Education funding is back on the political front burner in 2001, thanks to a confluence of events:

♦ A pending lawsuit in a Davidson County court challenging Tennessee’s system of unequal teacher pay across the state’s public school systems.

♦ The latest dismal report card from the state Department of Education released in November, once again revealing an epidemic of unimpressive achievement in Metro and Tennessee schools (dotted here and there with some encouraging results, but far too few of those).

♦ A similarly sober analysis in the Nashville Chamber’s 2000 Progress Report on Metro Schools, which highlights mediocre achievement, negligible improvement, and inadequate funding.

♦ The state’s ongoing fiscal dilemma, which still points unequivocally to the need for tax reform (despite the anti-tax crowd’s stern denial) as the way to stabilize and expand education funding.

♦ The expected release early this year of a major performance audit of Metro schools initiated by Mayor Bill Purcell and conducted by an outside consulting firm.

♦ A reasonable possibility, in light of much of the above, that Purcell and the Metro Council will consider budget proposals this year earmarking a local tax increase for public education.

♦ The impending inauguration of a Republican president who is actually interested in expanding the (modest) financial role of the federal government in public education, instead of just dismantling the federal Department of Education.

But even as these developments trigger a measure of optimism among education progressives, there persists a stubborn streak of witless anti-tax populism that seems to hold increased education funding in about the same regard as global warming and evolution: another fancy, unproven “theory” concocted by liberal intellectuals to increase the size of government and indoctrinate America’s youth with godless socialism.

Yes—okay—that overstates the case, but only marginally. Many conservatives, seizing on isolated studies that show more dollars don’t always translate into specific and measurable education outcomes, have convinced themselves (and, all too often, city councils and legislatures) that money is not the problem; instead it’s “discipline” or “choice” or “accountability” or “local control.” In other words, grant school districts autonomy to require uniforms, teach Creationism, dispense paltry vouchers that would cover tuition at only the worst (and/or most religious) private schools, punish indiscriminately with fatuous “zero tolerance” policies, and administer standardized tests—and watch a thousand flowers bloom.

Okay, another gentle exaggeration. Indeed, funding from Washington for primary and secondary education is likely to expand in a Bush administration, especially as surpluses persist. But federal money accounts for well under 10 percent of public school funding, and the level of likely expansion under Bush is far less than that proposed by Al Gore during the campaign, so let’s not kid ourselves into thinking that George W. will rescue public education. If he has his way, W. also will poison the public school waters with vouchers (even as he studiously avoids using the word). As it happens, the political winds are blowing unfavorably on that idea at the moment, so in the near term, the going will be slow in voucherville.

As always, the action in school funding and reform is at the state and local levels. Public schools will get better when Nashvillians speaking through their Council members and Tennesseans through their legislators say the magic word. And the magic word is, yes, money.

It may be conventional wisdom that Tennessee is stingy with education spending, but it’s worth reminding ourselves every once in a while just how penurious we are. Estimates in 2000 by the National Center for Educational Statistics show only six states with lower per-pupil spending than Tennessee (the distinguished six paragons of intellectual achievement being Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Mississippi, and Utah). Education skeptics prone to the fine art of rationalization may argue that Tennessee’s relatively low cost of living justifies a low ranking in the per-pupil-expenditure standings. But if you adjust for regional cost differences, as the publication Education Week did in its compilation of education statistics last year (using 1998 data), Tennessee’s per-pupil spending is higher than only five other states.

For a truly revealing index of state miserliness, look at Education Week’s tally of each state’s education spending as a fraction of its own wealth (measured as gross state product, using 1997 figures). Here Tennessee placed 49th of the 50 states, spending $29.08 on education for every $1,000 in gross state product. The biggest education spender was West Virginia (!) at $51.34. The one state more tightfisted by this calculation than Tennessee was Delaware—but that’s a bit misleading, as Delaware with its greater per capita wealth spends upwards of 45 percent more per pupil than Tennessee.

The one area where Tennessee does come in at around the national average is in the realm of equity—the extent to which there is relatively equal vs. grossly unequal spending across the state’s school districts. The reason we look average here is because most states look average, which is to say there is not much difference from state to state. This is predictable in a country where public schools are clustered in local districts funded largely through local tax revenue. Wealthy districts have higher per-pupil-expenditures, better facilities, and typically higher achievement; poorer areas have lower expenditures, worse schools, and lower achievement. (A notable exception is Hawaii, which has a single, statewide school district, and hence no spending inequity across districts.)

The bottom line of these many numbers: In relation to the rest of the country, Tennessee spends little on education in absolute terms, even less when adjusting for cost of living, and less still in relation to the overall production of wealth in the state. The disparities in resources from county to county and school to school are marked and disturbing, but of average magnitude compared to other states.

Against this analytical backdrop, city officials in Nashville will develop next year’s Metro budget, and state lawmakers will wrestle with the ongoing imperative for some kind of tax reform. The radio talk show honk-and-holler crowd will continue to pretend that there’s little wrong with Nashville’s and Tennessee’s schools that actually requires an infusion of cash to fix. They presumably will remain satisfied with inferior achievement, high dropout rates, low college attendance, and a system in physical and, all too frequently, emotional disrepair.

Money won’t solve every problem in failing and struggling public schools, but it will tackle a few trivialities: updating textbooks; fixing roofs, heating systems, and bathrooms; modernizing labs; hiring and retaining more and better teachers; reducing class sizes; adding advanced placement courses; expanding digital technology; and widening before- and after-school programs (to name a few).

Until we collectively find the fiscal backbone to make these things happen, parents will continue to cope with the tragicomic irony involved when public school students are encouraged, as they were at my son’s elementary school last fall, to wear Titans garb on a day of a big Monday night game down at the temple of fiscal providence called Adelphia.