What accounts for the differences in academic achievement between inner-city poverty area schools and high-income public schools? We‘ve all heard of the dreadful schools in cities like Chicago and Baltimore with no children in the entire school able to achieve even baseline levels of competence in math or verbal skills and many other schools with a third at most achieving at grade level.
Many would assume funding is the major determinant, but the facts don’t back that up. American public schools have traditionally been funded by local property taxes, which provide a clear advantage to the wealthy. But that was then. Today, education funding is complex, with federal funding for special programs, equalization formulas, and other inputs making it difficult for even experts to determine the bottom line.
A recent study from the Urban Institute confirmed other research showing that “when considering federal, state and local funding,” all states but three “allocate more per student funding to poor kids than to non-poor kids.” Moreover, researchers from Harvard and Stanford found that each extra $1,000 per pupil spending is associated with an annual gain in achievement of 1/10 of one percent of a standard deviation. In other words, more spending and more learning are essentially unrelated.
If more spending did produce more achievement, we would be morally obligated to provide it. As it is, we must look for other reasons to explain the achievement gap, examining how well the allocated funds are used. Education researcher Jay Greene observes that “wasteful schools tend to hire more non-instructional staff while raising the pay and benefits for all staff regardless of their contribution to student outcomes.”
Effective schools, whenever possible, prioritize the learning interests of students, eschewing the fads and misconceptions that plague the public school establishment. When a Stanford education professor helpfully developed an “equity-based” curriculum proposal, gullible California educators issued guidance against students taking algebra courses before high school.
After decades of the promotion of “context-based” reading instruction, it became obvious that the old-fashioned phonics instruction produced better readers. The Columbia University center that pushed context-based instruction was finally closed in 2023.
The devastating COVID closures demanded by the teachers’ unions disproportionately affected low-income public school students. The closures lasted longer and caused more learning loss for poor students than for those in private schools and more upscale districts.
The different, more “lenient” treatment afforded to low-income kids is evident also in the cellphone bans proliferating in the schools. Educators are suddenly realizing, after 20 years or so, that daily staring at a small screen bearing social media messages is not healthy for the developing brain.
According to advisories from the Surgeon General, UNESCO, and others, adolescent cell phone usage impairs academic achievement by distracting students’ attention from classroom instruction. Chronic cell phone overuse is also isolating and interferes with normal social development. Widespread cell phone use is associated with higher rates of teenage depression and suicide.
Eight states and many school districts have imposed cell phone bans, and others, including Arizona, are considering legislation. But there are objections. Parents feel the need to “keep in touch” with their children. Phones are also needed to locate friends in the lunchroom (yes, really). More seriously, parents worry about not having contact in a school shooting, even though the chances of any student encountering even one during their entire school life is vanishingly small.
The bigger problem is that legislative cell phone bans are typically so loose and riddled with exceptions that they are practically useless. California, with great fanfare from Governor Gavin Newsom, passed a bill that only required schools to “adopt a policy limiting or prohibiting smart phones by July 2026.” Any school with even an insignificant modification in cell phone usage would be legally in compliance, and enforcement would be a snap. Helicopter parents would still be in business. Florida’s ban is limited to classroom time only.
Private schools and high-end public schools pushed ahead with their own rules, which typically are more comprehensive and tightly written. Strict, uniform restrictions are easier for both teachers and students to understand. Meanwhile, poor students once again are saddled with misdirected compassion and low expectations.
Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.
The state spends billions more on wealthy students who attend public schools than through the Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA), or universal school choice program, according to a new analysis of federal census data from the Goldwater Institute.
The study released earlier this month culminated data from the last five U.S. Census Bureau Household Pulse Surveys ranging from last year to this year assessing school enrollment types for K-12 children across various household incomes.
The Goldwater Institute found that together, the data revealed that nearly one-third of public school students came from households earning over $100,000, of which about half came from households earning over $150,000.
The study disclosed that the Census data, though aggregated, was limited as general approximations due to coming from sample sizes.
