Letter to the Editor: Part 1 - A Series On Economic Growth For Minneapolis

By Dennis Paulaha, PhD- Great River Coalition

As an economist, I can promise you there are no great economic theories or arguments spelling out the secret to increasing the rate of economic growth, whether for a city, a state, or a nation.

What we do have, however, are bits and pieces of information and knowledge that can be used to make decisions that are almost certain to increase incomes, profits, wealth, and economic growth on all levels

One, which I discussed in a previous article, is to protect and expand home equity, given the importance of creating and protecting wealth, not only for individuals and families, but for cities, states, and nations. The importance of home equity was reinforced by research done by the Brookings Institution that concluded the single most Important factor or cause of racial inequalities, both financial and educational, is rooted in the differences in home equity by race.

A second is creating a more efficient healthcare system, which I also discussed in a previous article. The argument being it is not necessary to have a government takeover of healthcare to eliminate the waste, fraud, inefficiency, and multi million dollar salaries that can reduce business costs, increase incomes and profits, and let American companies be more competitive in the global economy.

EDUCATION

In a highly praised, but also highly flawed, documentary titled Waiting for Superman, Bill Gates makes the statement that the key to increasing economic growth is education.

Although few would disagree with that statement, agreeing that economic growth is tied to education does not mean it is easy to improve the quality of education in any city, including Minneapolis.

The central point of the documentary is that K-12 education in the United States went from being the best in the world to a spot closer to the bottom of industrialized nations.

That’s the good part, if by good part we mean both the problem and its importance are made as clear as possible.

The bad part, if we are looking for a solution to the problem, is that the documentary blames the decline in education on teachers unions that support and protect incompetent teachers and claims the solution is charter schools.

A more honest solution would begin with the fact that, regardless of how easy it is to find examples of incompetent teachers being protected by unions, teachers unions have been important in protecting our public school systems from politicians who seemed intent on destroying them. 

An honest solution would also recognize that a very small percentage of charter schools can be classified as successful or, by some agreed upon measure, better than the public schools from which they draw students and taxpayer money. The truth is few charter schools are required to monitor and make public the educational progress of their students as is required for public schools, even though charter schools are funded with taxpayer money.

VOUCHERS AND CHARTER SCHOOLS

The idea of vouchers that allow taxpayer money to be used to pay tuition in private schools and charter schools that are supported with taxpayer money was popularized by the economist Milton Friedman.

His argument, which makes sense on paper, is that by allowing students to move from public schools to private schools and charter schools, taking taxpayer money with them, it will force public schools, because of competition, to increase the quality of public school education.

One problem with the argument is it assumes private schools and charter schools are superior to public schools; an assumption that, because private schools and charter schools are not always required to release student information, is not always the case. And if they are not better, then the competition Friedman assumed would increase the quality of education across the board does not exist. 

A second problem is, because of the power and influence of teachers unions, charter schools in most cities are not allowed to compete with public schools on an academic level. In other words, it is difficult or impossible in most cities to create charter schools based on the idea of offering a better academic education than public schools. The result is charter schools offering niche programs to attract students and parents whose main interest is something other than academic excellence.

Which is why the academically excellent charter schools highlighted in the Waiting for Superman documentary, which were schools whose mission was academic excellence, are exceptions. 

Exceptions or not, what matters is that those schools have shown or proven that it is possible to offer students a far better education than they are now receiving. And what makes those exceptions even more interesting is that they did not accept only the “best and the brightest” students who applied. In some cases, students were chosen at random, with a lottery.

What does that have to do with education and economic growth in Minneapolis?

Potentially, a lot.

Ignoring private schools, where, in most cases vouchers were given to parents whose children were already enrolled in private schools, Minneapolis, as does every other city in the country, has an opportunity to re-think it’s charter school program.

First, Minneapolis should allow and encourage charter schools that promise to focus on academic excellence, rather than a niche appeal.

Secondly, instead of treating public schools and charter schools as a competition, those in charge of education should be monitoring the results, not with the another “no child left behind scheme,” but with an interest in identifying the structures and methods that are most successful.

Finally, although it is impossible to ignore the impact of poverty on a child’s life, including educational achievement. In other words, while the city of Minneapolis addresses poverty, it should not use poverty as an excuse for not providing all children the best possible education.