The High Cost Of High Costs

A recent Rutland Herald editorial points to another of those ubiquitous rankings -- this one comparing educational performances among the states.  According to the report, Vermont finishes in the top five.  The report was released by the The American Legislative Exchange Council which the Herald calls

.. a self-described conservative organization that supports charter schools, the No Child Left Behind law and high-stakes testing.

Now, we all love it when our political adversaries make our arguments for us.  Hence the Herald's embrace of this particular report.  But the editorial raises an interesting point -- which it chooses not to pursue -- in this aside:

[the report] gave the top marks to, in order, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire and South Dakota.

Like to guess which of these states ranks highest in per-pupil spending?

 

Commentors on this site -- especially Art Woolf, who unfailingly does the homework -- have pointed out, again and again, that state-by-state comparisons on educational performance are suspect because of variations in demographic realities.  And, then, there were those disappointing results on the recent NECAP tests.  Smugness about Vermont's schools, then, may be both unjustified and premature. 

But even if Vermont's schools are doing as well as this report -- and the Herald -- would like us to think, there is still that troubling little matter of cost.  Especially in a season when leadership in Montpelier is telling legislators to look under rocks for money to spend and there is concern, even among the Progressives, that the condition of the state's roads and bridges is an embarrassment bordering on a scandal.

Why -- with Vermont taxing robustly -- isn't there any money to do any of the things that need to be done?  Because Vermont spends over half of the money collected in state and local taxes on K through 12 education.  According to U.S. Census figures, the state spent some $12,600 per student in 2005-06.  (Which put us in 4th place behind New York, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia.)

Of the four other states that received top marks in the ALEC report, South Dakota spent the least -- $7,500 per pupil -- some $5,000 less than Vermont.  South Dakota's winters are no less cold than Vermont's and people in that state almost certainly require health care.  We mention this because apologists for Vermont's profligate school spending often cite energy and health care as "cost drivers."

If Vermont spent like South Dakota-- on a per-pupil basis -- educating its 95,000 students, and collected the same amount of money in taxes it currently takes in, we would have another  $475,000,000 to spend on roads, bridges, health care, and so forth.

Don't like comparing Vermont to some lonesome, prairie state? All right, if we spent like our neighbor, New Hampshire, we would save a mere $237,500,000.  You can still fix a lot of roads and bridges for that kind of money.

And, even we spent money like Massachusetts  -- which has a lot more of it to spend, since it is one of the highest income states in the nation and Vermont is just average --  we would still save $66,000,000. 

This point is neither new nor original.  Nor, to judge by reading the Herald, is it even considered newsworthy.  That, however, does not make it any less true.  And given the current state of the economy and Montpelier's budgeting agonies, it seems worthwhile asking if we might be -- just perhaps -- spending more than we need to on education.  (Click here for a comprehensive plan on how we might spend less.)

If you are spending beyond your means, but the money is going to what you consider a good cause, you will still go broke. 

And there are, no doubt, studies to prove it.