“Don’t throw money at schools.”
It’s a common rejoinder when lobbying for an increase in public education budgets.
You offer facts why schools need it: both the state and federal government continue to reduce K-12 funds, class sizes are increasing, the curriculum is being narrowed, buildings are crumbling – real world consequences to spending deficits.
And some guy (it’s often a dude) stands up with a cock-eyed grin and says, “You know, we really need to stop throwing money at schools.”
And he pauses as if we all need a moment to take that in.
Is there anything to this? We hear it often enough, but does he have a point?
Let’s see.
“Don’t throw money at schools.”
First, is it true? Is anyone actually throwing money at our schools?
I’ve worked as a public school teacher for over a decade. To my great disappointment never once has anyone hurled greenbacks through a window in my building. I have never had to dodge, duck or otherwise exercise gymnastics to avoid being thunked in the head by a stack of airborne bills.
Origami ninja stars made out of $100 notes do not routinely fly through the air in my classroom. No government representative has ever shown up in the auditorium during a professional development and said, “Yeah baby! Let’s make it rain!” before showering my coworkers and myself in Benjamin’s.
No. This has never happened. Not even coins. More change is thrown at the fountain in my local mall than at any public school where I’ve ever worked.
At this point, you’re probably saying, but, Steven, that’s not what this guy meant. He wasn’t implying someone literally tossed bills at foundations of learning. He was just being colorful.
To which I respond: was he? Because there are lots of ways to phrase that idea. He simply could have said, “We shouldn’t increase education funding.”
He could have said, “We need to spend school money more wisely before increasing it.”
He could have said, “Additional learning revenues are a waste because schools do such a bad job.”
He could have said, “We spend too much on education already.”
He could have said, “Kids don’t deserve more of my cash.”
But he didn’t say any of those things. Instead he conjured an image out of a Roman orgy or a rap video. He purposefully tried to frame this as a ridiculous situation. He wasn’t just trying to make an argument. He wanted to paint anyone who could possibly disagree with him as a fool.
“Can you believe these guys crying about public school funding?” he implied. “They’re having money thrown at them and they actually want more!?”
So before we even start to study the content of his phrase, we must remember it’s coated in bias and malicious intent. He is not really calling for a rational argument. He is appealing to emotions – most probably the emotions of those listening to the debate.
But we cannot sink to his level. We need reasons.
This is difficult because it’s not entirely clear what exactly he was getting at. Let’s examine what his statement might mean in plain English and try to determine if – underneath all this spin – he has a point or not.
Here are some possibilities.
1) “We need to spend education money more wisely before increasing it.”
This might be what he intended to say. And if so, he does have a bit of a point.
There is a problem with how school funding is spent. There is waste and misappropriation. At the local level, school boards and administrators do not always do things in the most efficient manner. But you could say the same thing at every level of democratic government. Fascist states have much less waste. Shall we just burn up the Constitution, then?
At the state and federal level, the problem is compounded by the ignorance of those allowed to write our laws. Education policy is rarely made by those who know what they’re talking about, thus funding often is wasted on useless initiatives. Common Core, standardized testing, punitive accountability systems – these were all created by business interests without regard to educational validity or efficacy and – as such – waste taxpayer money that could be better spent on things that would actually help children learn.
And speaking of waste, may I introduce you to charter schools? Favored by lawmakers yet rocked by fiscal scandals, charters are legal means of sucking up tax dollars for a profit. While public schools have to account for every penny spent and prove funds went to better the educations of real live students, charters are not just permitted but encouraged to withhold some tax money from going to student services and instead bolstering administrators’ bank accounts. Anyone who speaks of fiscal accountability in education yet is in favor of its further privatization is either disingenuous or in need of a basic math course!
The solution, however, is not to withhold additional funding. The solution is more oversight. And I don’t mean only government oversight and regulations. I mean oversight by the public.
