The education reform movement has seen the shattering of some old stereotypes. The classic image of Big Business was one of solid opposition to higher taxes and government expenditures. But lately, some important business leaders, like Owen Butler (formerly of Proctor and Gamble), David Kearns (Xerox) and William Woodside (Primerica), have led the fight for greater investment in our public schools. They and some of their colleagues have the vision to see that the future of American business, of our whole society, is tied to successful schools.
Not all businessmen share this enlightened view. Since property taxes make up the bulk of the education budget in most communities, most large real-estate owners have seen a conflict of interest between their profits and school spending. But, according to "How America's Educational Failures Will Hurt Real Estate," by Anthony Downs, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, this view is short-sighted: "Owners of big-city properties of all types - especially downtown office space - are highly vulnerable to suffering potential injuries because of the failings of the American educational system."
Real-estate investment is obviously fixed in a particular community. You can't pack up your skyscraper or shopping mall and ship it somewhere else - but you can move your business. "In an age of world linkages through telecommunications," says Downs, "many types of office workers in particular can be anywhere in the U.S. or even the world. Hence if big cities do not have the caliber of workers necessary to perform office tasks well, those tasks will be done in other parts of the world - just as happened with many industrial jobs." In other words, poor city schools= poor workers= no business= empty buildings with declining value.
But can't the cities get their future workers from the suburbs, where the schools are presumably better? Not according to Downs. First, increased traffic congestion will make it difficult for suburbanites to commute to downtown jobs. Second, demographic projections show that there will be severe labor shortages and therefore "more pressure to use lower-skilled workers who have not been employed in office jobs in the past." A major source of those employees will be city kids who now do most poorly in our schools. Finally, Downs points out that soaring suburban housing costs will force many businesses and most low-level workers to remain in central cities (and depend on public schools). If businesses did relocate to the suburbs, they'd be beyond commuting distance for most of their workers.
I have quarrels with some of Downs' views but not with his conclusion: For reasons of self-interest, real estate owners must shoulder the responsibility of improving the education of inner-city youngsters, and "should welcome efforts to improve the quality of the labor force in their area, even if those efforts mean higher taxes on their properties. In fact, they should encourage local school officials to raise in order to improve the quality of educational performance there."
* * * * *
CORRECTION: On Sept. 4, 1988, I criticized the U.S. Department of Education for misrepresenting statistics to "prove" that money doesn't matter in education ("Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics"). The basis for my story was a graph, which I reproduced, whose source was listed as the Center of Education Statistics and that was distributed by a high Department official. The graph attempted to show a direct connection between the rise in education spending and the decline in student achievement, as represented by SAT scores. But, to do so, the graph exaggerated the rise in education spending by using current rather than constant dollars and exaggerated the decline in SAT scores by using only part of the SAT score scale. The graph also did not indicate that since the SAT is taken primarily by college-bound students, it is not an appropriate measure of overall student achievement.
Because of my longstanding support for the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), I am relieved to report that the NCES did not prepare the mischievous graph. Unfortunately, I was nonetheless right to finger the Department for misleading the public.
According to Assistant Secretary Chester E. Finn, Jr., the graph was actually prepared by the Department's Office of Planning, Budget and Evaluation (OPBE). OPBE's graph, in turn, is almost an exact replica of a graph constructed by Paul Woodward for a Feb. 26, 1988, article in The Washington Times. This graph was based on NCES data, but it took data that NCES had originally presented in separate, unrelated, clearly labeled and qualified charts and graphs and "cooked" them to get a direct relationship between higher education spending and lower student achievement - something NCES never did. The initial mischief therefore came from The Washington Times graph, but at least that newspaper indicated who prepared the graph and that the dollar figures were not adjusted for inflation.
OPBE had no such scruples. Its graph merely lists its source as the Center for Education Statistics, with no mention of the newspaper or Woodward or of the kind of dollars used. A misleading graph was therefore presented in a misleading way. And not only was it distributed at a conference by a high Department official, but, according to Finn, it was also presented by OPBE at a House Budget Committee hearing last March at which Education Secretary Bennett testified!
I apologize to NCES and to its acting chief, Emerson Elliot, a fine civil servant whom I greatly respect, for perpetuating the idea that NCES prepared the misleading graph. I also think OPBE owes them an apology for playing fast and loose with their work. But, since OBPE is part of the Department, I stand by my original conclusion: "This administration or any other is entitled to its opinions. But it's not entitled to abuse its authority by misrepresenting statistics to 'prove' its opinion - at the taxpayers' expense. It's essential for the Ed Department to regain its credibility."