Studies have proven that a good quality education has a strong positive correlation with Economic Growth. A study, Education and Economic Growth, Its not Just Going to School, but Learning Something There That Matters by Eric Hanusheck, Dean Jamison, Eliot Jamison, and Ludger Woessmann, published in Education Next examines the relationship not only between attendance and actual learning, but on the strong relationship between education and economic growth. The study notes that other studies have only looked at the relationship between student attainment and economic growth and hum and human capital. The problem with only examining student attainment falls in the fact that those numbers only quantify the number of years a student was in school, not how much they learned.
While the study did find that student attainment did have a positive correlation with economic growth, more actual learning has a greater effect. As other economists in the past found, the study found that if the average number of years of schooling was higher, the economy grew at a higher rate in the following decades. Studying 50 countries, each additional average year of schooling increased the average 40 year growth rate in the GDP by .37 percentage points. When they examined cognitive skills, which were measured my the performance in math and science tests, the impact is much larger; countries with higher test scores experienced much larger growth rates.
There is obviously a strong correlation between growth and education, but then were does money spent on education come into play? Over the years, more and more money has been poured into education yet these attempts have failed to yield actual improvements. In order to help economic growth (let alone, our children) we need to focus on education reform tactics that truly work.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
What's really at stake when we discuss school choice?
School choice has become a hot topic for debate here in St. Louis, as officials, teachers, politicians, and legislators spar over whether families should given the necessities to choose a school for their children. The real question is, however, should the less fortunate families in St. Louis be able to pick and choose their children’s education? For the most part, wealthier families are not in this quandary of how to find a good education for their family. They have the means—the resources and the mobility—to find those good schools in the area, something that has become increasingly difficult. Thus, when individuals are up in their offices debating whether or not to implement vouchers or tax credits for school choice programs, they need to remember these will be helping the poverty stricken in St. Louis in a way that rules and regulations and police and soup kitchens never will.
Making schools all their own, separate and private entities, would allow them to couple with families and school boards to make the best education available and affordable. First, children must have the option of getting into better schools. Once families are given the resources to place their children into these better areas, they will feel more a part of this education and will make sure and volunteer their time. Thus, efficiency in the school system would be at its peak, with children doing better in quality schools, and parents and teachers joining to make sure these children are getting something out of the education.
Making schools all their own, separate and private entities, would allow them to couple with families and school boards to make the best education available and affordable. First, children must have the option of getting into better schools. Once families are given the resources to place their children into these better areas, they will feel more a part of this education and will make sure and volunteer their time. Thus, efficiency in the school system would be at its peak, with children doing better in quality schools, and parents and teachers joining to make sure these children are getting something out of the education.
Phoenix Rising…
Phoenix’s East Valley Tribune has an op-ed this week that makes a lot of sense. In Missouri, we should watch Arizona’s school choice case go to state supreme court. We have a stringent so-called Blaine amendment that severely hampers the state from providing any support at all to a religiously-affiliated school.
Many anti-school choice camps have argued that Blaine Amendments (a stricter interpretation of the Establishment Clause found in many state Constitutions) prohibit a state from offering any sort of voucher or tax credit as a means of school choice because public money may come in contact with a religiously affiliated school.
For a long time I’ve believed that line of thinking constitutes a restriction on a family’s freedom of religion: making a family’s wish to raise their child in a school that reflects their beliefs contingent on their ability to pay for it. Pell Grant, the G.I. Bill and student loans are also state money, and yet do not restrict religious schools from receiving those dollars. I can think of plenty of government grants that go to private and religious organizations who are serving an important public interest. We’ve been led to believe that k-12 schooling is somehow different when in fact there are plenty of similar areas where religion and the state may touch shoulders—no excessive entanglement, just cross-purposes driven by concerned citizens. Agostini v. Felton in 1997 sets an interesting precedent about private and secular schools, if like me you geek out on case law.
The op-ed makes the case that because the aid goes to the parent and not to the school, it is not in violation of the Blaine Amendment.
The court has held that in deciding Blaine issues, judges must determine who the “true beneficiary” of a state program is, and in the case of school choice, the court said, the beneficiaries are families, not private schools. The groups who sued to halt the voucher programs — the ACLU Foundation of Arizona, People for the American Way, and the Arizona Education Association — don’t want the public to know who the true beneficiaries are.
What these opponents have accomplished is to rob a small number of disabled students (117 were enrolled this year) and foster children (140 students) and their parents of their civil rights in order to make a political point, and push a false interpretation of the state’s constitution.
Nor have they been intellectually honest enough to acknowledge that the state of Arizona has for years run a school choice program for disabled children very much like the voucher program in question, under the federal Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act. The only difference is that the state assigns special-needs children to the IDEA programs that bureaucrats feel will best serve them. Under the voucher program, parents choose.
That suggests what lies at the heart of this issue: a struggle for power and control. Those who run the government school monopoly want to keep their power instead of sharing it with taxpayers and parents who might not choose their services. The idea of competition can be a scary thing, especially for groups that already enjoy captive audiences. Arizona, which operates four distinct school choice programs, has shown choice really works — and that’s why these groups are targeting it.
