Voice For Liberty

Tag: School choice

  • Behind a School Finance Lawsuit

    In a recent article by education researcher Eric A. Hanushek (“The Cost of an ‘Adequate’ Education,” October 9, 2006 Wall Street Journal) we learn about the process behind the studies used in many states to determine how much school spending is necessary. Concerning New York, he writes this:

    Unfortunately, in determining the cost of an “adequate” education, the court relied heavily on the questionable analysis of consultants hired by the plaintiffs. Their analysis, labeled a “professional judgment model,” was advertised as a scientific determination of the amount of spending necessary to secure an “adequate” education for every New York City student. Yet, this analysis violates virtually every principle of science and, as a result, has produced a politically saleable but scientifically unsupportable answer to the problem.

    The consultants’ approach was to hire a series of New York school personnel to describe what a school that could meet the state’s learning standards would look like. These school people were told explicitly to pay no attention to where the money might come from. They should just dream. The fact that they did their dreaming after the court had declared New York’s funding formula to be unconstitutional gave an implicit legitimacy to any flights of fancy they might have. In addition, any recommendations they made would likely have a direct impact on their own schools, creating an inherent conflict of interest.

    In the Augenblick & Myers study for Kansas, the term describing the methodology used is exactly the same. I can’t tell from reading the Augenblick & Myers study if the participants were to told to dream without regard as to where the money would come from, but why wouldn’t they be told that, and why wouldn’t they act that way?

    Continuing with Dr. Hanushek’s article:

    One would be hard pressed to overestimate the potential danger posed by these costing-out studies. Consultants are active in virtually every one of the adequacy cases in the nation. Even though they use a variety of methods to affix the dollar value of an adequate education, each clearly represents nothing more than junk science. Many courts are duped by the studies, perhaps not surprisingly given the politics of the cases. But the reality remains: Setting appropriate education funding amounts for New York, or any other state, is beyond the authority of science.

    It is true that school funding decisions are made in the realm of politics. Parents of children — and everyone else, for that matter — should ask themselves if the education of children is too important to leave to the whims of politicians.

    Dr. Hanushek makes the point that few in Kansas, certainly few newspaper reporters or editorial writers, seem to understand:

    Nonetheless, it will be a hollow victory. Extensive experience and scientific study shows that simply providing more money to schools is not likely to be a very effective policy. There is no reason to expect student achievement in New York City to improve if such a spending policy were enacted. Indeed, the consultants in these adequacy cases are always very careful to avoid claiming that added funds will have any effect on student outcomes. Unfortunately the political paralysis created by these cases stops any consideration of more productive reforms. Instead of talking about performance incentives to districts and schools or linking funding to student outcomes, discussion is stymied by debates over how to raise the money and which districts will be hurt by any change in funding.

    This is the case in Kansas. The school finance lawsuit and the skirmish between the Kansas Legislature and Kansas Supreme Court drown out any other discussion. Those who fought for more school spending bask in their victory, having saved the children of Kansas. For them, the issue is closed, the problem is solved — at least until a future study discovers the need for even more spending.

    For the wellbeing of Kansas schoolchildren and everyone else in Kansas, I hope the extra spending helps. But experience and research, as Dr. Hanushek mentions, do not indicate that much good will come from the increased spending. In the meantime, as we wait to see if increased spending helps children, truly meaningful school reform is delayed, and the Kansas education bureaucracy grows.

  • Not Everyone Agrees With Choice

    Writing from Miami, Florida

    Recently I wrote about the case of a young girl who is homeschooled, one who gives me hope in the future of youth. (See A Declaration of Independence from Public Schools.)

    There are people, however, who would deny talented and dedicated young people like Mary the opportunity to be educated in the way their parents wish. In a blog post titled It’s not homeschooling — it’s truancy we find someone who would, if I understand the author, deny everyone this opportunity.

    The article is full of stereotypes and generalities: “If you’ve even been to a GOP rally in the middle of the day, you’ve seen them.” “Everybody in the real world knows homeschool kids are socially inept …” “… so many homeschool moms who would still be working at the Sonic if they hadn’t gotten knocked up and found Jesus.” This type of bigotry is common among those who would deny parents the choice to educate their children as they see fit.

    There is also an issue of liberty to consider. It is one thing for the government to require children to attend school; it is a very different matter for the government to prescribe which school a child must attend, or the manner in which they must be educated. Even if the children didn’t receive quite the same education as they would in the public schools, it’s what the parents want for their children. But I don’t think issues of liberty are what this writer is concerned with.

