Perhaps we can agree with Rebecca’s premise, the graduates American high schools are turning out who are hitting the workforce are NOT finding jobs that allow them the ‘luxury’ of paying property taxes [that fund local school district]. And more than half of college-bound graduates now have to take remedial courses before they can start their 4-year degree, thus postponing their property-tax payment too.

Here in Illinois, we’ll be looking at 27-32 kids squished into one classroom next year with nearly all school districts having to cut back and make really difficult program cuts.

I’m personally hoping to see the Teacher’s Union disbanded and bring back teaching to a white collar profession instead of a “I can’t do that because its past 3:15, our contracted rush to the doors time” or “Sally is a poor teacher because she clearly puts too much time into her work, thus making me look mediocre ” type culture the Union grew in their perverted petri dish.

The civility of the McCord and Ellerson rejoinder is appreciated. Moreover, their self-reports of school-district financial shortfalls are no doubt heartfelt.

However, the 30,000-foot perspective for which we are impugned is the more accurate view. We report objectively derived federal government–calculated national averages over a century. The long-run overall pattern is crystal clear: America has supported its public schools plentifully for a century. Nothing McCord and Ellerson say refutes this.

By crying fiscal wolf year after year, in the face of contrary data, public school advocates deceive taxpayers and avoid the four-decade reality of stagnant student performance and woeful mismanagement in places such as Detroit.

James Guthrie and Arthur Peng examine the apparent phenomenon in which schools, while claiming continual underfunding and budget cuts, continue to open their doors and educate students. As logical as their argument sounds, we believe it comes from the 30,000 foot level and differs from what is experienced on the ground.

The authors seem to assume that, faced with an economic downturn, states will respond to their constitutional mandate and other pressures and automatically raise taxes. Our studies suggest that instead, many states have played a shell game with American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds, backfilling cuts to education with those one-time dollars.

Over the past year, the American Association of School Administrators has monitored the impact of the economic downturn on public schools from the ground level. Our fall 2009 survey found that the financial crisis continues to threaten and impact the progress and stability schools have enjoyed in the past. Responding from 49 states and the District of Columbia, school district leaders observed they have yet to see concrete indicators of a rebound in the nation’s economy: When asked how ARRA dollars impacted their state and local revenues, 83 percent reported that ARRA dollars did not represent a funding increase. More than one-third (35 percent) of respondents were unable to save core teaching jobs as a result of ARRA monies.

America’s schools were not immune to the most recent economic downturn. The funding crisis is far from phony. Looking forward, the 2010–11 and 2011–12 school years pack a one-two punch, with school district leaders facing the end of ARRA dollars and answering tough questions about programs and personnel that have been (and will be) cut, while trying to figure out what, if any, economic recovery is in store at the state and local levels.

Robert S. McCord
University of Nevada at Las Vegas
Noelle M. Ellerson
American Association of School Administrators

I find it a classic mistake to compare one’s budget crisis to others in the US that are failing while others (I’m guessing) are doing it better for less in other countries.

What’s the global comparison. Hmm, is it asking too much to rank global achievement and spending together in a chart? ; )

The root cause of the problem is the monopoly power enjoyed by government-run schools. While public schools do not make a profit, monopoly power is expressed through increases in compensation of unionized staff and increases in staffing levels. The answer is vouchers and tax credits.

The statistics cited don’t include changes in legislation or the passing of compulsory education laws. They don’t account for legislative changes (unfunded mandates) or cultural shifts. The statistics don’t account for the massive expansion in special education or ELL education. How much is being spent on standardized testing now? That money, which only finds its way into the pockets of testing companies, has no effect on the education of students. It can be included in a per pupil calculation, but it’s money that never finds its way to the classroom in any meaningful way.

All in all this is a a very slanted analysis. I’d give a D for impressive use of meaningless stats and graphs, but complete lack of critical thinking.

Unfortunately, as a homeschooling parent and a teacher educator, I see that the accountability movement is driving costs upward. We pay extra for tests that are no better than teachers’ judgments, and lose classroom time in the bargain. There are crazy incentives for all involved to push more kids into expensive special education, and reflecting “haste-makes-waste,” the accelerated curriculum in the early years means we’re are spending vastly more than anyone needs to spend on helping kids learn to read and then remediating the problems often caused by these misguided and expensive reading programs. Regardless of their clever labeling, a lot of so-called “scientifically-based” teaching methods are just throwing good money after bad.

Most kids can learn to read well if we follow a handful of guidelines and have a library card, but we spend boatloads of money on unnecessary materials. Why? We’re following the wrong education paradigm.