Over 80 percent of children from higher-income households enroll at taxpayer expense in Arizona public schools, at a much higher rate than the ESA funds. About 1.1 million students in all attend public schooling.
Goldwater estimated that the higher rate amounts to anywhere from $2 to $4 billion annually for children from households earning over $100,000, and anywhere from $1 to $2 billion for children from households earning over $150,000.
“[W]hen it comes to funding higher-income students in the public school, the state is being charged specifically for those students, whose collective presence in the public school system does add significant cost to the public school system: both variable and fixed costs, including the necessity to hire additional staff or construct or renovate for larger campuses,” read the report.
The minimum formula funding for one public school student is about $7,500 annually for a baseline. That number rises to $12,200 with the inclusion of other funds like district overrides, bonds, and school facilities funding. The minimum tops out at over $14,700 with the inclusion of federal funding.
By comparison, Goldwater reported that average ESA funds amount to about $7,400. These students also lose out on several sources of fixed and variable costs, such as the Classroom Site Fund, and those funds revert back to the public school system.
Overall, the institute estimated that it costs taxpayers 10 to 20 times more to educate students of wealthy families in public schools than it does for similarly-situated families in the ESA Program.
The Goldwater Institute issued the study on the heels of Governor Katie Hobbs’ January announcement of a budget plan to revoke ESA Program scholarships from nearly 50,000 students.
Aggregated data collected by Goldwater in the course of their research further suggested that about 20 percent of private schoolers came from households with an income under $50,000, while about 50 percent came from households with an income under $100,000.
As for homeschoolers, the institute found that nearly 60 percent of those students hailed from households with income levels under $100,000.
In addition to state and Census Bureau data, the report relied on research from the National Center for Education Statistics, Reason, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Have you heard the outrageous story of what happened recently in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania’s capital? Gov. Josh Shapiro (D-Pa.), elected in 2022, had campaigned on school choice for tens of thousands of children, mostly minorities, who are forced to attend failing public schools in places like Philadelphia.
“It’s what I believe,” Shapiro, then state attorney general, assured voters as he ran for governor. Last month on a national Fox News broadcast, Shapiro was unequivocal in his support for school choice because “every child of God” deserves “a quality education.”
But there’s a force far more powerful in politics than Shapiro’s convictions, such as they are. And that force is the teachers unions. They put on a full-court press to stop the roughly 10,000 vouchers for the poorest kids in Pennsylvania’s worst school districts even though the state budget bill gave billions more for the public schools. It didn’t matter that this voucher program comprised less than 0.5% of state spending. The union brass commanded Democrats to vote no on even a single penny going to schools that work.
In the end, Shapiro did a full flip-flop. He vetoed his own promise. He might as well have declared that black lives don’t matter.
Shapiro has presidential ambitions — so he figures he needs the teachers unions behind him. But if he can’t face down Randi Weingarten, how is he ever going to stand up to bullies like China’s President Xi Jinping or Russia’s President Vladimir Putin?
This story isn’t just about Josh Shapiro in Pennsylvania. In North Carolina, Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper declared a state of emergency in the Tar Heel State because the legislature wanted to fund vouchers for kids to go to the best schools possible. Egads!
In Arizona, Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs wants to defund a school choice program that is already serving tens of thousands of kids, most of whom are Hispanic, with proven results of better performance and higher test scores. Why would she kill a program that is working? The teachers unions want the money and the kids under their control.
In New York City’s Harlem neighborhood, charter schools are flourishing. They are alternatives to public schools but are still regulated by the state. They are oversubscribed because parents want to choose the best school for their kids. Now, the Democrats want to put a cap on the charter schools because the teachers unions want to warehouse the kids in public schools where a majority of the kids can’t read or do math at grade-level proficiency. In other words, many of the public schools are worse than mediocre. And it’s not for lack of money. New York spends more than $20,000 per child in public schools.
