Rasmussen 1

Rasmussen, Tyler
Writing 39c
Kongshaug
4/24/15
Financing the Future of America
Money has always been a big part of decision making, and one subject of
decision making facing the American Education System today is whether to spend
their finite amount of money on reducing class size or doing the opposite and
paying supposable excellent teachers more money. As suggested by the intro, one
problem that is facing schools today is whether the limited funding received by
schools should go towards buying better teachers and increasing class size, or
hiring lower quality teachers and reducing class size. This problem is not a recent
one, it first began when the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 was
created. In section 5131 it states how extra funds are to be spent, which includes
reducing class size. Now going forward to present day The Equity Project charter
school is financed a little bit different than what was originally thought of. This
school uses most of the funds received to pay teachers a high salary, which goes
against what was stated in the ESEA, but is this for the better or worse?
The ESEA has made education better by granting more federal funds to be
given to education, but it also required schools to accomplish more such as
continuing the desegregation efforts. Since this act was passed, there has been an
increase in students with disabilities and English language learners. These students
cost more to teach, due to the extra attention required, and the specialized

Rasmussen 2
teachers who do not teach regular students. One issue that was not solved, and
continues to be a problem today is whether funding for class size reduction should
be spent on teacher effectiveness. The problem is very visible today and an
example of this is in Manhattan at The Equity Project Charter School. At this school
they took the funding they were receiving and spent most of it on the teachers
salary, which is a massive $125,000 but at the cost of class size and lack of
extracurricular activities (Kohli). The average class size of the school is 31 students
(this is higher than the average of 26 [Shin]) and is located in bungalows on a high
school field, the image
shows most of the school.
In

The Atlantic the author is

talking about the results of

this

school in the math

category and says Even
though the Equity Project
students fared better

compared to their peers at surrounding schools only 43% of the schools eighthgraders passed state math exams in 2013. (Kohli) which demonstrates that even
though they are paying teachers around double the normal rates of teachers in the
area, students were still not passing the state standardized tests. The students were
still doing better than the average for that district, which was 23% (Kohli). The
dilemma here is that if the funds were spent on creating smaller class sizes would
that improve scores more and motivate students more? Which creates another
question, if this school was located in a more successful area would the increases in
passing rates be as dramatic as those that have been recorded already?

Rasmussen 3
As mentioned before funding teachers takes a lot of resources away from
other problems. One of these problems is class size, which would require additional
teachers plus more rooms. One demonstration of this problem is The Equity Project
charter school. Since more funding is spent on the teachers than an average school,
the school is located in small portable bungalows, and currently are trying to get
donations to build a permanent building. If this school wanted to accept more
students, then the only option would be to increase class size. There are many
others that would agree that increasing teacher effectiveness is the optimal solution
to our failing school systems such as former teachers, current education students,
and future teacher educators at HSJ wholeheartedly agree that teacher quality and meaningful efforts to improve teacher quality - is fundamental to developing
high quality schools. (Sinclair 94) This suggests that improving teacher quality is
directly related to school quality, and does not attribute improvements to other
programs or outside influences such as class reduction.
Another supporter of teacher effectiveness comes from the book Economics
of Education Review, it is explaining that to better improve school ratings and
quality, a school could give the better teachers more students stating the most
effective teachers should be assigned larger classes and the least effective should
be assigned smaller classes. (Hanushek 6) Hanushek also brings up the point that
the effects of teachers are magnified by classroom size which is why he suggest
giving the better teachers bigger classrooms. The problem with increasing class size
is that the more effective teachers might react badly to having larger
classes(Hanushek 6) he reveals that some schools have started to do the opposite
providing better teachers with less students as an award. One solution could be that
if schools were provided enough funding, then they could hire the best teachers, get

Rasmussen 4
rid of the ineffective ones and there would be no need to use students as
punishment or rewards. One problem with dividing students this way is brought up
in The Death and Life of the Great American School System by Ravitch.
In the book Ravitch offers a counter argument to the idea of reducing or
increasing class size for better teachers. She discusses the idea of having great
teachers year after year and that it is virtually impossible to accomplish and
maintains this idea by claiming it is impossible to know in advance who the great
teachers are or how to fill an entire school or district with them.(Epilogue) Given
this knowledge how can school districts expect to maintain and claim that their
teachers are the best in a nation just because they are paid more does not mean
they are the best, just the best that applied. Since schools have no idea of how to
decide which teachers are effective how can Hanusheks idea of putting more
students into the more effective teachers classroom work? Why should teachers
be given more funding if it is impossible to tell if they will succeed or fail at their
given job? Paying teachers more will most likely not fix the problems schools are
having, especially without an accurate way to measure teachers, but another
solution to the problem could be reducing class size.
The topic of class size has been an important one ever since ESEA was
passed. A recent project to reduce class size was described in the journal Health
and Economic Benefits of Reducing the Number of Students per Classroom in US
Primary Schools where they used prerecorded data from Project STAR (Student
Teacher Achievement Ratio) in Texas. Project STAR made class sizes shrink to 13-17
students each. Despite the initial cost they bring up how much it would save in the
long run From a governmental perspective, small class sizes would save at least
$2700 for each student by reducing demand for welfare programs, and $31 000 by

