At Brookings Jonathan Rothwell has an interesting post which repeats many of the things I’ve been saying around here for a long time. Real spending is much higher:
College tuition, net of subsidies, is 11.1 times higher in 2015 than in 1980, dramatically higher than the 2.5 increase in overall personal consumption over the period. For private education, from pre-K through secondary, prices are 8.5 times higher now than in 1980. For public schools, the rise is lower—4.7 from 1980 to 2013—but still far above general inflation.
I think he’s actually underestimating the increases a bit. In real terms we’re spending three times as much on education as we did 20 years ago. Outcomes have plateaued:
For the nation’s 17-year-olds, there have been no gains in literacy since the National Assessment of Educational Progress began in 1971. Performance is somewhat better on math, but there has still been no progress since 1990. The long-term stagnation cannot be attributed to racial or ethnic differences in the U.S. population. Literacy scores for white students peaked in 1975; in math, scores peaked in the early 1990s.
The explanation is largely higher spending on administators:
For higher education, a major factor driving up costs has been a growth in the number of highly-paid non-teaching professionals. In 1988, for every 100 full-time equivalent students, there were on average 23 college employees. By 2012, that number had increased to 31 employees, with a shift toward the highest paying non-teaching occupations. Managers and professionals now outnumber faculty, who comprise just a third of the higher education workforce.
If there’s a better example of Gammon’s Law in action than the educational system I don’t know what it is.
So, private schools have seen costs rise twice as fast as public schools? Say what? I’m sorry, have we not all endured decades of lectures on the magic of the private sector in all things and the utter failure of government?
What we are seeing in part is the white flight reaction to school integration. More private school students means private schools can raise their rates. They bleed off the best-performing kids (the ones with parents who can afford private schools) and we’re shocked, shocked that we haven’t seen more improvement in public school outcomes?
Let me tell you what’s happened since the supposedly halcyon days of yore when I was in school. When I was in public school there were kids sitting in the back of the room huffing glue and no one did anything about it because there was no school shrink (administration) and there were no drug diversion programs (administration) and no effort at all to keep kids in school (administration.)
Teen pregnancy rates are down (administration), youth crime is down (administration), venereal disease is down (administration) and bullying is way down (more administration.) We are seeing vast improvements in areas frankly more important than diagramming sentences or learning calculus.
Public schools, deprived of their best students, opening their doors to more and more kids including those with special needs (administration), and under incessant attack from the Right and from people like you, Dave, have nevertheless held the line on literacy and improved on math? While simultaneously cutting drop-out rates and contributing to major advances mentioned above? That’s pretty damned good. Show me the other organs of government that have done as well while simultaneously keeping their rate of cost increases below those in the private sector.
Into the liquor cabinet early, Michael? The article, and the essay here, deals mostly with college level education. Not much white flight there, although I realize most of the worlds problems are caused by racism. At least among the angry old men crowd.
As for this: “When I was in public school there were kids sitting in the back of the room huffing glue and no one did anything about it because there was no school shrink (administration) and there were no drug diversion programs (administration) and no effort at all to keep kids in school (administration.)”. In Naperville, IL the most affluent public high school, and highest ACT achieving, has a heroine problem as bad or worse than any in Chicagoland, administrators and the enormous property taxes notwithstanding. And at the place I got my undergrad degree they have held the line on tuition by holding the line on administrators and maximizing facilities utilization. You know, private sector stuff.
Just in case you want to deal in facts, and not Trump anger.
Racism. The scourge of America, or so we hear.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443443/new-years-left-campus-radicals-distort-our-politics
Dave Schuler: In real terms we’re spending three times as much on education as we did 20 years ago.
In some places.
You’ve pointed out a genuine problem, not just in evaluating education but with incomes, economic growth, real estate values, and practically everything else. Spending, growth, etc. aren’t shmeared evenly across the country but are greater in some areas than others.
In the Chicago Public Schools real spending has increased about 20% since 1996. Over the period enrollment in CPS schools has declined about 15% so spending per student has risen somewhat more than 20%
“holding the line on administrators and maximizing facilities utilization. You know, private sector stuff.”
Not sure why that is “private sector stuff”. Spending less on administrators is a way of holding down costs for both public and private schools. What is interesting, and you don’t dare address it, is that private schools have had costs rise faster.
Steve
Here’s actual data about k-12 education spending:
http://www.census.gov/govs/school/
I haven’t dug into it, but it might answer some of the competing claims about where all the money is going.