Voice For Liberty

Tag: Education

  • Book Review: Separating School & State: How to Liberate America’s Families

    Separating School & State: How to Liberate America’s Families

    Sheldon Richman
    The Future of Freedom Foundation, 1994

    Public schools are a great intrusion on liberty. Attendance is compulsory, as is paying for the public schools. Could the government devise a better way to expand its influence? “Despite the claim of moral neutrality, public education is linked to a particular set of values, namely, the values of the modern welfare, or social-service state. Those values include moral agnosticism (erroneously called tolerance), government activism, egalitarianism, ‘welfare rights’ to taxpayer largess, collectivism, and a watered-down version of socialism that looks much like the economic theory of the 1930s known as fascism.

    “Liberty is more precious than education,” said the Voluntaryist Richard Hamilton. “We love education, but there are things which we love better.” This is an important theme of this book, and one that seems lost on most members of the public, and most politicians too, for that matter. Because a person is opposed to the near-monopoly that government has on schools, it does not follow that the person doesn’t value education.

    Many people propose vouchers as a way to let parents send their children to private schools. But Richman warns against relying on vouchers as a solution to the problem of government control of education. It is likely, he says, that private schools will have to meet many of the standards that public schools do, thereby regulating private schools like public schools. Further, vouchers don’t change the fundamental problem in education, which is government financing of it.

    What should be done, Richman says, is to end all government involvement in education. End all taxes that pay for education. Repeal all compulsory attendance laws. Open education to the creativity of the market and entrepreneurs. We do not know what would happen if this were to take place. But that’s part of the magic of markets and competition: new ideas and products are invented that are beyond the imagination of the present.

  • Book Review: Education Myths: What Special-Interest Groups Want You to Believe About Our Schools and Why it Isn’t So

    Education Myths: What Special-Interest Groups Want You to Believe About Our Schools and Why it Isn’t So

    Jay P. Greene
    Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2005

    Education policy, says Jay P. Greene, is dominated by myths. Myths aren’t lies. They’re intuitive, they seem to be true, and we want them to be true. There is probably some evidence supporting the myth. But if the myth isn’t true, if it isn’t accurate, and we make policy decisions based on the myth, we create disastrous results. As important and expensive as public education is, this means we need to examine myths and discard those that don’t truthfully describe the world.

    Subscribing to many of these myths benefits groups other than schoolchildren. These special interests that benefit from sustaining these myths are politically powerful. Those with the least power — the schoolchildren — don’t count for much at all.

    The myths:

    1. The Money Myth. “Schools perform poorly because they need more money.” The reality is that spending on education has been increasing, and increasing rapidly. In 1945 spending per student was $1,214. In 2001, it was $8,745. These figures are adjusted for inflation. In spite of this we are told every year that schools are dangerously underfunded, and if we don’t spend more and more, our children will not even be able to make change from the cash register at McDonald’s when the power goes out.

    2. The Special Ed Myth. “Special education programs burden public schools, hindering their academic performance.” This myth says that we must spend so much on education because more students are being classified as needing special education, and this education is very expensive. What really has happened, though, is that “the standard for what counts as a disability has been lowered.” There is also an incentive to classify students as learning disabled, as schools get more money for these students.

    3. The Myth of Helplessness. “Social problems like poverty cause students to fail; schools are helpless to prevent it.” But some schools are able to succeed despite disadvantaged students, so success is possible. School choice can help here, as it lets poor students escape schools that would otherwise take them for granted.

    4. The Class Size Myth. “Schools should reduce class sizes; small classes would produce bit improvements.” It seems intuitive that smaller classes are better for students. Educators rely on the Tennessee STAR project for proof. But there are many doubts about this project’s findings. It is interesting to note that the participants in this project knew they were being studied, and that if the project were a failure, the small class sizes would not continue. This introduced an element of competition. Also, reducing class size even by small steps is very expensive.

    5. The Certification Myth. “Certified or more experienced teachers are substantially more effective.” Good teachers are very important to learning, but there is a lot of research that fails to find that more education leads to teacher success. Curiously, most teachers are paid based on how much education they have, and the way to earn more is to get more education.

    6. The Teacher Pay Myth. “Teachers are badly underpaid.” But when considered in light of the number of hours worked, teachers are in fact paid quite well, more than accountants.

