PolicyBlog has moved!

Thank you for visiting, PolicyBlog has a new address.

Our new location is http://www.commonwealthfoundation.org/policyblog

Please adjust your bookmarks. Archived posts will remain here for now.

Thanks




Showing posts with label Education Fact Checks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Education Fact Checks. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Fact-Checking Gov. Rendell and Bill Cosby

This afternoon. Gov. Ed Rendell, school superintendents, and Bill Cosby held a press conference on improvement in Pennsylvania test scores, and calling for funding increases. Unfortunately, they got a number of facts wrong:
  • I hate correcting the venerable Dr. Cosby, nonetheless, his statement that we spend "only $4,000 to educate children" underestimates actual spending by Pennsylvania school districts by 70%. The average per-pupil spending is actually over $13,000. Normally, I might let this factual error go...but polls show many people underestimate what we spend on education, and when they have the facts correct, their support for spending increases wanes. Perhaps Bill Cosby is among those, and had he realized what Pennsylvania is really spending, would not in Harrisburg advocating for more.
  • In response to a question - perhaps predicated on our noting that school districts have 2.4 billion in reserve balances, the superintendent of Otto-Eldred school district made the claim that school districts can only keep a max 12% reserve - this is factually incorrect. The limit only applies for schools when issuing new debt. In fact, at the end of the 2007-08 school year, 237 school districts - more than half - had fund balances greater than 12%, including the Otto-Eldred district, which has $2 million in reserves or 21% of their spending.
I was also disappointed in the lack of mention of the role of parents in education. In fact, the superintendent who spoke , after mentioning Bill Cosby's book Fatherhood, told the students in the attendance that there were "Two role models...teachers...and celebrities like Mr. Cosby." While I have the utmost respect for both teachers and Bill Cosby, failing to mention parents (which I have to say I was fully expecting) seemed odd. But it was consistent with the lack of discussion of parental choice in education which is a huge part of Pennsylvania's test score improvement.

Friday, July 31, 2009

How States Can "Race to the Top" on Education Performance

The Wall Street Journal has an excellent editorial on education funding and performance, as well as the unions' take on the "race to the top" initiative:

All of this is on top of the education spending boom during the Bush years to pay for the 2001 No Child Left Behind law. Democrats liked to claim that law was “underfunded,” but the reality is that inflation-adjusted Education Department elementary and secondary spending under President Bush grew to $37.9 billion from $28.3 billion, or 34%. NCLB-specific funding rose by more than 40% between 2001 and 2008.

It’s also worth noting that the U.S. has been trying without much success to spend its way to education excellence for decades. Between 1970 and 2004, per-pupil outlays more than doubled in real terms, and the federal portion of that spending nearly tripled. Yet reading scores on national standardized tests have remained relatively flat. Black and Hispanic students are doing better, but they continue to lag far behind white students in both test scores and graduation rates.  ...

Charter schools and voucher programs regularly produce better educational outcomes with less money. But as long as most education spending goes to support the status quo, Race to the Top will be mostly a case of political show and tell.

This is the same issue we are facing at the state level, where Gov. Rendell, Pennsylvania House Democrats, and the PSEA insist that the $28.2 billion available to school districts (including $2.4 billion they have been given but haven't spent) isn't enough, but $600 million more will solve all their problems. All the while, Rendell and his allies continue to back the status quo in education to carry the teachers' union agenda, while opposing greater school choice or removing costly mandate like prevailing wage laws, as we discuss in a recent commentary "Who's For the Children?"

Friday, July 17, 2009

PA School Districts Have $2.4 Billion in Reserves

New data from the Pennsylvania Department of Education (released last week) show that school districts across the state have a combined $2.4 billion in General Fund reserves as of the end of 2007-08 school year.

I raise this fact because during yesterday's budget debate, House Democrats claimed that spending "only" $5.2 billion on basic education grants was evil and mean, but spending $5.5 billion on the same line item was "for the kids."  Yet this $300 million dollar difference is one-eighth the level of money schools have but are not spending on the kids.

