Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, March 15, 1992 TAG: 9203160152
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: F-3 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: JAMES C. MILLER III
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
Spending more money on education in any district might be worthwhile if it actually improved student performance. But based on what we know about the relationship between spending and performance, there is reason to raise doubts. At least there is reason to query whether something other than funding may be explaining student performance, and whether some other policy the state might adopt would be more effective.
According to a recent study by Dana Joel for Virginia Citizens for a Sound Economy, between the school years of 1984 and 1989, per-pupil spending in Virginia rose from $3,712 to $4,878. Teachers' average salary rose from $25,388 to $30,938. And the average pupil-teacher ratio fell slightly, from 16.8 pupils per teacher to 15.9.
Yet, SAT scores for the same period fell 13 points - from 908 to 895. In 1990, Virginia's average SAT score fell again - to 890. This is hardly an indication that providing more resources produces better student performance.
Or, consider student achievement at the extremes of per-pupil spending. According to Joel, in the 1989 school year Poquoson spent a mere $3,711 per pupil, next to the smallest amount in the state. Yet Poquoson's students averaged one of the highest scores on standard achievement tests - 72 versus the statewide average of 60. Similarly, Poquoson's dropout rate of 1.3 was among the lowest.
The city of Richmond was among the highest spenders, at $6,649 per pupil. Its students, however, averaged a score of only 48 and an astonishing dropout rate of 8.4, tying with Hopewell for the second highest in the state. Moreover, a standard multivariate regression analysis, based on all of Virginia's school districts, concludes that the variation in per-pupil spending explains only 6 percent of the variation in student performance. Obviously, something explains student performance in addition to spending, yet that's all that's talked about by the proponents of education in Richmond.
Why is there so little correlation between the amount of money spent on public education and the quality of student performance? One reason is that the proportion of education funds actually spent on learning is smaller than you might think. According to the Virginia Department of Education's 1988-1989 financial report, only 48 cents of the education dollar makes its way to the classroom; the remaining 52 cents is spent on overhead, administration and other non-instructional expenses.
Another reason is that public schools have relatively little incentive to be efficient. The usual link between consumers and producers - choice - is absent.
For example, if your lawyer doesn't do you a good job, you could change lawyers. Or if your grocer doesn't offer you reasonable prices and fresh food, you could go somewhere else. Knowing you have a choice keeps your lawyer and your grocer on their toes.
In public education, it's different. If your local school doesn't do its job, your options are severely limited: move to another school district or get involved in school politics, hoping your pressure will push things in the right direction. Knowing you have such limited options allows schools to be less than responsive to parents and certainly less attentive to student performance.
One incomplete, but nevertheless useful, way of seeing the effects of consumer choice is to examine the records of private schools.
Private schools - which, unlike public schools, have to compete for students - have a track record of spending fewer dollars, yet their students score much higher on standard achievement tests. For the 1988 school year, private schools spent on average only $2,645 per student - as contrasted with public schools' average of $4,437. Yet, private school students averaged 951 on their SAT tests, compared to public school students' average of 900.
The education disparity in Virginia is not over funding. Most school districts - 72 percent - spend within $500 dollars of the median. The disparity is over opportunity. Those students whose parents can afford private schools have far greater educational opportunity than those who cannot. And those whose parents are mobile and can transfer to a district with a better school also have more opportunity.
A school-choice program would lead to more equal opportunity and better results. Here is how such a system could work. Education funds - state and local - would be given directly to the student's family in the form of a voucher. The family could then choose among any of the schools participating in the program.
Qualifying private schools would be eligible to accept the student's voucher and thus compete with the public schools. Public schools would compete with each other for students. The role of the state bureaucracy would be purely administrative - setting minimum standards for schools to meet, transferring funds in exchange for vouchers and operating choice-information offices so families could learn what different schools have to offer.
School choice is a proven idea. A dozen states currently operate some form of a choice program, and 14 other states have legislative or ballot initiatives pending.
Virginia needs to take swift action to improve student performance. But fueling an intransigent bureaucracy with more public funds is not the answer. Giving all children - not just the privileged few - a choice in education is the agenda to which we must now turn.
James C. Miller III, President Reagan's budget director from 1985 to 1988, is chairman of Virginia Citizens for a Sound Economy.
by CNB