Anybody feel like helping me try to find an article? I'm usually pretty good at this kind of thing, but I seem to have struck out on this one.
There was an opinion piece that ran in the NY Times (I think) about 5 years ago or so -- I think it was between 2003 and 2005 -- by, I believe, a former Clinton aide. The op-ed proposed using federal dollars to dramatically increase (double?) teacher salaries in a certain set of high-poverty (urban?) schools. The argument was that this would cost only a fraction of what the federal government currently spends on education and, at the same time, would do more to help close the achievement gap than what we're currently doing by attracting the best and brightest to teach in the neediest schools.
Does anybody else remember reading this? Anybody who sends me a link to the article will receive two gold stars.
Update: The gold stars go to Aaron Pallas -- the article can be found here
As to my memory, I fared reasonably well: the article was written in 2005 by Matthew Miller, who worked for the OMB during the Clinton administration. He mentions urban schools, but never specifically identifies which schools would receive the pay raises (he says "poor schools"). He proposes raising pay by 50% and doubling it for high-performing teachers and shortage subjects. He estimates that such a program would cost $30 billion (so he must have x number of schools in mind) -- 7% of the federal education budget.
Showing posts with label school spending. Show all posts
Showing posts with label school spending. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Thursday, November 12, 2009
A Closer Look at "The Phony Education Funding Crisis"
The conservative Hoover Institute publishes, by far, the best magazine -- Education Next -- linking news and research on education in ways that are engaging and informative for non-PhD's. In many ways, it's a model for what other groups should be doing. Most teachers, principals, school board members, parents, etc. will never pick up a copy of one of the top academic journals and read through the lengthy and technical pieces inside. Education Next, however, contains shortened versions of academic articles in addition to commentaries, book reviews, and other features that just about anybody can pick up and read without too much effort. But, as with all think-tank publications, sometimes the articles merit a closer look.
One such article was published this week. Entitled "The Phony Education Funding Crisis," it attempts to show that journalists consistently portray schools as underfunded and understaffed while, in actuality, school funding and staffing levels have risen almost interminably. In some ways the claims are irrefutable, but the arguments advanced deserve further scrutiny -- and I'm just the person for the job.
Why? Because I was originally part of the research team working on this article. I helped decide which newspapers to search in which years, which keywords to use, and how to code each article as portraying schools as in need of more funding, spending too much money, or somewhere in between. That was about a year and a half ago, and I moved on to a different project before analysis got underway.
The article begins with the following statement:
"Chicken Little is alive and seemingly employed as a finance analyst or reporter for an education interest group. If one relies on newspaper headlines for education funding information, one might conclude that America’s schools suffer from a perpetual fiscal crisis, every year perched precariously on the brink of financial ruin, never knowing whether there will be sufficient funding to continue operating . . . "
I continued reading, eager to find the results of the empirical analysis of newspaper content over the past three decades. But that was the only mention of the content. Apparently the analysis was scrapped at some point in the last 18 months or so. The lack of empirical evidence to back up the claim made in the first paragraph significantly weakens the article, but the bulk of it discusses unrelated matter. More specifically, the article is mostly focused on the rise in school funding and employment levels in the nation and figuring why this is the case.
The authors' analysis of why funding and employment levels increase in the way they do is, in my opinion, pretty much spot-on. Among other things, they point out that education is privileged by many local and state legislatures, that many policy folk prefer to cut funds from other programs rather than schools, and that school employees are well-organized. I'd add that a major source of school funds -- property taxes -- tends to change more slowly than other revenue sources, and rarely decreases. For the most part, I think they're correct to say that school funding and employment levels have increased quite a bit over the past few decades and I think their explanations for this phenomenon make sense.
But I take issue with three pieces of data that are presented:
1.) They mention a significant rise in teacher salaries. But these salaries, measured in constant dollars, seem to have barely budged over the past 35 or so years. If you look at an extended version of the chart in the article, you can see that teachers are now paid only a couple thousand dollars or so more than what they were paid in the early 70's. The drastic increase in the number of employees, on the other hand, is striking.
2.) School funding hasn't skyrocketed by every measure imaginable. If we look at per-pupil funding relative to per capita GDP, we find that spending has declined over the past quarter-century. Which is not to say that it should or shouldn't have fallen, just that it has.
3.) The authors write that "reading scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) have been level for four decades" as a justification for their argument that we've gained nothing by increasing funding and employment levels. On face, this is true -- reading scores have barely risen. Younger students' math scores, however, have increased dramatically.
More importantly, I take issue with the interpretation of the data that are presented.
Proving that funding has increased -- and explaining why -- doesn't answer whether or not it should. The article seems to imply that increased funding is inevitably a waste of money, which may or may not be true.
We can imagine a number of reasons why the same education might cost more today than it used to. Four decades ago, the teaching force consisted mostly of women who were near the top of their college class. For many of the highest achieving women, education was the only real career option. Nowadays, however, education is one of the last choices for many of the top achieving college students -- of both genders. So it might make sense that teacher salaries should rise dramatically (which they haven't) in order to attract equally talented teachers. Or, if we're going to settle for less talented teachers, maybe it makes sense that we would hire so many more of them to teach kids in smaller classes and so many more staff members to support them.
Similarly, it's not out of the realm of possibility that in other ways it also costs more money today to educate students to the same degree. Even if we assume that students today are no better off than students forty years ago (a dangerous, and likely false assumption), that doesn't mean that increased funding hasn't had an effect. What if students would be doing worse if not for the additional funding? Maybe the increase in divorce means that we have more emotionally fraught students who need smaller classes and more individual attention. Or maybe the increase in technological distractions means that it's harder for students to focus on school. I don't know if these, or any of a million other arguments one could make, are convincing -- but that's not really the point. To establish causality, we need to know more than just which came first. To say that spending increased and achievement didn't does not prove that more spending doesn't yield greater achievement.