Furthermore, Rendell administration continues to claim that property taxes will go up if we don't spend more state dollars (and raise state taxes) on schools.  This is just further evidence that Rendell's claims are false - first because schools have already set property taxes for next year and can't be changed, so the state budget will have no impact on property tax rates - but also because schools have more than enough funding:

Property Taxes: est. $11.6 Billion
Other Local Taxes: est. $2.7 Billion
State Aid Under SB 850: $9.7 Billion
Federal Stimulus Funding to Schools: $720 Million
Federal Aid (non-Stimulus):  est. $900 million
Other Funding: est $200 million
School Districts' Budget Reserves: $2.4 Billion
TOTAL: $28.2 Billion

Is $28.2 billion not enough to fund school districts?  If I suggest $28 billion is enough, does that mean I hate children?

How much money do schools really need, when they aren't spending what they already have?  Must the answer always be "more"? 

Monday, July 13, 2009

Rendell Administration Continues to Lie on Education Funding

Pennsylvania Education Secretary Gerald Zahorchak continues the administration's scare tactics and ininaccurate propaganda claiming that the $27.3 billion PA House budget would force schools to increase property taxes and children would stop learning.

We have already debunked this rhetoric with facts:

What is new to the debate is this - and school boards are well aware of it, even though Zahorchak sent his latest tale of macabre to all school board members - school districts have already set property taxes for the coming year.  Unlike the state, they passed their budgets on time, and set tax rates.  Many did so based on the expectation of aid under SB 850.

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

More Dollars is Not Producing More Scholars

A new report from the Math Science Partnership of Greater Philadelphia on Pennsylvania school performance (specifically the 11th grade PSSAs) across school districts finds that:

  • Demographic factors (residents with bachelor's degrees, percentage of minority students, percentage of low-income students) are correlated with academic performance.
  • Instructional expenditures per-pupil was not significantly correlated with academic performance.
  • Total spending per-pupil was negatively related to academic performance.
These latter two findings might shock the Rendell Administration - or at least undermine their rhetoric - as they continue to make claims that higher taxes will improve student learning.  But we've noted this trend on many occassions.

In questioning the "costing out study", we remarked on the failure both of high spending districts and of dramatic school spending increases to improve performance. A recent ALEC report finds a similar lack of effect on spending and performance at the state level. And in Edifice Complex, we examined the lack of link between performance and spending, and noting that the way school districts spend money - increasingly on buildings - was certainly one reason for the failure of more dollars to produce more scholars. 

But that is not to say performance is solely defined by demographics.  Indeed, as Matt Brouillette and Andy Lefevre point out, where Pennsylvania has shown improvement, it is largely due to increases in choices for parents and students.  Other recent studies show that vouchers in Milwaukee and Washington DC have improved student learning, and a number of studies show that public schools improve with choice.

And perhaps most importantly, in constrast to Governor Rendell's spend more, get less agenda, schools of choice costs less than traditional public schools.

Friday, June 12, 2009

Fact Check: The Costing-Out Study

Today the Governor wraps up his "Tax You More Tour" with Matt Brouillette following stride for stride. Meanwhile, we're debunking another spending myth: The Costing-Out Study proves school districts need more funding. This study was directed largely by the education establishment, and the firm hired to do the study has produced “costing-out” or “adequacy” studies for other states. Every study conducted by this firm reached the same conclusion, states need to spend more than they currently do, typically 20 to 40% more!

The report itself shows that districts such Wilkinsburg, Duquesne, and Pittsburgh were already spending more than the researchers determined should be necessary to achieve 100 percent proficiency scores. Yet these school’s performances were among the worst in the state.

  • During the 1980-81 school year, average per-pupil spending in Pennsylvania was $2,842.
  • During the 2007-08 school year, the average per-pupil spending had jumped to $13,183 – a 364 percent increase in just 25 years.
  • Inflation over the same period was only 141 percent.

