I just can’t buy into the idea that a prospective employer would not come to RI because of our underperforming public education system based on the rationale that they would not do so because there is an unskilled and/or under educated workforce here.
First of all, RI is very small. There is no place in the state that is more than 20 minutes from either CT or MA. If the RI workforce were really that deficient, there are other sources of labor right near by. We just happen to be surrounded by two of the highest performing public education systems in the country. And then there is Boston, one of the most highly educated work forces in the world, only I hour away. As we all know, many in RI already make the work commute to or from Boston.
Secondly what work force educational level are we talking about here? Secondary? Post secondary? Graduate level? If we are talking about an "highly educated workforce", that sort of seems to imply post secondary level education. In that case we graduate thousands each and every year from RIs universities and colleges. Thousands more RI natives are graduating at out of state universities around the country and potentially returning home. I don’t see anyone making an effective argument anywhere in the Northeast (due to the presence of large numbers of colleges and universities alone) that there is not an educated workforce to draw from. Primarily because of the smallness of our state and it’s New England location, I just do not see a strong connection between RIs potential for economic development and our relatively weak elementary and secondary public education system.
You brought out a very interesting point, Justin, with respect to where prospective employers and their “highly skilled/educated employees” would live and how they would see the redirecting of monies from their own communities public education to those of the urban districts. Obviously their own interests would not be served by this and they would likely not support such a policy (whether this alone is enough to prevent businesses from coming here might be a stretching things a bit, though). If we pervert the system even further and manage to drive down the quality of the education system in suburban and rural districts by redirecting enough of their funds to urban districts (though educationalists would certainly be happy with the diminished “education gap”) that would surely be seen as a negative to any prospective residents to these areas. And it is likely that many, if not most, of the “highly educated” workers will settle in the suburban and rural ring. Having the suburban and rural towns further subsidize the urban districts isn’t exactly the kind of policy you would expect to attract highly skilled workforces to a place like RI now is it? From this perspective its almost enough to make you wonder if subsidizing the urban core is hurting economic development.
Justin,
Once again, I'm flattered that you thought my comments merited a post. Here are some thoughts in response.
As to my statement that I approve of "our wealthier communities subsidize our less wealthy communities" I want to note that I later qualified the latter statement. I'd have wealthier INDIVIDUALS subsidize less-well-off individuals and communities. Property taxes are a bad way to fund most public goods. ONE of the bad things about them is that a poor or retired person on a fixed income gets hit the same as a wealthy person. Another is that it makes the amount of school funding, and thus the money available for each child's education, dependent on the property wealth of the community where his/her parents reside.
RI pays for 60% of its public education through property taxes…that's 3rd highest in the nation. I would shift the burden to income taxes and cut property taxes accordingly. Do that, and it matters less where you live, from the point of view of educational opportunity AND taxation. Then, the $200K executive who moves to EG will pay the same for education in Providence/Woonsocket/Central Falls/Pawtucket as if she moves to Providence itself. Maybe then we can stop talking about one community "subsidizing" another as if EG and Providence were different worlds, which they are not. By the way, I admit this is speculative, but I'll be a lot of those execs are making their money in Providence-based businesses. (what percentage of GTECH, Lifespan, Fidelity, etc execs. live in Providence vs the 'burbs?) I think it's quite possible that, at present, Providence's economic engine is subsidizing E.G. and Barrington.
As an aside, you and I may have different perspectives on who wants to live where. Over the last several years, have watched many (professional and management) friends and neighbors say "I really love living in the city of Providence and want to stay, but I have to go to Barrington (or E.G., or Lincoln etc) for the schools even though I'll be bored there." It's a shame for the City, and for them. (By the way, Providence does have a few excellent schools at all levels. I know because my kids go there and the vast majority of the teachers have been excellent. Classical High School is on a par with Barrington High in test scores. But, you have to test into most of these schools, and that limits the available seats. Note to Andrew because he mentioned this: Dave Mittell's editorial on this point was misguided. I'll explain if you like).
Anyway, before the latest round of resetting, Providence's property tax rate was highest in the state (at $29.65/$1K, compared to $18.99 in Barrington, $18.64 in Lincoln and $17.99 in E.G.). So, even under the current funding system, I'm not too worried about E.G residents being "bled" or managerial types refusing to move there. I'll bet they care a lot more about excellent schools than an additional few hundred dollars in taxes. I sure do. And I'd rather pay the few hundred more in taxes than $10K-$20k per kid in private school tuition.
Justin says, "He [i.e. Thomas] notes that adjustments for cost of living drop Rhode Island teachers' salaries from near the top in the nation to the bottom third (ignoring benefits), but the median private sector income in Rhode Island is below the national average. What's our national ranking on an adjusted basis?"