Then we have a heterogeneity problem. That is, to say that schools are under- or over-funded across the country isn't really correct. Some districts are awash in cash that they use to fund all sorts of interesting things. Some districts are struggling to get by. So this is a case where I think the utility of generalizing is extremely limited.
Last, and most importantly, the authors convincingly argue that local and state politicians will cut funding for virtually any other program before they'll cut it for schools. So what's the problem here? Value judgments are, to some extent, in the eye of the beholder, but this one is pretty clear to me. That school funding is about the last thing that anybody wants to cut is a good thing. We should cut other programs before we cut back on schools.
To sum up: Do the news media claim there's a school funding crisis more than they claim that property taxes and such are too high? I don't know. Is there, in fact, a funding crisis? It depends where you look and how much money you think schools need. Has school funding increased over the past half-century? Yes . . . well, depending on how you measure it. Is this a bad thing? Maybe, but not necessarily. Do school expenditures shrink less than others when the economy shrinks? Yes. Is this a bad thing? Probably not.
One such article was published this week. Entitled "The Phony Education Funding Crisis," it attempts to show that journalists consistently portray schools as underfunded and understaffed while, in actuality, school funding and staffing levels have risen almost interminably. In some ways the claims are irrefutable, but the arguments advanced deserve further scrutiny -- and I'm just the person for the job.
Why? Because I was originally part of the research team working on this article. I helped decide which newspapers to search in which years, which keywords to use, and how to code each article as portraying schools as in need of more funding, spending too much money, or somewhere in between. That was about a year and a half ago, and I moved on to a different project before analysis got underway.
The article begins with the following statement:
"Chicken Little is alive and seemingly employed as a finance analyst or reporter for an education interest group. If one relies on newspaper headlines for education funding information, one might conclude that America’s schools suffer from a perpetual fiscal crisis, every year perched precariously on the brink of financial ruin, never knowing whether there will be sufficient funding to continue operating . . . "
I continued reading, eager to find the results of the empirical analysis of newspaper content over the past three decades. But that was the only mention of the content. Apparently the analysis was scrapped at some point in the last 18 months or so. The lack of empirical evidence to back up the claim made in the first paragraph significantly weakens the article, but the bulk of it discusses unrelated matter. More specifically, the article is mostly focused on the rise in school funding and employment levels in the nation and figuring why this is the case.
The authors' analysis of why funding and employment levels increase in the way they do is, in my opinion, pretty much spot-on. Among other things, they point out that education is privileged by many local and state legislatures, that many policy folk prefer to cut funds from other programs rather than schools, and that school employees are well-organized. I'd add that a major source of school funds -- property taxes -- tends to change more slowly than other revenue sources, and rarely decreases. For the most part, I think they're correct to say that school funding and employment levels have increased quite a bit over the past few decades and I think their explanations for this phenomenon make sense.
But I take issue with three pieces of data that are presented:
1.) They mention a significant rise in teacher salaries. But these salaries, measured in constant dollars, seem to have barely budged over the past 35 or so years. If you look at an extended version of the chart in the article, you can see that teachers are now paid only a couple thousand dollars or so more than what they were paid in the early 70's. The drastic increase in the number of employees, on the other hand, is striking.
2.) School funding hasn't skyrocketed by every measure imaginable. If we look at per-pupil funding relative to per capita GDP, we find that spending has declined over the past quarter-century. Which is not to say that it should or shouldn't have fallen, just that it has.
3.) The authors write that "reading scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) have been level for four decades" as a justification for their argument that we've gained nothing by increasing funding and employment levels. On face, this is true -- reading scores have barely risen. Younger students' math scores, however, have increased dramatically.
More importantly, I take issue with the interpretation of the data that are presented.
Proving that funding has increased -- and explaining why -- doesn't answer whether or not it should. The article seems to imply that increased funding is inevitably a waste of money, which may or may not be true.
We can imagine a number of reasons why the same education might cost more today than it used to. Four decades ago, the teaching force consisted mostly of women who were near the top of their college class. For many of the highest achieving women, education was the only real career option. Nowadays, however, education is one of the last choices for many of the top achieving college students -- of both genders. So it might make sense that teacher salaries should rise dramatically (which they haven't) in order to attract equally talented teachers. Or, if we're going to settle for less talented teachers, maybe it makes sense that we would hire so many more of them to teach kids in smaller classes and so many more staff members to support them.
Similarly, it's not out of the realm of possibility that in other ways it also costs more money today to educate students to the same degree. Even if we assume that students today are no better off than students forty years ago (a dangerous, and likely false assumption), that doesn't mean that increased funding hasn't had an effect. What if students would be doing worse if not for the additional funding? Maybe the increase in divorce means that we have more emotionally fraught students who need smaller classes and more individual attention. Or maybe the increase in technological distractions means that it's harder for students to focus on school. I don't know if these, or any of a million other arguments one could make, are convincing -- but that's not really the point. To establish causality, we need to know more than just which came first. To say that spending increased and achievement didn't does not prove that more spending doesn't yield greater achievement.
Then we have a heterogeneity problem. That is, to say that schools are under- or over-funded across the country isn't really correct. Some districts are awash in cash that they use to fund all sorts of interesting things. Some districts are struggling to get by. So this is a case where I think the utility of generalizing is extremely limited.
Last, and most importantly, the authors convincingly argue that local and state politicians will cut funding for virtually any other program before they'll cut it for schools. So what's the problem here? Value judgments are, to some extent, in the eye of the beholder, but this one is pretty clear to me. That school funding is about the last thing that anybody wants to cut is a good thing. We should cut other programs before we cut back on schools.