This dramatic increase in spending has not improved academic performance. Likewise, spending differences between districts do not explain academic achievement differences, and spending across districts correlates very weakly—when it even correlates—with measures of academic performance. If more spending was the answer, Pennsylvania schools would be among the top performers in the nation. In reality, no amount of funding, whether from the stimulus or the much touted "race to the top" funds, will improve academic achievement in our broken education system.

Budget Facts 2009: State Education Spending (click here for a printable version)

Voters Want More School Funding - Until They Get the Facts

For followers of the Rendell "Tax You More Bus Tour" and the debate on education funding, I would recommend checking out this analysis from Education Next

The authors analyze polling, which indicates public support for increasing public education spending and teacher salaries. But they also find that those surveyed believe, on average, that public schools spend $2,000 per-pupil, rather than over $10,000, and underestimate teacher salaries by about 30% (or $14,000).

When told of the actual levels of education spending, support for increases declines.

Thursday, June 11, 2009

Public Schools' Edifice Complex

John Micek and I (@NathanBenefield) had a little discussion via Twitter over the cost of public school buildings. John wonders what is wrong with having nice school buildings - such as one with an huge skylit atrium - which is hard to answer unless you discuss the costs of those buildings to taxpayers, and how much is taken out of the classroom to satisfy the edifice complex of school administrators.

If John had read yesterday's Fact Check, he would note that construction and debt is by far the fastest growing expenditure for school districts. We have updated those numbers - construction and debt spending grew 137% from 1996-97 to 2007-08, compared with 66% growth in instructional spending.



Had he paid close attention to our report, Edifice Complex: Where Has All the Money Gone, he would have noted the more disturbing trend that school districts which receive more funding per-pupil spend a higher share of their funds on buildings, and less on instructional costs. What we wrote then was:

It is hard to blame school boards and school superintendents for focusing on buildings and grounds. After all, it is easier (and more costly) to put up new walls or stadia than to improve teaching or stop bullying. Better buildings and grounds make school superintendents feel useful. Getting such projects approved may earn one a reputation as a "can-do" leader suitable to run a larger or more prestigious school district. New buildings may even serve as symbols of the local public schools. Local Home and School Associations, and even supposedly hard-headed business leaders, may succumb to a kind of "palace envy" when neighboring school districts sport fancy buildings. Yet bricks and mortar cannot teach children—teachers and instructional materials do.
John may wish to rebut me and claim that fantastic schools do improve learning. I welcome that. But I would note that what prompted this discussion was claims during Gov. Rendell's "Tax You More Bus Tour" that - with a mere 11.7% increase in support to school districts - that students would not have book or pencils sharpeners, not that they couldn't connect their musical keyboards to computers, as they are in Kennard-Dale High School.

I think that debating school funding with those facts sheds a very different light on things.

And just to emphasize the point, here are some Edifice Complex stories:

Fact Check: School Choice Saves

As the "Tax You More" lobbying tour continues its journey Matt Brouillette continues to offer the real facts on state education spending. Today's education fact focusing on how school choice saves taxpayer money and provides quality education.