Dunno. I could calculate it I guess. My question is, why so much complaining about (moderate, given COL) teacher compensation and NO complaining about the low levels of private sector compensation? One thing that sets me off in these debates is the insistence that everyone must be dragged down to the lowest common denominator. Where is the outrage at the health insurance companies for high premuiums? Please note: I agree it's possible that public sector benefits are too high, but I am puzzled and appalled at the acceptance of bad treatment by the private sector as the "gold standard" by which all must be judged.
Justin says, "At some level, the certified genius operating the switches has to treat people as static automatons that cannot but fail to behave like the actual people whom they represent, as when Thomas insists that comparisons of public and private schools should "control for self-selection and the educational attainment of parents who are able to afford the best private schools."
I am not sure what this is supposed to mean. My point was straight-forward, however. Populate a school with self-selected students (parents with high SES, educational attainment, and motivation) and you're going to get a better performing school even if the teachers are lack-luster- it's basic social science. At the moment, there appears to be no convincing evidence that charter schools improve school and student performance. That's quite a blow to the school-choice theory, no? (When I asked Andrew for evidence that Catholic schools outperform he sent a magazine article that I, frankly, have not yet read. I will. But I'd rather see good social science.
I understand some people hate public schools. For some it's a question of educational quality. For others, it's ideological. Those who want to use school choice to destroy public schools are not the people I'm trying to talk to. I would like evidence that private=school choice (i.e. vouchers) actually improves PUBLIC schools. As I noted, I have a hard time even seeing how that is SUPPOSED to work, because I don't think the incentives are correctly constructed. On this point, I think we might have some agreement: The CURRENT system of public education does not reward talented and hard-working teachers but instead rewards them on the basis of senority. Not only do bad teachers get to stay, the system of "bumping" in place in Providence (and, I think, other districts) allows them to choose plum jobs. That has to change before you can expect competition to improve performance. As it is, those senior teachers will survive several rounds of staff cuts- it's the junior teachers, even if they work harder and produce more value, who will get cut first. As you might suspect, then, I agree with pay-for-performance and teacher assignment based on teacher merit and student need. Also, site-based management that gives principals more control.
At the same time, proponents of these reforms have to keep in mind that they are tricky to implement. "Teacher Quality" is VERY hard to quantify. This isn't a question of how many widgets per hour you can produce. These difficulties have to be taken seriously if you want support for reform. In fact, I'll bet you that most teachers would approve of some sort of merit-based pay if its done in a fair and open manner.
Well, there's more to say I guess, but that's more than enough for now.
Frank says, " I just can’t buy into the idea that a prospective employer would not come to RI because of our underperforming public education system based on the rationale that they would not do so because there is an unskilled and/or under educated workforce here."
Maybe I can covince you to buy into this idea. How about this?
A newly released survey from the Council on Competitiveness and New Economy Strategies asked leading corporate executives to share their views on the changing nature of innovation…… When asked to identify factors that would disqualify a region for new corporate investments, the list sounds pretty similar. A talent shortfall, poor communications infrastructure, *poor K-12 education*, and low quality of life were cited as impediments to outside investment. http://www.publicforuminstitute.org/nde/news/2005/enews-05-11-07.htm
Or this:
"Education level of labor force. According to the cross-section model. the proportion of high
school graduates in a state has a highly significant and large positive effect on small business
starts. A one point increase in the proportion of high school graduates in a state is estimated to
increase starts by 3.5 percent." Small Business Start-Ups in the United States: Estimates of the Effects of Characteristics of States Timothy J. Bartik Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 55, No. 4. (Apr., 1989), pp. 1004-1018.
That's just from skimming.
As to the idea that it doesn't matter in RI, even if it matters elsewhere, because RI is so small, *I* just can't buy a potential start-up or relocating business saying "well, all of the employees in the 250 square miles around my proposed plant are illiterate, but that's OK because we'll hire out of CT or MA. All else equal, why not put your plant where your workers are?
Regarding corruption, yes, clean it up. Take out the entire Dem. Leadership in the GA if they're responsible. But cleaning up corruption and improving education are not mutually exclusive. I'd wager that, if we did a better job of educating our citizens, we'd have less corruption to begin with.
Click here for the new Anchor Rising & Ocean State Current page
About Community Crier
About Engaged Citizen
I just can’t buy into the idea that a prospective employer would not come to RI because of our underperforming public education system based on the rationale that they would not do so because there is an unskilled and/or under educated workforce here.
First of all, RI is very small. There is no place in the state that is more than 20 minutes from either CT or MA. If the RI workforce were really that deficient, there are other sources of labor right near by. We just happen to be surrounded by two of the highest performing public education systems in the country. And then there is Boston, one of the most highly educated work forces in the world, only I hour away. As we all know, many in RI already make the work commute to or from Boston.
