Reader comments
Utah still last on ed funds

Spending per student is the wrong measure to use. It should be average students per qualified teacher. Here in Chicago area, our property taxes are extremely high, for example our $280,000 4 bedroom home costs us nearly $6,000 per year. Many teachers (with 5+ years experience and a masters) earn over $70,000 per year. So comparing their salary to the same teacher in Utah at $55 - 60,000 per year shows nearly a 18% lower cost per student (just comparing amount spent per teacher). I know of another school district that went on strike, because they were only the 3rd best paid school district in the state (at over anverage of $90K per teacher).

In addition, most school districts here have one or two high schools, 4-8 middle schools, and 10 - 15 elementary schools. The school district president gets paid nearly $200K a year. They also have a large, well paid staff. Compare that many school districts in Utah with 4 - 10 high schools and corresponding middle schools and elementary schools. This again helps explain a lower cost per student spending.

So don't be mislead by statistics. Use one that is meaningful which would be students per qualified teacher ratio to compare education spending. Then work on improving in that area along with good facilities.

Just another reason our State's elite deserve vouchers... because we have the most underfunded Public system in the US.

A more important question is how are are students performing? how are they learning compared to national averages? How are they testing out compared to the national average?

I for one am proud we are a state that does not just throw money at education--so we can be as wasteful as everybody else in the country.

A teacher with a masters degree and 5 years experience pulls in about 40K per year. Very few teachers ever hit the 50K mark.

Just throwing money at the system doesn't mean it will improve. I constantly read about Utah's high graduation rate, the high percentage of young people who go on to college, and the good scores in the national testing system, then we get a whiny story about how we don't spend enough money on the schools.

The fact is, there is plenty of money for education right now. Just get rid of about half the administrators and those who glob onto the system and return nothing.

Given the billions and billions of dollars spent on education in the last 40 years, and the complete lack of any noticeable improvement, I would say spending more money, is no the answer.

P.S. If the schools don't have enough money, why are they always tearing up and replacing the titanic amounts of grass around every building? Spend the money first on education, and if you have any left over, plant grass....

I agree with the first comment. We should pay our school teachers well, but funding must be a balance effort and education deserves to be amoung the top priorities but the ability of tax payers to afford to support it must be considered. We have a lot of young individuals so we achieve ecomonomies of scale. Many costs are fixed and can't change. It would be interesting to see how variable costs per student stack up against the nation.

Ken I had to laugh at your numbers. According to Provo School District's website a teacher with 5 years experience and a masters degree would be making $37,065. No where near $55,000 - $60,000 that you claim.

Lowest again. Big surprise.

No wonder all of the teachers are leaving and going to Las Vegas, California, or even Wyoming.

Last year was a good step in the right direction. The legislature stepped up and gave a nice raise. Hopefully it will happen again this year. We have to do something or else we will soon be outsourcing our teaching jobs as well!

Every time I see we are last on funding but still providing a bang for the buck I'm happy as a clam. I'm especially happy when I see that those who spend literally 3-5 times more per student are places like New York City, Kansas City, and Washington D.C. have abysmal education systems and huge non-teaching middle tiers of educational professionals.

There is nothing to be ashamed about with our spending. We should continue to focus on the correct spending for our needs and not focus on how our spending compares to others. Isn't the end result a much better goal?

Yes, demographics is an issue. However, since the income tax is the major source of general funding for education, (property tax mainly pays for buildings) and large families get a huge tax break, education funding is foisted upon a smaller segment of the population. Used to be easy to say we do more with less, but the number of high risk students is increasing dramatically, so we are not looking as solid in comparisons. Have tyo agree with Gag about the vouhcers.

RJ:

Why do we conservatives assume that funds devoted to education is throwing away money on education? If our students are doing as well as they are without adequate funding, imagine what they could be doing with adequate funding? I personally know fine teachers who have left our state because they were not paid well enough here. The money is the thing because we need to hold on to good teachers. That's not a liberal sentiment, it's a common-sense sentiment.

