As printed in the Seattle Times today:
It's almost heretical to question demands for increased public-education spending in our state, but that's what I'm about to do.
I'll even go a step further: If the root of our education crisis is not "inadequate funding" (as I will argue), then our fixation with money is delaying true and necessary reform. Spending more money on a broken system will not fix the problem, it will make it bigger.
I've spoken with hundreds of people all over the state about education-funding issues, and I've discovered that many who know we need more money for our K-12 public schools can't answer two simple questions: How much are we spending now? And how much is enough?
The fact is, we're spending almost $9.5 billion a year — an average of $9,688 per student, or roughly $125,944 over the lifetime of one K-12 student. That's 17 percent more per pupil than we were spending 10 years ago, after you adjust for inflation. All things being equal, it amounts to an annual bill of $1,605 for every man, woman and child in our state, and a lifetime cost per household of $229,034.
Meanwhile, even as spending has increased, student academic performance has remained stagnant or fallen by almost all measures. (The notable exception is the highly controversial and subjective WASL.)
We all know it costs money to provide a quality education, but how we spend that money is just as important as how much. Are we spending current dollars wisely to achieve the results we want? I think the answer is "no."
For starters, the state doesn't have clear and measurable goals when it comes to education. If we don't know what we want to achieve (outcomes), how will we know what it takes to achieve it (inputs)?
In 2002, when former Gov. Gary Locke asked agencies to clearly identify their goals and prioritize activities based on how to most effectively achieve those goals, our superintendent of public instruction refused to participate.
This year, the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) participated, but not meaningfully. In the agency detail that accompanies state general-fund budget proposals, OSPI identified just one "expected result" for some $9 billion in expenditures: "By 2007, develop and implement an improved K-12 education funding model, in partnership with the Legislature, school districts, and other educational partners."
The focus is on money again, when it should be on academic success. Do we want schools to be accountable for ensuring student literacy, or for spending money? It makes a world of difference.
OSPI does have a five-year strategic plan spanning 2002-2007, the overarching goal of which is that "all students achieve at high levels, taught by high-quality educators and staff in safe, supportive, and well-managed schools."
That sounds good, but what does it mean? What are the results for which our schools will be held accountable? Unfortunately, there is no accountability. In her introduction to the strategic plan, Superintendent Terry Bergeson says it "will be a living document ... responding to changing conditions."
Thus, students, parents, legislators and taxpayers have no fixed standards by which to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of education programs and expenditures.
Worse, there is no guarantee students will benefit even if state education officials achieve their non-binding goals, since some of those goals are highly questionable.
We know, for example, that the most important controllable variable in student achievement is the quality of the teacher in the classroom. Bergeson has guidelines for "assessing teacher capacity" on the OSPI Web site. According to these guidelines, a "below standard" teacher is one whose students "believe there are right and wrong answers to questions and work to determine what those are. [They] come up with immediate responses to questions and move quickly to the next task."
Conversely, an "above standard" teacher is one whose students "know their ability to construct understanding and think reflectively about a problem is more valuable than correct answers."
This mindset has led state officials to invest millions of dollars in teacher development and evaluation programs that do little or nothing to improve student literacy. We could invest billions more in such programs and still not get the results students need.
We need to stop blindly assuming the solution to our education crisis is more money. Instead, we need to implement real solutions, even if we have to do so over the protests of entrenched special interests that have a stake in maintaining the status quo. It's the least we can do for students and taxpayers.
Marsha Richards directs the Education Reform Center for the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, a public policy research organization based in Olympia. E-mail her at mrichards@effwa.org.
We don't accept that in any other area...why would we accept it in education?
A large portion of the funds for schools come from property taxes. Those taxes apply to all families with school age children, families with no school age children, small businesses, and giant corporations. Consider what would happen if we were to give a property tax exemption for that amount that goes to government schools to those families who home school or send their children to private schools.