Secondly what work force educational level are we talking about here? Secondary? Post secondary? Graduate level? If we are talking about an "highly educated workforce", that sort of seems to imply post secondary level education. In that case we graduate thousands each and every year from RIs universities and colleges. Thousands more RI natives are graduating at out of state universities around the country and potentially returning home. I don’t see anyone making an effective argument anywhere in the Northeast (due to the presence of large numbers of colleges and universities alone) that there is not an educated workforce to draw from. Primarily because of the smallness of our state and it’s New England location, I just do not see a strong connection between RIs potential for economic development and our relatively weak elementary and secondary public education system.
You brought out a very interesting point, Justin, with respect to where prospective employers and their “highly skilled/educated employees” would live and how they would see the redirecting of monies from their own communities public education to those of the urban districts. Obviously their own interests would not be served by this and they would likely not support such a policy (whether this alone is enough to prevent businesses from coming here might be a stretching things a bit, though). If we pervert the system even further and manage to drive down the quality of the education system in suburban and rural districts by redirecting enough of their funds to urban districts (though educationalists would certainly be happy with the diminished “education gap”) that would surely be seen as a negative to any prospective residents to these areas. And it is likely that many, if not most, of the “highly educated” workers will settle in the suburban and rural ring. Having the suburban and rural towns further subsidize the urban districts isn’t exactly the kind of policy you would expect to attract highly skilled workforces to a place like RI now is it? From this perspective its almost enough to make you wonder if subsidizing the urban core is hurting economic development.
Posted by: Frank at October 4, 2007 12:38 PM"We just happen to be surrounded by two of the highest performing public education systems in the country. And then there is Boston, one of the most highly educated work forces in the world, only I hour away."
Exactly. So why wouldn't they locate there instead of here where you have to kiss Alves' arse to get a tax break?
Posted by: Greg at October 4, 2007 12:50 PMGood point Greg. There are many relevant reasons not to do business in RI. We should focus on those and not create ones that don't exist.
Posted by: Frank at October 4, 2007 3:06 PMJustin,
Once again, I'm flattered that you thought my comments merited a post. Here are some thoughts in response.
As to my statement that I approve of "our wealthier communities subsidize our less wealthy communities" I want to note that I later qualified the latter statement. I'd have wealthier INDIVIDUALS subsidize less-well-off individuals and communities. Property taxes are a bad way to fund most public goods. ONE of the bad things about them is that a poor or retired person on a fixed income gets hit the same as a wealthy person. Another is that it makes the amount of school funding, and thus the money available for each child's education, dependent on the property wealth of the community where his/her parents reside.
RI pays for 60% of its public education through property taxes…that's 3rd highest in the nation. I would shift the burden to income taxes and cut property taxes accordingly. Do that, and it matters less where you live, from the point of view of educational opportunity AND taxation. Then, the $200K executive who moves to EG will pay the same for education in Providence/Woonsocket/Central Falls/Pawtucket as if she moves to Providence itself. Maybe then we can stop talking about one community "subsidizing" another as if EG and Providence were different worlds, which they are not. By the way, I admit this is speculative, but I'll be a lot of those execs are making their money in Providence-based businesses. (what percentage of GTECH, Lifespan, Fidelity, etc execs. live in Providence vs the 'burbs?) I think it's quite possible that, at present, Providence's economic engine is subsidizing E.G. and Barrington.
As an aside, you and I may have different perspectives on who wants to live where. Over the last several years, have watched many (professional and management) friends and neighbors say "I really love living in the city of Providence and want to stay, but I have to go to Barrington (or E.G., or Lincoln etc) for the schools even though I'll be bored there." It's a shame for the City, and for them. (By the way, Providence does have a few excellent schools at all levels. I know because my kids go there and the vast majority of the teachers have been excellent. Classical High School is on a par with Barrington High in test scores. But, you have to test into most of these schools, and that limits the available seats. Note to Andrew because he mentioned this: Dave Mittell's editorial on this point was misguided. I'll explain if you like).
Anyway, before the latest round of resetting, Providence's property tax rate was highest in the state (at $29.65/$1K, compared to $18.99 in Barrington, $18.64 in Lincoln and $17.99 in E.G.). So, even under the current funding system, I'm not too worried about E.G residents being "bled" or managerial types refusing to move there. I'll bet they care a lot more about excellent schools than an additional few hundred dollars in taxes. I sure do. And I'd rather pay the few hundred more in taxes than $10K-$20k per kid in private school tuition.
