Taj Mahal Schools: Producer-Driven Education
If your state is like mine, local National Educational Association apparatchiks frame every public school discussion in terms of inputs: the amount of tax money being doled out for public school instruction on a per pupil basis. Everyone outside of New York – the funding “winner” at $17,173 per head in 2008 – is lectured endlessly about how underfunded the local schools are relative to, well, New York.
But where does the money actually go?
Tonight, Matt Drudge is highlighting one project soaking up some of the educational loose change rattling around my bankrupt state: Next month’s opening in LA of the nation’s costliest school, a $578 million state-of-the-art structure housing 1,700 K through 12 students.
Let’s analyze the economics using the NEA’s preferred formula. $578 million divided by 1,700 students yields a cool $340,000 per student. Ah, but I’m being unfair since many students will use the facility over time. Fine. Let’s assume that the structure survives twenty years of wear-and-tear without a dime of taxpayer-funded repair or renovation. The adjusted cost per pupil per year drops to a New York-style $17,000. But this “investment” covers only the empty building. Anything educational is extra.
And the Robert F. Kennedy Community Schools isn't exactly a one-off for the teacher-firing, class-size-increasing LA Unified School District.
The RFK complex follows on the heels of two other LA schools among the nation's costliest — the $377 million Edward R. Roybal Learning Center, which opened in 2008, and the $232 million Visual and Performing Arts High School that debuted in 2009.
The pricey schools have come during a sensitive period for the nation's second-largest school system: Nearly 3,000 teachers have been laid off over the past two years, the academic year and programs have been slashed. The district also faces a $640 million shortfall and some schools persistently rank among the nation's lowest performing.
It is evident that public school outputs in California are poor -- only 63 percent of high school students graduate, despite the gold-plated buildings. Nevertheless, the NEA argues that $9,863 per pupil per year is too little to afford more than a Zimbabwe-level education.
Basic arithmetic points to a serious flaw in the "aren't we stingy" argument. Twenty students carry $197,000 in annual spending into an average California classroom. Since their teacher earned approximately $64,424 in 2007, this leaves only $133,000 for rent, supplies and administrative support. You’ve gotta love a business that can’t get by on a 66 percent overhead rate.
Why can't school officials eschew real estate development, cut overhead, fund academic programs and hire great teachers? Why can't most of the line items in California's monstrous education budget be zeroed out in favor of per pupil block grants to principals and local school boards?
My head hurts.
- Comment (22)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
May '10
Re: Taj Mahal Schools: Producer-Driven Education
So glad you posted this, George. Is this a true story or an April Fool's joke??? As our small school district carefully monitors every single dollar in our education budgets, and our volunteer parent network holds community fundraisers to help pay for teacher training for new programs THIS is what's happening in Los Angeles?? And we're supposed to bail out California because they're on the brink of financial disaster? Maybe I'm just a red state rube who doesn't understand the artistic and historical importance of this project, but did nobody out there even notice this was being constructed as the economy nosedived? Did nobody protest this? My favorite line: "Still, even LA Unified Superintendent Ramon Cortines derided some of the extravagance, noting that donations should have been sought to fund the RFK project's talking benches commemorating the site's history." Alternate reality, anyone?
Edited on Aug 23, 2010 at 3:51amMay '10
Re: Taj Mahal Schools: Producer-Driven Education
Has anybody actually seen this school in person? Does it really exist or is this just the premise for a new pseudo-reality show sitcom?
Edited on Aug 23, 2010 at 3:52amJun '10
Re: Taj Mahal Schools: Producer-Driven Education
Since their teacher earned approximately $64,424 in 2007, this leaves only $133,000 for rent, supplies and administrative support.
The average public education department in this country hires one administrator at the state or district level for every two teachers in the classroom. Only the numbers are misleading. Add in the administrative staff at the local school level plus special education teachers (whose jobs are largely administrative) and the real ratio is more like one to one.
What do you think all these bureaucrats do to improve education? Who are they? In many cases these people are failed classroom teachers with advanced degrees. In order to justify their inflated salaries, they spend their days creating administrative mandates that fall on the backs of regular classroom teachers. The result is systemic gridlock. Nothing gets done, but the great maw of the bureaucracy demands more and more resources "to improve education."