Only the willfully blind do not realize that the home schooled and privately schooled do substantially better over all. Giving families a property tax credit would encourage more people to educate their children privately. Since this exemption would not apply to businesses and families with no school age children that would increase the money per student to the government sector.
Only those whose philosophy is that government needs to educate children would be opposed. However, it is not education they seek but indoctrination into the socialist philosophy.
"Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed."
That should make all the socialists out there very proud.
Posted by: libertarianobserver on April 26, 2005 10:35 AMWhere is all the money going?
Posted by: William on April 26, 2005 10:46 AMThere has been a continual "dumbing down" of the desired results to make teachers and schools look good. The teachers union has too much influence over what happens at schools. Discipline and accountability by students is sorrily lacking. A lot of the teaching problems begin at home. Parents who support their unruly children and threaten court action versus disciplining their children add to the mix of teachers concerns and lack of authority. More money will not fix any of those problems.
Posted by: Marjorie on April 26, 2005 11:08 AMGiven you hate the execs in corporations earning so much more than the people doing the work and all the corporate waste, it couldn't possibly be high paid administration, unions, and all the other unproductive stuff, could it?
Posted by: Fred on April 26, 2005 11:10 AMFred: Of course, the fun of averages is that they are high since you have special needs children, cafeteria staff, school nurses, counselors, coaches and everything else all thrown together. It would be interesting to see what the average district pays for the average child, they you would have a meaningful statistic.
Posted by: JDB on April 26, 2005 11:27 AMhttp://www.startribune.com/stories/484/5369899.html
Posted by: JDH on April 26, 2005 11:34 AMhttp://www.effwa.org/main/page.php?number=146
Including these numbers:
Ratio of students to all teachers: 16.5/1
Ratio of students to all staff: 6.2/1
Ratio of students to FTE teachers: 20.4/1
Ratio of students to all FTE staff: 9.8/1
and
- Cost for one student (K-12): $116,253.24
- One-year cost per class of 20 students: $193,755.40
- Annual cost per person in WA: $1,604.95
- Annual cost per household: $4,164.74
- Lifetime cost per person: $88,272.25
- Lifetime cost per household: $229,033.75
If I remember the national studies, DC has one of the highest cost per student and the worst student performance. While SD has the lowest cost and best performance.
Money doesn't solve everything. We appear to have a lot of non-teacher teachers. FTE teachers to student ratio is around 20, yet we are continually told of numbers in the 30s.
Posted by: JCM on April 26, 2005 11:48 AMI can't wait until you have a meaningful contribution to make. Will it be any time soon?
Posted by: libertarianobserver on April 26, 2005 11:55 AMThat is what the number represents - the average, which means that is what it costs to educate the average student.
Posted by: Fred on April 26, 2005 12:36 PMBergeson has guidelines for "assessing teacher capacity" on the OSPI Web site. According to these guidelines, a "below standard" teacher is one whose students "believe there are right and wrong answers to questions and work to determine what those are. [They] come up with immediate responses to questions and move quickly to the next task."
Conversely, an "above standard" teacher is one whose students "know their ability to construct understanding and think reflectively about a problem is more valuable than correct answers."
Reminds me of the other day when Shalimar was posting about new math (sub)standards that stress the process of coming up with your own answers, instead of LEARNING what the right answer is and how to get there.
I suppose if the engineers felt good about how reflected upon the answer it dosen't matter that they had the wrong answer.
I wonder if Bergeson would be more comfortable on a Boeing plan where the wing was designed and bolt on by, "know their ability to construct understanding and think reflectively about a problem is more valuable than correct answers." Or someone who, "believe there are right and wrong answers to questions and work to determine what those are."
I guess I must be a neanderthal since I think there is a right way to put an airplane together. The wrong way gets you a smokin' hole in the ground.
Posted by: JCM on April 26, 2005 01:40 PMState government entities, especially the school bureaucracies, are monopolies who see no need to trim the non-teaching administrative staff. After all, the people in charge of making such cuts would be administrators themselves.
Thus, they keep talking about the need for smaller student-to-teacher ratios, but they won't reduce administrative staff to achieve same.