    7. The Myth of Decline. “Schools are performing much worse than they used to.” But most measures, such as NAEP tests and graduation rates, have remained constant over the years.

    8. The Graduation Myth. “Nearly all students graduate from high school.” Most states employ methods of counting that let them claim high graduation rates. Greene, however, uses different methods that are more reliable. With these methods, he estimates a nationwide graduation rate of 69 percent for the class of 2000. The National Center for Education Statistics figure is 86.5 percent.

    9. The College Access Myth. “Nonacademic barriers prevent a lot of minority students from attending college.” The evidence is that minority students are less likely to meet the qualifications to apply to college.

    10. The High Stakes Myth. “The results of high-stakes tests are not credible because they’re distorted by cheating and teaching to the test.” When properly implemented these tests are accurate measures of student performance.

    11. The Push-Out Myth. “Exit exams cause more students to drop out of high school.” Evidence says otherwise.

    12. The Accountably Buren Myth. “Accountability systems impose large financial burdens on schools.” Schools often exaggerate the costs of administering tests and record keeping. The costs are quite small compared to other reforms.

    13. The Inconclusive Research Myth. “The evidence on the effectiveness of vouchers is mixed and inconclusive.” “The highest quality research consistently shows that vouchers have a positive effect for students who receive them. The results are only mixed with regard to the scope and magnitude of vouchers’ benefits. The evidence for these benefits justifies a high level of confidence, especially when compared to the much weaker evidence supporting most major education policies.” “Every one of the eight random-assignment studies finds at least some positive academic effect for students using a voucher to attend a private school.”

    14. The Exeter Myth. “Private schools have higher test scores because they have more money and recruit high-performing students while expelling low-performing students. But the facts are that private schools spend much less per student than public schools, and private schools accept almost all students and expel few, compared to the public schools.

    15. The Draining Myth. “School choice harms public schools.” Evidence shows, however, that school choice improves the performance of public schools.

    16. The Disabled Need Not Apply Myth. “Private schools won’t serve disabled students.” But when vouchers give private schools the same resources as public schools, the private schools provide the needed services, along with better education.

    17. The Democratic Values Myth. “Private schools are less effective at promoting tolerance and civic participation.” Again, evidence shows otherwise.

    18. The Segregation Myth. “Private schools are more racially segregated than public schools.” “The bulk of those studies find that parental choice in education contributes to racial integration rather than promoting segregation.”

    When considering these myths, the author sees a pattern called the “meta-myth.” This myth says that education is different from almost everything else in that in education, behavior doesn’t respond to the same types of incentives that almost everything else in life responds to. We want to believe that the education of children is special, and that usual rules don’t apply. But that is false.

    This is a very well researched book that will help anyone interested in education policy understand schools and what works to increase positive outcomes for students. I think that members of the education establishment, that is the teachers unions, schools administrators, school board members, and politicians interested in the status quo, will not enjoy reading this book.

  • Every state left behind

    In Kansas, according to Standard & Poor’s Statewide Education Insights, about 60% to 70% of students are proficient in reading, as evaluated by the Kansas state reading test. But on the National Assessment of Educational Progress tests, only 33% to 35% of Kansas students are proficient. A similar discrepancy exists in the math test scores.

    Diane Ravitch, in the New York Times on November 7, 2005, writes “Idaho claims that 90 percent of its fourth-grade students are proficient in mathematics, but on the federal test only 41 percent reached the Education Department’s standard of proficiency. Similarly, New York reports that nearly 85 percent of its fourth graders meet state standards in mathematics, yet only 36 percent tested as proficient on the national assessment. North Carolina boasts an impressive 92 percent pass rate on the state test, but only 40 percent meet the federal standard.” So this problem is not isolated to Kansas. “Basically, the states have embraced low standards and grade inflation.”

    Ms. Ravitch tells us that the reasons for the huge gaps in proficiency rates include the fact that local education officials and politicians want to present good results, so that we will believe our local officials are doing a good job and that the ever-increasing funds sent to schools are wisely spent. The federal testing program hasn’t faced these pressures.

    What is the danger of these local tests that show fairly good results, when in fact the picture is quite bleak? “The price of this local watering-down is clear. Our fourth-grade students generally do well when compared with their peers in other nations, but eighth-grade students are only average globally, and 12th graders score near the bottom in comparison with students in many European and Asian nations. Even our students who have taken advanced courses in mathematics and physics perform poorly relative to their peers on international tests.”

