Since I frequently post about various topics associated with education I often get comments on these posts suggesting that more money will not improve education and that education spending is out of control thanks to greedy unions. These arguments are typically followed up with some trivial anecdotal information which I assume the commenter's believe proves their point.
I have done a considerable amount of research on the topic and have plenty of information suggesting that money is an important component to educational success but I wondered what were the arguments and statistics against it. What I found was a lot of trivial anecdotal evidence that doesn't really prove anything.
As an example, John Stossel of 20/20 fame used his "Give me a break" segment to make the claim "Money is not what schools need".
His "debunk" contains three basic arguments. The first is regarding Arnie Duncan's claim that "Districts around the country have literally been cutting for five, six, seven years in a row". The second is "Over the past 40 years, public school employment has risen 10 times faster than enrollment". And third Stossel uses one school system as an example to prove schools don't need vast sums of money to succeed.
The third item listed above would appear to be the most compelling argument but it would help if Mr. Stossel had done a little research first. The man credited with turning around the school system in question, Ben Chavis, is quoted in Stossel's argument as saying "My buildings are shacks compared to their schools, but my schools are clean, and we'll kick all their asses."
The reality is that the two schools Mr. Chavis is in charge of spend $1,791 and $3,448 more per pupil than the average public school in California. To quote Stossel from his own article "(He) may be pandering to his constituency, or he may actually be fooled by how school districts talk about budget(s)".
With regards to Arnie Duncan's comments about budget cuts, the fact that only a small percentage of districts have cut their budgets for five or more consecutive years does not prove or disprove what role money plays in education. It proves Arnie Duncan exaggerated his claims or misspoke, not that money is being wasted. If you really want to show that this statistic has some merit you would have to tie the money spent to performance. Mr. Stossel makes no such attempt at any point is his article.
Finally the statistic about public school staff may in fact be true (no supporting documentation was provided) but in logic A must equal B and B must equal C for A to equal C. The fact that staff is increasing does not mean schools are just wasting money to greedy union members or hiring unnecessary staff. There are a considerable number of statistics that explain the difference that Mr. Stossel doesn't even mention let alone investigate.
- In 1975 Congress passed the EHA statute which required schools to accept special education students. Prior to this law 1 in 5 children with special needs was accepted at public schools. By 2008, 95% of all special education students were enrolled in school.
- In 2004 special education costs were $78.3 billion.
- The expenditures for a special education student were 1.6 times that of a standard student.
- The teacher student ratio for special education students is typically 6 to 1 or lower.
- If public schools were adding 10 times as many teachers as students since 1970 then we would see a significant drop in teacher to student ratio. In 1970 the ratio stood at 17.9 to 1. By 2008 it was 15.3 to 1.
- "No Child Left Behind increased state and local governments' annual paperwork burden by 6,680,334 hours, at an estimated cost of $141 million dollars".
- Since 1970 early childhood education enrollment has increased from 37.5% of children ages 3 to 5 to 63.5% in 2009.
- Early Education programs require a higher staff to student ratio. Kentucky for example allows a maximum of 10 to 1.
- "The salaries of public school teachers have generally maintained pace with inflation since 1990–91".
- The 2012 Chicago Public Schools budget includes $51.4 million for security guards.
While public schools may be increasing staff, they are not adding a significant number of teachers for standard students and teacher salaries are in line with the modest increases of inflation. The inclusion of more special education students that require additional services combined with security staff have added significant staff and costs to public schools.
So when John Stossel says "When you look at the facts, the scam is clear." I say "Give me a break".
No comments:
Post a Comment