Democracy only works if people participate. People need to push for transparency and less wasteful policies. They need to educate themselves about what’s going on. They need to investigate. They need to lobby, protest, and criticize. They need to vote. And they need a free and interested media to give them the facts to make smart decisions.
Clearly we’re lacking some of these things today. But that’s a national problem not limited to education funding.
In the meantime, we can’t wait for a perfect government before increasing school spending. Our children need help now!
If we do nothing, we doom another generation to getting less than they deserve, less than what we could have provided. Why? Because we were afraid some of it wouldn’t reach them!?
A deep sea diver with a kink in his air hose, doesn’t shrug and turn off his oxygen. He turns it up!
2) “Additional learning revenues are a waste because schools do such a bad job.”
This might have been his criticism. Let’s look at the facts.
International comparisons of national school systems are all the rage in political circles. And raw data suggests that children from the United States are not at the top. We are somewhere in the middle.
That’s all true. But what pundits refrain from admitting is that it’s been true for a long time – in fact, for as long as we’ve been making these types of comparisons. Our schools have not gotten worse. They have stayed the same.
This brings up an important issue. How does one compare national school systems to each other, anyway? What do we use to make these comparisons? Income prospects? Student portfolios? Measures of critical thinking? Classroom grades?
No. We use standardized test scores – the PISA test to be exact.
However, we’ve known for decades that standardized tests are poor measures of academic success. Bubble tests can assess simple things but nothing complex. After all, they’re scored based on answers to multiple choice questions. In fact, the only thing they seem to measure with any degree of accuracy is the parental income of the test-taker. Kids from rich families score well, and poor kids score badly.
So these comparisons are suspect.
But even if we accept them, we are leaving out a very important factor: Poverty.
Virtually all of the top scoring countries taking the PISA exam have much less child poverty than the U.S. As we’ve seen, this will boost their scores. If we adjust our scores for poverty, our students jump to the top of the list.
Let me repeat that: U.S. students do the best in the world on international tests – IF THEY ARE NOT POOR.
Moreover, the U.S. education system does something that many international systems do not. We educate everyone! Foreign systems often weed children out by high school. They don’t let every child get 13 years of grade school (counting kindergarten). They only school their highest achievers.
So when we compare ourselves to these countries, we’re comparing ALL of our students to only SOME theirs – their best academic pupils, to be exact. Yet we still hold our own given these handicaps!
In short, U.S. public schools do an excellent job educating children. They overcome incredible obstacles to achieve near miraculous ends often with very few resources.
Imagine what they could achieve if our schools were properly funded.
3) “We spend too much on education already.”
This one is a favorite of politicians of both parties. We already spend a lot on education. Some lawmakers and media personalities go so far as to claim that we spend more than any other country in the world.
Is that true? No.
We are near the top, but according to the most recent OECD study, four countries – Austria, Luxembourg, Norway and Switzerland – spend more.
Additionally, the study was released in 2014 but used data from 2011. Since that time, the U.S. has cut its school spending by leaps and bounds while most other advanced nations have been increasing it. Look for many more countries to pass us up when the next study is released.
But even using current figures, there are troubling social, economic and political differences between nations that impact how school funding needs to be spent. While most advanced countries spend their education budgets on actual instruction, the United States mandates public schools use a larger portion of their budgets on things outside the classroom.
For example, many international schools don’t have metal detectors or security staff. Given the U.S. problem with mass shootings and gun violence, our schools need to spend a significant portion of their monies in this way. I’m not suggesting we stop. Clearly we need to continue these practices, but that’s less money to help kids learn.
In addition, unfunded legislative mandates and court decisions have made U.S. public schools responsible for many things that international schools are not. About one third of all budget increases in recent years has gone to support special education students; 8 percent went to dropout prevention programs, alternative instruction, and counseling aimed at keeping students in school; another 8 percent went to expand school lunch programs; and so forth. Very few additional dollars were provided for needs associated with basic instruction.
