The cost of education

Lance Burri has a post up from last Friday noting Libby Burmaster's second inaugural speech and making a couple of good points. In fact, I can agree wholeheartedly--though I seldom do--on this point:

Now, obviously, schools have to do more than just exist and not charge tuition. They have to teach something. The question is: what, and how much?

And how much does it matter? Take two examples: one, a child from a college educated family, whose parents stress education, check homework, read. A house full of books. Two, a child of a single parent who works two jobs, never finished high school. No books in the house, no emphasis or even attention paid to schoolwork.

If we spend $5,000 on the first child’s public education, and $20,000 on the second child’s, which will grow up better educated?

There’s a limit to what the schools can do. The rest has to come from us, as students, as the parents of students, and as adults--just getting that diploma, even the one from college, isn’t enough to ensure success. Neither does school. School is an opportunity, not a solution. It’s us, ourselves, who make or break our chance at success.

The fact is that students, believe it or not, only spend about 18% of their time with us teachers in their first 18 years. Goodness knows it often feels like more--I would imagine as much for them as it does for me--but that's it. Eighteen percent.

And I have said before and I will say again that what happens in the other 82% is just as important, if not moreso, than what happens within school walls. That is why, in my series on small schools, for example, I noted that small schools would not be any better at solving the problems of urban education overall because the problems of urban education often begin and end in the community. In Milwaukee, we have staggeringly high unemployment, appalling rates of teen pregnancy, and the kind of segregation that most of the country only reads about in history textbooks.

If that's the 82%, I can't fix it in the time a student is in my classroom.

Problem is, I want to. I want to use every last resource available to me to do every last thing I can to provide the students I teach with the fullest opportunity available to them. Call it quixotic, call it white liberal guilt, it doesn't matter. It's how and feel and what I do. If I wanted to only teach Lance's "first child," I would look for a job in the suburbs. With my resume, I could probably get one. But I don't.

Here's the thing: When you have to make up for the challenges that the other 82% of a child's life provides, it does, in fact, cost more than it does to teach students who don't have the kind of challenges most of my students do. There are facts that may make anti-tax and anti-public education people uncomfortable, especially if they are observing these facts from the comfort of their college-educated, book-reading households. When a child does not speak English, it takes more public education resources to teach that child. When a child has lead poisoning, it takes more public education resources to teach that child. When a child comes to school hungry, it takes more public education resources to teach that child.

And so on.

One of my big problems with Gregg Underheim's platform, such as it was, and J-Dizzle's big "school funding reform" panel's recommendations is that they all asked for a "study" to see what makes low-spending, high-achieving school districts so great. The answer, of course, is duh, accompanied by a big smack in the face. Low-spending, high-achieving districts are not, by and large, burdened by those students who require the additional public education resources to get their students up to standards.

But Lance loses me on two points: First, he has to take the requisite right-wing jab at teachers. Near the start of his piece, he notes, "We’re also near the top in total teacher compensation and spending per student." This is not said boastfully, mind you, but underhandedly in that he connects Wisconsin's apparently extravagant spending to your high property taxes--the rest of that paragraph is all about taxes. Let's look at facts:

Wisconsin currently rates, depending on whose estimate you choose, either 22nd or 27th in the nation for teacher salaries. (We're 35th for starting teachers.) Our total compensation--including health benefits (won in part in exchange for these lower salaries)--puts us at 16th in the nation. If by "near the top," Lance meant "at the bottom of the top third," then he's right. Otherwise, he's mistaken.

As to per-pupil spending, according to the Census Bureau (.pdf), we rank 12th of 51. So, yeah, top quarter and all. But remember three things: One, we consistently rank in the top five for educational quality--ACT scores and whatnot--so we get a good return on that investment. Two, we spend less than $1000 more per student than the national average, or about 11%. Is it worth 11% for the higer outcomes we get? And three--if we're 12th in per-pupil spending but 16th in compensation--27th in salary--that extra money isn't all going into our (or our doctors') pockets, now, is it?

But here's the other way Lance blows it, and kills any chance he and I had of total agreement on the matter. He writes,

We need to [. . .] agree that our task is to offer the opportunity--not to ensure that every student takes it. We will provide the buildings, classrooms, blackboards and computers. We’ll supply university-trained professional teachers, free transportation, and a curriculum that teaches, at a minimum, the basics of what it takes to succeed, so students will have more opportunities throughout their lives. We’ll provide tests to gauge achievement, and we’ll let those who fail at first keep trying.

What it sounds like Lance is advocating here is stripped-down, bare-bones education. That probably would make the anti-tax and anti-public education crowd of his happy. But notice what else he's talking about here: He's advocating that we stop being proactive in our approach to public education in ths state, that we let the chips fall where they may and if the (cough*white*cough) kids from college-educated, book-reading households get further ahead faster, than so be it. We save, in his example, $15k for each poor kid.

Moreover, he is advocating a wholesale abandonment of No Child Left Behind. The very core of NCLB is that schools, districts, and states must not be allowed to let the chips fall wherever. If there are problems, they must be solved or else the schools, districts, and states face the consequences.

Look, there is a lot to hate about No Child Left Behind (including what it adds to your property tax bill!), but the principal of the thing is sound. If Lance wants to lead a Wisconsin-blogger charge against the absurd and draconian testing-punishment side of NCLB, I will be the first in line to join him. But if he merely wants to abandon Wisconsin's 82% problem children in the name of saving money, his heart is colder than I could have imagined.