Rebell and Hanushek Face Off on the Future of Public Education

On December 12, at an event sponsored by the conservative think-tank, the Manhattan Institute, Dr. Eric Hanushek, from Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, and Michael A. Rebell, from Teachers College, Columbia University, squared off in a debate over school funding litigations, voucher proposals, and the future of American education. The program also featured Randi Weingarten, president of the United Federation of Teachers.

Hanushek vs. Rebell

Speaking first, Dr. Hanushek criticized the school funding adequacy lawsuits, claiming that the courts should only be involved in “equity” decisions based on constitutional equal protection clauses, not in “adequacy” decisions based on the state constitutions’ education articles. Claiming that the courts are overstepping their bounds, he resorted to hyperbole, declaring, “Courts should not be running school systems!” Moreover, Hanushek claimed that courts never express any concern about how the additional money they mandate is actually spent. For example, he said “nothing” was ever said about accountability in the New York lawsuit, CFE v. State.

Mr. Rebell responded to the last assertion with disbelief, pointing out that accountability was a major issue in the CFE litigation. The lower court, at plaintiffs’ behest, had in fact ordered New York City to engage in comprehensive planning and annual reporting on how the money would be and actually was spent. Rebell stated that New York City Council studies, public engagement activities, and task force analyses and reports have also focused on how to ensure that funding would be spent effectively. He expressed his disappointment that the state’s highest court failed to uphold the accountability orders of the lower courts in its final ruling last month.

Rebell also discussed briefly the relative institutional competence of the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government, citing Hanushek’s own concession in his writings that the legislative and executive branches have not solved educational opportunity issues. The courts, Rebell asserted, are involved because they need to be involved; all three branches must engage in a colloquy in this important legal rights and policy area.

Weingarten Cites Examples of Progress

Reflecting on the remarks of the first two speakers regarding funding and improving achievement, Ms. Weingarten provided specific, concrete examples of progress that better funding has brought to public education in New York. She indicated that additional resources, due in part to the CFE case, have led to much higher percentages of certified teachers in the City’s schools and mentioned efforts underway to improve that further. Weingarten added a small but insightful example: New York City teachers 15 years ago had to “scavenge for chalk,” but pressure from the 13-year CFE case improved the availability of basic supplies.

All Agree Money Must Be Spent Well

All three speakers agreed that school funding must be spent well. Weingarten suggested that the CFE money be directed to:

• Reduce class sizes;
• Provide high quality preschool;
• Better fund career and technical education; and,
• Provide for mentoring of new teachers by accomplished teachers.

She indicated, for example, that the average class size for the required high school Math A course in New York City is 33 students, compared to an average of 20 in Math A classes in the rest of the state.

Michael Rebell explained that he and others working on the CFE litigation argued before the courts for measures to ensure that the money is well spent, and in the wake of last month’s ruling in the case they are continuing to advocate for accountability measures to assure effective spending targeted to benefit the students most in need. Rick Hanushek stated that, while he is often accused of saying that money doesn’t matter, he really argues that money must be spent well.

All three speakers also seemed to agree on several other points, including:

• Our education system is critical for the nation’s future and is not good enough going forward (despite significant gains) because other nations have forged ahead;
• Quality teaching is key to realizing continued achievement gains; and,
• Better accountability/capacity building systems are needed, including value-added measures, if done constructively.

Vouchers vs. Public Education

Diverging from the other speakers, Hanushek argued that, in addition to accountability and more transparency at the school level, other “institutional” reforms are needed to improve schools. He suggested “incentives” in the form of (1) teacher pay for performance and (2) competition via vouchers and charters. Weingarten said she favored public schools and public education, arguing that access to good schools for all children in all communities can be accomplished only through public education.

Rebell closed the discussion with a reference to the recent arguments about voluntary integration before the U.S. Supreme Court. If the justices’ views expressed at oral argument are reflected in the Court’s final decision, then the school funding litigations, along with the advocacy surrounding them, will become more important than ever for promoting the crucial right to educational opportunity, as the federal courts, which have already been backing away from desegregation, may soon outlaw local, voluntary integration.

Errol T. Louis, a columnist with the New York Daily News, moderated the discussion.

Prepared by Molly A. Hunter, December 13, 2006