    The final paragraph of the article gives us insight into the mindset of the anti-school choice crowd. It illustrates the paternalistic desire for control exhibited by those who believe they know what’s best for others. It exhibits more faith in the public schools than they have shown they deserve. Finally, having derided homeschooling families for being religious, the writer offers a prayer for them:

    And every time I’m at a rally I want to pull the homeschooled kids aside and tell them that I’m sorry their parents are so scared of the world, of the public schools, of their kids thinking for themselves. I want to tell them that the real world is more than what they get from CBN and the magazines their over-protective parents allow in the house. But instead I just say a little prayer that maybe their parents will realize what a disservice their [sic] doing to their kids, and vow I will never do the same for mine.

    It may be that attitudes like these — not to mention errors in usage — are what parents wish to avoid.

  • School choice helps those best who have least

    Writing from Miami, Florida

    An article in the March 2, 2006 Wall Street Journal by Katherine Kersten of the Minneapolis Star Tribune tells of the large numbers of African-American families in Minneapolis who send their children to charter schools or to schools in other districts, thanks to Minnesota law that allows district-crossing.

    The families in Minneapolis have ample incentive to look elsewhere for schools. “Last year, only 28% of black eighth-graders in the Minneapolis public schools passed the state’s basic skills math test; 47% passed the reading test. … Today, this tradition of choice is providing a ticket out for kids in the gritty, mostly black neighborhoods of north and south- central Minneapolis.”

    Does this choice work? Are parents pleased? “At Harvest Preparatory School, a K-6 school that is 99% black and two-thirds low income, students wear uniforms, focus on character, and achieve substantially higher test scores than district schools with similar demographics.” This is a school that was founded in 1992 in the home of its founders, showing that it doesn’t take a lot of money to start a good school.

    My advocacy of school choice has been criticized. Some people tell me that parents, especially those with little education, will not be able to judge the merits of a school. People tell me that some parents are incapable of making a wise, informed choice, and that someone else must do it for them. Besides being condescending, it is simply wrong:

    The city’s experience should lead such states to reconsider the benefits of expansive school choice. Conventional wisdom holds that middle-class parents take an interest in their children’s education, while low-income and minority parents lack the drive and savvy necessary. The black exodus here demonstrates that, when the walls are torn down, poor, black parents will do what it takes to find the best schools for their kids.

    One has to be quite confident — arrogant, I would say — to deny parents the choice of where to send their children to school, especially when the choice forced upon parents is to compel children to attend our present schools with their history of poor performance.

    Well-to-do families have school choice. They can afford private school tuition, or they can afford to move to cities or neighborhoods where the schools are better. In most places, poor families don’t have this choice. What is it that prevents our politicians, education bureaucrats, and school boards from realizing this, and doing something to truly help those who need it most?

  • 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.

  • How children lose in the Kansas Legislature’s special session

    USD 259 (Wichita) public schools superintendent Winston Brooks plans to use the majority of the anticipated increase in school funding to reduce class size. Evidence cited in other articles on this website show that smaller class sizes don’t produce better educational outcomes for students.

    Because the conventional wisdom is that smaller class sizes are good for students, the extra money and smaller class sizes will be saluted as a victory for the children. Editorial writers, school administrators, teachers, and those who don’t care to confront facts will thank the Kansas Supreme Court and Kansas Legislature for saving the children.

    The sad fact is that this seeming victory, a victory which does nothing to help children, will delay desperately needed reform for another year. In all likelihood reform will be delayed even longer, as if the legislature accedes to the court’s demand this year, it may also do so next year, when the court has called for even more spending.

    Who benefits from smaller class size? The teachers unions do. Smaller class sizes mean a lighter workload for current teachers. More teachers (paying more union dues) need to be hired, as is the plan in Wichita.

    But as mentioned earlier, smaller class size doesn’t help the students. That’s the danger in spending more on schools. It seems like the additional money should help the schools, and those who procure the money are treated as heroes. This illusion of a solution delays the reform that is badly needed.

    What would truly help children? Overwhelming evidence points to school choice. As Harvard economist and researcher Caroline M. Hoxby said about the school voucher program 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.

    Why, then, don’t we have school choice in Wichita? The teachers unions and education establishment are against it. They don’t want to face the same type of free market forces that the rest of us face. They are in charge of educating children, they tell us they are doing the best they can, that everything they do is for the children and only the children, but they oppose desperately needed reform.