Home > News & Events > 2009 News > 2004-2008 News > 2007 News	Print View

We'd do well to improve schools by figuring out what's effective and efficient.

As I learned one Christmas when my siblings and I lit too many candles, more of a good thing doesn't always lead to a better outcome.

In Minnesota, we have a warm glow about our schools. We're proud of them. But that warm glow is getting smoky. We have the highest SAT scores in the nation. We're tops in high school graduation. But we're 26th in college preparedness. One-third of those who go on to college need remedial classes. We're among the best and brightest in math and science. But by international standards, we're average. And small. China has more honor students than the United States has students. India awards 500,000 engineering degrees a year; the United States, 50,000.

Confronted with statistics like these, Minnesotans traditionally respond with more money for our schools -- sort of a "light more candles" approach that has made us one of the most generous states in the nation when it comes to education. That investment has been key to Minnesota's economic success -- and to the success of Minnesota employers.

But simply doing more of what we've done in the past doesn't guarantee a better result. First, because a growing diversity is challenging our education system. Minnesota is among the five-most-generous states in the nation in providing additional funding for minority and low-income students, yet we have one of the worst achievement gaps in the country. Second, the bar is being set higher and higher by hundreds of millions of students around the world who want to attain the U.S. standard of living.

So it's encouraging to see people look beyond how much we spend on education to consider how we spend it.

The Minneapolis School Board, with help from McKinsey & Company, has unveiled an aggressive strategic plan for closing the achievement gap. With district enrollment dropping 16 percent over the next three years, funding is an issue. But more money for the same old system isn't the answer. Instead, the plan emphasizes structural and cultural changes based on successful practices in other urban school districts.

Across the river, St. Paul Superintendent Meria Carstarphen gave a refreshingly frank progress report after the first year of her district's five-year strategic plan. The district, she said, failed to meet 72 percent of its goals. Is money an issue? Yes. But Carstarphen remains focused on holding herself and the district accountable for making difficult decisions and necessary changes to close the achievement gap.

One more example, from the world of "progressive think tanks." Growth and Justice advocates more money for education. But it is looking at smarter ways to spend the money. Sadly, in its review of research on education practices, it found very little in the way of cost-benefit analysis of K-12 practices and reforms. Decades of education and reform, yet we have little understanding of what works best, dollar for dollar. Of the options it studied, however, reducing class sizes for all students -- a politically popular reform -- is the most expensive and least effective. Investing in early childhood education for at-risk children is more effective than mandatory all-day kindergarten. Raising teacher quality by raising salaries is beneficial, but -- and this is a big but -- only if it is coupled with the ability to fire bad teachers.

In a state that prides itself on education, we will always debate how much to invest in our schools. Even with the projected budget shortfall, we'll invest more in education this year than last -- and more next year than this. But it's good to see people thinking more strategically about what we do with all those candles.

Charlie Weaver is executive director of the Minnesota Business Partnership.
     
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/12265571.html