Again, I’m not saying we should stop. Given our national epidemic of child poverty – an epidemic not shared by other advanced nations – we have to address these adjacent issues. But without additional funding, we’re letting the very heart of our schools – the classroom – go to waste while other countries are providing significantly more support.
Unfortunately, the problem doesn’t end there. Not only does the U.S. have unique problems that other nations do not share, we also are unique in how we allocate the funding we already have. And this difference only worsens the problem and increases the need for more money.
While most advanced countries divide their education dollars evenly between students, the United States does not. Some students get more, some get less. It all depends on local wealth.
The average per pupil expenditure for U.S. secondary students is $12,731. But that figure is deceiving. It is an average. Some kids get much more. Many get much less. It all depends on where you live. If your home is in a rich neighborhood, more money is spent on your education than if you live in a poor neighborhood.
The U.S. is one of the only countries in the world – if not probably the ONLY country – that funds schools based largely on local taxes. Other developed nations either equalize funding or provide extra money for kids in need. In the Netherlands, for example, national funding is provided to all schools based on the number of pupils enrolled. But for every guilder allocated to a middle-class Dutch child, 1.25 guilders are allocated for a lower-class child and 1.9 guilders for a minority child – exactly the opposite of the situation in the U.S.
So even though we spend more than many countries, we spend it so unevenly that poor and minority children are being left out.
Therefore, we have a choice: either do away with funding based on local property taxes or increase funding to poor school districts – or both.
4) “Kids don’t deserve more of my cash.”
Dollars to doughnuts, this is probably what he really means.
The United States has a moral failing. And we’re proud of it. We call it libertarianism. It means – Screw you! I’ve got mine.
We don’t care about helping others, we don’t care about the common good, we only look out for ourselves and our immediate friends and families. Everyone else can eat crap and die.
It’s ethical immaturity and, frankly, there’s not much you can say to someone who feels this way except that you disagree.
At most you can try to appeal to his self interest. Do you really want to live in a society full of uneducated people? Do you really want your kids to grow up in a world like that?
But that’s as far as it goes. You can’t help emotionally and intellectually stunted people – especially adults. Most children go through this phase. Some never grow out of it.
The good news is that most of us aren’t so far gone. If you can show that our interlocutor’s statement really comes down to this, you may be able to convince some people to agree with you simply because no one wants to be such an odious troll.
You need to pull back the curtain and show the truth.
How do we best spend these education dollars? How do we raise the money? Those are valid questions, but only a truly horrible person simply refuses to help children learn.
Because we’re not “throwing money” at schools. We’re throwing certain kids away.
NOTE: This article also was published in the LA Progressive, Commondreams.org and on the Badass Teachers Association blog.
The efficiency of Fascist states is probably over-rated. Public funds in such states (think Indonesia, Burma, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc) can go directly into the pockets of the well-connected without any accountability at all. Since nobody is allowed to see where the money goes, they can pretend they are efficient but really are not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s a fair point, GFbrandenburg. I guess Saddam didn’t consider his presidential palace waste, either. It’s all in how you define it.
LikeLike
Thank you for this well sourced article. I am working on a piece right now and was going to spend today nailing down good citations and your parts two and three gave almost everything I need. Again, wonderful article.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks so much, Tultican. This article took me a long time to research and write. I’m glad you found it helpful. Good luck with your own piece.
LikeLike
Check it out and give me some feedback.
https://tultican.wordpress.com/2015/07/11/a-response-to-congressman-peters/
LikeLike
Can I get your permission to reprint this at Crooks & Liars?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, please!
LikeLike
Let me see if I got this right. You don’t like money being thrown at a common curriculum between school districts (Common Core), a common test to measure academic achievements between counties (PISA), tests that measure academic progress between states (Standardized Testing), any punitive accountability system, and charter schools (especially the for profit ones).
Do you believe that Public Schools would be “better” if we removed local and state funding and replaced it with a Federal Tax that would throw money at schools to the tune of $15,000 for every child from ages 2-18? Without any measurements? Without any standards? Without any accountability? Without any choice?
