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
Thursday, June 12, 2008
What Do Americans Really Know About Education Spending?
Government spending on education has, without a doubt, increased over the past several decades. Unfortunately, the student achievement levels and graduation rates are not following the same upward slope. I have often wondered the reasoning behind the constant financial increases when there is yet to be evidence of the benefits. Education Next published an article, Is the Price Right? Probing American's knowledge of school spending
By William G. Howell and Martin R. West
This study examines the way people view America’s public education spending. The results are astonishing. 59 percent of those surveyed truly believe more spending on public schools in their districts will increase student achievement. However, while they may feel more spending is needed, most people highly under-estimate how much is already spent. The study asked the respondents to estimate per-pupil expenditures in their districts as well as teacher salaries in their states. The study used actual spending and salaries which were matched geographically to each district and state to compare their estimates with actual spending. The results showed that Americans vastly underestimate the amount spent in their district and on teacher salaries.
The average estimate on per-pupil spending was $4,231 when given no prompt and $5,262 when given the prompt (the prompt “Individual student costs go toward teacher and administrator salaries, building construction and maintenance, extracurricular activities, transportation, etc). The average actual spending through the country is around $10,400. The average guess for teacher salary was $33,054 while the actual national average is $47,424.
While the study did show differences in opinions based on gender, whether they had school age children, and those who own homes and pay property taxes; the number were still well below the real numbers. There are also differences with political party affiliation.
This leads me to believe not only are people convinced we need to spend more to see more because they have not looked into the research on the lack of correlation, but also because they are basing their opinions on inaccurate information. The study noted that those who support increases in spending on public education in their district were guessing per-pupil spending $6,000 less than it is. The same holds true for teacher salary. However, while those who were in favor of decreasing spending were still guessing below the real spending level, they were estimating closer to the actual numbers.
So, now we see Americans underestimate actual spending levels, but does this necessarily prove why many people agree with more spending?
The authors ask one important question: “does the public's understanding of school finance shape their policy preferences, or do the public’s policy preferences shape their understanding of school finance?” This is something that needs answers to get to a solution.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Education's Failings a National Catastrophe
There is really no surprise when people talk about the schools failing the children. There is however the problem of who will solve it and how it will be solved. All around the world wide web of blogging, people seem to know all the answers to everything. Sometimes, there are great ideas and sometimes there are not. It kills me to read blogs that only want to stick to the status quo...essentially keeping things the way they are. Obviously, the children will not benefit from this.
Education is a highly debated issue among parents, taxpayers, and politicians. I came across this article in the Wall Street Journal I really think people should read. It only reinforces my negative attitude about teachers unions:
OPINION
Main Street
McCain's School Choice Opportunity
By WILLIAM MCGURN
April 29, 2008;
If only Jeremiah Wright had got the right conspiracy.
When Barack Obama's pastor was caught on tape accusing the government of inventing HIV for "genocide against people of color," it was dismissed as another crazy conspiracy theory - which of course it was. But what if the Rev. Wright had used his pulpit to direct a little fire-and-brimstone against a very real outrage: a public-school system that's depriving millions of children of the education they need to compete in the 21st century economy?
Scarcely half of American children in our 50 largest cities will leave their public schools with a high-school diploma in hand, according to a study released by America's Promise Alliance. These children are disproportionately African-American. Their homes are disproportionately located in our largest public school districts. And the failure is a scar on this great land of opportunity.
Alma and Colin Powell, leaders in the alliance that produced this report, spoke about the human blight that can follow the lack of a basic education in an op-ed in the Washington Times. "Students who drop out," they wrote, "are more likely to be incarcerated, to rely on public programs and social services and to go without health insurance than their fellow students who graduate."
That isn't the intent of those who administer this system. But that is the result. And only a latter-day Bull Connor could be happy with the way our inner-city public schools are consigning millions of African Americans to the margins of American opportunity and prosperity.
And it gets worse. One of the few hopeful alternatives in these cities are the Catholic schools, which take the very same students and show that they can learn if given the chance. One University of Chicago researcher found that minority students at Catholic schools are 42% likelier to complete high school than their public school counterparts - and 2 1/2 times more likely to earn a college degree. In difficult circumstances, and for an increasingly non-Catholic student body, these schools are doing heroic work.
Unfortunately, another study released this month, by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, reports that Catholic schools are closing at an alarming rate:
More than 1,300 since 1990. Most are located in our cities.
These numbers were behind the special White House summit on Inner-City Schoolchildren and Faith-Based Schools convened last Thursday. The emphasis on faith-based schools is a reflection of practicality, because turning around a failing public school or starting up a new one is difficult, costly and takes time that these children can't afford.
"Many of the parents I know in D.C. are looking for a safe place for their children," says Virginia Walden-Ford, a summit participant and leader with the Black Alliance for Educational Options. "Their children can't afford to wait - they need a place now."
That's the education problem. The political problem has three parts.
First, though polls show that African Americans generally favor school choice, they tend not to vote for pro-school-choice candidates who are mainly Republican. Second, suburban voters of both parties are not enthusiastic about school choice. Many of these voters see increasing options for inner city kids as enabling blacks and Latinos to find their way into their children's schools. And of course, the teachers unions devote their considerable resources to fighting any measure that increases accountability or gives parents more options.
So when politicians have to choose between a teachers union and some African-American mom who would like to take her son out of a failing public school, guess who usually wins?
This system has had remarkable staying power; but the cracks are appearing.
In cities like Washington, D.C., and Newark, N.J., African-American mayors like Anthony Williams and Cory Booker - Democrats both - have taken courageous stands to offer children more and better school options. And these brave souls are being joined by a growing number of parents, pastors and advocates who recognize that the status quo is cheating their children out of a chance at the American Dream.
There's a good opening here for John McCain. As a senator, he has been a forceful voice for giving lower-income moms and dads the same options for their children that wealthier parents already enjoy. What if he took this campaign into the heart of our cities - and gave a little straight talk about the scandal that their public-school systems represent in this great land of opportunity?
Hillary Clinton can't do it for the same reason that Barack Obama can't:
They cannot offend the teachers unions that are arguably the most powerful constituents in their party. John McCain can.
Will he?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
