Improved education

In his column, Mr. Weikal argues for higher taxes because, as he says, great schools produce high quality residents and great schools cost money. Mr. Weikal does not further define his phrase great schools. Let me give my own definition. To me, a great school is not necessarily a place with thousands of computers and theater seats in the basketball arena. A great school is a place where a great deal of learning takes place. I have a bachelor’s degree, a law degree and two masters’ degrees. That does not make me an expert on anything, but I believe it at least qualifies me to offer one man’s opinion about how learning occurs. And the truth is, it has very little to do with the amount of taxpayer dollars expended.

Simply put, learning occurs when a student sits down at a desk with a pencil, paper and a textbook and studies attentively, knowing there will be consequences attached to success and to failure. That is the proven formula. That is why high school graduates from rural schools early last century were better educated than those graduating today. Given certain minimums, such as acceptable facilities and textbooks, there is no real correlation between the dollars spent on education and the learning happening at schools. The District of Columbia spends more than almost any jurisdiction on public education and produces the worst results.

As a country, the United States spends more per student than any other nation and is near the bottom amongst industrialized nations in students’ performance. Learning occurs when a student studies, seriously, and otherwise it does not, regardless of how much is spent. What, I would like to ask Mr. Weikal, would he do if his own child came home with lousy grades. Would he call his state representative and demand a higher allocation to the schools? I doubt it. I bet he would insist that his child study harder.

Weikal admits the truth of the above but does not seem to appreciate its significance. He says this nation has poured funds into places such as the Kansas City School District with no perceptible impact. But that he attributes to larger systemic dysfunction.

Larger systemic dysfunction? That’s a mouthful. If that means that a child possessing tragic family circumstances is more likely to have a tough time in school, that is probably true. But pouring money into the schools, and the teacher’s unions, won’t do anything about that. Never has, and never will.

The problem in poor performing districts is that the students aren’t studying as much as students in districts that perform better. This is because of a lack of discipline on the part of the students and insistence on the part of their parents for perhaps many reasons, including "larger systemic dysfunctions.

What makes students study? Personal discipline and insistence. These cost nothing. And these factors are not produced by theater seats in the arena, or by fancy this or fancy that. Nor are they produced by some charismatic teacher. And they certainly are not produced by pouring the taxpayer’s money by the planet load into the schools and the teacher’s union’s political action committees.What would happen if twice as much money were spent on public education? This has been tried and tried. It’s the simplistic solution, and it has never worked.What would happen if students spent twice as much time studying? Not much doubt about that, is there? It would work without fail, and it wouldn’t cost a dime.