    Further: “Last month, the National Academy of Sciences released a report warning that our nation’s ‘strategic and economic security,’ as well as our leadership in the development of new technologies, is at risk unless we invest heavily in our human capital; that is, the education of our people. The academy report made clear that many young Americans do not know enough about science, technology or mathematics to understand or contribute to the evolving knowledge-based society.”

    Having produced results like these, the education establishment in Kansas insists on keeping their monopoly on education tax dollars and the minds of young Kansans. We need to rethink the wisdom of this.

  • Book review: Class Warfare

    Class Warfare
    Besieged Schools, Bewildered Parents, Betrayed Kids and the Attack on Excellence
    J. Martin Rochester
    Encounter Books 2002

    In Lake Wobegon, “every child is above average,” Garrison Keillor says. In my personal experience, I can’t think of any parents I know who don’t have children who are not gifted or doing much better than average. After learning about the theory of Multiple Intelligences in chapter four of this book, I now know why all children are gifted.

    Multiple Intelligences is a theory, just over 20 years old, that says that besides the traditional areas of intelligence — linguistic and logical-mathematical — there are these additional areas to consider: spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, and intrapersonal. To this list might soon be added naturalist intelligence, and maybe others.

    On the surface, this seems reasonable. Not everyone is good at the same things. We generally believe that besides the three Rs, it is also good to learn about physical fitness, the arts, and music. What MI does, however, is to treat all abilities as equal. If a child is not good at writing or math, they may possess some other of these intelligences, and that’s just as good.

    MI leads to teaching exercises where, for example, to help learn punctuation symbols, the students might form punctuation marks with their bodies. That’s using bodily-kinesthetic intelligence. Or students might assign an animal sound to each symbol, thereby using naturalist intelligence. If the only way that some students might learn the punctuation symbols is to engage in exercises like these, I can see how that would be good. But with MI, all students must do these things, even if they already understand.

    As an example, the author’s son, for studies in Greek mythology, was assigned a project where he was to “produce a cut-and-paste collage that consisted of pictures, newspaper clippings, or any other items they could cull from newspaper sources that contained references to ancient Greek culture and showed the relevance of that culture to today’s society.” This was the “capstone project in a high school class whose subject was English and which was an honors class no less.” Evidently exercises like these have replaced the written essay or term paper, even for motivated students.

    Other examples: “Choose a chemical element and write two paragraphs telling why it is your favorite. Be creative.” “For homework in the science class, students created collages and drew pictures of scientists.” “… the Clayton High School English teacher who had students produce bright yellow Cliff Notes covers and the CHS history teacher who had students draw a picture of any structure in their neighborhood that had meaning for them” “… required her students to do a project expressing their feelings about prejudice, using any ‘communication’ medium they wanted. This was classical progressive education — note the emphasis on personal affective, emotive learning; the social, ideological agenda of combating prejudice; and the child-centered license to express oneself even if it is not really using language as such.”

    At a time when American students are being outpaced in math and science by students in other countries, when many young people have difficulty composing a coherent sentence, when large numbers of college students must complete remedial work in writing and math before taking regular college courses, this is the present and future of American K-12 education.

    I learned a lot from this book, although I did not read every page of it due to time constraints.

    Does the theory of Multiple Intelligences influence Wichita public schools? It appears that it does. Quite a few schools mention it on their websites. Here is a portion of the Mission/Vision statement from Wichita’s McCollom Elementary School: “Staff will enhance students’ performance using research-based instructional strategies that include multiple intelligences, hands-on and real world experiences.”

    Supplementary reading: Reframing the Mind.

    A joke, the source of which I do not know:

    A Logger Sells a Truckload of Lumber

    1960: “A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of this price. What is his profit?”

    1970 (traditional math): “A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of this price; in other words, $80. What is his profit?”

    1970 (new math): “A logger exchanges a set L of lumber for a set M of money. The cardinality of set M is 100, and each element is worth $1. Make one hundred dots representing the elements of the set M. The set C of the costs of production contains 20 fewer points than set M. Represent the set C as a subset of M, and answer the following question: What is the cardinality of the set P of profits?”