To sum up: Do the news media claim there's a school funding crisis more than they claim that property taxes and such are too high? I don't know. Is there, in fact, a funding crisis? It depends where you look and how much money you think schools need. Has school funding increased over the past half-century? Yes . . . well, depending on how you measure it. Is this a bad thing? Maybe, but not necessarily. Do school expenditures shrink less than others when the economy shrinks? Yes. Is this a bad thing? Probably not.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
The Hypocrisy of "Money Doesn't Matter"
Last week, I wrote the following:
"If money doesn't matter in education, why are all of the most expensive colleges among the nation's elite?"
I got quite a bit of pushback in the comments, and it wasn't really a very thoughtful comment, so I think it's appropriate to take more than one sentence to explore the issue.
First, a little background: One of the main battles in education is around funding. All sorts of people have a personal stake in the funding of schools -- from employees who want a salary boost to homeowners who want a tax break. An awful lot of the reforms that have been pushed for schools (particularly smaller class sizes and higher teacher pay among others) cost an awful lot of money. As result of both the fact that spending more on schools deprives other people of the pleasure of that money and the fact that we want our schools to be both efficient and effective, people began to ask whether money mattered in education (see here, for example).
Now, I don't think that every person who's against more school funding as a solution actually means that more money will never matter -- regardless of how much or how it's spent. Indeed, there are any number of qualifications that can be added into the statement (see here, for example). Eric Hanushek, perhaps the researcher most often associated with the phrase, is on the record assaying agreeing with the statement that "only a fool would say money doesn't matter." Most people would agree that spending more money won't necessarily improve schools and that, indeed, spending more money often doesn't improve schools. We can find all sorts of examples of expensive reforms that didn't pan out, and every cliche lover realizes that "throwing money at the problem" won't solve it. But, at the same time, most are willing to recognize that it's not impossible for money to make a difference if it's well-spent. The problem is less with the argument once it's fully laid out and more with how people interpret and act on the phrase. To blindly insist that "money doesn't matter" is not only foolish but often hypocritical.
As I was insinuating in my one-sentence thought, an awful lot of people believe that the wealthiest, most expensive colleges are also the best. If we look at a list of the colleges and universities with the largest endowments, it's pretty clear that the wealthiest institutions are the ones we consider elite. And an awful lot of people aspire(d) to attend these colleges, have attended these colleges, or have paid for their children to attend these colleges.
Regardless of whether or not these schools are actually better, the perception that they are -- and the actions resulting from that perception -- say an awful lot about our society and our beliefs.
Views of private K-12 schools are somewhat similar. Last year the NY Times ran a story on prep schools that included a list of those with the largest endowments. I'm no expert, but I recognize a number of the schools on the list. The bottom line is that parents are willing to spend money -- lots of money (over $30,000 per year, not including room and board, in some cases) -- to send their kids to the most prestigious private schools.
Well, actions speak louder than words. Clearly, our society believes that schools with more resources are better. Therefore, anybody who argues that money doesn't matter in education and then brags about their degree from Harvard is a hypocrite. And anybody who argues that boosting spending at their town's schools cannot make a difference and then writes a check for their kid's tuition at Peddie is also a hypocrite. Anybody who truly believes that money doesn't matter shouldn't participate in their school bake sale or donate money to their alma mater.
Now, I don't think it's that simple. Like I said before, the intellectual leaders of the "money doesn't matter" school of thought would make more nuanced arguments. But the general public doesn't often pick up on nuance. And the result is that a lot of people repeat the talking points without realizing there's more to the argument. And then those people become hypocrites.
Finally, let me address a few points that others have made or that I anticipate they will make:
1.) One commenter claimed that schools are like cars because spending more money than one would on a Camry cannot result in the procurement of a better car. Which is demonstrably false. Spending more money than one would on a Camry means that one can procure a car that can go 0-60 in the blink of an eye (Porsche), get 50 miles per gallon (Prius), or climb a mountain (Hummer), for example. In this case, the definition of "better" was conflated with the definition of "necessary," and that type of confusion can destroy a debate. I don't need my car to climb a mountain or go 0-60 in 4 seconds (though I would like to use less gas). I can afford to buy myself an adequate car, and I don't feel like I need anything else. My car meets my needs. But spending more money could buy me a car that's faster, stronger, safer, more efficient, and/or better at hauling things. So while I don't think that spending more money is necessary, it's not without utility.
We can make a similar argument with schools. It might not be necessary for a school to hire only teachers with doctorate degrees, cap class sizes at 5, and operate 12 hours per day 300 days per year -- but it would probably make the school better. In short, the question "is it worth it?" is separate from the question "will it make things better?"
2.) Prestige undoubtedly has a lot to do with why people spend a lot of money on schools, cars, or other goods. If somebody thought they'd receive equal educations at Harvard and East Cupcake University and money were no object, which one would they choose? Most would choose the former, if for no other reason than because other people would be more impressed by it. But therein lies the rub: somebody has to think something is better for it to be more prestigious. If everybody thought that BMW made horrible cars, who would pay the premium to buy one?
Besides, whether or not more money actually makes a school (or car) better isn't really germane to the argument. The point is that most people think that more money = better school, and their actions are proof.
3.) Yes, I consider virtually all of the colleges near the top of the largest endowment and highest tuition lists to be elite. There are about 3,000 or so colleges in our country, so I'd say at least the top 300 or so should be considered elite. I find the idea that only the top 25 or so are really elite to be . . . well, elitist.
4.) Yes, it's okay for people to argue that public schools are doing fine with their current spending levels but that they should be allowed to spend more on their kid. If you don't think the city collects recycleables often enough, you're allowed to pay an outside company to come collect them more. Everybody always wants more for their families. The distinction that I'm drawing is that one cannot simultaneously want more for their families and argue that getting more doesn't matter. It just doesn't make sense.
