Help
Sign In
education
May 2007 
If Money's the Solution, That's the Problem
Posted on Sep 30th, 2006
by 
Michael
Michael
From David Kirkpatrick, a former teachers' union leader from Pennsylvania:
"If Money's the Solution, That's the Problem
That was the title of an article by Al Knight in The Denver Post fifteen years ago tomorrow. What was true then is still true today. And if the past is indeed prologue, it will still be true fifteen years from now.
One interpretation of Knight's title is that the problems of public schools cannot be corrected with any amount of money, however much. Therefore, emphasizing money is futile.
Another is that, even if it is assumed that large amounts of money could prove to be the answer to the problem such sums of money simply aren't, and won't be, available.
Note, for example, a few commonalities of the remarks by those who insist more money is needed.
They rarely provide specifics, such as how much money they are currently spending; how much money do they need; and how would they spend those dollars to create a successful district. In one debate when a teacher union president said more money was needed he was asked how much. He didn't know. When then asked if he didn't know how much was needed how did he know there should be more, he didn't know that either. To be fair to him, no one else seems to know either.
Just a few days ago, here in Pennsylvania, television news reporting on a public meeting in Allentown presented an individual who said Allentown should get at least as much money as Philadelphia or Pittsburgh. Among the things she didn't say were (a) how much money the Allentown schools spend, either in total or on a per-pupil basis; (b) the school district budget or per-pupil expenditures in either Philadelphia or Pittsburgh; or (c) the relative cost-of-living in the three cities, and (d) most importantly, any awareness of the conditions in either of those larger school districts that would justify using them as a model or justification for spending more money. Her basic point seemed to be if others have more money Allentown should too.
In fairness, it should be noted that Philadelphia has made progress in the past few years since the state transferred control of the district from the local school board to a special commission appointed jointly by the city's mayor and the state's governor. But it still is not a model of high achievement, nor have its gains been the result of large amounts of new money. Significant changes have been made in how the system operates, including the creation of dozens of charter schools which were recently cited as a major reason district scores have improved.
None of which is to say that more money may not be needed in specific instances. One such is a small district in western Pennsylvania, near Pittsburgh, with which I had some personal experience and involvement more than 15 years ago. The local steel industry had closed which devastated both the local community and the school district. The "science lab" at the ancient high school, for example, didn't even have bunsen burners. There was no way the crisis could be resolved locally.
The state did step up, and began to increase funding, to which no fair person could object. In the years since, there have been several superintendents, a large turnover in staff, and a more than 100% turnover in students, as is natural in any district over a 15-year period. A report two weeks ago noted that the state now provides 73% of the district's funding, and per-pupil spending is now more than $20,000, ranking at the 97th percentile in the state.
According to the report, student achievement in the district remains among the state's very lowest. All the money that was supposed to make a difference has made no difference. Nationwide, $20,000 per pupil would require more than $1,000,000,000,000 - one trillion dollars - more than can possibly be realized. School districts spend up to $45,000 per pupil annually and still have problems.
The report's conclusion? "The real problem is the complete unwillingness of the state to mandate any substantive reform that would threaten the interest groups who have created the situation.""
I know of a situation where one inner city public school received a $10 million grant from a foundation, and the only result was an increased teen-age pregnancy rate.
It would be better if we legalized markets in happiness and well-being:
http://www.edspresso.com/2006/07/legalizing_markets_in_happines.htm
"If Money's the Solution, That's the Problem
That was the title of an article by Al Knight in The Denver Post fifteen years ago tomorrow. What was true then is still true today. And if the past is indeed prologue, it will still be true fifteen years from now.
One interpretation of Knight's title is that the problems of public schools cannot be corrected with any amount of money, however much. Therefore, emphasizing money is futile.
Another is that, even if it is assumed that large amounts of money could prove to be the answer to the problem such sums of money simply aren't, and won't be, available.
Note, for example, a few commonalities of the remarks by those who insist more money is needed.
They rarely provide specifics, such as how much money they are currently spending; how much money do they need; and how would they spend those dollars to create a successful district. In one debate when a teacher union president said more money was needed he was asked how much. He didn't know. When then asked if he didn't know how much was needed how did he know there should be more, he didn't know that either. To be fair to him, no one else seems to know either.
Just a few days ago, here in Pennsylvania, television news reporting on a public meeting in Allentown presented an individual who said Allentown should get at least as much money as Philadelphia or Pittsburgh. Among the things she didn't say were (a) how much money the Allentown schools spend, either in total or on a per-pupil basis; (b) the school district budget or per-pupil expenditures in either Philadelphia or Pittsburgh; or (c) the relative cost-of-living in the three cities, and (d) most importantly, any awareness of the conditions in either of those larger school districts that would justify using them as a model or justification for spending more money. Her basic point seemed to be if others have more money Allentown should too.
In fairness, it should be noted that Philadelphia has made progress in the past few years since the state transferred control of the district from the local school board to a special commission appointed jointly by the city's mayor and the state's governor. But it still is not a model of high achievement, nor have its gains been the result of large amounts of new money. Significant changes have been made in how the system operates, including the creation of dozens of charter schools which were recently cited as a major reason district scores have improved.
None of which is to say that more money may not be needed in specific instances. One such is a small district in western Pennsylvania, near Pittsburgh, with which I had some personal experience and involvement more than 15 years ago. The local steel industry had closed which devastated both the local community and the school district. The "science lab" at the ancient high school, for example, didn't even have bunsen burners. There was no way the crisis could be resolved locally.
The state did step up, and began to increase funding, to which no fair person could object. In the years since, there have been several superintendents, a large turnover in staff, and a more than 100% turnover in students, as is natural in any district over a 15-year period. A report two weeks ago noted that the state now provides 73% of the district's funding, and per-pupil spending is now more than $20,000, ranking at the 97th percentile in the state.
According to the report, student achievement in the district remains among the state's very lowest. All the money that was supposed to make a difference has made no difference. Nationwide, $20,000 per pupil would require more than $1,000,000,000,000 - one trillion dollars - more than can possibly be realized. School districts spend up to $45,000 per pupil annually and still have problems.
The report's conclusion? "The real problem is the complete unwillingness of the state to mandate any substantive reform that would threaten the interest groups who have created the situation.""
I know of a situation where one inner city public school received a $10 million grant from a foundation, and the only result was an increased teen-age pregnancy rate.
It would be better if we legalized markets in happiness and well-being:
http://www.edspresso.com/2006/07/legalizing_markets_in_happines.htm
Access: Public