LikeLike
No, Steve DeFlitch. I don’t think anyone should throw money – as you put it – at anyone. Too many bills might get lost on the floor. You might hurt someone if you throw it too hard. I am, however, in favor of politely handing sensible sums of money to those in charge of public school districts to help kids learn. Steve, do you really think standardized test are the only way to measure if someone’s learned? Did you ever get a grade from a teacher? What about completing a project? A portfolio? An essay? Teachers have been measuring student learning since Socrates without a single bubble test. Moreover, do standards only exist if corporations write them? Wouldn’t it be better for standards to be written by educational experts? Finally, accountability existed before we started closing schools with too many poor kids. You may find this hard to believe, but schools have administrators tasked with observing teachers to see if they’re doing their jobs. It’s like anywhere else. The boss gets to make that decision. They don’t always have to refer to some junk science algorithm that statisticians across the country decry.
LikeLike
You answer in riddles so I’m still confused about your thoughts, although I do enjoy the snarky comments about throwing money. Let me try to be direct with my answers to your questions.
Standardized tests are one relatively cheap and easy way to compare schools to schools from district to district and country to country. Whether a student has learned something is much more nuanced that any one standardized test could ever measure. However if we threw some money at standardized tests that were written by experts, would this satisfy your complaints about these test? (If we were careful not to throw it too hard to hurt these experts, of course) I’m also curious about your thoughts on the Praxis Exam, it’s one standardized test that measures whether a college graduate has the right to call themselves a teacher. If standardized tests aren’t an effective measure for academic achievement then why should I believe that the teachers certification is a valid measure for teaching?
Yes I got a grade from a teacher. Yes I’ve completed a project. Yes I have a portfolio. Yes I’ve written some essays. Yes it would be better for standards to be written by educational experts (see above comments). Your point is well taken about administrators being tasked with observations as one level of accountability. I would add that all good accountability systems even the ones Socrates used (I think) have a multi-viewpoint approach. Shouldn’t academic achievement also be a measure?
LikeLike
Steve, I’m always thankful for a reader who appreciates my snarkiness. Thanks. (By the way, killer avatar!) I’ve written extensively on this blog about standardized testing. Please check out Why We Should Have ZERO Standardized Tests in Public Schools https://gadflyonthewallblog.wordpress.com/2015/01/30/why-we-should-have-zero-standardized-tests-in-public-schools%E2%80%A8%E2%80%A8/, Trust Tests, Not Teachers – Accountability for Dummies https://gadflyonthewallblog.wordpress.com/2015/01/17/trust-tests-not-teachers-accountability-for-dummies/ and The Multiple Choice Mind https://gadflyonthewallblog.wordpress.com/2014/07/29/the-multiple-choice-mind/.
But in general, the problem is that standardized tests simply cannot do the job we’re expecting of them. They can only accurately assess very simple things, and most learning is very complex. Also, they aren’t cheap. The US spends hundreds of millions of dollars on them annually not to mention the test prep material made by the same test companies. It’s a huge conflict of interest. They make the test, grade the test and profit even more if we fail because then we have to buy the test prep material they conveniently sell us!
My criticism of standardized testing extends to the SAT and the PRAXIS. I have known many people who aced the PRAXIS and couldn’t handle the day-to-day craziness of the classroom. There’s a reason so many beginning teachers leave the profession in three years. You either have what it takes or you don’t. And the only way to find out is to try it.
I hope that clears things up. Thanks for commenting.
LikeLike
A lot of money “thrown” at schools never makes it to classrooms and kids. Districts give adm. more perks and assistants because they have more access to school board members than teachers, kids or parents.
How come no one ever asks why should we throw more money at millionaires and billionaires in the form of tax cuts?
LikeLike
Hey, Thomas. There’s waste at every level of government. Local schools are no different. We need checks and balances. It’s funny you bring up tax cuts. Few people ever call that waste, do they? It shows what our values are as a society. Letting rich folks get away without paying their fair share is patriotic. Letting poor kids have a chance at a better education is a waste. That’s the American sickness.