"If money doesn't matter in education, why are all of the most expensive colleges among the nation's elite?"
I got quite a bit of pushback in the comments, and it wasn't really a very thoughtful comment, so I think it's appropriate to take more than one sentence to explore the issue.
First, a little background: One of the main battles in education is around funding. All sorts of people have a personal stake in the funding of schools -- from employees who want a salary boost to homeowners who want a tax break. An awful lot of the reforms that have been pushed for schools (particularly smaller class sizes and higher teacher pay among others) cost an awful lot of money. As result of both the fact that spending more on schools deprives other people of the pleasure of that money and the fact that we want our schools to be both efficient and effective, people began to ask whether money mattered in education (see here, for example).
Now, I don't think that every person who's against more school funding as a solution actually means that more money will never matter -- regardless of how much or how it's spent. Indeed, there are any number of qualifications that can be added into the statement (see here, for example). Eric Hanushek, perhaps the researcher most often associated with the phrase, is on the record as
As I was insinuating in my one-sentence thought, an awful lot of people believe that the wealthiest, most expensive colleges are also the best. If we look at a list of the colleges and universities with the largest endowments, it's pretty clear that the wealthiest institutions are the ones we consider elite. And an awful lot of people aspire(d) to attend these colleges, have attended these colleges, or have paid for their children to attend these colleges.
Regardless of whether or not these schools are actually better, the perception that they are -- and the actions resulting from that perception -- say an awful lot about our society and our beliefs.
Views of private K-12 schools are somewhat similar. Last year the NY Times ran a story on prep schools that included a list of those with the largest endowments. I'm no expert, but I recognize a number of the schools on the list. The bottom line is that parents are willing to spend money -- lots of money (over $30,000 per year, not including room and board, in some cases) -- to send their kids to the most prestigious private schools.
Well, actions speak louder than words. Clearly, our society believes that schools with more resources are better. Therefore, anybody who argues that money doesn't matter in education and then brags about their degree from Harvard is a hypocrite. And anybody who argues that boosting spending at their town's schools cannot make a difference and then writes a check for their kid's tuition at Peddie is also a hypocrite. Anybody who truly believes that money doesn't matter shouldn't participate in their school bake sale or donate money to their alma mater.
Now, I don't think it's that simple. Like I said before, the intellectual leaders of the "money doesn't matter" school of thought would make more nuanced arguments. But the general public doesn't often pick up on nuance. And the result is that a lot of people repeat the talking points without realizing there's more to the argument. And then those people become hypocrites.
Finally, let me address a few points that others have made or that I anticipate they will make:
1.) One commenter claimed that schools are like cars because spending more money than one would on a Camry cannot result in the procurement of a better car. Which is demonstrably false. Spending more money than one would on a Camry means that one can procure a car that can go 0-60 in the blink of an eye (Porsche), get 50 miles per gallon (Prius), or climb a mountain (Hummer), for example. In this case, the definition of "better" was conflated with the definition of "necessary," and that type of confusion can destroy a debate. I don't need my car to climb a mountain or go 0-60 in 4 seconds (though I would like to use less gas). I can afford to buy myself an adequate car, and I don't feel like I need anything else. My car meets my needs. But spending more money could buy me a car that's faster, stronger, safer, more efficient, and/or better at hauling things. So while I don't think that spending more money is necessary, it's not without utility.
We can make a similar argument with schools. It might not be necessary for a school to hire only teachers with doctorate degrees, cap class sizes at 5, and operate 12 hours per day 300 days per year -- but it would probably make the school better. In short, the question "is it worth it?" is separate from the question "will it make things better?"
2.) Prestige undoubtedly has a lot to do with why people spend a lot of money on schools, cars, or other goods. If somebody thought they'd receive equal educations at Harvard and East Cupcake University and money were no object, which one would they choose? Most would choose the former, if for no other reason than because other people would be more impressed by it. But therein lies the rub: somebody has to think something is better for it to be more prestigious. If everybody thought that BMW made horrible cars, who would pay the premium to buy one?
Besides, whether or not more money actually makes a school (or car) better isn't really germane to the argument. The point is that most people think that more money = better school, and their actions are proof.
3.) Yes, I consider virtually all of the colleges near the top of the largest endowment and highest tuition lists to be elite. There are about 3,000 or so colleges in our country, so I'd say at least the top 300 or so should be considered elite. I find the idea that only the top 25 or so are really elite to be . . . well, elitist.
4.) Yes, it's okay for people to argue that public schools are doing fine with their current spending levels but that they should be allowed to spend more on their kid. If you don't think the city collects recycleables often enough, you're allowed to pay an outside company to come collect them more. Everybody always wants more for their families. The distinction that I'm drawing is that one cannot simultaneously want more for their families and argue that getting more doesn't matter. It just doesn't make sense.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Redux: Is Education Spending Really Skyrocketing?
Back in the spring I wrote a piece on the trajectory of school spending in the United States. Unfortunately, I later realized (and Sherman Dorn later pointed out) that my graph was fatally flawed. I compared per-pupil expenditures to GDP when what I really meant to do was compare per-pupil expenditures to GDP per capita. I finally found that data and took some time to make some colorful graphs, so here's what I've found.
Before I get to the graphs, let me back up for a second. Nobody disputes that expenditures on education have risen quite dramatically in real dollars over the past century in the United States. But I'm not sure that's the most appropriate statistic at which to look b/c there's no context. Just as people would expect to spend different amounts on food or housing depending on their income, a country would expect to spend different amounts on education depending on their wealth. In other words: you'd expect the U.S. to spend more on education than Somalia because the U.S. has more money to spend. Similarly, you'd expect the U.S. to spend more now than in 1930 b/c the U.S. now has more money to spend. So the question shouldn't be "how much more do we spend on education now?" it should be "how much more should we spend on education now?"
