Public Education: Resources Matter, as Does Context - Milwaukee is NOT South Dakota

Critics on the right have produced a number of studies over the years that conclude that spending is unrelated to educational quality (as measured by scores of students on standardized achievement tests).  For example, the Heritage Foundation and others have shown that there is no correlation between state level spending and scores on NAEP tests—that, as an example, South Dakota is one of the lowest spending states yet has high test scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, while the District of Columbia has very high spending and low test scores. 

The Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (WMC) has argued the same thing—pointing out that Milwaukee outspends many small rural districts, yet has lower test scores.  The following article published by the CATO Institute makes the case that more spending doesn’t improve education:  Education: Is America Spending Too Much?

The problem with these types of studies is that they fail to consider or control for the underlying social conditions, such as poverty, incidence of two-parent families, number of children for whom English is a second language, and the number of special education students.   This is an important omission because we know that family condition is the strongest predictor of a child’s success in school.  Schools have an important effect; however, family (especially the mother’s level of education) has a greater influence than anything done by the school.   

My last post on education, Teachers Strike in Madison: Thirty Years Later II, I claimed that money, which translates into class size or student teacher ratio was a major factor in determining educational outcomes. This is well documented in a number of studies, particularly:

Educational Issues: Class Size

Helen Pate-Bain (1992), in her report on the Tennessee STAR class size study, concluded, “We view education not as a mass- production effort, but as a personal and individual experience. The model is not the factory. The focus is on serving clients. Class-size research is not an attempt to reduce class size; at its best it is an effort to find appropriate casework loads, because much of sound educational practice consists of individual instruction, coaching, mentoring, and tutoring (p. 256)...."

Major findings presented in the research on class size include (I have edited the conclusions; see the entire report for a summary of all findings):

• Smaller classes produce the necessary, though not sufficient, conditions for successful teaching and learning.
• Reduced class sizes in grades K-3, in the range of 13-17 students per class, significantly enhance student achievement.
• Reductions in class sizes to less than 20 students without changes in instructional methods cannot guarantee enhanced student achievement.
• Small class size, in the range of 13-17 students, benefits all students in all contexts at the K-3 level.
• The evidence favoring small class size at the upper grade levels is weak because teaching behaviors appear to be more rigid and research methodologies have been inadequate.

Teacher quality is a difficult area to research because quality is ultimately a function of what occurs in the classroom, and this is expensive to observe and measure.  Darling-Hammond reports that teacher credential/certification are very important factors affecting student learning (as measured by test scores).  She also reviews the literature on the impact of teacher quality on student learning.  Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: A Review of State Policy Evidence, Linda Darling-Hammond, Stanford University:

....Nonetheless, the findings of this study, in conjunction with a number of other studies in recent years, suggest that states interested in improving student achievement may be well-advised to attend, at least in part, to the preparation and qualifications of the teachers they hire and retain in the profession. It stands to reason that student learning should be enhanced by the efforts of teachers who are more knowledgeable in their field and are skillful at teaching it to others. Substantial evidence from prior reform efforts indicates that changes in course taking, curriculum content, testing, or textbooks make little difference if teachers do not know how to use these tools well and how to diagnose their students' learning needs (for a review, see Darling-Hammond, 1997b).
          Like other studies cited earlier, this research indicates that the effects of well-prepared teachers on student achievement can be stronger than the influences of student background factors, such as poverty, language background, and minority status. And while smaller class sizes appear to contribute to student learning, particularly in fields like elementary reading, the gains occasioned by smaller classes are most likely to be realized, as they were in the Tennessee experiment, when they are accompanied by the hiring of well-qualified teachers. The large- scale hiring of unqualified teachers, as was the case in California's recent class size reduction initiative, would likely offset any achievement gains that could be realized by smaller class sizes.
          Another implication of this study is that states may impact the qualifications of the teachers through policies that influence the hiring standards of school districts (e.g., incentives and sanctions from the state level that encourage the hiring of well-qualified individuals), the accreditation of teacher education institutions (e.g., encouragement or requirements for the use of NCATE standards or others of equivalent rigor), and the bodies that establish and enforce teaching standards (e.g. establishment of professional standards boards or assurance of adequate capacity and authority for state agencies to uphold high standards for teaching).

The value of parental involvement is well documented. Try Parent Involvement in Education:

The research overwhelmingly demonstrates that parent involvement in children's learning is positively related to achievement. Further, the research shows that the more intensively parents are involved in their children's learning, the more beneficial are the achievement effects. This holds true for all types of parent involvement in children's learning and for all types and ages of students.

Anyone want to dispute that finding?