Apples to Apples

There seems to be little disagreement in America that urban public schools are in trouble. Test scores are dropping, students are dropping out, and a general sense of hopelessness seems to be pervading the system. You won’t find a candidate for public office who isn’t decrying the state of the schools, and saying that by God, something has to be done about it. The question is, what needs to be done, and do we have the will to do it?

Let me get my biases out in the open on this one. I definitely lean to the left of the political spectrum, I live in the city of Philadelphia, and I am working on a degree and teaching at a public university. I also, somewhat paradoxically, spent sixteen years in private schools before I got here. That said, I am convinced that the argument I’m about to make is as well-supported by facts as it is unpopular in certain circles. We, as a society, are failing the public school system, and we will continue to fail it until we change the way education is paid for in this country.

Conservatives argue that the problem with public education is not the money spent, but a lack of high standards, no local accountability, and the monopoly status enjoyed by public schools. There is no link, they say, between the amount of money spent per student and student performance, nor between teacher salary and performance, nor between average class size and performance. They argue that these issues, often raised by teachers’ unions, urban mayors and school superintendents, and liberal politicians, are merely excuses for the waste, laziness, and mediocrity that have made the situation as bad as it is today. In a briefing book published during the 1996 presidential campaign, Daniel Doyle of the Heritage Foundation wrote:

None of the ten top-performing states in terms of student achievement ranked among the top ten in per-pupil education spending in 1993-1994; most spent less than the national average per pupil. In addition, none of these states ranked among the top ten in average teacher salaries last year (eight actually paid less than the national average); nine held per-pupil spending increases below the national average during the last 11 years; and seven did so during the preceding 21 years as well.

Iowa scored first in SAT [Scholastic Assessment Test] scores and tied for first on the NAEP [National Assessment of Educational Progress] test, yet its spending per pupil was below the national average; Utah spent the least per pupil, yet scored second on the SAT and eighth on the NAEP test; and North Dakota ranked 36th in spending but tied for first on the NAEP test and scored fourth on the SAT.

By contrast, New Jersey spent the highest amount per pupil and scored 37th on the SAT and 14th on the 1992 NAEP test; the District of Columbia ranked second in spending per pupil and scored 49th on the SAT and 42nd out of 42 states on the NAEP test; and ninth-ranked Rhode Island scored 43rd on the SAT and 23rd on the NAEP test. (Doyle, Chapter 9)

At first glance, these statistics might seem convincing. The error, in my view, is that Doyle is using state averages to make his comparisons, and such a comparison is simply unfair. Look at the three states that had the best performance, according to Doyle: Iowa, Utah, and North Dakota. Does it seem reasonable to assume that these states are facing the same challenges as a state such as New Jersey, which has a number of urban districts including Camden and Newark, or an area like the District of Columbia? The cost of living and doing business in those areas is much higher than in more predominantly rural states, so right away New Jersey is getting less bang for its buck. Furthermore, lower-income districts with older school infrastructure face greater challenges in modernizing their equipment, and many of these districts are in higher-crime areas that require greater security expenditures. So these states have to do more with dollars that are worth less – no wonder their spending doesn’t return the same level of performance.

To try and get a more accurate picture of education spending, I compiled some statistics from the Philadelphia Inquirer’s 1998 Report Card on the Schools, which can be searched from their website. I collected information on the School District of Philadelphia and 16 suburban districts from Bucks and Montgomery County, which are north of the city, for the 1997-98 school year, as reported by each district. I have sorted the following table according to per-student expenditures:

Admittedly, there is no clear link between per-student expenditures and student performance, although I would point out that the top three spending districts also have the top three average SAT scores. Unfortunately, Philadelphia does not report its average SAT score as a district, instead reporting the score for each individual high school in the district. Some, such as the district’s college prep school Central High, report average scores around 1100. Many others report scores much lower, around 700 or 800. I think it is probably safe to assume that the district’s average is lower than any of the suburban districts; that is certainly the charge that would be made by its critics. Looking at this chart, however, should that be any kind of surprise? Philadelphia, which has some of the oldest schools in the area, which has some of the poorest students in the area, which has many of the higher-crime sections in the area, spends more than a thousand dollars less per student than the next lowest spender, and almost half what top spender Jenkintown spends. Does it seem reasonable to hold Philadelphia to the same standards as Jenkintown or Council Rock, or even Pennsbury?

Also, take a look at the starting teacher salaries. If you were a very good teacher, with full certification, great academic credentials, good student teaching experience, and the right attitude toward the challenges of education, and you were in demand by several districts, where would you want to work? Philadelphia, where (because of your lack of seniority) you would be sent to the most difficult, most challenging working environments in the city, you would have to pay for some of your own supplies and textbooks, your starting salary would be thousands of dollars less than it might be in a suburban district and where your future earning potential would be less than it would be in the suburbs? Or would you be applying to Council Rock, Lower Moreland and Abington? So in addition to the fact that Philadelphia does not have the resources to deal with its greater challenges, it can not attract the top candidates in the area to try to meet those challenges. Again, I ask, how is this fair? How can we expect urban schools to meet high standards when we do not give them the resources to do so?

What about the lack of local control and accountability, wasteful management, monopoly status, and all of the other explanations for public school failures? Well, it stands to reason that those problems would be faced by suburban public school districts as well as urban districts, and statistics tend to bear this conclusion out. According to the Inquirer’s database, all of these districts, including Philadelphia, spend roughly two thirds of their budget on instruction. So Philadelphia is no more or less wasteful than Council Rock, Jenkintown, or Lower Moreland. Yet no one spends much time discussing the crisis in public education at Council Rock. Indeed, the Heritage Foundation, in making the case that public school teachers recognize the problems of public schools and therefore send their own children to private schools, makes the point that this phenomenon occurs primarily in cities:

[A previous] study, drawn from the 5 percent household sample of the 1990 Census, shows that, taken together, public and private school teachers nationwide are only slightly more likely than the general public to choose private schools (17.1 percent to 13.1 percent). In America’s most troubled cities, however, the results are quite different:

In troubled cities, public school teachers are two to three times more likely than the general public to use private schools. For example, in Washington, D.C., 25.7 percent of public school teachers who make less than $35,000 send their children to private school. This is more than double the national average; among public school teachers nationwide, 11.9 percent enroll some or all of their children in private school. The trend continues in cities like Boston (24.4 percent), New York (21.4 percent), Miami (35.4 percent), and Los Angeles (18.9 percent). (Doyle)

I am not saying that there is nothing to be gained by reforming the way we administer public education. There may be greater efficiencies to be had, or better ways to produce results. I am all for such attempts. However, I would argue that until the fundamental disparity in resources between urban and suburban school districts is rectified, the reform movements advocated by conservatives are the equivalent of a band aid on a bullet wound. To truly solve this problem, we are going to have to face up to the inequities of the current system and make the sacrifices necessary to correct them. What form those sacrifices may entail will be the topic of the next update’s Public Policy story.

About Dave Thomer

Born and raised in Philadelphia. Studied philosophy at Fordham University in the Bronx, where I made many great friends and met my wonderful wife. We moved back to Philadelphia, where I studied philosophy some more and became a teacher. Online and off, I'm looking for ways that we can be better citizens and build stronger communities.

November 2, 2000 @ 9:00 pm

Public Policy