the low pay. Rural districts can pay less, of course, because the cost of living is less. Finally, public schools will cost more because they have to accept nearly all students whereas private schools can expel undesireable students. I would note that you appear to admit the importance of money when you say that private school parents are "willing to pony up the money necessary to get their children the high quality education provided in these schools." Generally, they are not only willing but more importently, are able. Parochial schools cost less because they pay their teachers a lot less. Many persons who teach in parochial schools do so because of a committment to their faith, but if you talk to any of them, you will know that many are not happy about the low pay. Rural districts can pay less, of course, because the cost of living is less. Finally, public schools will cost more because they have to accept nearly all students whereas private schools can expel undesireable students.
I would note that you appear to admit the importance of money when you say that private school parents are “willing to pony up the money necessary to get their children the high quality education provided in these schools.” Generally, they are not only willing but more importently, are able.

]]> By: Dave Roland http://www.showmedaily.org/2010/08/funny-you-should-mention-it.html/comment-page-1#comment-7627 Dave Roland Sun, 08 Aug 2010 15:59:46 +0000 http://www.showmedaily.org/?p=21251#comment-7627 When people are paying for something out of their own pockets, you can pretty well guarantee that the amount they are willing to pay is related to the quality of the good or service purchased. As you pointed out, tremendous private schools can demand huge tuition payments because parents who can afford it are perfectly willing to pony up the money necessary to get their children the high-quality education provided in those schools. Public schools, on the other hand, get money regardless of their results, which is why it is impossible to predict the quality of a public school if all you know about it is the amount it spends per pupil. Some high-spending schools will be excellent, some will be terrible. It's also worth noting that some low-spending schools can also provide an excellent education, as is evidenced by a number of parochial schools and schools in rural areas of Missouri. Statistically speaking, there is no correlation between the amount of money a public school district spends per pupil and the academic performance of their students. There are concrete examples of this, too. If money CAUSED great schools, then Washington, DC, (which spends in excess of $18,000 per student) would have the best schools in the country. Instead, they have the absolute WORST schools in the country by a long shot. For a Missouri example, look at Kansas City's schools in the late '80s and early '90s. http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-298.html After dumping BILLIONS of dollars into those schools, the situation only got worse. So, as I pointed out, it seems rather absurd to suggest that the root of the St. Louis school district's problems is a lack of money. When people are paying for something out of their own pockets, you can pretty well guarantee that the amount they are willing to pay is related to the quality of the good or service purchased. As you pointed out, tremendous private schools can demand huge tuition payments because parents who can afford it are perfectly willing to pony up the money necessary to get their children the high-quality education provided in those schools.

Public schools, on the other hand, get money regardless of their results, which is why it is impossible to predict the quality of a public school if all you know about it is the amount it spends per pupil. Some high-spending schools will be excellent, some will be terrible. It’s also worth noting that some low-spending schools can also provide an excellent education, as is evidenced by a number of parochial schools and schools in rural areas of Missouri. Statistically speaking, there is no correlation between the amount of money a public school district spends per pupil and the academic performance of their students.

There are concrete examples of this, too. If money CAUSED great schools, then Washington, DC, (which spends in excess of $18,000 per student) would have the best schools in the country. Instead, they have the absolute WORST schools in the country by a long shot. For a Missouri example, look at Kansas City’s schools in the late ’80s and early ’90s. http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-298.html After dumping BILLIONS of dollars into those schools, the situation only got worse.

So, as I pointed out, it seems rather absurd to suggest that the root of the St. Louis school district’s problems is a lack of money.

]]> By: dempster holland http://www.showmedaily.org/2010/08/funny-you-should-mention-it.html/comment-page-1#comment-7617 dempster holland Sat, 07 Aug 2010 21:47:08 +0000 http://www.showmedaily.org/?p=21251#comment-7617 If money has no effect on the quality of educatioin, why do people spend so much money to send their kids to John Burroughs, Priory,etc? If money has no effect on the quality of educatioin, why do people spend so much money to send their kids to John Burroughs, Priory,etc?

]]>