Governor Cuomo likes to complain that New York spends too much for education. That was one of his reasons for wanting a “death penalty” for schools with low test scores.
Instead of doing anything to help them improve, like expanding Pre-K or reducing class sizes, he wants to “kill” those schools by eliminating democratic control of education–that is, by state takeover, mayoral control, or privatization. None of these three measures will help the kids. They just wipe out local control. Where is the logic?
Makes no sense, but that’s his story and he is sticking to it.
This reader has a different take on the Governor’s use of data:
Governor Cuomo complains that New York spends more per child than any other state.
He advocates data driven instruction.
Here are two pieces of data that our esteemed governor should consider before he “executes” failing schools and fires teachers based on unproven standardized tests.
Average cost per year to educate a child in New York State – $18,618.
Average cost per year to incarcerate a prisoner in New York State – $60,000.
http://schoolsofthought.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/21/which-places-spent-most-per-student-on-education/
http://shnny.org/research/the-price-of-prisons-what-incarceration-costs-taxpayers/
Diane Ravitch's blog 
When he says schools get the “death penalty” remember he’s talking about the educators that run them. Time to take a walk in their shoes Andy before you pull the switch.
We are dealing with dishonest people. They have their agenda first and they make up excuses for it afterwards. That ‘s why nothing they say makes sense. It’s a waste of time taking anything they say at face value. Just watch what they do and follow the money to the sources.
Education isn’t too expensive because prisons are more expensive?
Did anyone on here read about the budget used for US surveillance programs? It was billions and billions. I wondered to myself, “What on earth is costing so much?” It really is shocking.
The implication is that investing in a less costly service initially, i.e. on education, will lead to savings in more costly services later on, i.e. on incarceration. Here are a few more facts and figures
1. According to a study by researchers at Northeastern University, among dropouts between the ages of 16 and 24, incarceration rates were a whopping 63 times higher than among college graduates.
2. When compared to the typical high school graduate — a dropout will end up costing taxpayers an average of $292,000 over a lifetime due to the price tag associated with incarceration and other factors such as how much less they pay in taxes.
3. Young female dropouts were nine times more likely to have become single mothers than young women who went on to earn college degrees, the report said, citing census data for 2006 and 2007.
4. A 2007 study by Teachers College, Princeton and City University of New York researchers, for instance, estimated that society could save $209,000 in prison and other costs for every potential dropout who could be helped to complete high school.
5. The United States currently leads in the number of its citizens residing in our prison systems. One of every 150 Americans is cut off from society as an inmate, which amounts to over 2 million people at an approximate annual cost of $55 billion.
6. California once acted as the national model for its commitment to funding education. Today, the state spends 11% of its budget supporting its prison system, and less than 8% on education. The cost of $47,000 per prisoner in California is not unique. In 2009, over a dozen states spent more on their prison systems than they did on education.
7. According to the National Center for Education, 85 percent of juveniles in the court system are functionally illiterate.
8. More than 60 percent of all prison inmates are functionally illiterate.
9. According to an article published by the Arizona Republic, the state of Arizona projects how many beds it will need in its prisons based on the literacy rate of 4th grade students.
It seems like education is a better investment. Also, cost effectiveness aside, it would seem to lead to a happier outcome for all concerned, with the possible exception of the prison industry.
For more information, see the links below.
http://www.americaspromise.org/~/media/files/resources/consequences_of_dropping_out_of_high_school.ashx
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/education/dropout-nation/by-the-numbers-dropping-out-of-high-school/
http://www.policymic.com/articles/3761/falling-education-rates-leading-to-higher-prison-populations-more-poverty
http://www.begintoread.com/research/literacystatistics.html
The cost (in dollars/time/effort) of educating students in NY could be reduced if the governor would do HIS job. Stop constant campaigning and maneuvering for favor among campaign donors and potential presidency backers for the future. Stop shilling for marketeers who want to weaken communities/schools/democracy. Stop trying to eliminate budget gaps with cuts to those most needing in an economic environment where INVESTMENT (not inquisition) in the public commons will yield more positive sustainable gains than further enabling the privateers buying current policy.
