"The Fiscal Cliff" Really???

[Jester]

Why should education spending increase with GDP? Why should it not be measured as per capita spending adjusted for inflation?

Good question. If what you wanted to do was provide a 1950s education, you could just fix per-pupil spending at 1950s level, indexed to inflation. I think that's educational suicide, and that the requirements of keeping up technologically, of hiring teachers who increasingly have better employment options (current crisis notwithstanding) requires spending to at least track GDP. But you're right, there's no inherent reason the two numbers have to be linked.

The other reason would be international competition. If the US wants to keep up with other countries, you probably need to have comparable levels of spending. The US is doing okay right now, but it's not way out of line with similar countries.

Better would be per pupil spending at various levels. Like other labor intensive endeavors, it suffers here greatly from the rapidly inflating costs of employee benefits -- and is then exacerbated with unsustainable government sponsored pension plans.

Pay your teachers more, get better teachers. Pay your teachers less, get worse teachers. That includes benefits. Unless you're okay with a less and less capable slice of the population going into teaching each year, then the job has to stay competitive.

If the GDP per capita increases, it would be better for everyone if the costs per capita remained more constant. We can assume that there may be some slight need for more highly educated people, but really the bulk of the $800 billion in costs ($7743 per) are going to the 60 million K-12 and college students.

Were else? The point of education is to educate students, no? And the demand for highly skilled people already well exceeds the supply. I expect this to increase, but I suppose that's crystal ball territory.

I'm not calling for less education, just lower costs. We've increased costs per pupil, but not the results as measured by SAT/ACT or other standardized tests. Just like military spending, more doesn't necessarily mean its spent wisely in the nation's interest. More often, it pads the pockets of a special interest.

If you can get more benefit for less spending, then all power to you. But education spending mostly goes to exactly where you'd think: paying teachers, keeping schools in repair, administering standards, buying textbooks, etc... It's not at all obvious where there are savings, and it's much easier to cut the bones of the programs, which are obvious, than the waste, which is not.

-Jester