The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities documents how states are disinvesting in K-12 education.
This report shows the dramatic contradiction between political rhetoric and economic reality. The state’s that are cutting education spending are also demanding higher test scores, and many have launched charters and vouchers, which further diminish funding for public schools.
It begins:
“Public investment in K-12 schools — crucial for communities to thrive and the U.S. economy to offer broad opportunity — has declined dramatically in a number of states over the last decade. PUBLIC INVESTMENT IN K-12 SCHOOLS HAS DECLINED DRAMATICALLY IN A NUMBER OF STATES OVER THE LAST DECADE.Worse, most of the deepest-cutting states have also cut income tax rates, weakening their main revenue source for supporting schools.
“At least 23 states will provide less “general” or “formula” funding — the primary form of state support for elementary and secondary schools — in the current school year (2017) than when the Great Recession took hold in 2008, our survey of state budget documents finds. Eight states have cut general funding per student by about 10 percent or more over this period. Five of those eight — Arizona, Kansas, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin — enacted income tax rate cuts costing tens or hundreds of millions of dollars each year rather than restore education funding.
“Most states raised general funding per student this year, but 19 states imposed new cuts, even as the national economy continues to improve. Some of these states, including Oklahoma, Kansas, and North Carolina, already were among the deepest-cutting states since the recession hit.
“Our country’s future depends heavily on the quality of its schools. Increasing financial support can help K-12 schools implement proven reforms such as hiring and retaining excellent teachers, reducing class sizes, and expanding the availability of high-quality early education. So it’s problematic that so many states have headed in the opposite direction over the last decade. These cuts risk undermining schools’ capacity to develop the intelligence and creativity of the next generation of workers and entrepreneurs.
“Our survey, the most up-to-date data available on state and local funding for schools, also indicates that, after adjusting for inflation:
“Thirty-five states provided less overall state funding per student in the 2014 school year (the most recent year available) than in the 2008 school year, before the recession took hold.
In 27 states, local government funding per student fell over the same period, adding to the damage from state funding cuts. In states where local funding rose, those increases rarely made up for cuts in state support.”
This helps to explain the lure of school choice. It is a thinly-veiled way to divert attention from a state’s failure to fund its public schools. It offers a cheap alternative.
Reblogged this on DelawareFirstState and commented:
“Thirty-five states provided less overall state funding per student in the 2014 school year (the most recent year available) than in the 2008 school year, before the recession took hold” – according to the report.
As long as the middle class continues to see its income stagnate or even decline relative to the cost of living the states will continue to defund public education. Increasing property taxes just isn’t an option for the financially stressed population.
Very true and where has that income gone. Because unless G.D.I. has fallen. It has not evaporated.
Yes. Because it has gone mostly to the top 1/10 of one percent.
But it’s not just that. In Utah, which has record-setting revenue, legislators only give a paltry amount to public education. In most years, it’s not even enough to cover the rapid population growth here (Utah has the youngest average population in the country). Legislators are using the 2008 financial collapse as an excuse, but, in many cases, the states could afford to help more.
that’s truly discouraging.
I would go further. It’s beyond diverting attention from a state”s failure to fund education. The school choice debate deceives the public while governmental entities at all levels sell off billions of dollars in public assets.
From the report: “These cuts risk undermining schools’ capacity to develop the intelligence and creativity of the next generation of workers and entrepreneurs.”
“Workers and entrepreneurs”? Is that it? What about writers and artists, teachers, scientists, politicians, religious and community leaders, citizens and parents? Can we put a historian in there somewhere? Where does the likes of, say, Ken Burns, fit in there?
I cringed at that statement as well: “These cuts risk undermining schools’ capacity to develop the intelligence and creativity of the next generation of workers and entrepreneurs.” The only saving grace was that the report came from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. It seems that whenever money is involved, the focus is on a monetary return. Just the thought of education as solely the training of a new generation of worker bees turns my stomach. Is the only creativity in life to be the ability to launch a business?
2old2teach: The use of “sunk to the bottom” language by writers of such reports just shows how subtle and pervasive a reduction of horizon can be. Even those who might support a broader view of education–as actually for intelligent and creative persons living in a dynamic culture, rather than being reduced to reflect working and starting businesses that serve the bottom line–think and speak in terms of that reduced horizon. They either value only those things, or they think their readers do.
If you start with the goal of destroying Public Education as part of a Southern strategy, as part of a right wing attack on anything public under Milton Friedman and Ronald Reagan,are we to be surprised that we wind up here. Starve the beast is an old yet effective game plan. This was never about the children for many reasons.
The propaganda campaign against public education along with the idea of subjecting public education to the marketplace has created a climate of disinvestment in public education. What was once considered an obligation for the common good is now viewed by some as one option, and a “failed” one at that. Public education is the black sheep of choices in many states. What the “choice” proponents fail to understand is that this will cost a lot more, not less. A parallel system with a whole new set of fixed costs, high salaries for those at the top, profit waste and fraud will drive up the costs for taxpayers. People need to look at the facts. These parallel systems are harming the public education of most of the students in return for meager, pitiful gains for a few students. There is no way to prove that these same students could not have made these same gains in a well funded local public school, and also that many other students would have benefited as well. Public education is efficient, and offers more choices than most charters.
So North Dakota is the place for teachers
http://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/after-nearly-a-decade-school-investments-still-way-down-in-some-states
Of course, in those states where edu spending has increased, one has to see where the money was spent. Was it spent on investments into privatizing? Could it be that in Tennessee, for example, the increase is due to funding ASD and other reform adventures?
Speaking as a TN educator, the increases have not gone to classrooms in K-12 or public higher ed. Class sizes are rising all over the state. The governor & the republican majority in the General Asempby are playing a shell game with education dollars by diverting them to charter chains, testing companies & construction.
When they say they are spending more on education, don’t believe them. Privatization of K-12 & higher ed are their priorities.
ALEC is achieving its goals to privatize/profitize the United States government and turn the US Constitutions into toilet paper.
I saw this report and the rankings of states. In some states, the “divestment” is designed to produce the conditions for charters and other “education service providers” to enter the so-called education “market” and stimulate activity in “a major sector of the economy.” In that case, state funding for education may be redirected to economic development.
“The states that are cutting education spending are also demanding higher test scores.” No problem seeing through the smoke here, all the way to having few to zero teachers available so that, well, what can we do — but sit the kids in front of computers. Ultimately, no teachers (or their paychecks or pensions) NEEDED.
That is why standardized tests are “weapons of mass destruction.”
a perfect metaphor 🙂