Before anybody gets up in arms, I am not arguing that we should expand education funding ad infinitum. It's clear that wealthier countries can spend more on education than can poorer countries, but at what point has a country spent enough? One way of visualizing this is to compare education spending to overall wealth. Before reading the graphs below, ask yourself this question: as a country grows wealtheir, should the percentage of wealth spent on education increase, decrease, or stay constant?
Your answer to this question is largely dependent on how you view education. If education is a necessity, like food, then the percentage of resources that one devotes to it would decline as one grows wealthier. If it's a luxury item, like vacations, then the percentage of resources that one devotes to it would increase as one grows wealthier. In the former case, money spent on education would be a non-negotiable essential; in the former, one would first pay for the essentials and then use disposable income to pay for education.
I would argue some combination of all of the above. It might be easier if I drew this on a graph, but I already have too many graphs so I'm just going to try and explain it. Some level of schooling is practically essential for a country. As far as I know every country in the world has some sort of schooling -- even if it's 100 kids and one teacher in a ramshackle schoolhouse withone textbook to share. So some portion of a country's resources should be devoted to education no matter what. Schooling beyond the bare bones is more of a luxury item -- on which countries should spend their disposable income. In other words, before building sprawling campuses with swimming pools, LCD projectors, etc. a country would make sure that is has already covered the costs of basic infrastructure and security. And at some point the marginal returns to education spending would start to decline rapidly -- at which point that country would probably want to stop raising spending in absolute dollars (meaning that it would fall as a percentage of wealth). In other words, poor countries should devote an ever growing share of their resources to education as they grow wealthier, middle-income countries should devote about the same percentage of resources as they grow wealthier, and at some undetermined points the wealthiest countries should start devoting a smaller share of their resources.
It's probably easier to understand if we use a family as an analogy for a country. A very poor family will make sure that their child goes to school and try to provide that child with some basic supplies -- pencils, notebooks, etc. As the family grows wealthier they have more disposable income and can afford to buy the child books, magazines, fancy binders, perhaps an extra tutoring session, etc. As the family grows wealthier still they might choose to spend a condsiderable portion of their disposable income on sending the child to a private school. But at some point there's really not much more that the family can do for their child by spending more on their education -- the child is enrolled in the best private school, has a top-notch laptop with expensive software, individual tutors for all subjects, attends elite academic summer camps, etc. So the family may grow even wealthier, but that additional wealth would be devoted toward things other than education b/c they've maxed out their ability to aid the education of their child. If I've just wasted this space trying to explain and it still doesn't make sense then somebody let me know and I'll make a follow-up post with a graph and more concise explanation.
Anyway, to the graphs:
All graphs show spending in constant dollars -- meaning that lines do not increase due to inflation. Graph 1 shows per-pupil expenditures in the U.S. since 1930 -- you'll see why I said that nobody disputes that the rise has been dramatic. Graph 2 shows the trend in the ratio between GDP per capita and per-pupil expenditures since 1980. Graph 3 shows the comparison in growth between GDP per capita and per-pupil expenditures since 1980. You can see larger versions of the graphs by clicking on them.
So, while education spending in the U.S. appears to have skyrocketed over the past 85 years, it has actually shrunk as a ratio of wealth over the past 25. As you can see in graph 3, real per-pupil expenditures almost doubled between 1980 and 2005, but real per capita GDP nearly quadrupled during that same timespan (I'd really like to get GDP per capita back to 1930, but haven't found it that far back -- if anybody can help me out with that then let me know).
In other words, even though we're spending more money on eduation we're spending a lower percentage of our wealth on education. As I argued before, that's not necessarily a bad thing: at some point more spending on education stops helping. So the question is, are we at that point?
footnote: GDP data were obtained from the IMF: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2008/02/weodata/index.aspx
Before I get to the graphs, let me back up for a second. Nobody disputes that expenditures on education have risen quite dramatically in real dollars over the past century in the United States. But I'm not sure that's the most appropriate statistic at which to look b/c there's no context. Just as people would expect to spend different amounts on food or housing depending on their income, a country would expect to spend different amounts on education depending on their wealth. In other words: you'd expect the U.S. to spend more on education than Somalia because the U.S. has more money to spend. Similarly, you'd expect the U.S. to spend more now than in 1930 b/c the U.S. now has more money to spend. So the question shouldn't be "how much more do we spend on education now?" it should be "how much more should we spend on education now?"
Before anybody gets up in arms, I am not arguing that we should expand education funding ad infinitum. It's clear that wealthier countries can spend more on education than can poorer countries, but at what point has a country spent enough? One way of visualizing this is to compare education spending to overall wealth. Before reading the graphs below, ask yourself this question: as a country grows wealtheir, should the percentage of wealth spent on education increase, decrease, or stay constant?
Your answer to this question is largely dependent on how you view education. If education is a necessity, like food, then the percentage of resources that one devotes to it would decline as one grows wealthier. If it's a luxury item, like vacations, then the percentage of resources that one devotes to it would increase as one grows wealthier. In the former case, money spent on education would be a non-negotiable essential; in the former, one would first pay for the essentials and then use disposable income to pay for education.
