An example where money does not equal quality
I saw this over at Betsy's Page a couple of days ago - I just didn't have the time to really review it then. I urge you to read it in its entirety as it shows examples of why just throwing money at a problem isn't going to solve it. Continuing on with the current state of affairs, procedures, and staffing isn't going to solve these quality problems either.
I have to admit - I may be taking our Education establishment to task here in my town of Gilford, but when I look at the amounts of money and the lack of results, putting things into context says Gilford ain't so bad (but I will continue to "task" Gilford to reach for excellence).
All these parents is what they feel is best for their kids - a good education. They want the control back from the school system - they want institutions that can be held accountable.
Clint Bolick writes in the Wall Street Journal (subscription req'd) about a suit being filed in Newark, NJ seeking to give 60,000 students trapped in failing schools by giving their parents the money to transfer their children out of the horrible schools to attend schools of their choice.
Seeking to vindicate the state constitutional guarantee of a "thorough and efficient" education, the plaintiffs in Crawford v. Davy ask that children be allowed to leave public schools where fewer than half of the students pass the state math and language literacy assessments that measure educational proficiency; and that the parents of these children be permitted to take the pro rata share of the public money spent on their children, to seek better opportunities in other public or private schools. Supporting the families are three prominent New Jersey groups: the Black Ministers Council, the Latino Leadership Alliance, and Excellent Education for Everyone.Sounds like groups that care more about students' education than the public school teachers' union.
Sounds familiar, right?
Sounds familiar, right? Too bad that HB 131 didn't pass here in NH to give our parents that capability. The NJ union, just like unions all over, are always in self protect mode, always trying to expand their reach and power. They will fight this tooth and nail! My question is, why are they fighting what is effectively accountability? They are quick to froth when money is not forthcoming, why the hypocritical nature of not allowing the reciprocal?
New Jersey courts have for their part repeatedly recognized that the state constitution's education guarantee is judicially enforceable; and the state itself has set the minimum proficiency standards to which the defendant school districts in Crawford v. Davy fall appallingly short. New Jersey is also the state that has traveled farthest down the path of pursuing educational adequacy through new school funding and programs -- starting in 1973, when the state Supreme Court first declared the state's school finance system unconstitutional in Robinson v. Cahill and again in 1985 in Abbott v. Burke. Today, dozens of schools in the so-called Abbott districts remain under court control. With abundant funding, some Abbott schools have improved, while others haven't. On balance, however, the New Jersey experience demonstrates that money alone cannot solve the ills of public education.
Sounds like the Clairmont suit here in NH - what is an adequate education, and how is it to be paid for. Unfortunately, I wish we could ban the phrase "it's for the children" because it masks the true intent of all of the participants (or if not outright banning, penalizing the use of the phrase).
Now for the punch to the forehead:
One of the defendant school districts in the new suit, Englewood City, spends $19,194 per student, well over twice the national average. But at Dismus Middle School, over two-thirds of the students do not have basic proficiency in math and fewer than half are proficient in language arts literacy. Newark, a recipient of massive Abbott funding, spends $16,351 per student and pays its teachers an average salary of $76,213. Yet in 24 of its schools, fewer than half the students demonstrate basic proficiency in math or language arts. At William H. Brown Academy and at Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. School, fewer than one of every 10 students demonstrates basic math proficiency. It's time to try something else for these children.(emphasis added)
Those are amazing numbers of per-student spending. Clear evidence that increasing spending doesn't correlate with improving student performance.
You betchum those are just out of sight numbers, with almost nothing to show for it.
This is a case to watch for what it could mean. Why shouldn't we apply competition to education just as we do in other aspects of our lives. We've tried everything else. Let schools realize that if they fail their students, they will lose the students and the funding attached to those children.
Betsy is right. When we look at the test results of US students versus the world, we spend close to the most and do not receive full value back in terms of results. Right now, the public money goes to the Educational establishment. What is so wrong in taking that public money that educates the children and allowing the parents to spend it (can't keep it, cannot skim it) on those same children where they feel would be the best for their kids?
It still would be publicly funded education. Frankly, it is the teacher unions that are against this, even if it is "for the children".
