Maine Voices: Schools need more money, not less
The one social statistic that tracks performance (in reverse) is the number of students eligible for subsidized lunches.
By BRIAN LIPSETT
NAPLES - Maine's entire public school system is in jeopardy because Wall Street values have trashed the economy. In the midst of all the wrenching debate and rancor, some numbers might help inform the discussion.
Offering children food their families can afford implies feeding their intellects takes funding, too.
The Associated Press
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Brian Lipsett, Ph.D., is a resident of Naples. He can be contacted at brianlip.privey@gmail.com.
Maine school districts employ approximately 34,500 persons, and 73 percent of all Maine school district employees are women.
While many are in the teaching corps, many others are bus drivers, administrative personnel, superintendents and principals. About 45 percent of all school district employees are teachers.
Maine school districts put $2.2 billion into the economy in 2006-2007, with 64.8 percent of that amount paid to teachers in the form of salaries and benefits.
The average teacher salary in Maine in 2007 was $38,600. The average teacher salary nationwide in that year was $51,010.
One of the vaunted cost savings offered to school districts in order to rein in their contribution to the state's economy has been consolidation.
Maine's school district consolidation program is intended to reduce the number of districts from 290 to 80. The number of districts as of June 17 stands at 179. While we're told that consolidation saves money, three years into the program no authoritative audit of those savings for these new districts has been forthcoming.
In all this, we cannot afford to lose sight of student achievement. Improving student outcomes is not simply a matter of keeping kids in school and holding teachers accountable for better test scores while spending less money per student.
"Positive results" must also mean narrowing achievement gaps between white and minority students, low-wealth and higher wealth students, and disabled and non-disabled students. School consolidation is held out as a way to improve student outcomes, yet a large body of research holds that low-wealth students do better in smaller districts than in larger districts.
Despite the hullabaloo about teachers and testing, only one consistent measurable factor -- the percent of students eligible for a free or reduced price lunch -- can be shown to affect testing scores.
About 34.6 percent of all Maine school students are eligible for a free or reduced price lunch. This statistic (ranging between 2.3 percent eligible in Falmouth to 93.9 percent for Somerville) is the only variable that has a statistically significant relationship with student testing scores for students tested in fourth grade, eighth grade and high school math and reading tests. As the percentage of students eligible for a free or reduced price lunch goes up, testing scores go down -- across the board.
The March budget cut of $70.7 million takes a paltry $371 per student away from the monies spent to educate Maine's 190,546 public school students but it will cost schools dearly.
To put this in perspective, recall that the three top executives at AIG received over $76 million in direct compensation, stock options, and other benefits in 2008. Consider the Goldman Sachs cohort of well-dressed gentlemen highly compensated for their roles in the economic meltdown. The head of Goldman Sachs pocketed $70.3 million in 2007. The amount of money these gentlemen's work product took out of the economy is counted in the trillions.
All of this is intended to argue that, culturally speaking, our priorities are out of whack. The values of commerce cannot be allowed to operate unfettered at the expense of the overall competitiveness of our country's work force. "Shadow Banking Systems" cannot be allowed to destroy our schools.
An educated child is a tangible good. A stock derivative is not a tangible good and it must be pushed to the gutter when it gets in the way of the business of educating our children.
Maybe when the Congress and the courts are through unwinding this mess, they could assign a few of Wall Street's finest to come work in our most remote, lowest-wealth school districts.
We could get them started before the school year begins with maintenance. Then they can work as bus drivers and custodians.
If they manage to get the children to and from school safely and keep the buildings from falling on everybody's head, maybe we can give them teaching assistant jobs for a while.
And if they show an aptitude there, maybe we'll let them teach.
I wouldn't let them be administrators, though -- that would seem to be out of their reach.
Were you interviewed for this story? If so, please fill out our accuracy form
Most...
Copyright ©2010 MaineToday Media, Inc.
39 COMMENTS
Aquaman said...
