 |
||
|
|
||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
June 2009 > Faculty > Publications
Book Review:
Grubb Right on the Money in The Money Myth: School Resources, Outcomes, and Equity
The release of W. Norton Grubb’s latest book, The Money Myth: School Resources, Outcomes, and Equity comes at a critical time, as public schools struggle with limited funds, raised accountability demands and a myriad of other issues. Yet the GSE education policy professor does not prescribe lowering expectations or throwing more money at the problem. Rather, he argues for "a different approach to schooling, to implement the many interconnected elements necessary for a complex and constructivist approach, and to provide both the complex array of school resources and the non-educational policies necessary" for effective and equitable schools.
Grubb’s refreshing approach to school resources has captured the interest of many in media and education circles. On May 20, his op-ed, More than money needed to improve schools appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle.
Earlier in May, Grubb discussed school spending and other education issues with host Michael Krasny on Forum on KQED FM: Education and "The Money Myth"
In addition, three related article excerpts with links to the full articles follow:
Jay Matthews, Washington Post April 10, 2009
Class Struggle: The Money Myth in Improving SchoolsThe book is Grubb’s effort to bury what he calls the “Black Box” model for school improvement. Figure 1.1 on Page 28 sums it up: Two small boxes labeled “Funding/School Resources” (government money) and “Family Background” (parental money and education) feed into the Black Box and come out the other end as “Educational Outcomes.” Many important influences are ignored in this diagram, he says.
“While many school resources have significant effects on outcomes, none of these effects is overwhelmingly large by itself -- with the exception of placement in a general, traditional vocational or remedial track,” which is very bad, he writes. “A school, then, is a combination of many different influences -- teachers and their approaches to instruction, aspects of climate and peers, forms of internal stratification like tracking, and certainly some simple resources, each with small to moderate effects. School improvement requires getting a large number of practices ‘right.’ Good schools pay attention -- because of leadership, teacher selection and staff development, consistency between students and teachers (and parents), support services, the internal organization of schools -- to a large number of practices.”
The book supplies some ammunition for nearly every combatant in the various curricular and structural wars. When Grubb’s analysis becomes particularly complex, he sometimes seems to be on both sides at the same time. But in planning good schools, that is not always a bad thing.
Byron Williams, Oakland Tribune April 16, 2009
UC professor's views on education spending are actually not black and white
For Grubb, the question: "Can money buy quality education?" is one that takes too broad of a view. His work suggests that money is at the very least overrated, and by itself unrelated to student achievement.
"Dollar bills don't educate kids and we have to figure out what does educate kids," he said.
"There are some resources that actually do cost money. In my results, the adult-pupil ratio in high school makes a difference. That is not a class-size measure — it is a measure of the number of adults around; it really measures the personalization of the school. That obviously costs money and the research shows it's effective."
But Grubb also contends there are a number of effective resources in schools that don't cost much money. Perhaps the most obvious is instructional improvement. Using statistical analysis, Grubb demonstrates that teachers who teach in more innovative ways, which means to go beyond mere information dissemination toward a more conceptual method, can really have an impact on student achievement.Do we spend enough on public education? What does it mean that California has fallen from near the top of per-pupil spending in the United States to very near the bottom?
Money has long been at the center of debates over education. Now a book from a UC Berkeley professor argues that the entire debate is wrongheaded.
Mitchell Landsberg, Los Angeles Times April 6, 2009
Q&A: UC Berkeley professor takes on school spending (registration required)
In "The Money Myth: School Resources, Outcomes, and Equity" (Russell Sage Foundation, 2009), W. Norton Grubb argues that how much we spend is less important than how we spend it. For decades, Grubb says, school spending has inexorably risen, while student achievement has stayed relatively stagnant. Maybe it's time to look at which expenditures actually improve education, he argues, and which are a waste. The Times' Mitchell Landsberg spoke to Grubb about his book.
For background and ordering information, click here.
return to gsE-bulletin return to News
 |