Did I mention that in nearly every one of these cases across the country, the Democrats blocking private and Catholic school options went to private schools themselves? Or they send their kids to private schools. But poor black kids aren’t allowed that same opportunity? These are hypocrites with a capital H.
There’s a cruel historic irony here. Sixty years ago this summer, Alabama Gov. George Wallace stood before the doors of schools to prevent black children from attending the schools with white children. He was trying to preserve the stain of segregation.
Today, Democrats are employing the same tactic to keep minority kids from attending excellent schools. Why? They say that school choice will hurt public schools or cause more segregation.
Wrong on both counts. Monopolies are always bad for consumers and competition improves service. Education choice requires public schools to compete. Would you get good and friendly service if there were only one restaurant in town?
Instead of draining public schools of money, studies show that per-pupil funding rises when some kids take advantage of vouchers to attend alternative schools. Charter and Catholic schools tend to be, in most cases, more racially diverse than inner-city public schools.
I’m a parent of five boys, so I know that each of my kids has different skills, interests, behavior issues and attention spans. To warehouse them all in the same schoolroom is madness. Schools should be tailored toward the kids and serve their interests — not those of the $1 trillion a year public-school-industrial complex.
More importantly, as an economist, my biggest worry about America’s future is what happens when kids are graduating without being able to read their diplomas and with no useful skills. There are hundreds of schools around the country where not a single child can pass a basic math or reading test.
That’s an economic, civil rights and national security tragedy. Shame on Democratic leaders, and some Republicans, too, for putting their own political ambitions ahead of our nation’s children.
Stephen Moore is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, and a co-founder of the Committee to Unleash Prosperity. His latest book is “Govzilla: How the Relentless Growth of Government Is Devouring Our Economy.”
America is losing faith in its system of free public education. Test scores are down. Violence in schools is up. There’s a growing perception that things are out of control.
What’s odd about it all is how no one, seemingly, is interested in exploring why. State legislators don’t want to do it. Local school boards have other things on their minds. And the press is too busy covering real problems, like Donald Trump’s refusal to return classified documents to the National Archives, to spend any time exploring the reason kids are still being allowed to graduate from public schools without anything close to the mastery they need to get ahead in life.
Occam’s razor, named for its progenitor, 14th-century English philosopher and theologian William of Ockham, suggests the simplest answer is most likely the correct one. This would mean, one can infer, that the plight of our children is the fault of the teachers and administrators who run the schools.
Before continuing it is important to reflect on how teachers, especially, are like Members of Congress. Most voters believe, and have for decades, that while Congress as an institution is corrupt, moribund, and beholden to special interests, their representative is a fine, upstanding individual who is not part of the problem. That is also, the evidence suggests, how parents feel generally about the teachers whose responsibility it is to educate their children.
They too, it is reasonable to suggest, may fall victim to bureaucrats who, in telling them what to teach and how to teach it, end up perverting the process of education until our children’s minds are filled with mush.
Then again, perhaps not. It has been reported – but not as widely as it deserved – that some weeks back the Colorado Education Association, which claims to be the voice of 39,000 public educators in the Centennial State, adopted a resolution condemning capitalism. To wit:
The CEA believes that capitalism inherently exploits children, public schools, land, labor, and resources. Capitalism is in opposition to fully addressing systemic racism (the school-to-prison pipeline), climate change, patriarchy (gender and LGBTQ disparities), education inequality, and income inequality.
It is as alarming as it is illuminating. If most teachers in Colorado or indeed throughout the nation believe this, it becomes quite clear why the education system is failing our children. Those who teach are unable, unwilling, or unprepared to make our children see the world they are being prepared to enter as responsible adults.
Helpfully, and thanks of all things to the unnecessary pandemic-era lockdown of the nation’s schools undertaken at the apparent insistence of teachers’ unions and professional associations, parents have had enough.
There is no way to replace the learning and socialization lost to school closure. Leaders in some states like North Carolina, Oklahoma, Florida, and Arkansas are heeding the cries for help coming from parents by expanding education savings accounts and reforming the system so that education dollars follow the students rather than fund the systems.
