The Worship of Education

As we all continue to hang tight waiting on the investigation for possible sainthood for the great GK Chesterton, I recently decided to read Chesterton's essay titled "The Superstition of Schooling" from 1923.  It's possible you have stumbled along the following quote from this essay:

No man who worships education has got the best out of education...Without a gentle contempt for education, no gentleman's education is complete.

I want to pull out two other quotes to examine as well.  The first follows, but for context, Chesterton earlier references a "snag" in the importance of education:

The snag is that when one of these people begins to "improve himself" it is exactly at that moment that I begin to doubt whether it is an improvement.  He seems to me to collect with remarkable rapidity a number of superstitions, of which the most blind and benighted is what may be called the Superstition of School.  He regards School, not as the normal social institution to be fitted in to other social institutions, like Home and Church and State; but as some sort of entirely supernormal and miraculous moral factory, in which perfect men and women are made by magic.  To this idolatry of School he is ready to sacrifice Home and History and Humanity, with all its instincts and possibilities, at a moment's notice.  To this idol he will make any sacrifice, especially human sacrifice.

Later, while wrapping up the essay:

The power which produces it more effectively than any blood or breed is religions; for religion may be defined as that which puts the first things first...The moment men begin to care more for education than for religion they begin to care more for ambition than for education.  It is no longer a world in which the souls of all are equal before heaven, but a world in which the mind of each is bent on achieving unequal advantage over the other.  There begins to be a mere vanity in being educated whether it be self-educated or merely state-educated.  Education ought to be a searchlight given to a man to explore everything, but very specially the things most distant from himself.  Education tends to be a spotlight; which is centered entirely on himself.  Some improvement may be made by turning equally vivid and perhaps vulgar spotlights upon a large number of other people as well.  But the only final cure is to turn off the limelight and let him realize the stars.

I share these quotes because I think we often get education wrong.  As a society, we say we value education, but we don't take a very educated look at how well we are educating "our future."  We imagine that throwing money at education fixes it.  Yet we know that money is irrelevant if it's not used wisely.  I expect a better return if I give $20 to Donald Trump than I would if I gave a drunkard $100.  But for some reason when it comes to public policy, especially education, we imagine more money equals better results.

Using NEA's data (p. 85), the top ten states on spending per child in 2013 were:

1. Vermont ($19,752)
2. New York ($19,523)
3. New Jersey ($19,291)
4. Alaska ($18,192)
5. Rhode Island ($17,666)
6. Wyoming ($16,577)
7. Connecticut ($16,272)
8. New Hampshire ($15,394)
9. Maryland ($15,287)
10. Massachusetts ($15,211)

Meanwhile, the bottom ten:

50. Arizona ($6,949)
49. Utah ($7,129)
48. Texas ($7,886)
47. North Carolina ($8,433)
46. Oklahoma ($8,481)
45. Idaho ($8,528)
44. Nevada ($8,551)
43. Nebraska ($8,621)
42. Florida ($8,637)
41. Tennessee ($8,695)

If there was a direct correlation, we would expect a one-for-one match with the best performing states.  That's a ridiculous standard, but it at least should be very close.

Education Week's K-12 Achievement's (2013) best, then worst:

Best
1. Massachusetts
2. Maryland
3. New Jersey
4. New Hampshire
5. Vermont
6. Minnesota
7. Florida
8. Pennsylvania
9. Washington
10. Virginia

Worst
50. Mississippi
49. Louisiana
48. New Mexico
47. West Virginia
46. Alabama
45. Alaska
44. South Carolina
43. South Dakota
42. Michigan
41. Oklahoma

Is there a correlation?  Not necessarily, and certainly no direct correlation.  If you look at the best performing states, you'll see five are among the top ten in expenditure per student, but also that one is in the bottom ten for per pupil spending and four are neither in the top ten nor bottom ten.  Meanwhile, among the worst ten performing states, eight are not listed in the top or bottom ten in spending.  One is is the top ten in spending and one is in the bottom ten.  Let me repeat that one point: eight of the bottom ten performing states are neither in the top ten nor bottom ten in spending per pupil.  This leads me to believe that their failure has little, if anything, to do with the money spent on education.

You cannot draw a direct correlation, and I would argue that there isn't enough of a correlation to say that the more money spent the better the results.  Certainly five states (VT, NJ, NH, MD, and MA) can argue that success has followed their money.  But keep in mind that New York spends over $4,000 more per student than Massachusetts but is not seeing the same results.  On top of that, Florida spends over $10,000 less than New York per student and has also performed better than them.  On the flip side, Alaska spends nearly $3,000 more per student than Maryland, but Maryland hit number two on the performance scale while Alaska was number 45.

So of course money matters, but it's clearly not the only factor, and probably not even the most important factor.

Yet we still see as raising funding of education every year as one of the most, if not the most, important issue at the state level.  But where is the discussion of who is running the schools?  Where is the battle over who is in charge of education at the state level?  At the local level?

Let's create an analogy.  Let's say there is a company called Right Stuff Manufacturing [RSM].  The board of RSM has hired a new CEO named Chuck Ridley.  They have given Ridley an annual budget of $5 million to run the company.  They expect good results from Ridley.  Let's say the company does well and they see a profit of 50% after the first year.  Would Ridley be justified in getting a bigger budget?  Probably, but if a 50% profit makes them happy, keep in mind that spending more money may just lower their profit.  They need to look at Ridley's methods and determine whether they will work with a larger budget, or if their income would remain static.  If it remained static while spending more money, then clearly that money could be used differently.  But if the methods can be even better with more money, they would be crazy not to invest more.

Now let's keep our same players, but treat it as if it were run like education is run.  RSM has again given Ridley $5 million to run the company for a year.  But now, the company has lost money.  Their spending is greater than their income.  Clearly this isn't working.  What does RSM do?  They keep Ridley and give him an annual budget of $8 million.  Will this work?  Perhaps, but if Ridley can't handle the $5 million budget, why are we assuming he can handle an $8 million budget?

The point is that we're asking the wrong questions and not looking at where the actual problems are.  Yes, we can see better results with more money, but if we have poor administrators, poor teachers, poor standards, lowered expectations, corrupted unions, wasteful spending, and bad home lives for our students, it really doesn't matter how much money we spend.

So why do we do it?  Worship of education.

If you are religious, you probably worship something.  As a Christian, I worship Jesus Christ.  He has changed my heart and all I am owes my life to Him.  So while I study the Bible and try to understand things like the trinity or the transfiguration, ultimately it doesn't really matter if I worship Him.  I just believe and trust.  No matter the cost.

And because we worship education, be believe and trust in it.  No matter the cost.