    1980: “A logger sells a truckload of wood for $100. His cost of production is $80, and his profit is $20. Your assignment: underline the number 20.”

    1990: “By cutting down beautiful forest trees, a logger makes $20. What do you think of this way of making a living? (Topic for class participation: How did the forest birds and squirrels feel?)”

  • What Is the true state of public education in Kansas?

    On a web page that is part of the National Education Association website, we can read some good news about Kansas schools. Here are some of the headlines to be found on that page:

    Math Scores Are Among the Nation’s Best
    Math Scores Are Up
    Among the Best in the Nation in Students Going on to College
    College Entrance Exams Are Among the Nation’s Best
    Among the Best Gains in the Nation in Students Going to College
    ACT Scores Are Rising
    More Students Are Taking ACTs
    Public School Students Outperform Private School Students on AP Exams
    AP Scores Are Among the Nation’s Best
    More Public Schools Offer AP Courses
    Public School Students Outperform Private School Students on AP Exams
    Among the Best in the Nation in Students Receiving a High Score on AP Calculus Exams

    You can read the entire story here: Good News about Public Schools in Kansas.

    These headlines stand in contrast to what the Kansas Supreme Court has said, and to what we were told this summer during the Kansas Legislature’s special session. We were told that Kansas schools were in grave danger, that Kansas schools were not adequately funded, and that if the legislature didn’t do its job and adequately fund schools, then Kansas schoolchildren were in danger of being outperformed by children in all other states.

    But here we have the teachers union citing much evidence that Kansas schools are among the nation’s best.

    So what is the true state of public education in Kansas? There are many studies and statistics available. Many contradict the conclusions made by others. Constituencies such as the teachers unions and the education establishment tell us they have only the welfare of the children as their concern, but many times they act otherwise. Who is qualified to decide what to do?

    The answer is simple. Ultimately, parents have the responsibility for educating their children. They are the ones in the best position to know what is best for their children. We need to empower parents to be in control of education. The way to do that is to give parents a choice as to where to send their children to school. For most people, that choice doesn’t exist in a meaningful way. School choice through vouchers can give them that choice.

    The teachers union and education establishment say that competition and school choice through vouchers will ruin public education. But if they’re doing as good a job as the headlines above indicate, they should fare well under competition.

  • How one school found a way to spell success

    In the October 14, 2005 Wall Street Journal, Daniel Henninger wrote about an elementary school in Little Rock, Arkansas that experienced a remarkable turnaround in student achievement. This poor school, where 92% of the students live at or below the poverty level, was able to increase its scores on an achievement test by 17% in one year.

    What did Meadowcliff Elementary School do? Did it build new buildings and hire new teachers to reduce class size? Did it implement new curriculum? Did the local board of education hire an extra assistant superintendent to oversee the school? Did it increase teacher pay?

    It’s the last that the school did, although not in the way the teachers unions would dictate. Instead, the school was able to implement a bonus system, whereby teachers would earn extra money based on student performance. Mr. Henninger reports the results: “Twelve teachers received performance bonuses ranging from $1,800 to $8,600. The rest of the school’s staff also shared in the bonus pool. That included the cafeteria ladies, who started eating with the students rather than in a nearby lounge, and the custodian, who the students saw taking books out of Carter’s Corner, the ‘library’ outside the principal’s office. Total cost: $134,800. The tests cost about $10,000.”

    The bonuses were funded by a private donor, which allowed the school to bypass the teachers union. The teachers union opposed the second year of the bonus program because it was to be paid from the school district’s regular budget. The union insisted that the teachers at Meadowcliff vote for a contract waiver, and 100% of the teacher voted for the waiver. The fact that the teachers union would oppose something that was demonstrably beneficial for the students gives us another clue as to the union’s true constituency.

    This experience shows that sometimes little, simple things can make a huge difference.

    More information: PEF Announces Student Achievement and Teacher Reward Project, LR elementary scores bonuses for test gains.