The decision is headed to the Arizona Supreme Court on appeal. Since the lower court contradicted itself regarding the state constitution’s Blaine Amendments — saying the programs “aid” religious schools but do not “support” them — it’s reasonable to expect the high court to abide by its own precedents and recognize this case for what it is: a grab for additional power by a fat and callous educational establishment.
Many anti-school choice camps have argued that Blaine Amendments (a stricter interpretation of the Establishment Clause found in many state Constitutions) prohibit a state from offering any sort of voucher or tax credit as a means of school choice because public money may come in contact with a religiously affiliated school.
For a long time I’ve believed that line of thinking constitutes a restriction on a family’s freedom of religion: making a family’s wish to raise their child in a school that reflects their beliefs contingent on their ability to pay for it. Pell Grant, the G.I. Bill and student loans are also state money, and yet do not restrict religious schools from receiving those dollars. I can think of plenty of government grants that go to private and religious organizations who are serving an important public interest. We’ve been led to believe that k-12 schooling is somehow different when in fact there are plenty of similar areas where religion and the state may touch shoulders—no excessive entanglement, just cross-purposes driven by concerned citizens. Agostini v. Felton in 1997 sets an interesting precedent about private and secular schools, if like me you geek out on case law.
The op-ed makes the case that because the aid goes to the parent and not to the school, it is not in violation of the Blaine Amendment.
The court has held that in deciding Blaine issues, judges must determine who the “true beneficiary” of a state program is, and in the case of school choice, the court said, the beneficiaries are families, not private schools. The groups who sued to halt the voucher programs — the ACLU Foundation of Arizona, People for the American Way, and the Arizona Education Association — don’t want the public to know who the true beneficiaries are.
What these opponents have accomplished is to rob a small number of disabled students (117 were enrolled this year) and foster children (140 students) and their parents of their civil rights in order to make a political point, and push a false interpretation of the state’s constitution.
Nor have they been intellectually honest enough to acknowledge that the state of Arizona has for years run a school choice program for disabled children very much like the voucher program in question, under the federal Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act. The only difference is that the state assigns special-needs children to the IDEA programs that bureaucrats feel will best serve them. Under the voucher program, parents choose.
That suggests what lies at the heart of this issue: a struggle for power and control. Those who run the government school monopoly want to keep their power instead of sharing it with taxpayers and parents who might not choose their services. The idea of competition can be a scary thing, especially for groups that already enjoy captive audiences. Arizona, which operates four distinct school choice programs, has shown choice really works — and that’s why these groups are targeting it.
The decision is headed to the Arizona Supreme Court on appeal. Since the lower court contradicted itself regarding the state constitution’s Blaine Amendments — saying the programs “aid” religious schools but do not “support” them — it’s reasonable to expect the high court to abide by its own precedents and recognize this case for what it is: a grab for additional power by a fat and callous educational establishment.
Accountability + Options = Charter Schools
A crucial element to restoring the quality of education in St. Louis is charter schools. Many of the problems—specifically in the St. Louis Public School district—stem from administrative malfunctions. Because these teachers unions and self-interested bureaucrats struggle to maintain unjustified control, proper changes have not been made even in the face of continually failing schools. Charter schools provide the administrative flexibility to provide proper management on fundamental issues such as funding allocation and standards setting.
Accountability is a key concept of charter schools. Failure to meet academic performance standards or any unacceptable fiscal management will lead to charter termination by the state. The state department is required to study and report a charter school’s performance every two years. Furthermore, theses schools undergo annual audits and submit report cards reviewing the year.
The school choice aspect of charter schools will not only hold the charter schools accountable (why would a parent choose to attend a poor school?), it will also provide the motivation for public schools to final begin to implement positive changes. Charter schools provide parents with options concerning the important and emotional issue of their child’s education and future. Parents now have a choice outside failing public schools and expensive—possibly religious—private schools. The concepts of schools choice and accountability will work together to improve the education of our children—therefore making charter schools an essential method.
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/editorialcommentary/story/CC2A93EF3538C8678625744400822710?OpenDocument
http://stlcin.missouri.org/education/K12.cfm
Accountability is a key concept of charter schools. Failure to meet academic performance standards or any unacceptable fiscal management will lead to charter termination by the state. The state department is required to study and report a charter school’s performance every two years. Furthermore, theses schools undergo annual audits and submit report cards reviewing the year.
The school choice aspect of charter schools will not only hold the charter schools accountable (why would a parent choose to attend a poor school?), it will also provide the motivation for public schools to final begin to implement positive changes. Charter schools provide parents with options concerning the important and emotional issue of their child’s education and future. Parents now have a choice outside failing public schools and expensive—possibly religious—private schools. The concepts of schools choice and accountability will work together to improve the education of our children—therefore making charter schools an essential method.
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/editorialcommentary/story/CC2A93EF3538C8678625744400822710?OpenDocument
http://stlcin.missouri.org/education/K12.cfm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