I would argue some combination of all of the above. It might be easier if I drew this on a graph, but I already have too many graphs so I'm just going to try and explain it. Some level of schooling is practically essential for a country. As far as I know every country in the world has some sort of schooling -- even if it's 100 kids and one teacher in a ramshackle schoolhouse withone textbook to share. So some portion of a country's resources should be devoted to education no matter what. Schooling beyond the bare bones is more of a luxury item -- on which countries should spend their disposable income. In other words, before building sprawling campuses with swimming pools, LCD projectors, etc. a country would make sure that is has already covered the costs of basic infrastructure and security. And at some point the marginal returns to education spending would start to decline rapidly -- at which point that country would probably want to stop raising spending in absolute dollars (meaning that it would fall as a percentage of wealth). In other words, poor countries should devote an ever growing share of their resources to education as they grow wealthier, middle-income countries should devote about the same percentage of resources as they grow wealthier, and at some undetermined points the wealthiest countries should start devoting a smaller share of their resources.
It's probably easier to understand if we use a family as an analogy for a country. A very poor family will make sure that their child goes to school and try to provide that child with some basic supplies -- pencils, notebooks, etc. As the family grows wealthier they have more disposable income and can afford to buy the child books, magazines, fancy binders, perhaps an extra tutoring session, etc. As the family grows wealthier still they might choose to spend a condsiderable portion of their disposable income on sending the child to a private school. But at some point there's really not much more that the family can do for their child by spending more on their education -- the child is enrolled in the best private school, has a top-notch laptop with expensive software, individual tutors for all subjects, attends elite academic summer camps, etc. So the family may grow even wealthier, but that additional wealth would be devoted toward things other than education b/c they've maxed out their ability to aid the education of their child. If I've just wasted this space trying to explain and it still doesn't make sense then somebody let me know and I'll make a follow-up post with a graph and more concise explanation.
Anyway, to the graphs:
All graphs show spending in constant dollars -- meaning that lines do not increase due to inflation. Graph 1 shows per-pupil expenditures in the U.S. since 1930 -- you'll see why I said that nobody disputes that the rise has been dramatic. Graph 2 shows the trend in the ratio between GDP per capita and per-pupil expenditures since 1980. Graph 3 shows the comparison in growth between GDP per capita and per-pupil expenditures since 1980. You can see larger versions of the graphs by clicking on them.
Graph 1
Graph 2
Graph 3
So, while education spending in the U.S. appears to have skyrocketed over the past 85 years, it has actually shrunk as a ratio of wealth over the past 25. As you can see in graph 3, real per-pupil expenditures almost doubled between 1980 and 2005, but real per capita GDP nearly quadrupled during that same timespan (I'd really like to get GDP per capita back to 1930, but haven't found it that far back -- if anybody can help me out with that then let me know).
In other words, even though we're spending more money on eduation we're spending a lower percentage of our wealth on education. As I argued before, that's not necessarily a bad thing: at some point more spending on education stops helping. So the question is, are we at that point?
footnote: GDP data were obtained from the IMF: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2008/02/weodata/index.aspx
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Ping Pong Balls and Children's Fates
Thomas Friedman weighs in with this op-ed today about a lottery to enroll in a charter boarding school in Baltimore. Friedman's wife is on the board of the SEED Foundation, which runs charter boarding schools in multiple cities, and is opening the new one in Baltimore. The one in D.C. has, apparently, been quite successful, and the new school had 300 applicants for the 80 spots. Friedman attended the lottery through which enrollees were selected and argues that it's sad to see childrens' fates determined by ping pong balls - and that it shouldn't be this way (not in the sense that charter school enrollment shouldn't be determined by lottery, but in the sense that everybody should have access to a high-quality school).
I have a number of thoughts about the article:
1.) Boarding school. Interesting. Evidence seems to indicate that a lot of things about the home-life of inner-city students hold them back, so I guess this is one way to potentially overcome that. By my calculation, a student who attends 180 7-hour days of school spends about 14% of their time in school over the course of a year -- about 22% of their waking hours if they sleep 8 hours/night. A boarding school could potentially oversee kids for a majority of their time. I'd like to know more about how they use the extra time they have with the kids as a result of this set-up.
2.) Friedman reports that SEED schools are funded by both public and private funds. I know in most places that charter schools receive less funding per-pupil than other public schools, but I wonder how much money some of these schools raise from private sources and how their total funding (private + public) compares to other public schools in the district. If anybody has seen these figures anywhere, please let me know.
3.) I wonder how the parents of the children who applied to the lottery compare to others in Baltimore. Are parents who want to send their kids to a boarding school more concerned about their education, more eager to get rid of their kids, or no different from others?
4.) I agree that children's fate shouldn't be determined by a ping pong ball, but what's the solution? Obviously, high-quality schools for all; but is the SEED Foundation moving us toward this goal? We'll assume for the moment without further investigation that their schools are, in fact, wonderful places. Given this, are they replicable? Do we have the personnel and finances to replicate these schools for every student in Baltimore and other cities? I'm guessing not, but I'd also guess that not every student in Baltimore wants to attend a boarding school. In that case, can SEED schools be part of a system that provides excellent options for all? I don't see why not.
I have a number of thoughts about the article:
1.) Boarding school. Interesting. Evidence seems to indicate that a lot of things about the home-life of inner-city students hold them back, so I guess this is one way to potentially overcome that. By my calculation, a student who attends 180 7-hour days of school spends about 14% of their time in school over the course of a year -- about 22% of their waking hours if they sleep 8 hours/night. A boarding school could potentially oversee kids for a majority of their time. I'd like to know more about how they use the extra time they have with the kids as a result of this set-up.
2.) Friedman reports that SEED schools are funded by both public and private funds. I know in most places that charter schools receive less funding per-pupil than other public schools, but I wonder how much money some of these schools raise from private sources and how their total funding (private + public) compares to other public schools in the district. If anybody has seen these figures anywhere, please let me know.
3.) I wonder how the parents of the children who applied to the lottery compare to others in Baltimore. Are parents who want to send their kids to a boarding school more concerned about their education, more eager to get rid of their kids, or no different from others?