Duchesne County School District offers a begining teacher with a BS degree $29,897. A first year District maintenance worker makes $29,268. A teacher with 25 years experience and a BS degree tops out at $40, 691. A teacher with 20 years and a Masters degree still won't hit 50K

Utah's next to the lowest cost per student compared to above average test scores makes it the most efficient in the nation. Remember too that most of the 500 million dollars was eaten up by a huge increase in student population state wide and this will continue. As for teacher salaries the Governor helped several districts hire elementary teachers from Mexico(cheap labor), because Utah's low salaries are unable to compete with other states and professions.
Our taxes haven't really risen in most areas, because the large increase of students is caused by the even larger increase in the state population which has provided the increased funding. Because of large student population growth funding must increase, even if there is no real improvement in education.

Sorry for the $50 - 60K for Utah teachers with a Masters. I meant to say if they were paid $50 - 60K per year then the per student rate would be 18% less. Using the $37 - 40K amount, then the amount paid per pupil is even lower, around 58%.

It supports my argument that amount paid per student is not the best number to use. I also agree that teacher salaries are too low especially considering the cost of housing in Utah these days.

What Utah needs to determine what does it need to pay to keep good teachers in order to move and keep the graduation rate and performance on SAT and ACT exams in the upper 1/3 to 1/4 of the US or if you really want excellent schools compare that to other top education countries in the world.

That is the true measurement of quality education.

How far will $3,000 or less work out for the rancher that has to drive his kids to a eliet private school. You think the State will continue to match the $3K to the public school system for a Native American. Not in this white State.

Per pupil spending is a MISLEADING indicator. Utah has the largest family size in the country and a lower than average per person income level. Put those two facts together and Utah will have the lowest transporation spending per pupil, the lowest healthcare spending per pupil, the lowest anything per pupil. UNLESS a disproportionate share of the money from one area goes to another.

We can't get the spending in education to the National Per Pupil levels unless we absolutely bury some other service underground, stop having children, or increase the income levels of individuals in the state!!

The legislature didn't "step up" to give the teachers a raise last year. They wanted to keep them quiet and stop them from telling everyone what a bad idea vouchers are. It was hush money.

Most who complain about teachers getting to much are obtuse and ill-informed. All arguments have their flaws. There are those that argue that we should cut money to schools or not increase funding but as long as you live in a democracy with freedom of speech you will have those that shout out short or self interested rhetoric.
The one�s who go out and teach are the only ones that really are trying. And yes we do have poor teachers but we have poor people in every industry that still get paid or move up, (see peter principal), but leaving the salary scale where it is will not encourage even those with altruistic motive to accept the challenge or tolerate the lack of appreciation or ignorance of constituents in large classrooms. And to say we need to see test scores go up before we increase is ludicrous, that�s like beating the horse because he can�t pull the cart you have overloaded.
People stop arguing when you did not do well enough in school and you disliked a particular teacher. Look for the good. I am not asking for more money for me I am asking for you to pay for what you get. You do not get something for nothing unless someone somewhere is getting nothing for something. (basic economics(I think this really applies at the state capital)

This tax system in the state is so flawed - we get tax deductions for "dependents" - if you have kids you should pay for their education, and not get tax relief. The people who have the kids should be the one paying for their education. I have no kids, yet I am stuck having to pay more taxes than anyone. I understand that as a society an educated society is best, so I can see paying a little - but why should I pick up for a society that can't stop having kids. I am sick of hearing about education spending. I want it cut. We spend too much as it is.

When are we going to get past using $$ spent on eduction as the indication of success or failure in education?

Isn't the goal to make our schools better? More $$ doesn't neccesarily make our education system "Better".

What are we saying when we say lack of $$ is blocking our success?
- Are we saying the educators we have will suddenly perform better if given more $$?
- Or are we saying if given more $$ we can get rid of the currrent batch of teachers and get the more expensive ones we can't afford now?
- Are we saying our kids will work harder if we give their teachers more $$?

WHAT ARE WE SAYING?

I'm not against paying our teachers more but if that is the agenda just be open about it.

I don't agree just increasing the $$ will make the system better. I also don't agree that the Utah education system is currently in a crisis of either funding or performance (I don't know if it is the UEA or the media that keeps pushing per pupil spending as our goal).

I think our teachers are performing excellently and deserve more $$, but don't use $$ as the single indication of a successful education system.