By John Brummett
The first issue, one we won’t be able to settle, is just what an economic stimulus is, exactly.
Those billions the federal government sent state governments that otherwise couldn’t meet their budgets — I don’t call that a stimulus, but a bailout. No jobs were created.
But, others say, jobs were saved. Services for needy were saved as well.
All right, then, I say, but that’s a rescue, not a stimulus.
But, others say, it’s stimulating for the government to provide a job that wouldn’t exist otherwise and to provide a service that wouldn’t be available otherwise.
So there we are, going round and round, mostly on semantics, but partly on politics and even less on economics.
Another thing: When is a stimulus package supposed to stimulate, exactly? Considering that we passed $780 billion in a stimulus package nearly six months ago, should the unemployment rate still be going up?
We’re probably not going to settle that either. I think you judge an economic stimulus a year or two afterward, when it occurs to you that what we did back in ‘09 seems to have helped gin up some economic activity. If it didn’t, you’ll know that, too, more vividly, the hard way.
That brings us to whether it is a legitimate matter of economic stimulus spending for the Fayetteville School District to assemble for three weeks of special summer school about 120 kids from kindergarten through second grade, willingly enrolled by their parents or guardians, who are at-risk because they are behind on basic literacy skills.
And is it a legitimate matter of economic stimulus for the 25 or so teachers in this program to get $8,000 or so?
That, in turn, brings us to Jay P. Greene, endowed professor of education reform at the University of Arkansas. He’s right-wing and quite the zealous advocate of many education reform notions.
He’s long on record pooh-poohing the idea that teachers are underpaid, comparatively speaking. He gives them summers off and calculates their hours of actual classroom instruction and concludes that he knows people in other professional fields who aren’t doing as well or significantly better.
On his blog the other day, Greene assailed this Fayetteville summer program. He faulted it for spending federal stimulus dollars not to stimulate the economy, but to pay teachers what he assumes to be twice their usual hourly rate for something they would have been doing anyway, and for much less, without the stimulus.
Fayetteville school officials cry foul.
This is a new and different program that wouldn’t have been undertaken without the extra Title 1 money from the stimulus, they say. This will be high-intensity summer session with innovative techniques and individualized instruction and counseling, they say.
And, they add, these teachers were specially chosen from applicants and will work much more vigorously and for much longer hours over these three weeks than is customary for teachers. This work will be nearly 24-7 over the next several days, they say. Then these kids will be monitored by these teachers during the next regular school year.
So is this a true stimulus program?
Actually, no, in the short term, except for the couple of dozen teachers getting extra money for extra work.
But if 120 kids who can’t read emerge from the program able to read — would that be a true stimulus program?
It certainly would be education, something akin, in fact, to the performance-oriented, results-driven education Greene espouses. Some might see a stimulative effect from that.
Might these teachers have worked as hard this summer for less money? My sneaky suspicion, which is just that, is yes.
And might this be a case of a school district being a tad more generous in remuneration than it had to be simply because the federal government had thrown easy millions its way under the heading of stimulus?
Probably so. But to judge that fairly and objectively, we’ll need to wait to assess how well these kids end up reading and examine what they go on to do with that precious skill.
The possibilities are widely divergent, from utter waste to spectacular bargain.
——-
John Brummett is a columnist for the Arkansas News Bureau in Little Rock. His e-mail address is jbrummett@arkansasnews.com; his telephone number is (501) 374-0699.
July 16th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
John Brummett’s column, “Waste or Bargain,” was yet another example of how he substitutes personal attacks for sound analysis, logic, and facts.
He opens by calling me names: “He’s right-wing and quite the zealous advocate of many education reform notions.”
Then he assigns to me responsibility for all sorts of things that aren’t actually attributable to me. For example, he says (dripping with sarcasm): “He gives [teachers] summers off and calculates their hours of actual classroom instruction and concludes that he knows people in other professional fields who aren’t doing as well or significantly better.”
I didn’t do any of those things. Teacher contracts with schools give them the summers off. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) calculates their hourly and weekly pay. The BLS reports that teachers, on average, make more than other white collar and professional workers on both an hourly and weekly basis. I just repeated what the BLS reported.
He continues falsely attributing to me claims that were not invented by me: “He faulted [Fayetteville schools] for spending federal stimulus dollars not to stimulate the economy, but to pay teachers what he assumes to be twice their usual hourly rate for something they would have been doing anyway, and for much less, without the stimulus.”
I didn’t assume that teacher pay was doubled with the stimulus dollars. The Northwest Arkansas Times (NWAT) reported that fact and I, again, just repeated it.
Finally, he makes the case for this use of stimulus dollars: “This is a new and different program that wouldn’t have been undertaken without the extra Title 1 money from the stimulus, [district officials] say. This will be high-intensity summer session with innovative techniques and individualized instruction and counseling, they say.”
Unfortunately, he is changing the subject. The issue is not whether a summer literacy program in Fayetteville is a good program or not. As I said on my blog, “The Leap Ahead program may well be a good one.”
The issue is whether doubling (or tripling — Brummett conveniently fails to mention that Fayetteville was paying three times as much as Springdale for the same program) teacher pay for that program was a good use of additional stimulus dollars. If it really is a great program, wouldn’t it be better to use those funds to double the number of students who could participate and hire twice as many teachers? Or how about making the program run twice as long?
Only right-wing zealots would favor halving the number of students or halving the number of days for a beneficial program.
It’s clear that John Brummett uses his column to prosecute his own personal, political agenda. That’s acceptable for a columnist, but normally they have to be constrained by facts and logic in doing so. He can’t falsely attribute to me claims that are not my own. And he can’t switch the issue from doubling (or tripling) teacher pay for a program to the desirability of that program. At least, his newspaper shouldn’t let him do these things with their paper.
Who exactly is the zealot here — the person repeating the factual claims of the BLS and the Northwest Arkansas Times or the person omitting crucial facts, falsely attributing claims, and changing the subject?
July 16th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
Waste or bargain?
I tend to think neither. The Economist magazine a couple of weeks ago summarized the stimulus situation on their cover:
A baby in diapers crawling with a house-sized ball and chain, labeled debt, around one leg.
Our stimulus plan creates a debilitating debt for our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren to pay.
We need to get to work to create systems—educational, financial, health, among the first—that actually work to serve the needs of the people the systems are designed to serve.
Is the stimulus plan a waste or bargain? I think flat out wrong is all one can say.