Andrew Coulson, via a kind reader’s email:
The debate over No Child Left Behind re-authorization is upon us.
Except it isn’t.
In his recent speech kicking off the discussion, education secretary Arne Duncan asked not whether the central federal education law should be reauthorized, he merely asked how.
Let’s step back a bit, and examine why we should end federal intervention in (and spending on) our nation’s schools… in one thousand words or less:
I’ll eventually read Coulson’s 1000 words or less opinion, then likely look at the real NCES data. Reading such an opinion is not something I would ordinarily do, because the graph alone shows that his opinion could not pass the bullsh?t detector of even the most minimally educated person, and it certainly doesn’t pass mine.
My time is important to me, and I try to read only that which promises to give me information that allows me to understand issues better. Opinions of morons and propangadists is not something I find of value.
I think of my bullsh?t detector as collector of high level evidence to determine if there is probably cause to believe the author is guilty of spewing garbage. Saves me a lot of time.
My bullsh?t detector immediately noted that the graph is talking about the increase of Federal education spending. Okay, but since the vast majority of the costs of schooling is paid for by local property taxes for public schools, and private dollars for private schools, the Federal financial role will be comparatively small. So isolating the Federal financial side of this issues is unlikely to aid understanding without incorporating state and local spending.
(Strike one).
Then, of course, the author says the Y axis is a percentage change in Federal spending, after inflation, and I knew the author wanted to use the pretty standard propaganda technique of choosing the statistic and presentation that would be most likely to raise the outrage of the vast majority of Americans.
That the Federal spending over about 40 years changed by 190 percent sounds like a whole lot more than saying the Federal spending almost doubled, then it holds Coulson would want to say 190 percent rather than the equivalent of 1.9x. Frankly, over 40 years, I’m surprised the Federal increase wasn’t greater.
And, of course, using a rate measure is ideal for playing up or down some change. An example of an increase in murder rate or increase in the number of Merit Scholars will do.
Say some small high school has had one student named a Merit Scholar over some years, then they have two. They can rightfully say they’ve doubled the number of Merit Scholars in their school. Of course, some random variation could account for the increase of one student in that category, without giving any credit to the school or community for this fortunate turn of events. The same logic applies if instead of Merit Scholars, we have it that the number of murders increased from one to two. Doubling of the murder rate, here, does not mean the community is going to hell.
(Strike two)
Then, we have to determine what the Federal spending is going towards. Well, Title 1 came into being in the late 1960’s, probably minimal cost, then the late 1970’s standards for inclusion were passed (some money plus unfunded mandates), then mid-1980’s “Nation at Risk” and increase Federal moneys to research and universities, then 1990’s reauthorization and some expansion of Title 1, the 2000’s saw national pressure for Federal standards for educational achievement and NCLB, and an increase of Federal bureaucracy.
But, without looking at what components of the Federal spending were classified as “educational” we don’t know what is being covered. And we don’t know how much, if any, of state and local education spending was shifted to the Feds in this 40-year time frame.
(Strike three)
Of course, I should have noted immediately that this jetsam is issued by the Cato Institute. That pretty much will set off my alarm, though, surprisingly, there was one research article from Cato that actually seemed to have merit (a Cato Institute 2006 white paper “Overkill, The Rise of Paramilitary Raids in America”, Radley Balko) — quite a shock to my system, requiring me to not out-and-out ignore every piece coming from Cato.
(Strike three and one half)
The NCES site (http://nces.ed.gov/) has lots of additional data and reports for context, including this chart of per-pupil spending over time, adjusted for inflation, broken down by state: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/tables/dt07_a175.asp .
School budget talking points and election campaign rhetoric often tend to leave the impression that funding for education has long been imperiled, and that kids will do better in schools (only) if you put more money in them. I found Coulson’s post to be of interest (disclosure: as the reader who forwarded the link to Jim) as a counterpoint to these assumptions.
