Didn’t you say more money won’t help?

by David Safier

Craig Barrett, ex-CEO of Intel and Brewer's education point man, thinks money isn't part of the equation for improving Arizona education. This is from a Howie Fischer article last December:

Barrett, while acknowledging Arizona is "not terribly high" on funding per student compared with other states, rejected the idea that more money is at least part of the answer.

He's made it clear. We don't need to increase Arizona education funding (though, oddly, he wrote a letter to California's Governor Jerry Brown begging him not to cut funding for high school science). But now Barrett has carved out an exception. In a joint op ed with Huppenthal, he says we need more money to improve the DOE's computer system.

I think he's right. The state education data system is a mess, and "throwing money at it" (to use a favorite conservative phrase when it comes to education funding) will make it more efficient and cost effective.

So why is money Barrett's answer when it comes to fixing a data-related problem in education, but it's not even "part of the answer" for improving the way we educate our children? The answer is, Barrett is a technocrat, specifically a computer technocrat. He understands ones and zeros better than he understands people. He knows what it takes to upgrade computers and software. But putting money into the people end of education, where the rubber meets the road, where the teacher meets the student? He doesn't understand that idea nearly as well.

SELF-SATIRE ALERT: The Barrett/Huppenthal op ed never says directly we need more money to upgrade the DOE computer system, even though that's clearly what they mean. They want voters "to rise up and demand a fix." They bemoan the "inadequate investment in technology infrastructure at the Department of Education." They remind us, "While technology systems are not cheap, they are necessary."

But you'll never see the words, "We need more money to improve the computer system." That would be so . . . how can I put this? So liberal-tax-and-spend.