"Wall Street values are taking over our schools!!!111" shrieks the author. His 2 pieces of evidence for this seem to be school consolidation and budget cuts (that he admits are "paltry"). But he never actually describes how these are values, policies or tactics borrowed from the business community he vilifies. No matter: many will reflexively agree with the premise "schools need more money"... whatever the justification.
July 4, 2010 at 8:07 AM Report abuse
yiddo said...
A good argument that sadly goes awry with the writer's resentment towards Wall St executive compensation. A state legislator on the budget comittee once told me that before consolidation, Maine's Public School syatem accounted for 75% of the the State's budget! This is uneccesary in a time of declining school age populations across the state. There are far more classroom desks in Maine, than there are children to fill them. So, the argument for consolodation is a good one and one that will ultimately benfit communities that have the most school-aged children, rather than those that have the fewest.. It's shame on our culture in general that we reward CEO's with extravagant pay and then watch as teachers get compensated for their valuable work with a paltry paycheck. This, however, is a culural problem and one that will not get fixed by more legislation!
July 4, 2010 at 8:09 AM Report abuse
ProBiz said...
This is the most ridiculous article I have read in a long time. Liberals continue to ruin the world and blame hard working people who pay their salaries by continuously using children and schools as a scape goat.
July 4, 2010 at 9:10 AM Report abuse
Chew said...
My mother attended a one room schoolhouse in rural Maine for the first eight grades. By the time she was a senior in high school she had skipped a couple of grades and graduated at age 16. Although she did not graduate college she was accepted and did attend a high profile private college in New England. Education is not about money and the sooner our educators realize this the better off our school children will be.
July 4, 2010 at 9:16 AM Report abuse
U3RldmUw said...
"About 45 percent of all school district employees are teachers." ================= That sounds like the main problem right there. The point of the education system is to teach children yet less than half of the employees are teaching.
July 4, 2010 at 10:19 AM Report abuse
U3RldmUw said...
"Despite the hullabaloo about teachers and testing, only one consistent measurable factor -- the percent of students eligible for a free or reduced price lunch -- can be shown to affect testing scores." ==================== This factor just shows that the problem starts before the kids even step foot in the school. Throwing money at the schools doesn't help if the parents are a part of the equation.
July 4, 2010 at 10:23 AM Report abuse
RobertAT said...
What U3RldmUw needs to realize is that the schools are the ones feeding the kids. It's the reality of our world today and instead of complaining that parents need to take responsibility, we need to act to feed kids in school. That, and we need to make sure that their parents earn enough to buy food. If their parent happens to be a teacher or buys driver, that child is probably one of the kids who qualifies for free or reduced lunch.
July 4, 2010 at 10:52 AM Report abuse
henryelm said...
"So, the argument for consolodation is a good one" BUT it seldom saves money!!! and your point chew?? many others went to 8 room school houses and DID finish in prestigious private colleges.
July 4, 2010 at 10:57 AM Report abuse
mpaxton said...
I wouldn't say it was Wall Street values...it was outright theft of the US Treasury by the six biggest banks. We should face that fact that this country experienced a coup in August 08. Our government was completely co-opted by the financial elite, and that situation persists today. Anyone who believes the bailout cash was ALL that Wall Street got, is sadly, sadly mis-informed. To date, over 3 TRILLION DOLLARS have gone to the major banks thru the bailouts, various Fed facilities and discount windows. And the banks are still NOT solvent. Nope. These guys have been stealing the cash as fast as it comes in -- kiting the stock market to the moon, spending billions "lobbying" to keep Congress in line, and, of course, giving themselves bonuses. So you wonder why there's no money for the schools, the states, social security???? Wake up.....we now have an elite class and a peasantry........and we are the peasants.
July 4, 2010 at 11:20 AM Report abuse
STM said...
