Utah Eyes Cutting 12th Grade To Save $60M
Feb 15th, 2010 | 31 responses
Faced with a $700 million budget shortfall, a Utah Republican state legislator has found a way he figures will cut about 8% of it by eliminating the senior year of high school.
State Sen. Chris Buttars has since toned down the idea, suggesting instead that senior year become optional for students who complete their required credits early. He estimated the move could save up to $60 million, the Salt Lake Tribune reported.
“The bottom line is saving taxpayer dollars while improving options for students,” said state Sen. Howard A. Stephenson, a Republican and co-chairman of the Public Education Appropriations Subcommittee. “The more options we give to students to accelerate, the more beneficial it is to students and taxpayers.”
About 200 students a year take advantage of early graduation, said Brenda Hales, state associate superintendent.
This story comes to you courtesy of the Los Angeles Times and Salt Lake City Tribune.
“You’re looking at these budget gaps where lawmakers have to use everything and anything to try to resolve them,” said Todd Haggerty, a policy associate with the National Conference of State Legislatures. “It’s left lawmakers with very unpopular decisions.”
Let’s see if I got this right. Except for the 200 who graduate early, are all the rest of the high school seniors in the state of Utah goofing off with that age old malady called “senioritis?”
As Rodney Dangerfield would say. “Tough state that Utah. Tough state.”
31 Responses to “Utah Eyes Cutting 12th Grade To Save $60M”
This is the state that gets the vapors over creationism, made an official statement that ACC is a hoax or something and is heavily against marriage equality.
I inferred from this that they didn't have high schools at all.
The GOP against education? Sure! Makes perfect sense! Their base is composed of, well, idiots.
Maybe this move gets the GOP closer towards the perpetual motion political machine!
Actually, sounds like a great idea to make it optional if they have their credits done. This ould allow these student to have an opportunity to begin college and their careers a year earl. Win-Win.
Utah's graduation standards are so lax that they can save millions in early graduation? Yeah, that's going to make me want to hire a kid from Utah.
What would be easier and more beneficial would be to make high school voluntary. Why waste a dollar of tax payers dollars or a minute of a teachers time trying to teach a teenager who has zero interest in school.
If high school became voluntary, it would lose its focus as a place for teen rebellion. The students who want to learn and want to improve themselves would learn more and the troublemakers could go somewhere else.
Of course, one of the biggest problems in education policy is that the policies are made by prep school. Ivy Leaguers who went to school with the top few percent of students and have always been surrounded by aggressive achievers. Why not designs schools for the rest of the students whose parents/families cannot afford to send those students to schools like Punahoe.
Republicans will do anything to avoid raising taxes, even if it means cutting out education for those who aren't in the top of their class.
Who gets to decide which credits you need to graduate? The Republicans in charge in Utah?
Besides it's already an option, students can already skip the 12th grade if they have their credits. What exactly does this plan change?
I also assume that part of these costs savings will eliminate teaching jobs. And these laid off teachers and other workers, instead of contributing to the tax base, will be a drain on the state once they start collecting unemployment. Also, will they get to keep their health insurance, or will they need to go to the emergency room for basic treatments?
As far as students frittering away their senior year…. That says more about the schools and education department in Utah than it says about the students. If students are given meaningful assignments and told they must complete them in order to graduate, they will. If the teachers and schools can't provide good education, then they should all be fired and replaced. Students should not get to decide how hard they can (or can not) work towards getting a diploma.
When I was in high school (private) I took Advanced Placement classes starting in my junior year. Not the college prep curriculum, but college-level classes. I then went to an excellent college where my AP classes had prepared me for the challenges of being in a college with other bright kids. I could have skipped a grade and completed the basics to graduate, but I would not have received as good an education as I did. Talk about students wasting their senior year…. that's what this plan is…. “Let's have the students do the basics and shove them out the door. Let's not give them a quality education. We only care about giving them the minimum necessary.”
For the record, based on these numbers (http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ewp_08_…) Utah's college readiness rate is about 12th in the nation or so (tied with a few other states), despite being the reddest state that there is. So we can probably cut out criticisms based on the preconceived notions about the state or the education-hating Republican party.
With that said, I don't think I would support the policy but it could be tweaked to my liking: maybe the state could offer incentives (BBC, it appears that's what Buttars wants to do based on the article) for graduating early if the remaining time will be used for service opportunities. That would save the taxpayers money, encourage service, people entering college wouldn't be any younger and might actually have some more life experience rather than just book-smarts, and they would still have the required education (of course graduates must still qualify for graduation).
i believe your argument has been nullified.
Hmmm- just think how much they'd save if public school only went up to the 6th grade!:-)
To: Chris Buttars
Think big. Think of how much could be saved by simply closing all of those useless schools entirely.
Man has no guts at all.
“i believe your argument has been nullified.”
Ha! The Utah and Republican bashers didn't even attempt to back up their assertions with numbers, and I am criticized for trying to actually get to some evidence?
