On Up Front this weekend, the new Washington State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Randy Dorn, was asked whether the level of funding proposed was unconstitutional. He responded (starts at 9:18 into the video) that the State Constitution says "the paramount duty is to fund education."
That's not, of course, what the Constitution says. Rather, it reads, "It is the paramount duty of the state to make ample provision for the education of all children residing within its borders. ..." It says nothing specific about funding, nor implies that any level of funding is preferable to another.
There's a huge difference between the two. You can, conceivably, provide the best instruction possible without any money at all. Dorn went on to bemoan his claim that Washington State is ranked low nationally in per-pupil spending, which is, to me, actually a very good thing.
It's just more evidence that many people do not distinguish between good education, and expensive education. And that is obvious nonsense. Children today have a worse public education than our parents did, and it costs a lot more to get it.
I am, of course, not suggesting there's necessarily an inverse relationship; I am only stating as obvious truth that there is no significant relationship between how good an education is, and how much you spend on it.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at January 26, 2009 12:47 PM | Email ThisHow exactly is that obvious? It's certainly not obvious to me, or to the parents and teachers I've discussed it with. I'd call it counter-imtuitive at best.
Sure, spending money doesn't automatically improve education (or anything else). But your "obvious" conclusion is anything but.
Posted by: Bruce on January 26, 2009 01:30 PMHow exactly is that obvious?
I already gave you a big hint: "Children today have a worse public education than our parents did, and it costs a lot more to get it."
Frankly, I don't see how it is NOT obvious. There's scores of examples of schools that produce great educations without nearly as much money as we spend today, and, of course, scores of examples of schools that produce poor educations that cost a lot.
Money != Quality in education. Quality in education is a function of good teachers being given support by their schools and the parents to do their job with whatever resources they have available at that time and place.
We might all agree, and might all say it, but how do we know it?
My children, as they complete their college educations, had an excellent public school education on par or better than mine (and mine was good). I have a very strong suspicion that my education, and our children's education, exceeded the quality level of my parents education.
I've been a trustee of a private school, and at the end of the day a really good education does in fact cost a fair amount of money. Yes, you need good teachers, decent resources to enable them to do their jobs well, and highly involved parents (probably the key).
My definition of "ample provision" is to provide enough resources to pay for what the State requires of the schools. If the State says 10 kids in a classroom for example - they better fund sufficient teachers to do that.
Posted by: BA on January 26, 2009 02:01 PMThere are many many top-notch quality private schools whose total per student revenue does not come close to that.
Posted by: Seabecker on January 26, 2009 02:02 PMIn talking to people of my parents' generation, they have a much greater understanding of basic grammar, arithmetic, and history than the people of my generation. This remains constant no matter where I go.
However, regardless of everything else, this is key: My definition of "ample provision" is to provide enough resources to pay for what the State requires of the schools.
Yes, and that's the point: it is not about an absolute number, it's about providing for whatever the State requires. That said, if the State requires gold-plated computers for every child, and doesn't fund it, that is not a constitutional issue: those requirements should be at least arguably (even if I disagree with them) in the realm of actual resources for education.
And there's scores of examples of smokers who live long lives and, of course, scores of examples of non-smokers who get lung cancer. So?
"Quality in education is a function of good teachers being given support by their schools and the parents to do their job with whatever resources they have available at that time and place.
Sure. Doesn't money help hire, train, and retain good teachers and principals? Doesn't "support" include decent facilities, materials, and class sizes that enable the teacher to interact with all students? These things cost money.
Posted by: Bruce on January 26, 2009 02:24 PMSeabecker, your tired argument appears on this blog constantly. Until someone actually points out the long term costs the private schools have to incur, including actual construction costs, and until someone recalculates the figure to include an averaging ratio based on the notion that public schools have to provide for a higher percentage of special needs kids, then I really don't think it's fair to keep throwing out the per student spending for comparative reasons against private schools.
Posted by: Doug on January 26, 2009 02:36 PMYour experience, while interesting, does not necessarily make reality. I'd be interested to know what the drop out rate was a generation, and a second generation ago for example.
I'm not saying that a lot of kids educated today won't make good employees for either me, or my children because they certainly won't, and I don't disagree that "generally" education seems worse - but I wonder how much truth there is to that?
Are our kid's generally less educated, or is the disparity between well educated and poorly educated kids larger? Do we have more well educated kids as a percentage or less?