Dear Brian, I wish you would investigate one more thing. How much do we (as a state) spend on stake testing (include NECAPS, NWEAS, MEA, Iowa, and other high stake tests and has the free lunch association changed with more testing. How much did we spend in this last school year compared to five years ago and then compare to before President Bush mandated testing through legislation. What kind of accountability have we gain. Does testing provide any insight that the teacher could not predict? How many teachers could we hire back if we went back to testing in grades 4,8 & 11 with one set of tests? Consolidation was suppose to reduce mostly administration; could you report out in percentages how job losses affect students. How many jobs have been lost in admin, in support, and in teachers? If you investigated formative and summative testing, you might be surprised at what is recommended and what is presently practiced. Join Teachers Letters to Obama on facebook for some leads.
July 4, 2010 at 11:23 AM Report abuse
Y2hhc3Zpdg%3D%3D said...
As one reviewer said: "Education is not about money"...that is, unless parents intend on abdicating their parental responsibilities. Learning can be as simple as turning off the television, the ipod, and the cell phones and instead finding a comfortable chair and reading a book.
July 4, 2010 at 11:55 AM Report abuse
Chew said...
Henryelm, My point is that the combination of good parenting, good teching, and children who are willing to listen and learn is (on a broad scale) probably one of the best environments in which to provide education. The amount of dollars needs to be secondary to the methods and environment in which kids are raised, at home, at school, and at play. The lion's share of the education budget goes toward salaries and benefits. I am not proposing more or less money, but I am proposing we take a hard look at the sustainability of our educational programs and the effectiveness of them. My town is building a new school when we have less students and less revenue. Why? Because the old school was not well maintained and because the state made the money available. This to me is a waste of money and speaks volumes about the character or people involved with the decision making process. Point is, we can do better vif we focus on the education instead of the money grab.
July 4, 2010 at 11:55 AM Report abuse
henryelm said...
I actually agree with most of what you say chew: 'The lion's share of the education budget goes toward salaries and benefits." YUP so what DO you expect it SHOULD go to?? Schools ARE staff, period.Very little goes to paper books pencils etc. what else is there??"My town is building a new school when we have less students and less revenue. Why?" consolidation perhaps? You can't fit more kids in the old school and you are combining schools??
July 4, 2010 at 12:43 PM Report abuse
henryelm said...
" Because the old school was not well maintained" because people like you were saying NO to education funding. Forcing a difficult choice of maintaining schools or keeping teachers in the classroom. Which SHOULD they have chosen?? The exact same thing has happened in Portland, because people like you said we could "afford" to spend on school. Tightened budgets means maintenance is postponed. as a result jack school became mold filled, and as a result HAD to be replaced. Penny wise pound foolish, I agree. Just like a business needs to INVEST money to thrive, so do schools. Like it or not!!Agree or not!!
July 4, 2010 at 12:52 PM Report abuse
henryelm said...
Chew I have consistently OPPOSED consiolidation Because smaller schools( like that one room school house your mother atteneded)ARE better for kids and their learning AND because consolidation usually cost MORE, exactly because of the NEED to build bigger school to hold the students from those consolidated schools!!!
July 4, 2010 at 12:58 PM Report abuse
henryelm said...
say you have 2 one room school houses (Or heck 3- 8 room school houses-more typical) Suppose the child population is dropping( as it is in SOME comunnities, but not all) Class size shrinks, over time from say 25 kids to 17 kids yielding a BETTER educational environment for the kids education with more individual attention. That SHOULD be a good thing!! BUT some don't view it that way. The sky is falling teacher/student ratio is falling, OH MY!!!
July 4, 2010 at 1:08 PM Report abuse
henryelm said...
some say well why can't we combine those classes and save money and fire one of those teachers. ok so maybe there ARE 2 first grade clasaes with 17 kids each. Combine them and you get 34 kids and 1 teacher, Most parent would object to that class size but then other are saying but I had 34 kids when I was in school!!( course there was no special ed then and those with problems were institutionlized or in special seperate schools then. And IF you misbehave, your parents back the teacher NOT you!!) 34 kids and one teacher MIGHT have worked in the 50's but not so well in this century. You see where I'm going right? In most cases the decrease in class size doesn't happen neatly or in a way where you can combine classes.It might be ONE 1st grade and one 4th grade that has a small class size. Noone would suggest those 2 clases combine to save the cost of a teacher position would they?? Or it might be One class in ONE school and One class in another school.