It's time to dismantle the whole failed system and replace with vouchers. Scorched earth would be the best policy, but few politicians have the guts to take the radical measures necessary. In the meantime students and teachers will continue to suffer.
Jun '10
Re: Taj Mahal Schools: Producer-Driven Education
The most important measure of "concern" for those on the left is the amount of money spent to attempt to solve a particular problem. The fact that no amount of money might succeed in solving some problems is of no concern. In 1985 the Kansas City school district was determined to be a failure by a Federal judge hundreds of miles away in Springfield Missouri. It was a failure in regards to educating the students. The judge's solution was to order the state taxpayers to spend 2 billion dollars (yes that is a b) in 1985 in capital improvements over the next 12 years. They have pretty buildings with indoor Olympic sized pools and theaters that could make a Broadway playwright drool. And guess what...it is still a failure in regards to educating the students. Now, of course, it doesn't fail 100% of the time with 100% of the students, but they constantly have difficulty maintaining their accreditation. This from the Cato Institute:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-298.html
Sorry, you must copy and paste to check out their report.
May '10
Re: Taj Mahal Schools: Producer-Driven Education
The irony is that because of Title I, which directs federal dollars to the poorest school districts and NCLB, which directs funds as well to the least successful school districts, LA Unified is both among the richest and poorest (performing) school districts in the nation. Even before the schools George mentions, LA typified the point that money has very little to do with what makes a school district successful.
Now to be fair, socio-economic status does have a lot to do with why schools fail, and explains why liberals want to spend more there. The problem is the social engineering. The government thinks it knows best how to spend those dollars but somehow always fails to drive improvement.
To ~Paules' point, if you gave the money in the form of vouchers to the families to spend, you would see radical change. But then there would still be dissatisfaction on the part of progressives who would inevitably be unhappy with the way in which their poor constituents were spending their vouchers.
Edited on Aug 23, 2010 at 5:58amMay '10
Re: Taj Mahal Schools: Producer-Driven Education
I saw the article this morning and was furious, but not surprised. My oldest son attends a charter school that opened last year. The school is part of the South Carolina Public Charter School District, which means that per pupil funding is roughly one-third of that which goes to most other public schools in the state. That funding is barely adequate to operate the school and keep the lights on, so we have to use parent volunteers (which is part of the deal anyway) and private funding to make up the difference. Despite all that, the school met 15 of 15 federal Adequate Yearly Progress benchmarks, which is an accomplishment for any school and particularly noteworthy for a school in its first year of operation. Bottom line - anytime someone complains that we don't spend enough on public education, I tune them out. We spend plenty - we're just not spending it well.
Jul '10
Re: Taj Mahal Schools: Producer-Driven Education
Two words: Mitch Daniels. If you haven't read Andrew Ferguson's profile of Daniels in the Weekly Standard, you really should.
In it, Daniels addresses school boards' edifice complex and how he drove down lavish spending on new schools.
At one point in a meandering listening tour of his state, Daniels was confronted by a radio reporter about the state's cuts to education spending. Noting that the local school board had just laid off nine teachers and an administrator, she asked Daniels what he would "...say to those people..".
"I'd say it should have been nine administrators and one teacher," he replied.
May '10
Re: Taj Mahal Schools: Producer-Driven Education
One more reason for Mitch Daniels to be our next president: In Andrew Furgeson's profile of the governor in TWS a few weeks back, he recalls an incident where he intended to pay Daniels a compliment by pointing out Indiana's beautiful school buildings--huge natatoriums, vast cafeterias, etc.--and the governor responded with an unexpected, "Ya, it's a big problem."
May '10
Re: Taj Mahal Schools: Producer-Driven Education
Kenneth: Perfect simultaneous posts. Nice.
Jul '10
Re: Taj Mahal Schools: Producer-Driven Education
Sometimes journalists actually get it right. If Mitch Daniels does decide to run and if he succeeds, much credit should go to Andrew Ferguson's excellent piece.
May '10
Re: Taj Mahal Schools: Producer-Driven Education
As horrible and frightening as this story is, it remains only a sympton of the greater fiscal illness in California. As a state can not declare bankrupcy and so presumably can not tear up contracts and start anew, I really can not see how the state is going to get out from under the tsunami of debt they have created for themselves.
There is going to come a time when the money simply runs out and the billions and perhaps trillions of unfunded liabilities are simply not cover-able. What then? Assuming the Republican gain control of at least one house of Congress in January, there will be no federal bailout - so what happens?
