Do we spend enough on education?

Imagine that you are back in 1970 and listening to the U.S. Secretary of Education (that position did not exist in 1970--the word "education" does not appear at all in the U.S. Constitution) speak about the amount of money invested in education. "This country will commit to doubling the total expenditure per pupil in public elementary and secondary schools by the year 2010.” she says. “And when I say double, I mean in dollars adjusted for inflation."

If you heard that, what would you think? The secretary set an unattainable goal? If such a goal were reached, there would more than enough money for public schools? Even if that goal were reached, it would not be enough money?

Fortunately, the National Center for Education Statistics, which is located within the U.S. Department of Education and the Institute of Education Sciences, keeps records on education spending, so we can check out the real figures concerning our fictitious Secretary of Education’s goal. During the 1970-71 school year, the total expenditure per pupil in public elementary and secondary schools was $1,049. If we adjust for inflation, that $1,049 was the equivalent of $5,823 in 2010. If we were to make the Secretary of Education’s goal for the 2010-11 school year, the total expenditure per pupil in public elementary and secondary schools for that year would have to have been $11,646. Did we make it? Not quite, but we were very close. The actual total expenditure per pupil in 2010-11 was $11,153. 

After nearly doubling the total expenditure per pupil since 1970, it would be reasonable to expect that our students are now performing at a higher level than their counterparts during the early 1970s. Unfortunately, that is not the case. “The long-term trend data for the National Assessment of Educational Progress was released today and the news is not good for students in high school,” Education Week reported on April 28, 2009. “Average scores have remained flat for 17-year-olds both in reading and math since the early 1970s, when the assessments were first given.”

In other words, we have nearly doubled our spending on education since 1970, yet we have received absolutely no gain from that investment.

I was thinking of this situation after Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, members of the Kansas National Education Association, and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Paul Davis showed up for a protest in Topeka on May 17. "We must fund our public schools, and we must give children the ladder of education and economic opportunity," said Weingarten. Last year, CBS News quoted Weingarten as saying, “When people talk about other countries out-educating the United States, it needs to be remembered that those other nations are out-investing us in education as well.”

As you can see from the chart on this page, it is true that students in other countries are outperforming our students. However, is it true that those countries are investing more in education than we are? According to the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California, which compared the U.S. to 11 other nations, “The U.S. is the clear leader in total annual spending, but ranks 9th in Science performance and 10th in Math.” The U.S. spends more than twice as per school-aged child than Japan and South Korea, and more than four times as much as Russia.

In a 2009 speech promoting the Affordable Care Act (ACA), President Barack Obama said, “We spend one and a half times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren't any healthier for it.” That was the Democrats’ rationale for healthcare reform, which, ostensibly, would lower the cost of healthcare per person and make us healthier. Yet when we spend twice as much per student on education than other countries, but our students aren’t any smarter for it, Weingarten, the KNEA, and Davis do not suggest that we need educational reform to lower the costs and improve student performance. Instead, they say that we need to spend even more on education and ignore the performance part of the equation.

Obviously, education will be a major issue in Kansas this year. This issue deserves a reasoned and intelligent discussion amongst candidates for federal and state offices. If Davis and other politicians are going to argue that we need to spend even more on education, it seems to me that they should first assure us that the taxpayers’ money is currently being spent as wisely and effectively as possible.