So maybe I was wrong. I used to consider health care our greatest national shame, considering that we spend twice as much on medical care as many European nations, yet American children are twice as likely to die before the age of 5 as Czech children — and American women are 11 times as likely to die in childbirth as Irish women.
Yet I’m coming to think that our No. 1 priority actually must be education. That makes the new fiscal stimulus package a landmark, for it takes a few wobbly steps toward reform and allocates more than $100 billion toward education.
That’s a hefty sum — by comparison, the Education Department’s entire discretionary budget for the year was $59 billion — and it will save America’s schools from the catastrophe that they were facing. A University of Washington study had calculated that the recession would lead to cuts of 574,000 school jobs without a stimulus.
“We dodged a bullet the size of a freight train,” notes Amy Wilkins of the Education Trust, an advocacy group in Washington.So for those who oppose education spending in the stimulus, a question: Do you really believe that slashing half a million teaching jobs would be fine for the economy, for our children and for our future?
Education Secretary Arne Duncan describes the stimulus as a “staggering opportunity,” the kind that comes once in a lifetime. He argues: “We have to educate our way to a better economy, that’s the only way long term to get there.”...
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Our Greatest National Shame
This from Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
two things here:
-The infant mortality stats are skewed by the manner in which we count premies.
-Why would one expect more money to do much good? Neither economic theory (given the current structure) nor the data/literature indicate it is likely to matter. Or putting it another way: how much money per student is enough?
Thanks for the comment, Eric.
I don't have anything useful to contribute to a discussion of infant mortality rates. But I have heard the old joke where an economist was asked what 2 + 4 equalled, and he closed the door and responded, "What do you want it to equal?
As for money - economic theories differ. Any suggestion that money doesn't matter is an overstatement, or worse. And that goes for folks like the Hoover Institute's Eric Hanushek. To hear him tell it, money just doesn't matter much when it comes to quality schooling - it can't be shown scientifically to have an impact. But I'll bet he understands that it costs you more if you want fries with that burger. If he wants the BMW with the navigational system, he knows it will cost him more. ...just like hiring an extra high quality teacher who will make a difference for a bunch of kids.
Of course money matters. It directly impacts a principal's abaility to deliver educational services to the kids.
Ask private school parents what they are paying for and you will most often hear lower class sizes and more personal attention for their children. ...at least, that's what they've told me for years. A few will even confess, privately, that they can select the children with whom their kids will attend school.
But you have asked a question I can't answer: "How much money per student is enough?"
Taking the question at face value - I don't know. But I do know the number varies. It costs more to teach one student to proficiency than another. How that averages out in Kentucky is about $8,000 per child, but we are currently failing to reach our legislated goal - all children to proficiency.
The supreme courts says that the system must be adequately funded to reach its goals. That means the General Assembly has three choices: 1) fund the the system adequately to allow each and every Kentucky child to receive an adequate education, 2) lower the goals or 3) ignore the constitution.
My bias is that money for schools does matter, but it's not all that matters. Having a safe place to live, food to eat and adequate health care matters too.
I would also be willing to consider a new goal - fully fund schools to assure that 90% of Kentucky kids received a proficient education. If we accomplished that, it would represent an historic high for Kentucky schools.
Post a Comment