  • Criticism of Bob Corkins reveals true motivations

    I have not met Bob Corkins, but I have read some of his articles. I published several on the Voice For Liberty in Wichita. He is in favor of school choice, and that is one thing that the education establishment, education bureaucrats, and teachers unions are very much opposed to. Never mind that allowing school choice could be the quickest and easiest thing we can do to improve schools in Kansas. As Harvard economist Caroline Hoxby has noted regarding school choice in Milwaukee:

    From 1998-1999 onwards, the schools that faced the most competition from the vouchers improved student achievement radically–by about 0.6 of a standard deviation each year. That is an enormous, almost unheard-of, improvement. Keep in mind the schools in question had had a long history of low achievement. Yet they were able to get their act together quickly. The most threatened schools improved the most, not only compared to other schools in Milwaukee but also compared to other schools in the state of Wisconsin that served poor, urban students. … Milwaukee shows what public school administrators can tell you: Schools can improve if they are under serious competition.

    I would like to hope that the appointment of Mr. Corkins will lead to thoughtful debate in Kansas about education instead of more self-serving pronouncements from the education establishment and teachers unions. But the shrill criticism does not give me hope.

    From Karl Peterjohn, Kansas Taxpayers Network:

    Bob Corkins is an excellent choice as the next commissioner for education in Kansas. He is one of the top experts on school finance in this state with excellent legislative contacts and he has his own children in public schools. A dirty little secret is that some of the government school officials children are attending or have attended private schools.

    The government school establishment, the left wing Kansas press, the left wing elected officials have all responded with outrage to his appointment. The vile, hateful, and wildly inaccurate statements from tax ‘n spend legislators like Sen. John Vratil, Sen. Tony Hensley, Sen. Jean Schodorf, state school board member Bill Wagnon, and editorials in newspapers like the Wichita Eagle, the Lawrence Journal World, and the rest of the left-wing press in this state demonstrate their commitment to the state school monopoly.

    The political Left in Kansas endorses big, bureaucratic government that provides a state monopoly and perpetual demands for tax dollars for the public schools. This education is often strong on indoctrination and weak on learning to read, write, and computing numbers without a calculator. Sadly, state monopoly performs poorly for many Kansas children and then their families must struggle to either fund an alternative education at home or in a non public school. Bob Corkins will be working with the majority of the Kansas state board of education to improve education in Kansas. His appointment is a breath of fresh air for Kansas education.

    The following was written by Sen. Tim Huelskamp, R-Fowler:

    Elitist Arrogance in Kansas

    This week a dear friend and colleague of mine, Mr. Bob Corkins, was selected as the new Education Commissioner of Kansas. He brings to the position a wealth of experience: a background running a small business, strong experience promoting a positive business climate in Kansas, a reputation as a leading education budget expert, his first-hand knowledge of the Legislative process for nearly a decade, his legal expertise per education lawsuits, and national exposure as a top-rate policy analyst.

    For one who is to serve as CEO of a department of 200 employees –respond to the wishes of an elected 10-member State Board of Education — watch over 300 school districts — and account for more than $4.5 billion of taxpayer dollars — Bob would seem to be a perfect match.

    But for the elitists in Kansas today — he is not qualified.

    The excuses were many — he is not a superintendent or a classroom teacher. Heck, he’s not even a curriculum specialist or a master teacher. And he’s never even been the assistant secretary to the vice-principal of finance for the instruction of the English-as-a-second-Language students. And, by goodness, the guy doesn’t even have a Ph.D. in Education — or even a Master’s.

    The education insiders have gone ballistic. One superintendent claims that Corkins doesn’t care about the children, because he doesn’t support a massive tax and spending increase (which, of course, would increase the superintendent’s personal pocketbook). You might tell Bob’s Boy Scout Troop that he doesn’t care about kids.

    One Board of Education member — the husband of Governor Sebelius’ Secretary of the Department of Revenue — fell into a fit of babbling and make a nonsensical comparison of the appointment to the FEMA response to Hurricane Katrina. And then he threw out some disparaging personal attack on the integrity and intelligence of Corkins.

    The assault by the elected elitists continued next with attacks by Senator John Vratil, the all-powerful vice-chairman of the Senate Education Committee. Vratil compared Corkins’ appointment to making Saddam Hussein president of the United States. (That is a quote!) Bob Corkins a terrorist?!?

    Of course, don’t you know, Mr. Vratil is obviously more qualified in education than Bob — for he has law degree from KU — hmm — the same school as Corkins. But don’t forget, as a trial lawyer Vratil has not only sued the state of Kansas (and lost) for more education spending — he also receives considerable income serving as counsel to various school districts. But rest assured, neither the Kansas Bar Association, nor the Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications has found any conflict of interest between Senator Vratil serving as counsel to certain school districts and his votes for more taxpayer dollars to these districts.