LikeLike
[…] that issue and what are the facts behind it? Steven Singer on his GADFLYONTHEWALLBLOG offers a primer on the school funding issue and attacks some myths about it along the way. When the Great Recession […]
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Thrown at” also implies that there is no transaction– that we’re not even purchasing goods, but are just tossing money at someone (usually, now that I think about it, either a performer or a stripper). It’s not a trade– just a giveaway.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thats interesting
LikeLike
[…] getting a quality education, they’d hold BOTH the state and federal governments accountable for equitably funding our schools. No more funding based on local wealth. No more poor kids getting less funding than rich kids. No […]
LikeLike
[…] school accountability would be something more akin to the original vision of the ESEA – making sure each district had what it needs to give kids the best education possible. This means at least equalizing funding to poverty schools so they have the same resources as […]
LikeLike
[…] school accountability would be something more akin to the original vision of the ESEA – making sure each district had what it needs to give kids the best education possible. This means at least equalizing funding to poverty schools so they have the same resources as […]
LikeLike
I have some questions about the comparison of per student spending on education in the US and other countries. How much of this spending in the US is on sports compared to other countries? My old high school had expansive fields, tennis courts, pool with diving well, football stadium, two gymnasiums with full basketball courts, weight room, etc. I don’t see that stuff at high schools when I travel abroad.
LikeLike
Eric, you are certainly correct about how differently the US spends its school monies than other countries. I tend to think that athletics are an important part of a good education, but we probably spend more than we need. It’s something we, as Americans, need to decide. I would love it if we put academics first but that is not the country we live in.
LikeLike
[…] Proponents say these assessments hold schools accountable for providing children with a quality education. But how can you provide an education of equal quality with a rich school when you don’t receive even c… […]
LikeLike
[…] School funding is critical but not more so than classroom teachers. That’s why we’re cutting your budgets! We want to see what you can […]
LikeLike
[…] two decades, the Pennsylvania legislature hasn’t fulfilled its duty to equitably fund the public school district. Neither has the federal government. Instead, they left the impoverished […]
LikeLike
[…] Image courtesy of gadflyonthewall blog. […]
LikeLike
[…] on districts that don’t provide proper services for ELLs. There’s nothing about ensuring adequate, equitable and sustainable funding for all students – especially the poor and minorities. Instead the Department of Education […]
LikeLike
[…] the number of teachers accused of acting inappropriately with children. I’d mention issues like inequitable funding, standardized testing and Common Core. She’d solemnly quote back the number she’d found in her […]
LikeLike
[…] 2) Do Americans “Throw Money” At Their Schools? A Fair Funding Primer […]
LikeLike
[…] result is a funding system based on local wealth. Rich areas have Cadillac education systems. Poor areas have dilapidated ones. That’s […]
LikeLike
[…] Throughout the country, poor districts get less money than wealthy or middle class ones. The students who go to these schools are systematically being cheated out of resources and opportunities. And instead of helping them, we’re playing a shell game with charter and […]
LikeLike
[…] really so surprising that poor schools can’t pay their bills? We force them to make ends meet by relying heavily on taxes from local residents – most of whom are dead […]
LikeLike
[…] what will we do with those who fall below the mark? We’re sending no additional resources to help them increase their achievement. We’ll just close their schools and/or privatize. And to […]
LikeLike
[…] what will we do with those who fall below the mark? We’re sending no additional resources to help them increase their achievement. We’ll just close their schools and/or privatize. And to […]
LikeLike
[…] what will we do with those who fall below the mark? We’re sending no additional resources to help them increase their achievement. We’ll just close their schools and/or privatize. And to […]
LikeLike
[…] that sink in. When you run government like a business, services suffer. It means fewer resources for your schools. More lead in your water. And long as fuck lines to […]
LikeLike