If you go the working paper (http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ewp_03.htm) from which the table I linked to is taken, you would learn that the numbers are based on U.S. Department of Education data, the authors seem very qualified, and the study was funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation, not known for its conservative leanings by my understanding.
But go ahead and find a more unbiased source. I was attempting to find authoritative data, and honestly I wasn't aware of the institute's politics. I don't have a horse in the race, so go ahead and prove me wrong if you can.
maybe i would find that. however all you did was offer up a chart from a conservative think tank that you said proved a point about redness of state.
i'm not saying you don't have a point. i'm saying your argument was shit.
“Who stands to benefit from a dumbed down citizenry?”
I assume you mean which political party, because no one in the real world benefits from that, obviously. But, politically speaking, I've seen mixed information so I don't think the conclusion is clear one way or the other. Here's one poll: http://www.gallup.com/poll/112132/Election-Poll…
High school graduates tended to favor McCain, non-post-grad college grads are mixed, and both post-grad and non-high school grads favored Obama. So, it's not a linear correlation. Granted, this is just based on one election result, but I've seen other data that reinforces the point that non-high school grads overwhelmingly favor democrats. So, if we're going to go by this, then I'd say it probably favors democrats more to set the bar for graduating high school lower. But I also wouldn't make the accusation that Democrats would purposefully hijack education for political gain.
As much as I enjoy bashing Red States, and believe me I do, there is an exception to every rule, Utah is an amazingly well run state that compares favorably with the Bluest of States…
All anyone else offered up was witty one-liners, so the fact that you are criticizing me and not them shows that you are not interested in evidence, but in justifying your bias. And I didn't say my chart proved anything. It challenges the mindset of a few of the previous commenters were demonstrating, and that challenge has not yet been met. If someone can meet that challenge, more power to them. I'm not interested in defending any state or political party for the sake of it.
I should clarify one thing:
I never said that Republicans in general don't deserve criticism with regards to education, or at least I didn't mean to say that. I generally oppose voucher programs in the form that Republicans would propose them, for example.
I mean that such criticism is not relevant to this discussion, since Utah is one example (whether they are an exception or not) of a red state that appears to have done well with regards to education. Therefore, the line that this is just another Republican attempt to cut education doesn't make sense in this context. If that was the intent of the Utah Republican party, they could have done that a long time ago and the numbers should reflect that.
and what, pray tell, is my bias?
You criticize the evidence I produce while ignoring the fact that the other side has not bothered to produce any evidence to back up its assertions, which seems to indicate a political bias on the question of education. We all have biases. The question is whether we can put them aside to evaluate the evidence objectively. In that respect, I give Don Quijote credit.
If I'm wrong about that, you and do not have a political bias on the issue of education, then I sincerely apologize. I have been known, at times, to challenge those on my own side when I feel an argument is faulty, even if I agree with the conclusion. In fact, I did that somewhat in this thread, where I challenged the argument of the critics but in the end agreed with them that the policy as proposed would not be a good idea. So I respect that if that was truly your motivation. If that is the case, I would only excuse myself by saying it is a trait that is sadly not often seen.
Not everyone who is not a leftwing nut is an idiot, the democrats have done enough over my life time to screw all of us too. I believe there is enough blame for both parties when it comes to showing their ignorance of those who vote them in office. Perhaps we should start a new party, I would call it the GFY Party, I will let you figure out what the GFY stands for. For 60 years I have felt like I belonged to the FM party. I'm a military brat so I use a lot or acronims. If your truly interested about the two I used, just use that thing on your shoulders for serious though instead of stupit comments
“Of course, one of the biggest problems in education policy is that the policies are made by prep school. Ivy Leaguers who went to school with the top few percent of students and have always been surrounded by aggressive achievers. Why not designs schools for the rest of the students whose parents/families cannot afford to send those students to schools like Punahoe.”
A major issue with public education is because it is designed to teach the average child an average curriculum. The above and below average student has been really left aside when you consider the budgetary planning and program elements. Refer to PL 94-142 a federal law requiring schools to provide finances and programs for exceptional children even to the point of paying for outside private resources.
The critical need in pulic education is a major overhaul of academic and vocational programs pretty much thwarted by the false hope/promises of No Child Left Behind. While Utah may be scorned here for wanting to eliminate the senior year, it is quite plausible to contract the primary and secondary years by one year. The curriculum of the 8th grade in most districts is repetitive and could easily be condensed to the fore and aft years. However, It would piss some sports enthusiasts who see that year as critical to building a varsity squad. I am glad to see education on the blog.
Who will argue when next the gov't decides to cut back to, oh, the 8th grade and make all of high school optional? After all that'll save us a bleepload of money!
We also can save so much more by canceling kindergarten altogether and waiting until 1st grade to bring the kids into schools!
Because, after all, the other option is to keep our schools open to all grade levels K-12 like always and have a tax rate increase to pay for it. AND NO ONE – OH DEAR NO – WANTS TO PAY TAXES ANYMORE EEEEEEEE.
