Throwing Money at the Problem
News reports tell us the Oklahoma Lottery Commission yesterday sent nearly $17 million to the education lottery trust fund. Some folks are positively atwitter about the news of the state’s monopoly lottery providing new money for the state’s monopoly school system. Yet nearly everyone continues to ignore the corpse at the dinner party: More money isn’t going to help.
Writing in a recent issue of “Southwest Economy,” a publication of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, economist Fiona Sigalla reminds us that “higher spending won’t necessarily improve educational quality.”
Hoover Institution economist Eric Hanushek summarizes the situation well: “The patterns of expenditure on schools tell a fairly simple story. Real spending on schools has been increasing for a long time. The spending has in broad-brush terms been happening in the way that is commonly advocated: teacher education has been increasing, teacher experience has been increasing and pupil-teacher ratios have been falling. Yet, at least for the past three decades when student performance has been measured, there is little indication that these increases in resources have led to discernible improvements in student outcomes.
"All this suggests that resources per se are not the issue. And there is little reason to believe that future resource flows will have the desirable impact on student outcomes unless other, more fundamental factors change.” If the car has a blown transmission, it doesn’t do much good to pour more gasoline into the tank.
I recently read a book manuscript by an author and journalist who last year worked as a substitute teacher in a large, well-respected suburban school district in Oklahoma. He has written an eye-opening, from-the-trenches account of life in the schools. Here’s a snippet:
“I subbed classes in grades 6-12 every day for almost four months. I saw what teachers were doing – or not doing – to teach the kids in their classrooms. I asked students and the few excellent teachers I encountered what was wrong. Most of all I saw what poor teaching produces – boredom, disciplinary problems and very little real learning.
“Time after time I heard eager, bright students refer to teachers as ‘useless.’ They said they were bored, rarely challenged and resentful. The good teachers stood out in contrast – and as a distinct minority ... Perhaps 10 percent of the teachers I saw in a semester of subbing measured up to the standard I had come to expect as a student in this same district 40 years ago.”
This is the kind of in-depth, front-lines journalism – from inside a school system with a good reputation, mind you – that should be appearing in the local news pages. It would serve to remind people why more money isn't going to help. Just as Upton Sinclair’s novel The Jungle sparked a public uproar that led to reform of federal food inspection laws, detailed reporting about schools could lead to meaningful reforms that could actually help students. Or better yet, could awaken parents to the necessity of placing their children in private schools or teaching them at home.
Writing in a recent issue of “Southwest Economy,” a publication of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, economist Fiona Sigalla reminds us that “higher spending won’t necessarily improve educational quality.”
Hoover Institution economist Eric Hanushek summarizes the situation well: “The patterns of expenditure on schools tell a fairly simple story. Real spending on schools has been increasing for a long time. The spending has in broad-brush terms been happening in the way that is commonly advocated: teacher education has been increasing, teacher experience has been increasing and pupil-teacher ratios have been falling. Yet, at least for the past three decades when student performance has been measured, there is little indication that these increases in resources have led to discernible improvements in student outcomes.
"All this suggests that resources per se are not the issue. And there is little reason to believe that future resource flows will have the desirable impact on student outcomes unless other, more fundamental factors change.” If the car has a blown transmission, it doesn’t do much good to pour more gasoline into the tank.
I recently read a book manuscript by an author and journalist who last year worked as a substitute teacher in a large, well-respected suburban school district in Oklahoma. He has written an eye-opening, from-the-trenches account of life in the schools. Here’s a snippet:
“I subbed classes in grades 6-12 every day for almost four months. I saw what teachers were doing – or not doing – to teach the kids in their classrooms. I asked students and the few excellent teachers I encountered what was wrong. Most of all I saw what poor teaching produces – boredom, disciplinary problems and very little real learning.
“Time after time I heard eager, bright students refer to teachers as ‘useless.’ They said they were bored, rarely challenged and resentful. The good teachers stood out in contrast – and as a distinct minority ... Perhaps 10 percent of the teachers I saw in a semester of subbing measured up to the standard I had come to expect as a student in this same district 40 years ago.”
This is the kind of in-depth, front-lines journalism – from inside a school system with a good reputation, mind you – that should be appearing in the local news pages. It would serve to remind people why more money isn't going to help. Just as Upton Sinclair’s novel The Jungle sparked a public uproar that led to reform of federal food inspection laws, detailed reporting about schools could lead to meaningful reforms that could actually help students. Or better yet, could awaken parents to the necessity of placing their children in private schools or teaching them at home.