The $75 million Educational Improvement Tax Credit (EITC) is currently a 75-90% tax credit for businesses that contribute to a non-profit scholarship or educational improvement organization.
  • The EITC provides $44.7 million in K-12 scholarships for low-moderate income families, $8 million in pre-K scholarships, and $22.3 million for aid to “innovative” educational initiatives.
    • In the current school year, 44,000 students are receiving EITC Scholarships.
    • Since 2001, 244,038 students benefited from a better or safer school through the EITC.
  • The EITC saved taxpayers over $500 million in the 2007-2008 school year alone.
    • The average EITC Scholarship is $1,100, compared with average school district spending of $13,300 per-pupil n 2007-08.
    • If the EITC were to be cut and scholarship opportunities reduced, many students would be forced backinto high-cost public schools, resulting in higher property taxes.
Taxpayers saved approximately $3.622 billion from other school choice options in the 2007-08 school year.
  • Charter schools saved taxpayers $80.03 million in the 2007-08 school year. 45,560 students were served at an average savings of $2,589 per student.
  • Cyber charter schools saved taxpayers $94.14 million in the 2007-08 school year. 19,715 students were served at an average savings of $4,775 per student.
  • Private and nonpublic schools saved taxpayers $3.15 billion in the 2007-08 school year. 260,000 students were served, with an average savings to taxpayers of over $12,000 per-pupil.
  • Home schooling saved taxpayers $297.5 million in the 2007-08 school year. 22,316 students were served at virtually no cost to the taxpayers.
Budget Facts 2009: State Education Spending (click here for a printable version)

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Fact Check: Pennsylvania State and Local Education Spending

Today the Pennsylvania Department of Education is on day 3 of their "Tax You More" bus tour. While the administration continues their taxpayer funded lobbying effort, Commonwealth Foundation President Matt Brouillette is following along, offering some fact checking on education spending.

Here are some more facts on education spending:

  • The state share of education funding has always been less than half of school district spending.
    • Until 1983, a state law dictated that the Commonwealth should provide 50% of K-12 funding. This mandate was never fully fulfilled because of consistent increases in local district spending.
    • The state's share of education funding peaked in the 1971-72 school year at 45%.
  • The state's share has diminished not because of reduced spending (far from it) but due to sharper increases in spending and property taxes by local districts.

Much of this additional spending has been funneled to school construction, an area of spending not linked to performance. From 1996-97 to 2005-06, overall public school spending increased a startling 103% on construction and debt. Furthermore, schools that receive more money per pupil spend a greater share on facilities - indicating many school officials have an "edifice complex".

More Info:

Budget Facts 2009: State Education Spending (click here for a printable version)

Tuesday, June 09, 2009

Fact Check: PA Cannot Spend Its Way to Educational Success

Today the Pennsylvania Department of Education begins day 2 of their "Tax You More" bus tour. Education officials continue to call for more spending when in reality we've been increasing education spending for over 25 years with no gains in student achievement.

Here's the facts:

K-12 Public Education spending has skyrocketed:

  • Since 1970, public school spending increased from $2.3 billion to $24 billion—a 956% increase.
  • Over the past 25 years, per-pupil spending has increased 364% (vs. inflation of 141%).
  • Under Gov. Rendell, state spending on K-12 education has increased 43%.
K-12 Public Education performance has stagnated:
  • The average combined verbal and math SAT scores of Pennsylvania students has dropped from 1,000 in 1986 to 995 in 2008—even among “high participation rate” states, PA ranks among the worst performing.
  • A Rigorous academic studies have found little or no correlation between student achievement and class size, teacher salaries, or per-pupil expenditures.
Here's footage from yesterday's tour:


More Info:

Budget Facts 2009: State Education Spending (click here for a printable version)

Monday, June 08, 2009

Bonus Fact Check: Government Preschool

One point that has been raised during the Rendell administration's taxpayer funding lobbying campaign for higher taxes was the benefits of the Pre-K Counts programs.

On this, we have no quibble with the facts being presented - that is, student enrolled in preschool perform well in Kindergarten, and even in 1st Grade. 

Of course, Rendell's cheerleading team doesn't note that positive effects of preschool fade over time, generally disappearing after 3rd grade.  Preschool fails to offer long-term academic benefits, and states with universal preschool haven't improved academically.

Nor do they note that preschool has historically been provided privately, and instead of supporting additional choices for parents, state programs tend to crowd out private providers.

Fact Check: K-12 Education Support Increase Under SB 850

While the Rendell administration is burning your tax dollars funding a bus tour across Pennsylvania to ask for more education spending (and the higher taxes needed to pay for it), the Commonwealth Foundation will be checking the facts.

