This week’s School of Thought column at TIME.com looks at education spending. While it’s impossible to accurately estimate our fiscal recklessness these days it does seem that the best days for ed spending may be behind us. That means – gasp – we’d better think about productivity!
As America starts to grapple with its out-of-control spending habits, we as a nation really should reckon with our education costs. Few federal education programs were targeted by President Obama’s deficit-reduction commission, but that’s because most school funding comes from the state and local levels. And that’s where the big-time money problem is. According to a report issued jointly last week by the National Governors Association and the National Association of State Budget Officers, when federal stimulus funds run out in 2011, states — and, by extension, schools — will tumble off a fiscal cliff, and even an economic upturn won’t bring state funding back up to where it was a few years ago.
I just finished reading the article in Time Magazine – maybe I should count to ten. It’s nice that Mr. Rotherham has associated himself with one of our fine charter schools, but, like most, he is completely out of touch with what educators in the “real world” are asked to do.
But, maybe he’s right on one thing – cutting non-“productive” programs. If “productive” equates to improving test scores, that would mean ridding ourselves of disciplinary alternative schools, technical schools, vocational schools, special education, sex education, health education, wellness programs, transportation, family resource centers, nurses, cafeterias, fine arts programming, etc. Just think of what it would be like to only teach reading, writing, science, math, and social studies to those students who actually valued and wanted an education – and whose families likewise valued education enough to provide their child a ride to school. Or, what if we only provided an education for those students who would in-turn, be able use that education as a “productive” member of our society. We wouldn’t need nearly as many administrators! Just think how much taxpayer money that would save us – or would it?
If we want to “fix” the education system, maybe we should start by defining what it is we want our education system to do. Currently, our schools are expected to be a societal panacea – we have a teen pregnancy problem, we have an obesity problem, we have a drug and alcohol problem, we have a fear of the Chinese conquering the universe, and our jails and prisons are overcrowded – no problem, let the schools fix it. Yes, there is a design flaw – the education system was not designed to handle the strain of responsibilities that have been imposed upon it. If you want to “fix” the education system, streamline and define its purpose. Until then, it seems to me like we, the taxpayers, are getting one heck of a bargain!
Jr:
“but, like most, he is completely out of touch with what educators in the “real world” are asked to do.”
Interesting. How so?
“But, maybe he’s right on one thing – cutting non-”productive” programs.”
And investing more in programs and policies that focus on productivity.
“If “productive” equates to improving test scores, that would mean ridding ourselves of disciplinary alternative schools, technical schools, vocational schools, special education, sex education, health education, wellness programs, transportation, family resource centers, nurses, cafeterias, fine arts programming, etc. ”
1) Productive doesn’t just mean “improving test scores”. The policies that are enacted should be productive insomuch as the impact on students relative to spending is great. Sex ed programs that demonstrate lowering teen pregnancies would be more worthy of investment than a more ineffective abstinence-only approach, for example.
2) Many of your examples are likely very necessary for improving test scores, as well. Lunch is probably one such item.
“Just think of what it would be like to only teach reading, writing, science, math, and social studies to those students who actually valued and wanted an education ”
Yes, terrible thing, teaching subjects like science and math when students wanted “an education”.
“Or, what if we only provided an education for those students who would in-turn, be able use that education as a “productive” member of our society.”
Facetious, sure, but you’ve still got it backwards: the reason productivity should be a focus is so that programs are more targeted to helping all students attain a great education. You’re sarcastically accusing Andy of taking on a crusade for productivity that would descend along a slippery slope to withholding education from certain students, and yet this is completely opposite his point and the global purpose of reform.
“Currently, our schools are expected to be a societal panacea ”
No, they’re not. No one is arguing that schools should fix poverty. What we’re arguing is that students should be able to obtain an excellent education *despite* poverty.