Rasmussen 5
lowering the costs of crime over the lifetime of the average high school
graduate.(Muennig and Woolf) considering that small class sizes increase the
number of high school graduates, they compare the cost, to the government,
between a high school graduate and a drop out. On average, high school dropouts
make less money than graduates, and on average require more support from the
government through programs such as housing assistance. To prove that this
program can be successful no matter where they made sure that Both students
and teachers were randomly assigned to classes containing either 22 to 25 students
or 13 to 17 students.(Muennig and Woolf)suggesting teachers are not as important
from a financial viewpoint as class size, in fact decreasing class size will just save
more money in the long run. Not only does Project STAR save money it also
counters Sinclairs statement of teachers being the key to school quality. If random
teachers are able to be assigned with random students in a small enough
classroom, improvements are most likely to occur. Along with this new knowledge
comes the question does it matter what teacher is teaching a classroom as long as
they are qualified and are located in a small enough class room? Using Project
STARs data it would suggest that it does not, and if that is the case, then why have
schools started supporting the idea of paying teachers more over reducing class
size?
The issue is occurring possibly because schools do not have the initial funding
required to pay for more desks, rooms, and teachers. Finally, even if reducing class
size is costly, the question should be, compared, to what?(Haimson) implying that
this is the most cost effective way to improve our current school system. It also
reveals that from a governmental standpoint only savings and improvements in the
short run are desired, not the long term effects of these policies. How has ESEA led

Rasmussen 6
to todays problems, when it initially suggested reducing class size and not giving
teachers more pay? One flaw with the ESEA was it signaled the switch from general
federal aid to education towards categorical aid (Education) Signifying that instead
of giving schools money to use for whatever they deemed important or in need of
support could not always be supported. Categorical aid meant that funding would
only go to certain issues such as reducing class size, but if a school wanted to spend
more on that issue, it could not use the funds for another program. Today this is
hindering the speed at which schools may be able to change, instead of funding
being spent on a new program it continues to be misspent on older less successful
programs.
Going back to the past when Lyndon B. Johnson was president, he helped
pass the ESEA of 1965. In the Act was a section on allotment of school funds,
section 5131.A.1 which stated that the additional funds received can go towards
reducing class size. It also includes plenty of other programs that can be created or
funded by this act, but it does not mention providing teachers a higher salary. Using
data collected about teacher salaries it is easy to see that the ESEA did not improve
teacher salaries, by looking at the graph salaries have not changed significantly
since ESEA this applies to the rest of the country, not just in Chicago. Supporting
this claim is the article Teacher Pay 19402000: Losing Ground, Losing Status is
pointing out Public education during the past 60 years has failed to respond to
changes in the labor markets that affect the supply of well-qualified
teachers.(Hurley) This reveals the lack of increased funding for teachers, which
supports the idea funding smaller class size or other programs may have been more
beneficial to the overall quality of the schools. Since teachers have not been
receiving more money they are one of the groups being hurt by these new policies.

Rasmussen 7
Not only teachers, but also the
schools themselves, they have
been put into positions that they
should not have been, such as
using students as reinforcement
for effective or ineffective
teaching. As for the students the
road ahead and behind will and
has been bumpy, but soon change to a smooth road will come meaning that this
problem of funding will soon be resolved.
The issue of funding has been a long battle, starting with the ESEA, funds
were predestined to improve one program decided by the government, yet it was
for the schools. Should not have the schools been the ones deciding what was most
important for their teachers and students? Recently there has been a battle over
funding teachers or reducing class sizes, both have their supporters and foes, both
aim to improve the American education just like the ESEA did. Will these new
programs end up a failure, or be the change that has been sought after for many
years, who knows, only time will tell. Leading to the question should class sizes be
reduced and provided additional funding, or teachers quality?

Bibliography
"Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 - Social Welfare History
Project." Social Welfare
2011. Web. 24 Apr. 2015.

History Project. Social Welfare History Project, 03 Feb.

Rasmussen 8
Haimson, Leonie. "Why Class Size Matters." Parents Across America. Parents Across
America, 18 Jan.

2011. Web. 24 Apr. 2015.

Hanushek, Eric A. "The Economic Value of Higher Teacher Quality." Economics of

Education Review 30.3

(2011): 466-79. Print.

Hurley, Ed. "Teacher Pay 19402000: Losing Ground, Losing Status." National
Education Association.

National Education Association, n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2015.

Kohli, Sonali. "What Happens to Test Scores When Teachers Are Paid $125,000 a
Year?" The Atlantic.

Atlantic Media Company, 04 Nov. 2014. Web. 11 Apr.

2015.
Meredith, Sinclair N. The High School Journal. Vol. 93. N.p.: U of North Carolina,
2010. Print. Ser. 3.
Muennig, Peter, and Steven H. Woolf. "Health and Economic Benefits of Reducing
the Number of

Students per Classroom in US Primary Schools." American

Journal of Public Health 97.11 (2007): 2020-027. Web. 17 Apr. 2015.

Ravitch, Diane. The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How
Testing and Choice Are

Undermining Education. New York: Basic, 2010. Print.

Shin, Laura. "Average Class Size Increases at NYC Schools: Report." Metro. Metro, 19
Nov. 2013. Web. 22

Apr. 2015.