Here are some things to note about education subsidies under the budget passed by the Pennsylvania Senate

  • Under Senate Bill 850, Pennsylvania school districts will receive an average 11.7% increase in Basic and Special Education funding over 2008-09 levels through federal and state sources.
    • State Basic and Special Education funding = $6.2 billion
    • 2009-10 federal stimulus funds directly to school districts = $720 million
  • This increase in funding support across the state will range from 3.1% to 32.8% per school district under the new budget.

More Info:

Budget Facts 2009: State Education Spending (click here for a printable version)

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

PA School Districts to Get 12% Increase in Support

Despite all the whining about budget cuts from the Rendell Administration (even though Rendell demanded there be "no whining"), Pennsylvania school districts are set to get substantially more support, when state aid - being held constant when including the state budget stabilization money from the federal stimulus - is added to the stimulus money going directly to school districts.

According to the table put together by House Republicans from PDE data, school districts will get an average 11.7% increase, with a range of 3.1% to 32.8%, under SB 850 versus last year's state aid.

Will an 11.7% increase "threaten to undermine the progress we have made in public education," as spendthrifts claim?

PA School District Aid Under SB 850

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Fact Check: PA Education Spending

A myth floating around Harrisburg is that the state government used to fund 50% of K-12 education, and has reduced support since then. This was most recently stated by a candidate in the special election to fill the 29th PA Senate seat, but I don't really blame him, as Gov. Rendell, Dan Onorato, the PSBA, and the PSEA repeat the same myth.

The fact is there was a law up until 1983 that the state should provide 50% of the funding, but in practice they never did - largely because school districts kept increasing spending. The state share of education has never been 50% (at least, going as far back as 1968). It peaked at 45% in 1971-72.

That the state share has slipped slightly in recent years is not because of a decline in state funding, but because of out-of-control spending and tax hikes by local government. Under Rendell, state K-12 subsidies (excluding the gambling money for property tax relief) increased 33% through last year, but local revenues increased 45%. Since 1983, state spending has increased 286% (79% after adjusting for inflation), but has been surpassed by local spending, which increased by 347% (109% in inflation-adjusted dollars).

The idea of setting a goal of 50% state funding is naïve and simple-minded. Setting a goal that state government has to increase education spending at a faster rate than local government is a perverse incentive – it encourage districts to dramatically increase spending to get even more from the state. If the Commonwealth Foundation were to set a policy of paying half my rent, I would just get a much bigger apartment.

The only way to get to a state share of 50% of funding would be to curtail local spending and taxes. We could achieve "funding equity" right now, if we cut local property taxes by 25% or so.

Monday, February 23, 2009

Report Card on American Education: A State-by-State Analysis

The American Legislative Exchange Council has released their annual Report Card on American Education. The report is filled with education data - spending, inputs, academic performance - with a profile for each state, followed by 50-state tables for specific data.

Extremely insightful is their analysis of the correlation between inputs and outcomes:

Surprisingly, the data show that academic achievement cannot be accounted for by any of the measures of public investment used in this study (pupil-teacher ratio, per pupil expenditures, teacher salaries, and funds received from the federal government),either singly or as a blend. This conclusion is borne out when variations in average SAT scores per state are tracked over the past two decades alongside changes in these measures of public investment. If anything, this statistical analysis demonstrates a positive, but weak, relationship between student success and percentage of federal funding, and pupil-teacher ratio – yet not in the manner one would anticipate. The information shows that higher student scores on standardized tests correlate mildly with more pupils per teacher and less federal involvement with public school budgets.

If infusing more money into school budgets, providing higher teacher salaries, reducing pupil-teacher ratios and spending more federal dollars to bail out public schools has not led to student achievement in the past, how can it be expected to do so in the future? Dogged perpetuation of failed policies wastes public dollars; worse, it further delays the implementation of valuable new approaches to help American students succeed.