Re: Taj Mahal Schools: Producer-Driven Education
And thanks to Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid and President Obama, the financial pressure to change course, if only marginally, is eased thanks to the this month's $26 billion "stimulus," $2.5 billion of which goes to California.
Jul '10
Re: Taj Mahal Schools: Producer-Driven Education
Yet another example of what happens when decision-making - and the economic costs of decisions - are taken out of local hands.
California funds education at the state level. And, of course, schools also receive Federal funds through the Department of Education.
So local school boards can run riot. This would be far less likely to happen if California school districts were funded solely from local property taxes. Then home-owning voters would sit up and take notice. They might even run for seats on the school board.
But as it is, the boards are dominated by educrats, whose thirst for tax dollars is insatiable.
May '10
Re: Taj Mahal Schools: Producer-Driven Education
I'll make a bold prediction that the actual maintenance costs on this palace turn out to be higher, probably much higher, than expected, and appeals go out for more money.
Like Matthew we have taken refuge in a public charter school that has, despite active resistance from local educrats and a miserly budget, placed kids into college and outranked all the district's flagship schools. It's a great school with great teachers in a funky old building in an industrial part of town. The kids love it too. We are very fortunate to have this option.
May '10
Re: Taj Mahal Schools: Producer-Driven Education
That question is why it is far from certain that a Republican Congress would not support a California bailout. They'd probably try to attach a number of conditions to the money, but it would take extraordinary courage to let a state economy that large fail. We can only make educated guesses about what such a failture would mean. A federal bailout isn't inevitable, but I think it's strongly likely.
Jul '10
Re: Taj Mahal Schools: Producer-Driven Education
Aaron Miller
That question is why it is far from certain that a Republican Congress would not support a California bailout. They'd probably try to attach a number of conditions to the money, but it would take extraordinary courage to let a state economy that large fail. We can only make educated guesses about what such a failture would mean. A federal bailout isn't inevitable, but I think it's strongly likely. · Aug 23 at 9:12am
A California bailout? That way lies madness. And the absolute extinction of the Federal system.
May '10
Re: Taj Mahal Schools: Producer-Driven Education
You all flunk cost accounting. The overhead rate (AKA "burden", a perfect description) is the indirect cost over the labor cost base- that is, $133k divided by the teacher salary of $65k. That, my friends, is 200% overhead, not 66%. In any kind of business with a technology base (R&D, or automated production machinery), 66% is cheap overhead. If it is a pure manufacturing manual assembly plant, maybe they can get it down a bit from there. In a large research university environment, the facilities and administration burden for a research grant is around 55%.
The frightening thing here is that I predict that the school-age population will decline in about 10 years as the neighborhood ages, and there will be proposals to close the school because a plant like that is too expensive to operate.
May '10
Re: Taj Mahal Schools: Producer-Driven Education
We see the same problem in Michigan. (Cash-starved Michigan!) The first time I walked through the high school in my local district, which is a modest bedroom community south of Ann Arbor, and I ended up simply laughing as I passed through the gyms (plural!) weight room, grand cafeteria, etc. etc. Just the atrium leading to the arts wing was about half the size, in volume, of the high school I attended 30 years ago.
This building was made possible by a change intended to equalize funding throughout the state. Now, most of the money goes to one big pot, then is redistributed. Local districts are allowed to spend their money directly only in limited ways, e.g., buildings. (Another side effect is that richer districts are now more comfortable with debt. Uh-oh!)
New rule: whenever you see people behaving in an unusually insane way, expect the reason to be: because of some law. No, make that: because of some law intended to make things more fair.
Re: Taj Mahal Schools: Producer-Driven Education
Duane, many thanks for the correction. You are absolutely right. I hope none of my fellow Stanford MBAs -- apart from Peter, anyway, but he can keep a secret -- are reading Ricochet, otherwise I might have to return my diploma and the alumni association will need to change the secret handshake.
But I never much cared for cost accounting anyway. Did I mention that at my company we're working on standard costs for our products? Oh, joy.
Re: Taj Mahal Schools: Producer-Driven Education
Oh, and just for the record: I did fine in cost accounting. But you know California and grade inflation -- the important thing is for the students to feel good. And we Stanford grads are just brimming with self-esteem.