If lots of money were the key to educational success, then Washington, D.C., would surely have some of the best public schools in America. Washington spends more per student per year - about $16,400 - than any of the 50 states except New Jersey and New York. Yet its schools are a teachers union-controlled disaster. Academic performance is near the bottom of the barrel in our nation's capital.
Clearly, big spending is no guarantee of academic success.
So it was strange when President Barack Obama addressed the subject of education recently. He said schools around the nation need more money. Yet he admitted that public schools even in very high-spending Washington could not give his daughters the education they are getting at a private school in the city.
Ah, but the president said there should be "reform" to accompany all the new spending he wants. Well, reform is a fine idea. But aren't most increases in education spending - in Washington and elsewhere - accompanied by pledges of "reform"? And doesn't it seem that often, the spending grows but academic performance doesn't?
Unfortunately, the president's own record on support for really effective education reform is weak. He opposed a successful private school voucher program that had allowed some low-income children in Washington to escape their disastrous public schools and have a shot at a decent education. Congress ultimately killed the program, even though it had been popular with parents and even though it spent less than half what was spent on every pupil in the district's public school system.
Education really is not federal business. But if the president wants better academic outcomes - and cost savings rather than more spending - he should promote vouchers for students rather than oppose them.