Will the Stimulus Package Help Our Education System?

Eric Hanushek and Alfred Lindseth, authors of the soon-to-be-published book Schoolhouses, Courthouses, and Statehouses, pen their thoughts about whether or not the $800 billion+ federal stimulus plan will actually help our students and education system.


The Educational Stimulus Package
By Eric Hanushek and Alfred Lindseth

The administration and Congress are attempting to quickly hand out money around the country to stimulate the economy and bring us out of the current recession.  Because of its enormous price tag – $800 billion or more – the stimulus plan must be sold to the public as serving worthwhile purposes, and this explains why the education components have received considerable attention.

Whether or not education is stimulated by the new federal money rides almost entirely on the discretionary components of the package.  While over $100 billion is being doled out for education purposes, most of it is unlikely to improve student achievement and may even impede progress toward that critical goal.  The driving force behind the stimulus package seems to be to spend the money quickly, meaning that past spending priorities and patterns will be largely replicated, rather than spending it effectively to meet our educational goals.

There is no doubt that the country badly needs to improve its K-12 schools.  U.S. student achievement trails the average achievement levels for developed countries in reading, math and science. On the latest international science assessment, for example, we lag behind not only Finland, Hong Kong, and Canada, but also Estonia, Hungary, and Poland.  If these trends continue, the U.S. will rapidly lose its competitive edge in the global economy.
Our citizens recognize and can rally around the importance of education for the continuing health of the nation’s economy.  Its importance is a message that has been thoroughly ingrained in and accepted by the American public, and this makes improving our schools a  valuable component of the stimulus package.

The bigger question, however, is whether the stimulus package will truly help improve America’s schools.  Granted that it will pour more money into them, but the structure of the package guarantees that most of the money will be allocated and spent the same way that it has always been spent. Over the past 40 years, we have almost quadrupled our per pupil spending (adjusted for inflation), but student performance remains essentially at the same level as it was in 1970.  We have poured money into compensatory programs for disadvantaged students, into lowering class sizes, and into introducing new programs and technologies.  These enormous expenditures have barely raised a ripple in student achievement according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, commonly referred to as the “Nation’s Report Card.”

The stimulus package largely reinforces the failed policies of the past.  While some of the money will go toward building new schools and may provide jobs for people in the construction industry, the critical part of the stimulus package when it comes to our nation’s future is whether it will be effective in improving the  knowledge and skills of our children.  It is here that the public should be most concerned.

The stimulus package roughly doubles the amounts spent by the federal government for compensatory education (Title 1) and special education.  A large portion of the package will make up for education budget shortfalls in each state, perpetuating other historical policies and practices that have failed to significantly improve student achievement over the last four decades.  Importantly, none of the spending on these programs emphasizes innovation or improvements over current practices.  Moreover, the money will be allocated according to the politically determined patterns of the past with no effort whatsoever to distribute the funds based on demonstrated need.

For example, an especially egregious element is the $100 million addition to the impact aid program.  Impact aid was introduced in 1950 to provide funds in lieu of taxes for schools located near military facilities (which did not pay taxes).  It was later expanded to include aid for Native American schools.  The distribution of funds under this program is, however, not only highly inequitable, but a very inefficient way to support these schools.  For these reasons, virtually every administration since the 1960s has tried to eliminate this program, but now it is being expanded.

This example illustrates our biggest concern – that the stimulus program simply locks in a set of bad policies.  There are a few specific elements of the stimulus package, albeit less than two percent of the total, that explicitly support innovation and improvement.  For example, additional funds are targeted for improved state data systems to enable better decision making.  The package also provides funding for states experimenting with performance pay for teachers, a move in the right direction.  The biggest hope for real progress, however, lies in the roughly five billion dollars of discretionary money provided to the Secretary of Education.  If he uses these funds to encourage and reinforce programs that provide incentives for higher achievement, and states apply for and take advantage of them (not a given by any means in states unwilling to change the traditional way of doing things and spending education dollars), some real progress could be made.  If on the other hand he succumbs to political pressures to maintain the status quo, the highly touted educational component of the stimulus package is unlikely to result in better student outcomes and may actually make truly effective reform even more difficult to achieve.

There is a broad consensus that how we spend money on education is much more important than how much we spend.  If the proposed spending hikes fail to support people and programs that lead to higher achievement, our children will be no better off educationally.  Adults may benefit – at least in the short term – from additional construction jobs and job losses    deferred by the influx of federal dollars, but students will be left essentially in the same position they are now in, with millions unable to master even basic skills.

Eric Hanushek is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University, and Alfred Lindseth is a senior partner of the law firm of  Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan.  Their forthcoming book, Schoolhouses, Courthouses, and Statehouses: Solving the Funding-Achievement Puzzle in America’s  Public Schools, describes how improved school finance policies can be used to meet our achievement goals.

Comments

  1. Persipidus says:

    In my opinion I feel that the package will not change anything unless you get rid of the politics associated with it. The money will go to the people who play the game, not the people or scholl systems that truly need it.

    Just my opinion..

Trackbacks

  1. [...] the feds spend more than $100 billion on the same old education policies, don’t expect anything to change, write Eric Hanushek and Alfred Lindseth on Princeton [...]

  2. [...] pretty apparent that Eric Hanushek and Alfred Lindseth are not stimulated.  But the debate about whether students can be stimulated by rewards goes on. The Times takes a [...]

  3. [...] pretty manifest that Eric Hanushek and king Lindseth are not stimulated.  But the speaking most whether students crapper be stimulated by rewards goes on. The Times takes [...]

  4. [...] Eric Hanushek and Alfred Lindseth discuss their impression of the impact the stimulus package will have on education. our biggest concern – that the stimulus program simply locks in a set of bad policies. [...]