 When
parents and school districts go to court trying to win fair funding for
under-resourced schools and the opportunity to learn for all children,
Dr. Rick Hanushek, an economist at the conservative Hoover Institution,
usually gets a phone call. All across the country, State defendants pay
him to testify as an expert witness in lawsuits seeking educational
opportunity for urban and rural kids.
For perhaps the 19th time---he's lost track---Hanushek showed up to testify a few weeks ago, this time in Colorado's Lobato
case. He claimed he could find "no correlation" between funding and
student achievement. That's not surprising since he didn't look at
achievement. He looked, instead, at Colorado's MGPs, or median growth
percentiles,* which do not measure student achievement.
When
a plaintiff witness used the same Colorado dataset that Hanushek had
used, she found a strong correlation between Colorado spending and
student test scores. The key was that she looked at the actual student
scores.
In the days before Hanushek took the stand,
several Colorado school district superintendents testified about the
needs of their students; how state cuts forced them to cut essential,
real-world programs; and how they would use increased funding to help
more of their students reach the state's learning standards
On
cross examination, Hanushek admitted knowing almost nothing about
Colorado education. But he was sure of his decades-long theory that
improved funding does not lead to better student achievement. Never mind
strong evidence to the contrary.
He also testified that urban school districts in New Jersey can spend whatever they want. Laugh Out Loud.
But
Hanushek got one number right. He said he's being paid $50,000 for his
analysis (the MGP stuff) and testimony. Too bad the State of Colorado
didn't spend that money on educating its kids.
MISSTATING THE FACTS
Hanushek
sometimes testifies that per-pupil U.S. education spending has
increased four-fold since 1960, and that student achievement is at about
the same level as in 1970.
He's wrong on both points.
In
fact, spending has increased about two-fold, and that increase has
helped fuel the dramatic increases in test scores and narrowing of test
score gaps that public school students have achieved since 1970. Oh, you
hadn't heard? Well, the media doesn't report it.
Importantly,
over half of the spending increase was needed to fund the major
improvements we have made in schooling for students with disabilities.
Many of these children, especially those with the most severe
disabilities, were not even in schools before and during the 1960s.
To make his point on flat achievement, Hanushek misrepresents NAEP**
results to claim that test scores are flat. In fact, on these exams
U.S. "students have improved substantially, in some cases phenomenally.
In general, the improvements have been greatest for African-American
students, and among those, for the most disadvantaged." (Rothstein, Fact-Challenged Policy) See, also, NAEP Scores Are Up and Minority Scores Are Up, Media Blind to Gains.
Note
that Hanushek's "four-fold" testimony was in South Dakota in 2008,
while he was accurate in Colorado in saying "two-fold." He testified
that U.S. scores were flat in both cases.
For more information about the Lobato case, see Great Education Colorado.
*MGPs are explained briefly in the trial transcript at pages 5714-5751, especially 5722-5727.
**NAEP is the National Assessment of Educational Progress, a series of exams taken by a nationwide sample of students. |
|
No comments:
Post a Comment