Mr. Cuomo has little experience with the daily conditions of those he would so arrogantly impose his “death penalty” upon. I say open, public evaluations are in order.
He has been weighed, he has been measured, and he has been found wanting.
Vote Andrew Cuomo to hope for a job with Pearson or K12 online schools, 2014.
I don’t see why this is regarded as a foolish question. So many things cost so much in the US (just think of healthcare). Those posing the question may have bad motives but the question should be answered.
It is necessary to understand the motives of the corporate lib movement in order to understand the intent of these hypocritical complaints about cost.
Anyone who understands the corporate takeover agenda knows that the corporate libbers have no real intention to reduce the cost to society. Should they get their way the costs will never go down — aside perhaps from a brief promotional period — the costs will balloon and balloon to whatever the newly-created market will bear. And the forced market will bear a lot when the public sector right to education has been taken out of the picture.
What will happen on their plan is this. The education sector will be re-structured along the lines of a “siphon-up” service industry, where the lion’s share of the income will go to the financial lions at the top of the pyramid, to the ever-increasing detriment of the de-professionalized labor force who does all the real work.
You have but to look around to see the model they have in mind.
Go look at what the US spent on surveillance last year. I was shocked.
In 2003, New York’s highest court ruled that New York state’s school funding was so grossly inadequate that it violated NYC children’s fundamental constitutional right to a sound basic education. In 2007, then-Governor Spitzer and the NYS Legislature recognized that this constitutional obligation extended to ALL children in NY state and passed landmark legislation enacting a Foundation Aid Formula that called for over 5 billion additional dollars to be allocated to NYS schools, phased in over 4 years. In the first two years of its implementation, the state fulfilled its obligation. Then, in 2009, the state froze school aid at th 37.5% level. Subsequently it cut state school aid. The state also instituted mechanisms, the Gap Elimination Adjustment, the PIGI cap on state school aid, and the 2% tax cap on local levies, that prevent the state from ever reaching the level the state ITSELF determined was the constitutionally necessary minimum for public schools. The state is now over 8 BILLION dollars behind in its funding obligation for NYS public schools. New York state school districts are on the brink of bankruptcy. Something like 77% predict that they will be educationally insolvent within 4 years.
To consistenly and knowingly deprive New York State school children of basic educational resources year after year, to watch schools cut science labs, extra curriculars, sports, music, arts, core courses, hemorhage teachers and other staff and then claim New York spends too much on education is IMMORAL
Its borderline EVIL.
No! It is evil!
Yet it’s Bloomberg who’s received 99% of the heat for class sizes in NYC.
Bloomberg played a major role in the increase in class size, so he deserves much of the heat. Pursuant to the Contract for Excellence law, NYC was supposed to set and abide by specific class size reduction targets and was supposed to use the Contract for Excellence (C4E) money for that purpose. He has diverted money intended for class size reduction to his more reformy endeavors. Not only has he failed to abide by the targets, he has shut the public out of C4E plan development, in violation of the C4E law and has not released any of the audits that are supposed to monitor how he has spent the C4E money. Thus, he has exacerbated the inadequate state funding by diverting funds away from class size reduction
I’ve never found this argument convincing and I’ve never seen evidence to support it (and I’ve read all the Class Size Matters posts and PowerPoints). State funding plummeted in the Bloomberg years while pension and benefits costs exploded. The city picked up all that slack. Class sizes will be the same or higher under Mayor de Blasio’s administration. Because the money coming from the state is not enough.
Reduction of programs is happening in all the schools in NYS. Students end up with 2 or more study halls due to downsizing staff to save money. It’s a battle in the suburbs as schools try to adjust. All we needed to do was improve our struggling schools, not make all schools struggle.
Just watched a segment on the news on the debate over nyc teacher evaluations and common core… the woman fighting for these changes mentioned that the uft 100% backed this movement. It just made me livid because it is true. Well I am fed up….I love reading all these articles but the public is just not getting the message quickly enough. The uft doesn’t seem to care about the very people who keep them in office with nice salaries. I still don’t have a new contract or a raise but my workload for the new year has increased. Am I just over reacting or is a STRIKE in order?????