July 4, 2010 at 1:19 PM Report abuse
henryelm said...
so, well say over some MORE time you have several small schools in ONE community with small class sizes. Maybe the average class size is 17. Heck maybe it's even lower by now-Lets say it is 15 per class maybe there are 2 first grade classes in one school and 2 first grade classes in another. Now what?? You could combine the 4 classes, eliminate ONE teacher and have a class size of 20 each. That would be acceptable to parents BUT now where do you put them??
July 4, 2010 at 1:30 PM Report abuse
henryelm said...
suppose, just suppose that all classes in BOTH 8 room schools schools have small class sizes. Now keep in mind it doesn't usually happen all neat and clean like that but alot of time has passed by now. So you have 16 classes that maybe you can NOW combine and eliminate say 4 teachers( saving maybe $160,000) BUT where DO you put those newly formed 12 class rooms?? Neither school can hold 12 classrooms. Well you have to BUILD a new school costing $14 million to save $160,000!! I don't know, "the math" just doesn't seem to add up to "savings ". It's not so easy to "consolidate" and create efficiencies and still come up with savings!! "the math" just doesn't work, especilly if schools you want to combine are 10 miles away from each other and then you have new added transportation costs.
July 4, 2010 at 1:43 PM Report abuse
henryelm said...
The thing is chew the school population doesn't drop in a convenient way to "FIND" savings. It would be great if all of a sudden 20 kids disappear from one grade level and one teacher could be eliminated but that isn't how it happens. Eventually over time there are enough "losses" to combine a grade level to see savings BUT it doesn't happen all neat and clean. PS as to results our testing is in the top 5 nationally. We used to be #1 before people( the right) decided they wanted to slice and dice our schools funding. that tells me money and how we DO education DOES matter!!
July 4, 2010 at 1:52 PM Report abuse
henryelm said...
IF "savings" is the ONLY goal (I think GOOD education should be the goal but..) it will take 20-30 year for "consolidation" to begin to net ANY savings. Those saving will ONLY show up AFTER you have paid for those new bigger school necessary to combine those classrooms.
July 4, 2010 at 1:58 PM Report abuse
David said...
This may be the most irrational, ridiculous editorial ever to grace the pages of the Press Herald. Yikes.
July 4, 2010 at 2:07 PM Report abuse
U3RldmUw said...
RobertAT said... What U3RldmUw needs to realize is that the schools are the ones feeding the kids. ================ The kids aren't performing poorly because they aren't eating, they are performing poorly because for the most (but not all) of the parents who can't afford to feed their kids aren't likely to be very good and involved parents. My friend's wife teaches at a High School and has children in honors, college prep, and remedial classes. During parent teacher conferences, nearly all of the parents of the honors kids show up, about half of the parents of the college prep students show up, and only a couple of the parents of the remedial kids show up. The kids doing poorly generally have lousy parents.
July 4, 2010 at 4:00 PM Report abuse
common_cents said...
It is sad that someone with a Ph.D. has such a wretched understanding of the academic plight of children from low income families(school lunch eligible)in Maine's public schools; and fail to draw out the statistics on how they fail to achieve minimal standards despite the tens of millions of NCLB and other federal dollars directed at improving their education. The writer could have broken out the NAEP scores by school lunch over time, i.e. watching them fall as these students progress(?) from 4th to 8th grade; and then fail to meet most of the competancy levels set under the SAT's. Nor did this writer draw the connection to Maine's ranking of 12th in per pupil spending(National Educational Data statistics) and the failure to educated poor children despite spending over $55m a year to supplement their education...your Ph.D. was in what again???
July 4, 2010 at 7:04 PM Report abuse
common_cents said...
I would have welcomed a research overview on the correlation between educational spending and the academic performance of school lunch eligible students; but Lipsett's Ph.D. apparently wasn't in a relevant area....too bad!.....In Maine there are some rural schools with a low per pupil that do an excellent job of uplifting the performance of poor children...find them Lipsett, and report back.