Anecdotal information is interesting, but it doesn't really support an argument because it can't be demonstrated.
I'd put the requirement for getting a driver's license on passing an academic test...watch the performance of our students skyrocket.
Make that retroactive for the rest of us...wouldn't that be interesting.
Posted by: BA on January 26, 2009 02:43 PMThen, make the private schools be required to accept any child that walks through the door the way public schools are mandated...
Posted by: BA on January 26, 2009 03:01 PMSure. Doesn't money help hire, train, and retain good teachers and principals?
What amount of money? Dorn is saying there is a specific level of funding that is unconstitutional. Again: I am saying that what matters is not the amount of money, but what is actually done, and what the results are. And this is obviously true. Each time you say something that we need that costs money, you're making my case for me, that it is the requirements themselves that matter, NOT some arbitrary figure for how much it might cost.
Fortunately the courts won't see it that way. Even the liberal courts in our state will interpret the meaning of the constitution in a way that they will calculate how much money and regulation is reasonably needed by the state to amply provide for the education.
The biggest issue we have is that the legislature has decided that they can define basic education. So when they decide to provide for all day kindergarten, at the same time they purposefully leave that out of the basic education formula in an intentional manner so that in a court case, providing for full day kindergarten isn't what the state is supposed to do.
IMO, the logical way for the state supremes to rule on this constitutional matter would most likely be for them to look at what other states are doing for their public education and to determine what funding is necessary to provide our kids with an equivalent education to those states which also have the obligation to make education their paramount duty.
It has sadly become aware to me that education is no longer the paramount duty of the state, but rather the paramount duty of the legislature has become to provide for their union, govt. paid, and welfare constituency so that they can continue to get the votes.
Posted by: Doug on January 26, 2009 03:40 PMOnce again you are twisting someone's words; Dorn said no such thing. He did say that a certain level of cuts would be "moving in the wrong direction" and would put education in "crisis mode". Even if you equate this with saying those cuts would be unconstitutional, the common-sense interpretation would be that such cuts would not enable the state to meet its constitutional requirement.
Posted by: Bruce on January 26, 2009 05:35 PMGrade school for me was Catholic and the nuns were very good teachers. My high school in NYC didn't have a sports field and gym. Aviation HS considered by many to be one of the best in America does one thing well, educates students. 8 hours a day and 3 hours a day allocated for homework.
Pulled my daughter out of public school in the second grade. She attended private school till the 9 grade, when she then attended public high school and coasted for several years. Attended a local college.
Recall the argument that private schools can select their students, etc. Well about 20 years ago the Catholic school offered to teach the drop outs from the NYC public schools system to prove a point. The point being that most any child may receive a better education from private schools then available from the local government schools.
NYC declined the offer. Unions fear competition.Government schools specialize in mediocrity.
Pudge, I would be careful about the last statement. If not enough is actually done and the results aren't there, and you say that is what matters, then it would appear to my eyes that the court should require quadruple the amount of money to be spent on education.
No, my statement cannot be read that way. I am saying the OPPOSITE. The only thing the Court should consider itself able to require is that the education is improved, NOT that any specific amount of money can be mandated.
The results aren't there and not enough is being done.
And it is not logical to say that this means more money should be spent.
IMO, the logical way for the state supremes to rule on this constitutional matter would most likely be for them to look at what other states are doing for their public education and to determine what funding is necessary to provide our kids with an equivalent education to those states which also have the obligation to make education their paramount duty.
Of course they shouldn't. That's ridiculous. The Court has no business determining funding at all. That is up to the legislature. Furthermore, NOTHING in our Constitution says ANYTHING AT ALL about "equivalent education" to other states. We decide what education should be for ourselves. What other states do has no legal bearing or constitutional meaning.
Bruce:
Once again you are twisting someone's words ... He did say that a certain level of cuts would be "moving in the wrong direction"
Yes, in terms of constitutionality, moving in the wrong direction. Which means moving toward UNconstitutionality. This isn't hard, Bruce.
Even if you equate this with saying those cuts would be unconstitutional, the common-sense interpretation would be that such cuts would not enable the state to meet its constitutional requirement.
Shrug. Blame Dorn: he's the one who misquoted the Constitution, saying "the paramount duty [of the state] is to fund education."
he only thing the Court should consider itself able to require is that the education is improved, NOT that any specific amount of money can be mandated.