Spending growth within the same structure and system was discussed by Ripon Superintendent Richard Zimman:
http://www.schoolinfosystem.org/archives/2009/08/the_madison_sch_4.php
“Beware of legacy practices (most of what we do every day is the maintenance of the status quo), @12:40 minutes into the talk – the very public institutions intended for student learning has become focused instead on adult employment. I say that as an employee. Adult practices and attitudes have become embedded in organizational culture governed by strict regulations and union contracts that dictate most of what occurs inside schools today. Any impetus to change direction or structure is met with swift and stiff resistance. It’s as if we are stuck in a time warp keeping a 19th century school model on life support in an attempt to meet 21st century demands.” Zimman went on to discuss the Wisconsin DPI’s vigorous enforcement of teacher licensing practices and provided some unfortunate math & science teacher examples (including the “impossibility” of meeting the demand for such teachers (about 14 minutes)). He further cited exploding teacher salary, benefit and retiree costs eating instructional dollars (“Similar to GM”; “worry” about the children given this situation).
It will be interesting to see, if in fact, as discussed, the Madison School District conducts a program (curriculum) effectiveness review.
Mike Antonucci posted a summary of district and per pupil spending growth for all 50 States and 14,000 school districts here:
http://www.eiaonline.com/districts.htm
Thanks to Chan for sending me the URL of Coulson’s “thousand word or less” paper. It was far less than 1000 words. The portion missing from the original post was
“While the flat trend lines for overall achievement at the end of high school mask slight upticks for minority students (black students’ scores, for instance, rose by 3-5 percent of the 500 point NAEP score scale), even those modest gains aren’t attributable to federal spending. Almost that entire gain happened between 1980 and 1988, when federal spending per pupil declined.
And, in the twenty years since, the scores of African American students have drifted downard (sic) while federal spending has risen stratospherically.”
Given the preponderance of intellectual dishonesty and incompetence which pervades the public discourse on almost any topic, Coulson’s little opinion piece reaches a depth of disingenuousness that almost creates a new category of drivel. Mind you, that Andrew Coulson’s title is “director of Cato’s Center for Educational Freedom”, or as might be restated more accurately and succinctly as “Director of Freedom from Education”.
Let’s summarize Coulson’s argument.
Between 1980 and 1988, a modest improvement of 3%-5% in NAEP scores corresponded to a decline in Federal education spending. Therefore, the decrease in Federal spending caused the improvement in NAEP score. Ergo, ending all Federal support for education will cause even greater improvement in NAEP scores and therefore educational attainment.
Corollary: Increasing Federal spending causes decreasing NAEP scores.
Anyone with any intellectual integrity would of course want to investigate other potential explanations of increasing NAEP scores, and would want to determine what Federal spending (increasing and decreasing) was used for, and whether there is any possible cause or effect before reaching his conclusion.
Isn’t there a known correlation between recession and skirt length that would say increasing skirt lengths caused the recession (or is it the other way around). Coulson’s argument is just as absurd.
To Larry Winkler,
A 190% increase does not mean a figure has “almost doubled” as you said. It means the figure has almost tripled.
The statement Coulson made, that federal spending can’t account for the rise in African American test scores, is not equivalent to the straw man claim that you attributed to him (that it caused the decline).
You might want to brush up on your math and logic. These are embarassing errors.
Anonymous,
My math correctly reflectes Coulson’s comments. Your math, however, is wrong. Coulson’s Y-axis and the title of the graph says “% Change” — not increase. My math is still right and so are my terms.
There is no straw man here and I accurately restate Coulson’s position. He could not come the conclusion he did unless his “thinking” followed the logic I stated.
Coulson says explicitly: “examine why we should end federal intervention in (and spending on) our nation’s schools”. In my second comment, I quote him explicitly. Go back and reread his statement.
Your restatement of his position is simply wrong. He IS saying federal spending accounts for the rise in African American test scores: a decrease in Fed spending will cause an increase in test scores.
Coulson’s opinion is, of course, consistent with the Cato Institute’s philosophy. Cato is a libertarian organization, so pretty much any argument leads to a no government and unregulated free-market capitalism solution, regardless of facts or logic.
Mr. Winkler,
On our planet, we call a positive change in a variable’s value an “increase.” A 190% positive change represents nearly a tripling. Please consult the data tables on which the chart is based if you continue to experience difficulty understanding this.
You’re correct. A percentage increase is a percentage change. I was misinterpreting “percentage change” as “percentage of”.