You are half right Scott. I'll split the difference with you.
I went back and double (and triple) checked, and the number should be $10,840 per child. That's 11,731,470,006 in total expenditures divided by 1,082,221 children.
I screwed up the first time and just punched the numbers into a calculator instead of columnating them (I know better).
I did NOT just take their word for it, I rarely do in any financial statement or any study.
Why?
What is the definition of "Cost Per Child? To me and to any accountant in private industry (including private schools) it's real simple.
Total expenditures divided by the number of students = Cost per child...RIGHT?
Well not if you are in the government school business. Look at pages 49-52. The State of AZ needs 4 1/4 pages of "Definitions for Per Pupil Expenditure Amounts" in order to come up with your $7834.
They are absolutely correct...according to their definition. Unfortunately their definition and common practice are two different things.
I wonder why that is.
I wonder why the same phenomenon occurs with just about all government school reporting of cost per child in just about all states?
Watch this for a little eye opener.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzvKyfV3JtE&feature=player_embedded
Quote:It's comical and one really has to think about it. He has several professional educators in this thread all telling him he's wrong.
Well, two for the most part, you and jeffo. Elks and I agree about more than we disagree on, and it would appear that Aznative and I probably fundamentally agree as well.
Quote:Several times they have proven him wrong and pulled the rug out from under him when he incorrectly stated facts about education, the teachers union, and teachers pay.
I must be reading different threads Scott. You have constantly tried to say I've misstated facts (and now accuse me of lying), but you have been unable to refute anything (until this, sob).
Show me.
Quote:Because he has such an inflated ego (this has been said by several people in these education threads) he refuses to admit he was wrong on anything.
Go back and read it again Scott, they were talking about YOU.
Quote:Nmleon banks that the typical member will not questions him when he begins ranting from his throne. He believes the typical PM member will not check the sources he quotes.
On the contrary, I wish people would not only check my sources, I wish they would actually read my posts
Quote: To nmleon it makes no difference if you have many years of service in the profession he claims to be an authority on.
More or less true. As I explained in the other thread, your "many years of service in the profession" is local teaching experience. Unless you are collecting reams of data outside your work environment, you are not an expert on national policy.
Your local experience is of paramount importance to you and your class, but it is just one of millions of data points nationally and therefore virtually meaningless as it relates to national policy.
Conversly, data and analysis on national education policy is virtually meaningless to you and your class.
Statistics don't apply to individuals or even small groups at all.
Statistics are ALL that applies to large groups or subsets of groups.
Quote: Your opinion on the subject at hand is mute and void because he has 40,000 articles stating a different viewpoint.
You've hardly been "mute", quite the opposite, and I don't have "40,000 articles stating a different viewpoint". I do have many many peer reviewed studies and statistical analyses, probably thousands (though not 40,000).
I don't often collect "articles", with the exception of those written by just a couple of extraordinary authors (Thomas Sowell for instance). I do often read common media articles as they can be a starting point for further research.
For instance both you and sweattybetty posted links to articles.
I pretty much discounted the newspaper article you linked to as poorly done mass media "research". The lady may have had a point, but you'd never be able to verify it as she used very sloppy methodology and very "loose" data.
Sweattybetty's was referencing a study done by a Professor Charles north of Baylor U.
I pretty much discounted that article as well, for pretty much the same reasons as above...EXCEPT...Given the name and affiliation it was only a couple of minutes research to find the actual study (not an article about it) and I quoted a small portion of it. It's also not a "rigorous" study (and not peer reviewed), but North explains that and what data he used, the methodology used etc., so it's of some interest (as opposed to a poorly researched "article").
Quote:I am not a left-wing weirdo educator YET nmleon will tell you that he finds no common ground with me.
Perhaps compared with some of your coworkers you are a paragon of conservatism. That's a little scary, but I'd allow for the possibility.
However, when you vehemently defend a government school system that for years has been dominated by leftist ideologues, cite a dittsy CA hippie chick as an authority on disciplining children, and debate using Saul Alinsky"s finest methods, well, it's a little difficult to imagine you as a conservative.
No common ground? Not true, we both like to kill coyotes (though I oppose putting a season on them).
Quote:You can't be an authority on everything. There has to be something you are not 100% correct on every single time you type. Geez.
Not 100% as the top of this post shows, but I do make an effort to be as correct as possible. The first rule I follow in that effort is to not type unless it IS something I am knowledgeable about.
You'll notice I very seldom post anything at all on sports for instance. I'm totally ignorant of just about any sport. I've never seen a hockey game (clips on tv), and couldn't even tell you what the names of the positions are on a basketball team (I know there are forwards and a center).
Likewise I don't post anything on women. Again I am a total ignoramus when it comes to the female of the species (actually I used to be an expert...but then I turned 5).