Who Should Be Funding Schools, Again?

A quote from Ron Paul, of all people:

“You always wonder why your kid comes home from school and they say, ‘Mom, we need to raise money for pencils and computers and pens and paper.’ You wonder…”

As the Legislature grapples with how they will “fund” schools for the next two years, I’m led to wonder about this very idea. It used to be that students raised money to go on band trips or tours of Europe with the French class. Then came athletics, of all things. Being approached by a football player for money was a surprise to me. My hometown has a popular football team, with full stands every night of the “Friday Night Lights” season. Why would such a popular program need more money than the huge amount they must be generating?

Now my own children come home excited about the latest fundraiser for their elementary school. If they sell enough magazines…or candy…or decorative items, they get some plastic toy or something that will get caught in our vacuum cleaner. Parents are put in a tough position, wondering how polite it is to ask friends and family to buy over-priced items to fund schools.

I read conservative policy paper after conservative policy paper. They see this situation as an “opportunity.” A new bill filed in the Texas House would create the Center for Financial Accountability and Productivity in Public Education. This will consist of a grand total of three people, who will have whatever funding is necessary, and they will report which schools (if any) are acting in a fiscally responsible manner. The bill states, “A board member may not be a member of the board of trustees or an employee of a school district.”

It also says, “The center shall represent business, finance, public policy, education, and other interests considered appropriate by the center.”

Really? Then why isn’t an actual teacher (or even a school board member) allowed on this committee? We really need business leaders to tell us how to run districts in a fiscally sound manner?

Here’s a commentary on why schools are not businesses:

 http://www.eschoolnews.com/2011/02/15/viewpoint-why-education-is-not-like-business/

Businesses use human capital to produce products and services. Schools use human capital to create…human capital. This comparison has never made sense. The further a state or district heads down the “schools as businesses” model, the worse-off they find themselves.

And you begin to wonder how much worse it can get. Right now, Texas is actually using child labor to fund its schools.

Where Is Their Accountability?

In recent years, major corporations (usually through foundations) toy with public education. They have “great ideas” that they shop to school boards looking to find new revenue to keep their schools afloat. The problem is that nobody seems to hold these foundations accountable. With enough money, you don’t have to actually face scrutiny.

Consider a recent conference held by the Texas High School Project. The THSP gets a fair amount of funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, as well as many philanthropic groups from around the state and the nation. On the first night, they held a moderated panel on funding effectiveness.

 The first panelist was Stephanie Sanford, a national representative of the Gates Foundation. Her presentation was based on the recent Gates Foundation's Measures of Effective Teaching..."study." She gave a short PowerPoint presentation of the survey’s findings. Like several of the slides, the numbers showed things that any reasonable person would dispute. She even began some of her points with phrases like, “You’d think the opposite would be true, but…”  In one example, she showed “proof” that after five years, teachers don’t get any better—or worse. Not at all. The line was completely flat for almost twenty years. Of course, that’s based on test scores, but it doesn’t matter. The idea that a teacher can go 19 years without learning anything is ludicrous.

 It’s deeper than that, though. The National Education Policy Center had Jesse Rothstein read that same document. He is former chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor and a former senior economist for the Council of Economic Advisers. He found the Gates report to be based as ridiculous as I found Ms. Sanford’s comments. I’ve never seen such a condemnation of someone’s research. Here is the review’s subtitle:

'Measures of Effective Teaching' report is based on flawed research, unsupported data and predetermined conclusions, review shows

I’ve worked in academic research for over a decade, and I’ve never read or seen such a review. The MET report made the reviewer (and the Center) so disgusted that they called the actual motives of the study into question. Not data analysis. Not an important set of data that was ignored. Not shoddy workmanship.

“Predetermined conclusions.”

Here is one screaming example:

The MET report's data suggest that teachers whose students have low math scores rank among the best at teaching "deeper" concepts. Yet the MET report draws the conclusion that teachers whose students score highly on standardized math tests "tend to promote deeper conceptual understanding as well.”

 This review was never brought up after she presented, and I didn’t get to ask any question on it. The other two members of the panel were Representative Rob Eissler (the chair of the Texas House of Representatives Public Education Committee) and Jesús Chávez, the superintendent of Round Rock ISD. They engaged in a heated discussion, and most questions were directed at the two of them.

Nobody held Ms. Sanford accountable, and nobody holds the Gates Foundation accountable. With 50 million public school children’s education on the line, somebody should.