    Based on the elitist disgorging, it is abundantly clear that Bob Corkins is the perfect man for this job. We need an Education Commissioner who can work with the State Board of Education, the Legislature, the 300 elected school Boards, and the taxpayers of Kansas to develop a 21st Century Vision for education in Kansas. Instead of simply focusing on spending more money doing more of the same, it is time our government education system focused on real improvement, cost efficiency, and responsiveness to the needs of parents and students.

    I call upon Senator John Vratil to do the right thing — apologize for your outrageous remarks. How do over-the-top insults, name-calling and personal attacks do anything to help the children of Kansas?

  • Augenblick perhaps cheap by comparison

    Augenblick Perhaps Cheap by Comparison
    By Bob L. Corkins, Freestate Center for Liberty Studies
    August 29, 2005

    Billions of dollars are riding on the outcome of the state’s two education finance studies, one by the Legislative Division of Post Audit, the other by the national firm of business analysts at Standard & Poors. The Kansas Supreme Court is putting great reliance on the results of these studies in deciding how to resolve the behemoth Montoy v. State K-12 finance litigation.

    By threatening to close public schools, the Court forced the Legislature this summer to increase K-12 spending by a record-setting $293 million enhancement. However, the Court said this did not end the lawsuit and pointed to the 2002 study by education consultants Augenblick & Myers when declaring that at least another $580 million more may be necessary. The high price tag of A&M’s recommendation may be reaffirmed, the Court reasoned, by the new Post Audit and S&P studies to be completed by January. The Post Audit study is so important to the Court’s ultimate ruling, in fact, that the Court ordered changes to the study to accommodate all of the Court’s legal concerns.

    S&P to Finish First; Not a Cost Study

    In February of this year the private Kansas City based Kauffman Foundation gave the state of Kansas a $400,000 grant to pay for an education finance study to be performed by S&P. Governor Sebelius’ office then contracted with S&P to define the scope, method, schedule, and other details of the work S&P would perform.

    Overseeing much of the state’s interests in this project is Duane Goossen, the Governor’s Budget Director. Goossen emphasized, and the terms of the contract confirm, that S&P will not perform an education “cost study” for Kansas as many have expected and as S&P has done in other states. Rather, S&P will complete a “best practices” analysis that is in some ways is more thorough, but less extensive overall.

    Although there are many details, we can summarize the contract study process. S&P uses state-provided data to analyze all USDs and identify those that are “resource effective”. The state, in consultation with S&P, will select four USDs from the resource effective list. S&P will then conduct site visits to those four USDs to conduct various detailed interviews. All that input is used by S&P to write a “resource management study” that will include examples of effective practices that other USDs may emulate. The projected publication for S&P’s study is early November.

    Post Audit to Employ Syracuse Experts

    At the Supreme Court’s insistence, the Post Audit study will conduct an “outcomes-based” analysis of K-12 costs in addition to an “input-based” approach. The primary question the input approach will answer is: “What should it cost for regular K-12 education to deliver the curriculum, related services, and programs mandated by state statute?”

    Future reports by the Freestate Center will examine particular parts of the S&P study as well as Post Audit’s. For now there is one feature of the Post Audit’s outcomes-based project that merits special attention. The primary question Post Audit will address in this chore is: “What should it cost for regular K-12 education to meet the performance outcome standards set by the Board of Education?” To help answer that question, Post Audit has contracted with two professors – William Duncombe and John Yinger – from Syracuse University in New York for their expertise in education finance.

    Authority for outside consultants was granted by HB 2247 during the regular 2005 legislative session and by SB 3 during the special session. The relevant language from both bills provides that “In conducting such cost analysis study, the legislative post auditor may enter into contracts with consultants as the post auditor deems necessary.” Although this gives discretion to Post Audit in deciding upon consultants, another part of the statute specifies that “the cost study analysis shall be conducted as directed by the legislative post audit committee.”