I guess when the Founders wrote the Preamble, they really didn't mean to “promote the general welfare”, did they. Nor did they really want us to “Secure the blessings of LIBERTY” to ourselves and our “Posterity”… Posterity. It means “our kids and grandkids.” What, you never learned that in school before…? Gee, wonder how that happened… /sarcasm
“Because, after all, the other option is to keep our schools open to all grade levels K-12 like always and have a tax rate increase to pay for it. AND NO ONE – OH DEAR NO – WANTS TO PAY TAXES ANYMORE EEEEEEEE.”
Your comment begs the question that all children need the current K-12 model. A modern proof hasn't been clearly established. There are multiple learning sources and pressures which did not exist 50 years ago. Some good some not so good. It may be that K start at pre-K & it may be that exceptional achievers can be redirected to more appropriate placements earlier. It may be that experiential or occupational programs are instituted in junior school years. My argurment isn't to suggest we ought not be promoting the general welfare or paying for education via taxes. The grade school education model is broken and needs repair. No Child Left Behind isn't the fix. Passing laws or issuing directives in the Federal Registry isn't the answer. If and when programs are created the money has to be generated for programs from the legislative source at the time of enactment and not just relogated to local taxing targets.
Thanks for your reply, and for providing the graphic as well. I would have liked to see a further breakdown showing education levels among the overwhelming numbers of non-whites who voted for Obama (90%) since I suspect that bumped the numbers in the education column. That said, we are (of course) in agreement that our society as a whole doesn't benefit from a less educated citizenry. Utah may be a unique case, but in general I hope that the necessary cost cutting that goes on in states takes the long view and considers education to be one of the last things to cut.
well considering only what i actually said, that is precisely what i did, isn't it?
Many libs can and will whine about it, but there's plenty government can do.
Just for starters:
* Education: Eliminate an unnecessary grade where there is overlap now. (transition to junior high) Go to year-round schooling (and actually increase the school year, possibly, at the same time) with possible shift schedules.
* Legislature: Go to a unicameral legislature. A bicameral legislature is not necessary and in the past, libs whined about “undemocratic” upper houses, later subject to revision due to an activist judiciary. There is no reason to have excess legislators (and staff) or have two legislative houses that are the same. Nebraska has a unicameral legislature — there already is a model (unnecessary to convince normal people of the validity of the idea, but additional weight). At the least, why don't non-megastates already have unicameral legislatures (presuming megastates are special, which obviously is arguable), or why didn't they convert in addition to benefiting from any federal stimulus measures?
(Or are the states as well as so many citizens just conditioned to be passive parasites, not to change?)
Did what? Objectively evaluate the evidence?
No, claiming that my argument is “nullified” or that it is equivalent to
excrement because of the the fact that the statistics I linked to comes from
an organization with an agenda, without attempting to investigate where that
organization got those numbers, and without coming up with any less biased
evidence yourself, and while ignoring the fact that I was responding to
people who offered up no evidence at all, is not “objectively evaluating the
evidence”. Assuming you are not just trying to be argumentative, I think it
would be more accurately described as “justifying a bias.”
An objective evaluation of the evidence that has been presented in this
thread so far would conclude that it appears Utah does pretty well at
educating its children, with the small caveat (which does not equal
nullification) that the evidence that we have so far might not be complete
unbiased. However, it is a small caveat because the method by which the
organization hypothetically manipulated the data to its advantage is not
evident. Furthermore, it is improbable that they could have manipulated the
data to a significant degree given that they were cooporating
with an unbiased government organization, the funding for the study came
from an unbiased source, and that the authors are apparently highly regarded
in their fields.
sigh. aside from pointing out that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence… which, i seem to have to explain to you, means that since i did not state i was against “those other arguments” in no way comes close to saying i agree or disagree with them. and it was ridiculously intellectually dishonest of you to even consider that…
i'll say that they burden was on YOU to explain the source of those numbers. it was YOUR argument. and if your link was to a biased source, then why the hell am i going to waste my time checking up on it to see if it was, in fact, valid?
if you did that in a journal paper you'd get circular filed faster than you can say “peer review”.
and as far as “did what”, did you forget to what you were referring at the end of your comment? it stands to reason that's the “what”. and there is a difference between evaluating an argument and evaluating evidence. if your evidence is presented shittily. as yours was. your argument… notice i said “argument”, and not “evidence”… is “shit”.
comprendez vous?
Once you challenged my numbers, I explained why I still feel they have value
despite the biased source. It was my burden and I did it. And this is not
a journal paper. This is the comments section of a blog.
Look, we're way down in the weeds arguing about the technicalities of how
this debate has progressed. You don't like the way I presented my
argument. Fine. I'm comformtable leaving it at that and allowing anyone
who is interested to review the discussion and determine for themselves who
is biased or objective.
“Hmmm- just think how much they'd save if public school only went up to the 6th grade!”
There's always the equivalent of that being done to Medicare, don't forget.