To do this, they are showing great courage. They have taken on “Big Education” and in many places are defeating it by giving parents a role in deciding which school their child will attend.
As a practical matter, that means more and more children will be able to attend schools where Marxist doctrine is not presented as scientific fact, where a greater emphasis is placed on the “Three R’s” than the various ways to avoid pregnancy, and no one is going to be fighting over who gets to use what locker-room to shower and change after an athletic event.
Restructuring public education using free market principles like the supremacy of individual choice will break up the “Big Education” monopoly that is wrecking our children’s futures. Finally, after many years, there’s light at the end of the tunnel.
Peter Roff is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation. A former UPI senior political writer and U.S. News and World Report columnist, he is a senior fellow at several public policy organizations including the Trans-Atlantic Leadership Network. Contact him at RoffColumns@gmail.com. Follow him on Twitter and TruthSocial @TheRoffDraft.
Arizona’s public school system has ranked worst across the 50 United States of America for some time.
Scholaroo set out to find the most and least educated states in the country during the COVID-19 pandemic. In order to determine the best and worst school systems per state, the scholarship-centered website compared three key factors:
Student Safety – Arizona ranked 45 out of 50
Student Success – Arizona ranked 44 out of 50
School Quality – Arizona ranked 50 out of 50
According to Scholaroo, Arizona ranks 47th for the least educated, 38th for educational attainment, 48th for school quality, and 48th in the number of colleges/universities per 100,000 adults.
The AZ Schools Report card provides a myriad of statistics. For the most part, Arizona’s public schools are failing miserably with around a 50% proficiency in Mathematics and English among graduating students. Part of the problem is qualified teachers. As an example, Buena High School has 25% of its teachers as non-certified and/or teaching outside of their area of expertise.
I don’t believe it is a lack of funding for the schools. Arizona’s statewide average per-pupil spending for everything is $10,729 in the fiscal year 2022. This marks a nearly 8% increase in spending from the prior fiscal year. But surprisingly, with more students joining the Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program, the state surplus has increased by over $1.4 billion. The ESA program has reflected a cost-savings program for the state because each ESA student receives half of what the state allocates for students per year. Therefore, ESAs are saving tax dollars while providing opportunities for parents to select the education source for their children.
When parents elect to move their child to another school or to homeschool, that does not increase the total cost of education. It simply shifts funding to another educational option. I believe parents should be allowed to determine which educational institute provides the best education for their child.
If the public schools want to increase enrollment, they will need to trim overhead, reduce the administrative burden on teachers, and make the education of the students a priority. If they wish to be competitive, they have to make radical changes. Students who cannot complete the basic aptitude tests for their grade level should be held back and tutored.
What does the ESA program offer? It allows parents to use the money allocated to educate their child, to pay for the education model determined by the parent. The state’s expanded ESA program provides up to $7,000 to participating students. Parents can use these funds to pay for private school tuition or to purchase home education courses, tutoring, materials, and supplies. After the COVID-19 debacle with schools closed for almost two years, tutoring to bring students up to the proper grade level is critical and should be a goal for every public school.
Why am I concerned since my children and grandchildren have grown? I see the deleterious effects of their education, and I do not wish that on any future generations. Too many children are being indoctrinated to accept things like socialism and communism, and a lot of that is taking place in our public schools. If we want to save our country, we must start with the education of our children.
I have been pushing for school choice for 40 years. I believe the public education system is ruled by the teachers’ unions, which need to be abolished, and plenty of leftist bureaucrats. Our students are being dumbed down by the current system, and until we get some competition among schools, the public school system will continue to fail our students. I believe there are many teachers who have not been corrupted by things like Critical Race Theory and want to be good teachers. But until we challenge public schools and make other alternatives for parents, the system will continue with their woke agenda. It’s time to take back the education of our children and stop the bureaucratic interventions in our lives. The ESA Program is a great start.
Steve Conroy is a retired military officer and has been actively involved in his community for over 30 years.