    Criticisms of Duncombe and Yinger

    Perhaps the best insight into what Kansas can expect from these researchers is found in their own published material. The state of New York was sued for allegedly failing to provide a constitutionally “adequate education”. In that litigation that’s now before a group of special masters, Duncombe and Yinger jointly filed a brief on September 17, 2004. Some highlights of their court brief are:

    (1) For the New York City school district alone, which currently spends about $10.8 billion, D&Y recommended an increase of $7.2 billion as “the best available current estimate of the annual cost of achieving the 160 adequacy standard”;

    (2) A large factor affecting D&Y’s recommendation was teacher wages. D&Y criticized as being “implausible” another study’s conclusion that teacher wages in New York City averaged only 10% higher than the state average. D&Y’s own method, which additionally adjusts for teacher working conditions such as their share of students eligible for a free lunch or with limited English proficiency, estimates that “wage costs are 54% above the state average in New York City and 13% above the state average in downstate suburbs.”

    (3) D&Y are critical of cost studies done by Standard & Poors. D&Y wrote “The S&P report also includes extra weights for the share of students in poverty or with limited English proficiency, but these weights are neither estimated nor drawn from the scholarly literature. All of the calculations in the [S&P] report, including the estimated cost of reform, are based on the same unrealistically low weights for disadvantaged students.”

    We also look to how other scholars view Duncombe & Yinger. A February 2004 review of various education cost studies was published by economics professor Thomas Downes of Tufts University. Downes observed that Duncombe uses the “cost function” approach and that there are “three main problems” with that method: (1) It is the least intuitive to non-economists and the least understood, requiring complex statistical techniques which are difficult to explain; (2) The data quality must be extremely good, since the entire model is based on real historical data; and, (3) It is sometimes called a “black box” method, since researchers do not say how funds should be spent, but simply how much should be spent. Downes also remarked in general that “.seemingly small methodological differences can translate into dramatic differences in spending distributions.”

    A national review panel in 1999 compared D&Y to Augenblick and suggested that D&Y would exacerbate inefficient school spending. The National Reseach Council’s Committee on Education Finance wrote: “William Duncombe and John Yinger.are highly skeptical about whether schools with concentrations of low-income children, especially in urban areas, can realistically succeed with an amount of money that Augenblick’s model would provide. Given the complexity of the Duncombe and Yinger methodology, many will wonder to what extent they really have taken into account only costs that are beyond the school or district’s control and not allowed past spending inefficiencies to determine how much future revenue a school or district ought fairly have.”

    Freestate Commentary

    A few observations flow from our review of this information:

    (1) Had D&Y performed the cost analysis for Kansas in 2002 instead of Augenblick & Myers, it is quite possible that D&Y would have recommended more than that study’s $860 million increase for K-12.

    (2) Why did the state not want S&P to do a cost analysis? S&P’s “best practices” study will be different and more thorough than what S&P has done for any other state. Consider its timing. The S&P details were agreed upon early in 2005 before legislation required Post Audit to undertake any similar project. Was the Administration aware last spring, when it contracted with S&P, that Duncombe and Yinger disapprove of S&P’s methodology?

    (3) Even if for no other reason than timing, it’s very unlikely that Post Audit will cancel its contract with D&Y. Still, the Post Audit Committee has authority to direct the conduct of the study and perhaps insist on additional consultants. It might be cost effective for Post Audit to hire other national experts to evaluate D&Y’s conclusions without duplicating their work.

    Future Freestate Center bulletins will report on additional news about the pending state K-12 studies. All relevant findings will eventually be published in a Freestate Center study to be completed later this year.

    # # #

    Bob L. Corkins is executive director of the Freestate Center for Liberty Studies. The Freestate Center is a nonpartisan, not-for-profit, Topeka based research institute for advancing the Constitutional principles of limited government, individual liberty, free enterprise and traditional family values. Freestate is organized under IRS § 501(c)(3).

    FREESTATE CENTER OFFICERS
    President Gayle Mollenkamp, Quinter / Secretary-Treasurer Terry Presta, Leawood

    The Freestate Center for Liberty Studies

    Freestate Center for Liberty Studies
    827 SW Topeka Blvd., Topeka, KS 66612
    785.233.5157 office
    785.220.2800 mobile
    ksfreestate@sbcglobal.net

  • Pricing a Car, Pricing a School?

    Pricing a Car, Pricing a School?
    By Bob L. Corkins
    August 4, 2005

    Think about buying an education as if you were buying a car.

