The "Truths" We Accept

We think of teachers, and indeed the whole education community, as a group of noble, fair-minded, dedicated professionals.  We think of tax revolters as self-interested, pompous obstructionists who care little about educating our society’s young people.

I see a parallel from the world of  Earth science.  We think of the scientific community as a group of noble, fair minded, dedicated professionals.  And we think of oil company executives as self-interested, pompous obstructionists who care little about protecting our environment.

Let’s not kid ourselves.  The scientific community is as self-interested as anyone else.  As their monolithic thinking can be on any particular issue.  The grant-writing potential in saying global warming is caused by humans is far greater than it is in saying otherwise.  I do not know enough about global warming to dispute the statements of anybody on the topic.  But I know enough about human nature to be skeptical of the statements of everybody on the topic.

And let’s not kid ourselves.  The education community is as self-interested as anyone else.  And so it becomes a “truth” embedded in the minds of Americans that more money results in better education, just as it's embedded in the minds of Americans that global warming is man-made.

In education, though, I have a lot more firsthand knowledge than is needed to be merely skeptical.   I know, for instance, that claims made by special educators deserve special scrutiny.  Special education, like Earth science, can seem incredibly complicated.  So we tend to leave it to the experts.  We're all capable of quoting experts. And we can certainly see when the experts have all reached consensus on an issue. Then we can say, "Case closed."  But these experts have the most to gain from their consensus findings!

So, here's an example of consensus in special education:  We have to spend so much on it because the federal government is not meeting its commitment.  We've heard it so many times, it has to be true.  And the statistics are right there!  You can find them on Bernie's website. When Congress passed IDEA in 1975, it said it was going to fund 40 percent of the excess costs of special needs.  Now, the funding is down to 17 percent.

In fact, however, the actual dollar amount that Congress has been spending, in real terms, is way up.  But the federal government can't possibly keep up with the "costs."  Because the costs are being measured by expenditure-driven data provided by the states and school districts.  The 40 percent has become such a moving target, it's ridiculous to try to sustain such a percentage.

Don't believe me?  The President's Commission on Excellence in Education said the exact same thing a few years ago:

Since 1975, the “up to 40 percent” APPE target has taken on symbolic value far beyond congressional intent in 1975. Many still perceive this 40 percent figure as a representation of “full funding.” Over the past several years, marked increases in IDEA Part B funding have been based on a desire to meet this “full funding” target. However, the increases to meet this target have been based on expenditure-driven data, rather than on estimates of the true excess cost of achieving excellence for students with disabilities.

The Commission recommended a formula for determining true excess cost that hasn't been followed at all.  So imagine saying the federal government has imposed this burden on states and local school districts, when the exact opposite is the case!

We should all be skeptical now.  Almost enough to wonder if the same twisted arguments are used in other areas of our lives, such as Earth science.

Comments

[Ward L. Reed,Jr.]

Two years ago as a candidate for the senate from Caledonia-Orange, I appeared at a gathering in Newark. I asked the group for a show of hands: How many believe that more spending equals higher quality of education?
No one -- NO ONE! -- raised a hand.

[Cid Sinclair]

While agree there are no groups that are immune to the human trait of sef-intrest, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that man made pollution has a serious impact on the naturally occuring phenomenon of global warming. I think there’s a real leap in making any correlation from global warming to education funding other than, a whole lot of tax money is spent on frivolous grants. Of course the republicans prefer to bury their heads in the sand and ignore both issues and the democrats think they can spend their way out of both problems. Meanwhile the rest of us suffer while the rich get richer.