Given the recent Mackinac Conference many people are talking about ways to improve education. My colleague Gary Wolfram took his usual economic view of politics to discuss the meme regarding more education spending leading to better educational outcomes.
It should be noted that this is a vast oversimplification of what people who believe our education system could use more money, me included, actually think. No one really believes that just throwing money at education will suddenly get results.
Having said that Gary makes a number of points that many probably agree with. First and most important Gary says "More money spent on government-produced education does not necessarily mean a better education for children." and "The children of Michigan deserve a quality education. This will only happen once we produce education through the market process rather than the same way the Soviets produced nails."
Unfortunately Gary draws a conclusion that is not supported by data. While there are certainly studies that show more money doesn't necessarily get better educational results there are others that show that the states that spend more on education tend to produce better outcomes. Regardless, concluding that the free market is the only way to improve education is a giant leap.
Of course not only is it a giant leap, it also isn't true. The reality is that the evidence shows the two biggest free market solutions Michigan Republicans have been pushing, Charter Schools and Merit Pay, do not necessarily mean a better education for children. If failing to show a correlation proves the "more money" supporters wrong then failing to show a correlation between free market solutions and better test scores similarly proves the "free market" supporters wrong.
So if free market solutions don't actually improve education then maybe the main goal of free market reformist is to reduce the costs. Unfortunately privatizing government services has a long but inglorious history when it comes to saving tax payers money. A study on the topic found that of 35 jobs offered out by the government, private contractors cost more in 33 of those jobs.
Beyond the privatization angle Gary also says "More money spent on education can simply mean higher salaries for teachers or administrators or non-educational personnel." yet the data shows that in Michigan the more per pupil money a school spends on their teachers the better the educational outcomes. This suggests that not only is higher pay for teachers not the problem with public education but that it could very well be the free market solution conservatives have been looking for. Additionally if higher salaries for administrators is detrimental to education then free market supporters should be against Charter schools since on average they spend $800 more per pupil on administrative costs than public schools
In the end no one is really arguing for a blank check to improve education in the US. They just don't believe you can cut your way to better education. The reality is that it costs money to hire good teachers, train older teachers in the newest techniques, build and maintain good facilities and provide cutting edge technology that prepares students for the ever changing world we live in.
Pretending that decades old free market solutions are the answer ignores mountains of data to the contrary and diverts time, money and resources from real changes that could actually improve educational outcomes.
No comments:
Post a Comment