The Obama Challenge
Lila Shapiro graciously allowed us to extend Whatever It Takes week in the TPMCafé Book Club into the weekend. For me, it has been a fascinating discussion, and I'm grateful to Lila and Josh and TPM for having us; to Andy Rotherham, Alex Kotlowitz, and Amy Wilkins for their insightful posts; and to the commenters, for contributing their own stories and bits of wisdom, and for pressing us participants to hone and clarify our thinking.
I want to first take on Alex's important and somewhat disheartening question: Why don't we spend more money on our public schools and on early-childhood education, especially when there seems to be plenty of money around for Wall Street bailouts?
I'm in favor of more government funding of education, and I'm certainly in favor of more equitable funding. (I wrote a bit about it on Slate last week.) But I can also empathize with voters who resist spending more. It's a fact that federal government spending on education has risen sharply under President Bush, and I think voters can be forgiven, when they look at the statistics and the test scores, for feeling that they haven't got their money's worth.
Which is why I think that all the reforms we've been talking about this week -accountability measures and the new breed of charter schools, as well as parenting classes and intensive pre-kindergartens - are so important. Because they work. And as more and more evidence comes in about which reforms work and how they work and what they can achieve, I think (or hope at least) that our conversations about education funding will change. Voters are understandably reluctant to commit more government money to an education system that doesn't work. But I think there are plenty of voters who would be willing to spend more on an education system that does.
Which gets me to Andy's last post. Andy, I agree with you that the line in the Broader, Bolder manifesto about No Child Left Behind is uninspiring. And I think you make a very good point about NCLB when you write:
The law merely requires that most students get over a relatively low bar. The fact that so many schools are having so much trouble with that bar should be the cause of outrage rather than the bar itself.
The place I think I have a slight difference with you is when you write:
Poor and minority students are least likely to get the best teachers, the most resources, the most challenging curriculum, and so forth. Whether or not we win the debates on expanding access to pre-kindergarten education, health and dental care, and other supports, we can do something about those other issues right now.
The way I read that, you're identifying one set of goals that would require long debate in order to put into action, and another that we could do something about right now. I trust your political instincts much more than my own, but I don't get why that's true. Yes, it seems like people have been talking about how to expand access to pre-K for a long time - but they've been talking for an equally long time about how to fix inequities in teacher quality, with no more progress.
My sense is that these are all going to be difficult political battles to win, and that the best route to success would be to take them on all at once, to create a coalition to back a comprehensive set of strategies that reduce the achievement gap - selected not because of which political constituency supports them, but solely on the basis of their effectiveness for children.
And there may well prove to be a pressing need for this coalition. In four months, we may be inaugurating a president who has pledged billions of federal dollars to replicate, in 20 cities across the country, the Harlem Children's Zone - a comprehensive educational/social system that combines a charter/accountability model with an early-childhood/out-of-school-support model. (It's what my book is about.) That seems like an excellent opportunity to bring public (and private) funds to bear on the achievement gap in a new and potentially successful way - and it would sure help to have a broad coalition of Democrats (and Republicans) behind it, especially Democrats with a commitment to accountability.
So, Andy, I'm going to take on your assignment, gratefully, and keep talking to people on both sides of this debate about what unites and divides them. In return, I hope you'll help me keep thinking about how to get some of the smart minds behind the accountability movement to take on the Obama challenge: to help figure out how, in 2009, we might begin to create a nationwide system of zones that replicate Geoffrey Canada's project: not just his commitment to out-of-school social programs, but his commitment to in-school accountability, as well.
Until then, thanks again to all the participants for their wisdom (not to mention their generous comments about my book) and to TPM for having us. It's been fun.
Mr. Tough,
You're wrong about federal funding and K-12 education. I challenge your sentence above that says "It's a fact that federal government spending on education has risen sharply under President Bush, and I think voters can be forgiven, when they look at the statistics and the test scores, for feeling that they haven't got their money's worth."
First, the money part of the story.
The after-inflation federal increase per student from FY 2001 to FY 2006 was less than $300, from $685 to $973 in 2006 constant dollars. FY 2007 figures have not yet been published.
That less-than-$300 was a real increase just shy of 3% in total education spending. A small improvement, neither trivial nor large.
My figures come from"Public Education Finance 2001" and "Public Education Finance 2006 from the Census Bureau and use 13.1% as the increase in the CPI from December 2001 to December 2006.
Second, the results part of the story.
The Center on Education Policy has taken a systematic, respected report to the question, "Has Student Achievement Increased Since 2002?" Their report by that name (available at www.cep-dc.org) includes these findings:
• "Since 2002, reading and math achievement on state tests has gone up in most states according to the percentages of students scoring at the proficient level.
• "Trends in reading and math achievement on NAEP have generally moved in the same positive direction as trends on state tests, although gains on NAEP tended to be smaller than those on state tests."
• "In states with sufficient data to determine achievement gap trends on state tests, gaps have
narrowed more often than they have widened since 2002, particularly for African-American
students and low-income students."
In short: we've seen small improvement, neither trivial nor large. The results are tidily in proportion to the effort.
Your statement, however, perpetuates misunderstanding of the small-but-not-trivial federal effort and the small-but-not-trivial improvement in student results in recent years.
September 21, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sporcupine,
I guess it depends on your definition of "sharply."
If federal spending per student increased in constant dollars from $685 to $973 between 2001 and 2006, that means that it increased by 42 percent, in constant dollars, over five years. (The increase in actual dollars, of course, was greater.)
That looks pretty sharp to me.
I think if NAEP scores had been 42 percent higher in 2006 than they were in 2001, voters would be thrilled to have spent the extra money.
Paul Tough
September 22, 2008 1:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Paul,
I spend all day, every day in the trenches trying to improve Kentucky education. My core commitments are defending accountability, the importance of leadership and culture, the importance of data, and the importance of teachers who commit to doing whatever it takes. I'm best known for bringing evidence to the table that schools can make big strides for students even with limited resources. Money matters when it's one piece of an education system with real pressure for results, not otherwise. If you want to check on my commitments, do a little searching for "Susan Perkins Weston," and you'll find examples of what I do.
I'm not arguing that money is the whole solution.
I am arguing that when we talk about money, we should be realistic about how the figures relate to the costs.
The way I counted inflation, federal spending went up $298 per student. If we ignore inflation, federal spending went up $367 from the $606 starting point.
If you want to publish articles and blog posts arguing for $367 a kid, the public was entitled to a 42% increase in NAEP scores, you can do that, but we both know it's nonsense.
It's also harmful nonsense. It encourages liberals to laugh at you, conservatives to laugh at the schools, and everyone to feel justified in waiting a little longer to dig into the real work of growing schools that can deliver for students.
As a country, we can do better for our children, and you can help up us do it. Your line on federal funding wasn't a good part of the effort.
September 22, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Susan,
It sounds like you're doing great work in Kentucky, and I have a feeling that if we were communicating through a more subtle medium than an Internet message board, we'd probably agree on a lot of things, maybe even school funding.
I am only making two points here. My first point is that, using your numbers, federal spending on education went up by 42 percent per student from 2001 to 2006, after inflation. For any government department or agency, that's a sharp increase.
My second point is that some voters, when they look at the state of public education, may feel that they're not getting their money's worth for that 42 percent increase.
Which is why I think those who advocate spending still more federal money on education, as I do, need to come up with a really powerful argument to persuade those voters that, in fact, 42 percent wasn't enough of an increase.
Which is why, as I said in my post, I think coming up with successful models is so important. Without them, I don't think we're going to be able to make a convincing case for more spending.
Paul
September 23, 2008 4:14 AM | Reply | Permalink