4.) I agree that children's fate shouldn't be determined by a ping pong ball, but what's the solution? Obviously, high-quality schools for all; but is the SEED Foundation moving us toward this goal? We'll assume for the moment without further investigation that their schools are, in fact, wonderful places. Given this, are they replicable? Do we have the personnel and finances to replicate these schools for every student in Baltimore and other cities? I'm guessing not, but I'd also guess that not every student in Baltimore wants to attend a boarding school. In that case, can SEED schools be part of a system that provides excellent options for all? I don't see why not.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
More on School Expenditures Over Time
This is a follow-up to my last post where I posted a graph that surprised me. As a percentage of GDP, per-pupil expenditures have remained flat over time -- other than during WWII a little under a dollar per billion dollars of GDP per student. The first comment (by the author of the post that prompted my post) asked why we should expect to spending on education to rise over time compared to GDP. I gave a terse response in my follow-up comment, but I'd like to take more time to flesh that out.
To oversimplify economic theory, many goods can be counted as either necessities or luxuries and people (and countries) are expected to increase their spending on luxury items as income increases while simultaneously decreasing their spending on necessities relative to their income. So, for example, somebody making a million dollars per year is expected to spend a smaller portion of their budget on food and shelter than is somebody making twenty thousand dollars per year. At the same time, the wealthier person is expected to spend a greater share of their budget on wine or boats or vacation homes. They're able to do this because they have more "discretionary income" -- money beyond what's needed to pay for the bare necessities of life.
Countries work in a similar fashion. There are certain things that even the poorest country must spend money on (e.g. a basic system of defense or a basic network of roads) and some things that wealthy countries can afford to devote a larger share of income towards as their discretionary income increases (e.g. science research or museums).
So, whether you believe that education spending should increase, decrease, or remain the same relative to GDP depends on how you view education spending. If you think that it's a bare necessity, then you would expect it to decrease over time as we gain more money. If you view it as more of a luxury good, then you'd expect spending to increase over time as discretionary income increases. If you view it as somewhere in between, then you might expect spending to stay relatively flat over time.
I said at the beginning of the post that I was surprised when I saw that it was flat. I was surprised because I was under the distinct impression that countries tended to spend a larger share of GDP on education as they become wealthier. I guess further investigation is needed to find out whether I was wrong or if the US is an outlier.
Update: Actually, when I corrected the graph, it appears as though spending per pupil compared to GDP per capita has been falling rather than flat
To oversimplify economic theory, many goods can be counted as either necessities or luxuries and people (and countries) are expected to increase their spending on luxury items as income increases while simultaneously decreasing their spending on necessities relative to their income. So, for example, somebody making a million dollars per year is expected to spend a smaller portion of their budget on food and shelter than is somebody making twenty thousand dollars per year. At the same time, the wealthier person is expected to spend a greater share of their budget on wine or boats or vacation homes. They're able to do this because they have more "discretionary income" -- money beyond what's needed to pay for the bare necessities of life.
Countries work in a similar fashion. There are certain things that even the poorest country must spend money on (e.g. a basic system of defense or a basic network of roads) and some things that wealthy countries can afford to devote a larger share of income towards as their discretionary income increases (e.g. science research or museums).
So, whether you believe that education spending should increase, decrease, or remain the same relative to GDP depends on how you view education spending. If you think that it's a bare necessity, then you would expect it to decrease over time as we gain more money. If you view it as more of a luxury good, then you'd expect spending to increase over time as discretionary income increases. If you view it as somewhere in between, then you might expect spending to stay relatively flat over time.
I said at the beginning of the post that I was surprised when I saw that it was flat. I was surprised because I was under the distinct impression that countries tended to spend a larger share of GDP on education as they become wealthier. I guess further investigation is needed to find out whether I was wrong or if the US is an outlier.
Update: Actually, when I corrected the graph, it appears as though spending per pupil compared to GDP per capita has been falling rather than flat
Has Education Spending Really Skyrocketed?
I just read a post at D-Ed Reckoning about the astronomical increases in per-pupil education spending over the past century. Though expenditures rose in terms of real dollars, I wondered how they compared to the GDP of the U.S. So I found data on the GDP of the U.S. since 1940 (here) and combined the two. The results are above. As a percentage of GDP, per-pupil expenditures (other than a drop during WWII) have stayed almost exactly flat over the past 65 years. The chart is a bit small, but if you click on it then you can see a larger version.
The question remains over what the most relevant comparison is over time. The fact that per-pupil spending relative to GDP has remained the same over time indicates that we're putting forth about the same financial effort relative to our capacity to spend, but if our capacity to spend has increased then we might still expect larger gains in achievement over that time. On the other hand, increased spending capacity should also increase the country's discretionary income -- apparently we've chosen to spend that on items other than education.
Update: More on this in a follow-up post
Later update: Corrected version of the graph (oops) here
Monday, March 24, 2008
The Costs and Benefits of Schooling
The first session I attended at AERA was an overview of a recent book, The Price We Pay. The book was published by a team of noted economists as an attempt to quantify the benefits of schooling to society and conduct a cost-benefit analysis of some education reforms with proven track records.
They concluded that a person who drops out of high school pays about $100,000 less in taxes (in today's dollars) over the course of their lifetime than does a person who completes high school (only high school, not college) and that, overall, each high school dropout costs the country about $209,000 in lost taxes, welfare, court costs, etc.
Given this figure, they look at how much various interventions cost per additional student that graduates from high school and find that most cost about 1/3 of the amount that society benefits from their graduation. I didn't read the book -- I only heard a 90 minute summary of it -- so I'm not sure exactly what they take into account, but two things that would bias these estimates jumped into my head.