[…] that sink in. When you run government like a business, services suffer. It means fewer resources for your schools. More lead in your water. And long as fuck lines to […]
LikeLike
[…] need to make them feel that same fear for under-resourcing our schools. When Republican voters in gerrymandered districts show up to their legislators offices en mass and […]
LikeLike
[…] need to make them feel that same fear for under-resourcing our schools. When Republican voters in gerrymandered districts show up to their legislators offices en mass and […]
LikeLike
[…] into factories. We’ve let them become resegregated based on race and wealth. We’ve let the rich schools get Cadillac funding while the poor ones struggle to survive on the leftovers. We’ve let non-educators set the […]
LikeLike
[…] that sink in. When you run government like a business, services suffer. It means fewer resources for your schools. More lead in your water. And long as heck lines to […]
LikeLike
[…] of culturally and economically biased standardized tests and ignoring the fact that they receive substantially less resources than their richer, whiter […]
LikeLike
[…] the funding necessary to properly educate children, you will get an inferior result. Meanwhile, pundits play with numbers and make false comparisons to hide this basic fact – we aren’t providing all kids with the resources they need to succeed. Rich kids have enough. […]
LikeLike
[…] If we actually focused on the real problems with schools instead of constant innuendo, defamation and vitriol, we might be able to enact real solutions. For instance, more than half of our public school students live below the poverty line. They go to schools that aren’t funded adequately. We’ve allowed them to be resegregated based on class so its easier to ensure rich kids get a Cadillac education and poor kids get the scraps. […]
LikeLike
[…] pay attention to the inequitable distribution of education funding to your public schools. Look at how these black kids don’t pull up their pants, and if they […]
LikeLike
[…] their exceptional scores and mixes them in with those of children living in broken homes going to under-funded schools in high crime neighborhoods. Obviously those kids are struggling. It’s not fair to make the […]
LikeLike
[…] worse, in most states even before you start adding parallel schools, the current funding system is broken. We simply don’t provide enough funding for the schools we already have without adding even more […]
LikeLike
[…] school choice isn’t the only problem. Economics plays a factor, too. Public schools often are funded based on local property taxes, so poor kids gets much fewer resources for their schools than rich kids. And since most black […]
LikeLike
[…] kids. It’s just another way to send more funding to white kids and less to poor black kids. They say it’s based on local property taxes. That way they can pretend it’s all fair and above b…. Rich folks have a right to be able to give their kids the best, and if poor folks can’t afford […]
LikeLike
[…] some public schools are better than others – which is just another way of saying that some are better funded. THAT is a problem we need to fix at the local, state and federal level. That’s something the […]
LikeLike
[…] Choice advocates talk about children being trapped in failing schools, but they never examine what it is about them that is failing. […]
LikeLike
[…] our schools suffer from disinvestment. Since we’ve segregated the rich from the poor into privileged and impoverished neighborhoods, […]
LikeLike
[…] drawn to minimize the number of blacks at predominantly white schools and vice versa. Moreover, since funding was often tied to local property taxes, whites could legally ensure black schools got less resources than white schools. And with […]
LikeLike
[…] problem is further exacerbated by the incredibly backward way we allocate funding at the local level which bears the majority of the cost of […]
LikeLike
[…] problem is further exacerbated by the incredibly backward way we allocate funding at the local level which bears the majority of the cost of […]
LikeLike
[…] of our public schools are excellent. You’ll find them especially in richer neighborhoods where they spend more per pupil than poorer districts with less local tax revenue to draw upon. […]
LikeLike
[…] Here’s why: the United States educates everyone. Most other countries do not. […]
LikeLike
[…] problem is further exacerbated by the incredibly backward way we allocate funding at the local level, which bears the majority of the cost of […]
LikeLike
[…] make it even more complex, the authors of the bill have a point. Property taxes are a terrible way to fund schools. They ensure that some districts will be better funded than others based on the local wealth of the […]
LikeLike
[…] Heres why: the United States educates everyone. Most other countries do not. […]
LikeLike