There is nothing in the constitution even remotely suggesting the 'improvement' of education. The court doesn't have any authority whatsoever to require 'improving' education. In fact, the court only has authority to ensure enough money is being given by the legislature "ample provision".
Hence, they must determine - as they have in the past - if enough money is being provided by the state.
The court doesn't have any authority whatsoever to require 'improving' education. In fact, the court only has authority to ensure enough money is being given by the legislature "ample provision".
Nope. You have it completely backward. The Court has NO authority to determine if there is enough money provided. "Ample provision" can only be measured in one way: by the results.
What throws it off are the high levels of funding in areas like Washington DC, which are complete and total failures, and the low levels of funding in places like Utah, which are shining paramounts of education. There are some outliers with high spending and high success, like Massachusetts, but those are the exception not the rule.
Where is Washington State? Generally, we are the high spending, low performers despite how wonderful you think things are here. Sad, but true.
This doesn't imply that lower spending increases education output, causation and correlation being what they are. In other words, either lower spending improves education, improved education reduces spending, or there is no causal relationship at all and they just happen to be correlated.
If anything, you may find a stronger correlation between urbanized areas and poor-performaing schools. Since rural school districts don't have nearly as much resources to draw from, and since they have stronger social structures, they have less money and get a better result. If this is true, then if you want a good education for a low price, move to anyplace rural.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on January 26, 2009 10:35 PMI agree that it's unlikely that a court would order smaller class sizes, since the constitution calls for "ample provision for education" but says nothing about quality. I think people cite the constitution here as a moral/political rationale for improving education, without seriously expecting a lawsuit. But if a court did find the constitution to be violated, it could certainly order the state to spend money.
Posted by: Bruce on January 27, 2009 09:02 AMPudge@19, actually, the court has authority do whatever it finds necessary to comply with the constitution.
Liberals like you SAY that, but they do not MEAN it. What if the Court found it was necessary to segregate blacks and whites in different schools in order to fulfill the obligations of the Constitution? Oh, that's "different" you say? Yeah, right, of course it's different, because that would be a violation of rights that YOU disagree with.
The Constitution gives the power to legislate to the people, and to the legislature of the people. Not to the Court. It is a violation of our rights for the Court to legislate.
The Supreme Court is usually pretty good at this. State Courts often less so. For example, the Supreme Court had no right to rewrite the Military Commissions Act of 2006. They only had the right to strike it down. So that is what they did. You would incorrectly argue that the Supreme Court had the right to impose new policies and procedures for detainees.
But if a court did find the constitution to be violated, it could certainly order the state to spend money.
It would be violating the Constitution for it to do so.
Posted by: pudge on January 27, 2009 09:14 AMPudge, you disagree with most Americans on what courts have the right to do.
a. False.
b. Completely irrelevant if true. People who disagree with me are, of course, wrong.
As a practical matter, courts do order government agencies to spend to comply with the constitution, and they are upheld.
I never denied this. You are extremely confused. What I said is that the Court cannot order the specific FORM of compliance, unless that is spelled out in the Constitution. So the Court can strike down a specific education legislative package, saying it does not provide for ample provision for education, but it cannot mandate a specific package in its place, nor specific terms the package must include. That is the job of the legislature, not the Court.
A quick search produced a ranking that says Utah is the 38th smartest state (Washington is 33rd):
http://www.statestats.com/edrank06.htm
I haven't looked at their methodology and I'm sure there are other rankings. But this one hardly supports calling Utah a shining paramount of education.
Posted by: Bruce on January 27, 2009 09:29 AMYes, but when legislatures have failed to comply with the consitution, courts have often ordered specific actions to comply. You think they don't have the right to do this, but most courts disagree with you, so your opinion is, shall we say, ineffectual.
Posted by: Bruce on January 27, 2009 09:36 AMA quick search produced a ranking that says Utah is the 38th smartest state (Washington is 33rd)
No, it doesn't. Those rankings, as most are, are nonsensical pseudoscience.
Yes, but when legislatures have failed to comply with the consitution, courts have often ordered specific actions to comply.
Right. And when those actions are creating new legislation in effect, rather than simply striking down illegal legislation, the Court is violating our rights.
You think they don't have the right to do this, but most courts disagree with you
Of course they do. They love power. So what? Why are you beating on this straw man/red herring?