July 4, 2010 at 7:09 PM Report abuse
henryelm said...
common this was a 1000 word piece for the general public not an 1000 page in depth research piece.
July 4, 2010 at 7:38 PM Report abuse
Chris said...
When you think of thousands of otherwise motivated teachers broken by the union and stuck with a discriminatory pay scheme based on "step increases," it is rather discouraging. However as Brian Lipsett wrote, there's no statistics that show throwing more money at the problem works.
July 4, 2010 at 8:04 PM Report abuse
DasBoot said...
Bull%*&#
July 4, 2010 at 11:11 PM Report abuse
1bright1 said...
So if I can sum this article up: we should give tax dollars to the kids families who qualify for reduced lunch, because parents need the money to be actually responsible parents? Or is it that eating school provided lunch makes you stupid? Maybe Maine needs Jamie Oliver?
July 5, 2010 at 6:03 AM Report abuse
GURRY70 said...
In our school system at the one elementary school I am well aware of a majority of the kids receive reduced or free lunches....but many of the parents have plenty of money for alcohol and pot.
July 5, 2010 at 7:42 AM Report abuse
Iwatch said...
Schools need more accountability and discipline, not more money. Money has been thrown at schools for many years now and we have gotten less for more. Teacher's unions have disrupted dedication to a certain degree as well.
July 5, 2010 at 9:14 AM Report abuse
trisailer said...
I have to agree that the current education model is not working. I will never understand why we do not have many different experiments going on with regards to educating our children. The current system is creating a bunch of conformist who are all restrained while being taught the same things. It's no wonder that the creative thinking is diminished. I home schooled my two teens for a couple of years and quickly changed them from underperformers to overachievers in a couple of years. It seems to me that the schools take a long time to teach a few principles. As a child I hated school and was passed on anyway. I dropped out/got kicked out in the 9th grade but came back at 25 and graduated with a solid B average. The existing system did not fit my learning potential and so was a complete waste of time.
July 5, 2010 at 10:24 AM Report abuse
Steve0 said...
trisailer said... I dropped out/got kicked out in the 9th grade but came back at 25 and graduated with a solid B average. ============================ Do you mean in adult-ed night classes? They don't let 25 year olds into high school.
July 5, 2010 at 10:54 AM Report abuse
henryelm said...
"Schools need more accountability and discipline, not more money" Wall Street needed more acoutability!!!
July 5, 2010 at 11:15 AM Report abuse
trisailer said...
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I got a GED after serving in the Army and then entered college at 25 and graduated in '78. There are all sorts of adult ed programs for people wishing to obtain a GED.
July 5, 2010 at 1:18 PM Report abuse
backwrdstate said...
Teachers need more money. As the PPH reported last week, starting trash collectors make more money than starting teachers in Portland. Talk about a country with its priorities assbackward.
July 5, 2010 at 6:58 PM Report abuse
backwrdstate said...
Teachers need more money. As the PPH reported last week, starting trash collectors make more money than starting teachers in Portland. Talk about a country with its priorities azzbackward.
July 5, 2010 at 7:00 PM Report abuse
common_cents said...
Putting it in perspective...love how this phrase is a lead in to another straw man argument; but if you take the average income in a Maine SMSA and compare the wages of teachers in the same area; you'll find the teachers are in the top five percent....the more rural the area, the more likely that the teachers are the highest paid workers, esp. with the closing of the mills. Another perspective is to calculate the hourly wage of a teacher---which is the 'yardstick' the union uses; and when you add in all the benefits, pensions, free training, etc.; the avg. hourly wage is about $55/hr; or over seven times the minimum wage!! How's that for perspective.
July 6, 2010 at 9:47 AM Report abuse
tenacity said...
OUTLAW PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEE UNIONS and there will be plenty of funds and applicants for the jobs. Eliminate the unions excessive bennies and salaries and there is already plenty of cash to go around. The liberal M0R0Ns henry, biddy, sailorboy and unionpuke (msh) don't understand "it's the economy stupid!"
July 6, 2010 at 11:55 AM Report abuse