House of Eratosthenes

Texas likes to portray itself as a model of small government, and indeed it is. Taxes are low, at least if you’re in the upper part of the income distribution (taxes on the bottom 40 percent of the population are actually above the national average). Government spending is also low. And to be fair, low taxes may be one reason for the state’s rapid population growth, although low housing prices are surely much more important.

But here’s the thing: While low spending may sound good in the abstract, what it amounts to in practice is low spending on children, who account directly or indirectly for a large part of government outlays at the state and local level.

And in low-tax, low-spending Texas, the kids are not all right. The high school graduation rate, at just 61.3 percent, puts Texas 43rd out of 50 in state rankings. Nationally, the state ranks fifth in child poverty; it leads in the percentage of children without health insurance. And only 78 percent of Texas children are in excellent or very good health, significantly below the national average.

Oops, though:

Slight problem here, namely, the cause and effect relationship that Krugman implies. If low state spending leads to high state dropout rates, as Krugman suggests, then riddle me this: Why does California spend more per pupil, yet have a higher dropout rate? And why does New York spend even more per pupil than California and Texas, and also have a higher drop-out rate? And why does the District of Columbia spend almost twice as much money per pupil as Texas, and yet have a much higher dropout rate than Texas?

Don’t take my word for it: Here’s a chart showing the state dropout rates, and here’s a chart showing state spending per pupil. They’re not for the same year, but the trends are fairly consistent year to year. More government spending does not necessarily lead to higher graduation rates. It’s not that simple, especially in states where the requirement to educate the children of illegal aliens grows year by year.

I’m seeing Colorado is the next notch up from Texas in terms of spending per student, with a dropout rate of 6.9 to Texas’ 4.0. My native Washington State would be the next one up, and it is also burdened by a dropout rate greater than Texas’. Overall, the relationship these two metrics seem to have, assuming they have one at all, is rather tenuous. There seems to be more going on. I’m pretty sure a X-Y scatter diagram would bear that out. Like Tatler said, it’s just not as simple as spend-money-help-kids.

It very seldom is, with anything.

Tatler goes on to look into the lavishly paid administrators — not teachers. And of course there are two sides to this coin…the administrators seem to think they’re being compensated fairly. We all think we’re being compensated fairly, or are underpaid. But it all comes down to this final finish:

I find it pretty hard to justify making local public school bureaucrats rich, especially when taxpayers are hurting and the states are going broke. Perhaps Krugman doesn’t agree, and thinks we should just keep spending more without looking at where the money is going, or the impact it has when it is taken from the taxpayer. If that’s his position, he should make that argument.

It’s a transaction within a free economy, or quasi-free economy, just like any other — we are engaged in a process of finding the midpoint. We look for clues that we’re not spending enough on public school education, and we look for clues that maybe we’re spending too much. Right now, the evidence says the next move is a cut.

Now, to go leaping in there with guns blazing with your “Won’t Somebody Please Think Of The Children?!?” does not impress me as intelligent, preventative, let’s-stop-a-disaster medicine. It is a thwarting of the signaling network that makes a quasi-free economy work. It is deliberate sabotage; it is a blocking out, a strident rule that says “no matter what happens, this number can never go down.” It is childlike thinking, falling far short of what I would expect from a Nobel Prize winner in economics.

“The high school graduation rate, at just 61.3 percent, puts Texas 43rd out of 50 in state rankings. Nationally, the state ranks fifth in child poverty; it leads in the percentage of children without health insurance. And only 78 percent of Texas children are in excellent or very good health, significantly below the national average.”

Ummm….. is that among only native-born citizens?

Seriously, I’m asking, because I can’t bring myself to read a Krugman column. ‘Cause if it’s not, I can think of lots of reasons other than “lack of government spending” why “Texas children” might rank high in poverty, lack of health insurance, dropout rates, etc. It starts with “I” and ends with “-llegal immigration” and it tends to be a problem in Texas…
- Severian | 03/01/2011 @ 11:02
And in low-tax, low-spending Texas, the kids are not all right. The high school graduation rate, at just 61.3 percent, puts Texas 43rd out of 50 in state rankings.

I did not even read past this into Morgan’s commentary, before I was asking, “Who are the bottom 6? 44 through 50? I’ll bet California and New York are somewhere in that range.”

Surprise, surprise.
- cylarz | 03/02/2011 @ 12:14

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Krugman Critiques TexasTuesday, March 1st, 2011

Krugman Critiques Texas
Tuesday, March 1st, 2011