1.) They only look at the additional benefits from the students who graduate from high school that otherwise would not have. What about the students who attended college or graduated from college that otherwise would not have? Taking this into account might mean that their estimates were biased downward -- that there are more benefits than they thought to the interventions.
2.) A shift of a couple percentage points probably wouldn't affect the benefits of a high school education much, but a large increase likely would. If, say, half as many students dropped out each year then it's likely that the benefits of graduating from high school would be smaller. This would mean that their estimates were biased upward -- that the benefits of the interventions were not as large as they thought.
Henry Levin assured a questioner who raised a similar issue that they had taken a lot of things into account and that their estimates were very complex, so it's quite likely that these concerns are addressed in the book. Especially without having read the book I hesitate to believe that these estimates can possibly be very precise, but I think there is some value to them nonetheless. I think a financial analysis of the costs and benefits of school interventions is valuable information to have before making a decision. That said, Henry Levin made sure to emphasize at the very beginning that the primary reason for helping the poorest children is a moral one rather than a financial one.
Also: perhaps the most notable tidbit I gathered from the session was the projection that in 2020 the workforce will be less educated than the workforce in 2000. I had always assumed that the number of people attending college was and will continue to steadily increase, but I had noticed in previous research that the % of 25-29 year olds with a bachelor's degree in 2006 is actually lower than it was in 2000. Given the changing demographics of the country, Marta Tienda concludes that this trend will continue into the future.
They concluded that a person who drops out of high school pays about $100,000 less in taxes (in today's dollars) over the course of their lifetime than does a person who completes high school (only high school, not college) and that, overall, each high school dropout costs the country about $209,000 in lost taxes, welfare, court costs, etc.
Given this figure, they look at how much various interventions cost per additional student that graduates from high school and find that most cost about 1/3 of the amount that society benefits from their graduation. I didn't read the book -- I only heard a 90 minute summary of it -- so I'm not sure exactly what they take into account, but two things that would bias these estimates jumped into my head.
1.) They only look at the additional benefits from the students who graduate from high school that otherwise would not have. What about the students who attended college or graduated from college that otherwise would not have? Taking this into account might mean that their estimates were biased downward -- that there are more benefits than they thought to the interventions.
2.) A shift of a couple percentage points probably wouldn't affect the benefits of a high school education much, but a large increase likely would. If, say, half as many students dropped out each year then it's likely that the benefits of graduating from high school would be smaller. This would mean that their estimates were biased upward -- that the benefits of the interventions were not as large as they thought.
Henry Levin assured a questioner who raised a similar issue that they had taken a lot of things into account and that their estimates were very complex, so it's quite likely that these concerns are addressed in the book. Especially without having read the book I hesitate to believe that these estimates can possibly be very precise, but I think there is some value to them nonetheless. I think a financial analysis of the costs and benefits of school interventions is valuable information to have before making a decision. That said, Henry Levin made sure to emphasize at the very beginning that the primary reason for helping the poorest children is a moral one rather than a financial one.
Also: perhaps the most notable tidbit I gathered from the session was the projection that in 2020 the workforce will be less educated than the workforce in 2000. I had always assumed that the number of people attending college was and will continue to steadily increase, but I had noticed in previous research that the % of 25-29 year olds with a bachelor's degree in 2006 is actually lower than it was in 2000. Given the changing demographics of the country, Marta Tienda concludes that this trend will continue into the future.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
The Irony of Business Intervention in Education
One of the most noticeable trends in education over the past 5-10 years or so has been the increasing role of business-think in schools. People from the business world have become involved in schools and education policy in a myriad of ways: from businessman superintendents (e.g. in NYC and Pittsburgh) to for-profit schools to supplemental educational services to accountability to performance pay, school choice, and many others. As with any trend in governance, the business perspective has brought both good and bad to education.
As a crass generalization, people who argue that schools should be run more like businesses tend to also argue that schools are wasteful and inefficient, that the market should play a larger role in education, and that success and failure can be measured.
The irony is that if schools were run just like the private sector, the changes would infuriate many proponents of business-think. More specifically, think about spending patterns.
Think of the differences between walking into, say, a law firm vs. walking into a typical public school. Which one has a ridiculously expensive conference table? Which one pays for employees to stay in upscale hotels and eat fancy meals? Which one gives employees expense accounts?
It's widely expected that schools (and pretty much all public organizations, for that matter) are supposed to forgo luxury items, make do with second-hand goods, and generally sacrifice and cut corners at every turn. And that's fine in a lot of ways, but it's something that businesspeople tend to forget. If schools were run more like businesses, I find it hard to believe they'd be any more thrifty. If schools were truly run like businesses I think a lot of current critics would be red-faced with anger over their wasted tax dollars. In short: be careful what you wish for.
As a crass generalization, people who argue that schools should be run more like businesses tend to also argue that schools are wasteful and inefficient, that the market should play a larger role in education, and that success and failure can be measured.
The irony is that if schools were run just like the private sector, the changes would infuriate many proponents of business-think. More specifically, think about spending patterns.
Think of the differences between walking into, say, a law firm vs. walking into a typical public school. Which one has a ridiculously expensive conference table? Which one pays for employees to stay in upscale hotels and eat fancy meals? Which one gives employees expense accounts?
It's widely expected that schools (and pretty much all public organizations, for that matter) are supposed to forgo luxury items, make do with second-hand goods, and generally sacrifice and cut corners at every turn. And that's fine in a lot of ways, but it's something that businesspeople tend to forget. If schools were run more like businesses, I find it hard to believe they'd be any more thrifty. If schools were truly run like businesses I think a lot of current critics would be red-faced with anger over their wasted tax dollars. In short: be careful what you wish for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)