Take this analogy: I'm sure that jurisdictions that spend more on policing tend to have higher crime rates. Does that mean lower police spending reduces crime, or lower crime reduces policing, or there is no causal relationship and they "just happen" to be correlated?
The answer, of course, is that they are correlated, but it doesn't "just happen". Greater needs -- largely due to social problems beyond the control of the schools or police -- lead to greater effort and expense, whether in education or law enforcement.
I'm sure most Utah teachers (and school administrators, but you might not believe them) would say that more funding would result in better education in their state.
Posted by: Bruce on January 27, 2009 09:48 AMBecause it was the subject of your post? (Read your headline.)
I'm sure most Utah teachers (and school administrators, but you might not believe them) would say that more funding would result in better education in their state.
Of course they are wrong. More funding NEVER results in better education.
Posted by: pudge on January 27, 2009 09:51 AMBecause it was the subject of your post?
No, it wasn't. The subject of my post had nothing remotely to do with who agrees with me.
Really.
Again: it is what you DO that matters, not what money you HAVE. Simply adding more money does not DO anything.
Posted by: pudge on January 27, 2009 12:39 PMWhat specifically are you referring to that is irrelevant? You're wrong, but you need to explain yourself better so I can point out how.
More funding might translate into paying for a tutor for a struggling student as an example - more funding translating into a better education result.
I trust you don't have kids, because you might know this, because where I had a child struggling in a subject, more funding (i.e. mine) paid for a tutor that translated into a better education in that particular subject.
I understand you're more interested at times in semantic games, such as now, but is that really worth marginalizing your opinions?
Posted by: BA on January 27, 2009 09:33 PMMore funding might translate into ...
You are not reading what I wrote. Let me try again: it is what you DO that matters, not what money you HAVE. Simply adding more money does not DO anything.
No, more money DOES NOT result in better education.
I understand you're more interested at times in semantic games ...
There's no game, and it is not mere semantics. The stupidest thing people do is to focus on the money. The money is irrelevant. Focus on what needs getting done, and then find out how to get it done.
Sometimes, yes, more money is required. But putting the money first is completely wrongheaded.
I trust you don't have kids, because if you did, you would know this.
Simple sentence, plain language.
Now you're saying "You are not reading what I wrote".
You wrote it, I read it, and I disagreed But then, so you do. Because now you're saying "Sometimes, yes, more money is required".
What I didn't say, instead what you're making up, is anything about "putting money first".
Good to see we agree...though agreeing with you might makes me suspicious that the conclusion is therefore wrong.
It's interesting to me that you can be so contradictory and sloppy with your written language - that's usually done in a verbal conversation where it's easier to deny what you've just said because there isn't a record.
Do I have kid's? Read the posts.
Posted by: BA on January 28, 2009 07:03 AMSimple sentence, plain language.
Exactly.
Now you're saying "You are not reading what I wrote".
Right, because you incorrectly read something other than what I wrote, something along the lines of "more funding NEVER provides opportunities for better education," rather than what I actually wrote, which was "more funding NEVER results in better education."
What I didn't say, instead what you're making up, is anything about "putting money first".
I never said you said that. I said you DID that. And that is how it appears: you keep harping on the money supposedly needed, instead of the functions actually needed. That is putting money first.
It's interesting to me that you can be so contradictory and sloppy with your written language
It's interesting to me that you can blame me for your poor reading skills.
Do I have kid's? (sic.) Read the posts.
Hey, if you can make idiotic assumptions based on illogical assertions, I figured I was allowed to do that too.
How are you reaching any of these conclusions?
Where did I "harp" once about more money being needed? I didn't say that, your assumption that I might think that is unsupported (let alone untrue).
You can do what ever you like, including denying you wrote what you wrote.
"Right, because you incorrectly read something other than what I wrote, something along the lines of "more funding NEVER provides opportunities for better education," rather than what I actually wrote, which was "more funding NEVER results in better education."
Priceless.
Posted by: BA on January 28, 2009 01:48 PMAre you mixing up what I've written with someone else?
Nope.
Where did I "harp" once about more money being needed?
Where you said, "['it is what you DO that matters, not what money you HAVE' is] wrong too." You were explicitly putting the focus on the money, instead of what is DONE with the money.
You can do what ever you like, including denying you wrote what you wrote.
I never did that, of course.
Priceless.
Why are you saying it is priceless that you were attacking something I didn't say?
Posted by: pudge on January 28, 2009 01:55 PM