Justin says, "He [i.e. Thomas] notes that adjustments for cost of living drop Rhode Island teachers' salaries from near the top in the nation to the bottom third (ignoring benefits), but the median private sector income in Rhode Island is below the national average. What's our national ranking on an adjusted basis?"
Dunno. I could calculate it I guess. My question is, why so much complaining about (moderate, given COL) teacher compensation and NO complaining about the low levels of private sector compensation? One thing that sets me off in these debates is the insistence that everyone must be dragged down to the lowest common denominator. Where is the outrage at the health insurance companies for high premuiums? Please note: I agree it's possible that public sector benefits are too high, but I am puzzled and appalled at the acceptance of bad treatment by the private sector as the "gold standard" by which all must be judged.
Justin says, "At some level, the certified genius operating the switches has to treat people as static automatons that cannot but fail to behave like the actual people whom they represent, as when Thomas insists that comparisons of public and private schools should "control for self-selection and the educational attainment of parents who are able to afford the best private schools."
I am not sure what this is supposed to mean. My point was straight-forward, however. Populate a school with self-selected students (parents with high SES, educational attainment, and motivation) and you're going to get a better performing school even if the teachers are lack-luster- it's basic social science. At the moment, there appears to be no convincing evidence that charter schools improve school and student performance. That's quite a blow to the school-choice theory, no? (When I asked Andrew for evidence that Catholic schools outperform he sent a magazine article that I, frankly, have not yet read. I will. But I'd rather see good social science.
I understand some people hate public schools. For some it's a question of educational quality. For others, it's ideological. Those who want to use school choice to destroy public schools are not the people I'm trying to talk to. I would like evidence that private=school choice (i.e. vouchers) actually improves PUBLIC schools. As I noted, I have a hard time even seeing how that is SUPPOSED to work, because I don't think the incentives are correctly constructed. On this point, I think we might have some agreement: The CURRENT system of public education does not reward talented and hard-working teachers but instead rewards them on the basis of senority. Not only do bad teachers get to stay, the system of "bumping" in place in Providence (and, I think, other districts) allows them to choose plum jobs. That has to change before you can expect competition to improve performance. As it is, those senior teachers will survive several rounds of staff cuts- it's the junior teachers, even if they work harder and produce more value, who will get cut first. As you might suspect, then, I agree with pay-for-performance and teacher assignment based on teacher merit and student need. Also, site-based management that gives principals more control.
At the same time, proponents of these reforms have to keep in mind that they are tricky to implement. "Teacher Quality" is VERY hard to quantify. This isn't a question of how many widgets per hour you can produce. These difficulties have to be taken seriously if you want support for reform. In fact, I'll bet you that most teachers would approve of some sort of merit-based pay if its done in a fair and open manner.
Well, there's more to say I guess, but that's more than enough for now.
Posted by: Thomas at October 5, 2007 12:48 PMFrank says, " I just can’t buy into the idea that a prospective employer would not come to RI because of our underperforming public education system based on the rationale that they would not do so because there is an unskilled and/or under educated workforce here."
Maybe I can covince you to buy into this idea. How about this?
A newly released survey from the Council on Competitiveness and New Economy Strategies asked leading corporate executives to share their views on the changing nature of innovation…… When asked to identify factors that would disqualify a region for new corporate investments, the list sounds pretty similar. A talent shortfall, poor communications infrastructure, *poor K-12 education*, and low quality of life were cited as impediments to outside investment. http://www.publicforuminstitute.org/nde/news/2005/enews-05-11-07.htm
Or this:
"Education level of labor force. According to the cross-section model. the proportion of high
school graduates in a state has a highly significant and large positive effect on small business
starts. A one point increase in the proportion of high school graduates in a state is estimated to
increase starts by 3.5 percent." Small Business Start-Ups in the United States: Estimates of the Effects of Characteristics of States Timothy J. Bartik Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 55, No. 4. (Apr., 1989), pp. 1004-1018.
That's just from skimming.
As to the idea that it doesn't matter in RI, even if it matters elsewhere, because RI is so small, *I* just can't buy a potential start-up or relocating business saying "well, all of the employees in the 250 square miles around my proposed plant are illiterate, but that's OK because we'll hire out of CT or MA. All else equal, why not put your plant where your workers are?
Regarding corruption, yes, clean it up. Take out the entire Dem. Leadership in the GA if they're responsible. But cleaning up corruption and improving education are not mutually exclusive. I'd wager that, if we did a better job of educating our citizens, we'd have less corruption to begin with.
Posted by: Thomas at October 5, 2007 1:06 PMThomas,
So, what is your diagnosis for the cause of RI's average private sector compensation level (not sure if this is measured on wages and salary only, or also includes benefits) being so low, after COL adjustments?
Posted by: John at October 5, 2007 10:00 PM