Thursday, February 05, 2009

The School District Consolidation Myth

As part of his budget, Governor Rendell proposed creating a commission on consolidating PA school districts (and it turns out, he may intend to do so even if the legislature does not agree to a plan).  What Rendell seems to have forgotten - but the Allentown Morning Call has remembered -  is that the legislature commissioned a study on that issue a mere two years ago.  That report concluded that there were only 88 districts ripe for consolidation, into 34 districts, a reduction of 54 districts - a far cry from Governor Rendell's dream of consolidating 500 districts into 100.

What the Morning Call does not mention is the reason the report focuses on districts with an enrollment below 3,000: because districts above that size spent much more per pupil.  Thus, consolidating districts into larger districts would reduce efficiency and increase costs to taxpayers.  We reached the same conclusion in our cursory look at school spending.

Fred Baldwin also took on this myth on SchoolBoardTransparency, writing;

But the notion that creating larger administrative units will significantly reduce the actual number of administrators runs counter to experience.  It won’t help that some superintendents becomes “assistant superintendents” if everybody involved expects raises.

Rhone addresses the single largest school cost item (about half of every district  budget) in one sentence:  “Teacher compensation and benefits would be standardized over the county.”  That sentence undercuts his main thesis.  Does anyone believe that salaries will be “standardized” at any level lower than the highest then prevailing in the county?
Suppose, for the sake of the argument, that hoped-for administrative cost savings materialize — say, at 20% of current cost levels.  (Higher savings are easy to imagine and describe in detail, but so are unicorns.)  That would be 20% of about 10% of most budgets – or 2% of a district’s total budget.  Good, but I’d guess that “standardization” would also boost average instructional staff salaries and benefits by at least 5%.

As a stand-alone change, school district consolidation is unlikely to save taxpayers.

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Some More "half" Truths on the PSEA

The Tribune-Democrat features an editorial by a PSEA member in which he calls Matt Brouillette's commentary "a hodgepodge of distortions, half-truths and unadulterated flapdoodle". I have no idea what flapdoodle is, but it is ironic how many "half-truths" the writer uses in his own editorial.

  • "It is the law and not the PSEA, which compels teachers to pay a fee to the union. Except the PSEA pressures school districts to collect these fees, and it is quite clear how active the PSEA is fighting any changes to this law.
  • "Is it Brouillette’s contention that each individual, bargaining for himself or herself, could achieve a fair and equitable contract?" Of course - 89% of Pennsylvania private sector employees do, as they are not represented by unions. And 22 states grant teachers and all workers the "right to work," making union fees an option. It has been noted that these states have faster economic growth, comparable teacher pay, and similar or better academic results.
  • The PSEA lobbies for ... The author lists a number of things (taxpayer funded preschool, more spending, smaller classes) that - although they won't lead to improvements in our schools - appear to be "for the kids". He doesn't mention that the PSEA lobbies against parental choice, against funding for cyber schools, for limiting charter schools, against limits on teacher strikes - thing which benefit students, but not the PSEA.
  • In 1977, the state’s contribution to your school district’s budget was 54 percent. That is completely incorrect; the local share was 54% in 1977, vs. 40% from the state. More importantly, the small increase in the local share (now 60%) is not due to state or federal cuts. As our Policy Brief on the PSEA highlights, over the past 20 years state spending on public schools in PA increased 56%, and federal spending increased 110%, after adjusting for inflation. However, local spending has increased 92% (resulting in a 89% increase in property taxes) in inflation-adjusted dollars, all at time when enrollment has been stagnant.
  • Not one dollar of PSEA dues is given to a candidate for public office. It is true that union dues cannot be contributed directly to a candidate's campaign, but unions can (and do) use dues to endorse candidates, run newspaper and radio ads in support of them, "get out the vote" for candidates, and send mailers supporting candidates. In fact, I event got such a mailer from the PSEA supporting Obama/Biden, which I scanned and posted on this very blog.
How about that for flapdoodle?