September 14, 2000

School funding model won't improve education

This summer I studied Oregon's public educational system and the latest effort to improve it, the Quality Education Model (QEM). The Model is the result of two year's effort by a Legislative Committee that set out to determine how much money is needed to get 90% of students to meet the new state Certificate of Initial Mastery standards. I believe many Oregonians will be surprised by my findings.

Oregonians clearly care a lot about education, devoting about 8 percent more of their personal income to educate each public school pupil than citizens of other states. Real spending per pupil has risen sharply over time; it has more than doubled in real terms in the lifetime of most Oregonians. Oregon teachers earn more than the national average, even though other Oregon workers earn less.

Oregon's considerable investment in schools does not appear to have paid off. While SAT and ACT scores for Oregon students are relatively high, those tests are given to a minority of high school juniors and seniors in most states. On the much more comprehensive National Assessment for Educational Progress, Oregon's scores are close to the national average.

Moreover, Oregon students should do better than other states, because overall their parents are better educated, they are less likely to be from single parent homes, etc. Research clearly shows that these out-of-school factors play a vital role in explaining student performance. Yet a recent Rand Corporation study found that, adjusting for socioeconomic factors favorable to Oregon, school performance in the state is at about the national average.

By some other measures Oregon does quite poorly. As The Oregonian recently reported, "Oregon schools post the worst dropout rate in the Northwest and among the worst in the nation."

Unfortunately, the Quality Education Model largely embraces the status quo, with the exception of calling for even more spending. Specifically, if the Model had been partially or fully implemented this biennium, taxpayers would now be spending between $457 million and $1.15 billion more than the Governor's originally proposed budget.

The Model assumes that a large additional infusion of money will improve school performance despite vast research evidence to the contrary. In fact, the majority of evidence suggests that there is little relationship between expenditures on schools and the amount of learning taking place in them.

At the same time the Model ignores factors that are likely to have a positive impact on learning. For example, in general, more learning occurs where strong principals are able to make decisions independent of the central office. Yet Oregon seems to be taking a Soviet-style centralized approach to reform, assuming "one size fits all," and proscribing such things as "one guidance counselor for every 250 students."

Ironically, even the Russians are contemplating moving to a system that incorporates more parental choice and family responsibility. When I met with President Putin in the Kremlin this April, he was considering public school tuition for those who can pay.

While Oregonians pride themselves on being progressive, the state is a laggard in experimenting with new approaches to learning. At the beginning of the last school year the average state had 32 charter schools-Oregon had one. Oregon is behind the nation in offering school choice through publicly funded scholarships for private education, and in allowing college graduates to teach in public schools without taking nonsensical education courses.

The Model, which claims to speak to Oregon's educational future, does not even discuss alternative approaches to learning. Why? Are the vested educational interests thwarting experimentation? Are Oregonians too conservative to embrace change?

The Oregon Quality Education Model is a highly flawed document. Implementing it without a serious examination of promising alternatives will likely lead to a significant waste of taxpayer resources.