Posted by: Shannon K on April 26, 2005 06:59 PMLike all indoctrinated religous bigots, she believes lying is acceptable. She argues that there are no standards, goals, or measurable outcomes in education, save the vague mission statement she quotes. She's lying again:
Standards for learning economics:
http://www.k12.wa.us/CurriculumInstruct/SocStudies/econEALRs.aspx
For science:
http://www.k12.wa.us/CurriculumInstruct/Science/pubdocs/scienceEALR.doc
For writing:
http://www.k12.wa.us/CurriculumInstruct/Writing/pubdocs/writing.doc
She says people don't know how the money is being spent. Of course, she doesn't look it up:
http://www.k12.wa.us/LegisGov/2005-07budget.aspx
So, Little Marsha, have you read it? If so, what would you cut?
Finally, if she didn't have deficient home-schooled analytical skills, she wouldn't argue that a 17% increase in the education budget DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH "THROWING MORE MONEY AT THE SCHOOLS." Look here:
http://www.ofm.wa.gov/trends/htm/fig402.htm
The student population has been going up. I can't find ten years of per pupil expenditures, but here is a chart of four years:
http://www.k12.wa.us/safs/PUB/FIN/0304/SDAllFnde.pdf
Look at the figures for Arlington and Mt. Vernon. They consistently spend well over $10K per year. La Connor spends $20K per year. Snohomish, on the other hand is dirt cheap.
Is she really expecting anyone to buy the idea that Arlington and La Connor are hotbeds of experimental projects to improve student performance? Of course not - the per pupil expenditure includes capital projects. An increase in school age population requires an increase in capital expenditures. In fact, an area such as the northwest,which is projected to have continued population growth, should have increasing per pupil expenditures to build infrastructure to accomodate future students.
As usual, she presents hot air and strawmen to do nothing but whine. Why she would consider herself qualified to say a word about educational standards is beyond me.
Posted by: Christine G on April 26, 2005 07:31 PMThe reason is simple: there is absolutely no incentive to do any better. Most parents are trapped in the public education system and the administrators know it. The public education bureaucrats are fanatically opposed to any policy that undercuts their power from home schooling to vouchers.
Posted by: Bill K. on April 26, 2005 10:31 PMEven though all of the teachers are in the WEA, you'd think that at least a few of them would be scratching their head at the methodology being used to evaluate them.
I think the WEA and the idiots in the education bureaucracy at the state and local level are responsible, in large part, for the prison population we have. Vouchers would allow parents to send their kids to schools that are structured, disciplined, and always insist on a right answer, especially when those kids have major discipline problems.
Instead, these kids are stuck in schools where every answer is right, as long as he truly believes it passionately and feels good about himself and his answer in the process.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on April 26, 2005 11:40 PMFor real reform, we need to bust the teacher trust! Just as monopolies in business are bad for consumers, monopolies in education are bad for kids. Now I am not opposed to increasing teacher pay, especially the good ones! But merit pay is opposed by the NEA. Now you may call me crazy and old fashioned, but is it possible student performance would improve if teacher pay raises were based more on performance than just the passage of time? Hmmmmmmm.
Also, wouldn't it make sense to offer higher pay and other incentives to lure the best teachers into the inner city school districts? Or allow vouchers for kids trapped in poor schools? This is also opposed by the NEA. Gosh! then those kids, many of whom are African-American (a core constituency of Democrats) might become better educated, more afluent, and possibly more independent, as in less dependent on the government. Well...we certainly can't have that! Why... they might even start voting Republican! Hmmmmmmm.
Unless competitive free market forces are introduced into our public schools, including merit pay, vouchers, charter schools, etc. they will remain broken, and sadly, the most vulnerable students, those who can't buy their way out of this mess, will continue to suffer the most. And because liberal politicians in Olympia and the powerful NEA have a vested interest in the status quo, don't expect any real reform anytime soon.
Posted by: Ken on April 27, 2005 12:41 AM