    A car may be stylish, perfectly sized, fuel efficient, constructed for long life and safety, and loaded with the latest technology, but its price is still negotiable. And despite a window sticker that assigns a dollar amount to every selling feature, you can still cut a deal.

    That sticker won’t list the car’s value to your sense of self worth, your hope for recaptured youth or freedom, or even the improved welfare to your children that the car might represent.

    All possible benefits of the car will have their value defined by one number: the final selling price. When you voluntarily agree on a price, that price sends signals to all sorts of people throughout our economy.

    The value of an automobile is as subjective as the value of a child’s education. But because the value of cars is determined in a competitive market where price is negotiated to the satisfaction of buyer and seller, a far greater consensus on value is possible.

    Only when value is determined by a voluntary exchange does the price send reliable messages to producers and consumers. Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman observed that “Anything that prevents prices from expressing freely the conditions of demand or supply interferes with the transmission of accurate information.”

    In utter disregard of this principle, Kansas is now under Supreme Court order to list the manufacturer’s suggested retail price for K-12 education. You can bet it will be no mere suggestion once the experts finish their calculations.

    Two state-sanctioned studies are now underway that will tell us by January how much more this state must spend on K-12. Although the Court already forced a $293 million enhancement (our largest ever) last month by threatening to close public schools, the Court also held that the new state studies might require at least another $568 million for the following school year.

    Before this ruling, Kansas used to have a method for keeping the price of K-12 within reason. Voters would elect legislators; the legislators, in turn, would receive input from an unlimited number of sources and exercise their judgments on appropriate spending levels.

    For K-12, which consumes a rapidly growing majority of the Kansas state budget, this is no longer a matter of legislative discretion.

    Legislator judgment was not a perfect substitute for voluntary market pricing, but it was far better than what the Court compels. Kansas’ K-12 pricing decisions are now in the hands of appointed judges, bureaucrats and hired consultants who have no duty to care how additional money is raised to pay for K-12.

    Another Nobel Prize winning economist, James Buchanan, highlighted this all-too-common problem. “Indeed, by their very nature, bureaucrats act as monopolistic suppliers. Whether their role is to supply politicians with information about alternative policies, or to design the specifics of policies to be implemented…they do so in a setting in which competitive provision of such expert advice, or alternative sources of supply of the relevant public goods, are unavailable.”

    Even the most intense and professional effort of those engaged in Kansas’ studies cannot overcome this handicap. Their research will try to examine cost factors for achieving a level of student achievement that the Court finds acceptable.

    This is not just a tall order, it’s an impossible mission.

    Explaining that impossibility was the core purpose of still another Nobel laureate economist, Friedrich Hayek. Admiring the unplanned and infinite interplay of market interests, Hayek summarized that “all the details of the changes constantly affecting the conditions of demand and supply of the different commodities can never be fully known … [but] this is precisely what the price system does under competition, and what no other system even promises to accomplish.”

    Understanding the flawed premise of the Court and the ensuing studies helps to crystallize a vastly superior alternative. For the field of education, like so many other policy areas, this state should embrace market pricing over government pricing, competition over monopoly, and choice over coercion.

    The time for school-choice has now come to Kansas. Indeed, the Supreme Court has served up the idea on a silver platter to lawmakers. By removing crucial budgetary authority from the legislative branch, the Court has left no other effective means for taxpayers and elected officials to financially govern the big picture of public education.

    Legislators should start by addressing the real areas of student need that the Court identified. School-choice scholarships should be immediately extended to the low-income “at-risk” children and special education students who motivated the lawsuit in the first place.

    The state’s K-12 studies will eventually present us with a “book value” of our supposed price per student, just like car buyers and sellers will cite published “blue book values” whenever they can gain an advantage by quoting them. The Supreme Court may come to realize what everyone in the car market already knows, that the only book that buys anything is a checkbook.

    # # #

    Bob L. Corkins is executive director of the Freestate Center for Liberty Studies. The Freestate Center is a nonpartisan, not-for-profit, Topeka based research institute for advancing the Constitutional principles of limited government, individual liberty, free enterprise and traditional family values. Freestate is organized under IRS 501(c)(3).

    The Freestate Center for Liberty Studies
    827 S.W. Topeka Blvd.
    Topeka, KS 66612
    (785) 233-5157 office
    (785) 220-2800 mobile
    ksfreestate@sbcglobal.net