 |
    |
 |
 |
Coming Soon...
|
Kids will benefit when the governor, Legislature, and schools share responsibility equally
January 12, 2005 Even the Governor now supports additional K-12 funding, and he has also indicated that he wants greater accountability to accompany these new revenues to schools. My previous columns have emphasized the high degree of accountability already in place in schools, so as a professional educator (and admittedly, a bureaucrat) for over 30 years, I wait with anticipation to see the highlights of this new accountability unveiled. Most people would expect that there should be a trade-off, and I agree: when schools ask for more resources, there should be an expectation of more productivity. If that's reasonable, isn't it also reasonable to expect that when the State requires more from its schools (think "No Child Left Behind," or completely revised Minnesota Graduation Standards, among other mandates) that the State would be expected to hold up its end of this trade-off in the form of annual cost of living increases to school districts? While health care insurance, energy, and transportation costs continue to rise annually, sometimes dramatically, the basic school funding formula has not increased since 2001. The State would need to provide an additional $450 per pupil simply to catch up with the impact of inflation since that time. Each year, most school districts seem to be either running a referendum, cutting their budgets, or both. Why do school districts face these issues year after year? The shortfalls are due to rising expenses (similar to rising expenses that all businesses--or households--are experiencing), but mostly due to flat state funding - the longest period of flat state funding since the early 1990s. While some argue that schools are not as efficient as they should be, I emphasize that we continually work to contain costs and further efficiencies. In District 16, we have found efficiencies in transportation routing, paper usage, utility consumption, as well as prudent negotiations with labor unions and vendors. These have all helped to reduce the impact of budget shortfalls on students and families, but regardless of our efforts, additional cuts are frequently needed. And the needs continue. Fixed costs grow at a rate of about 3.5% in our district each year. That amounts to over $1 million of new expenses each year. Without an increase on the funding formula, or changes in local levy authority, is difficult, if not impossible each year, to maintain programs and still pay for the rising costs of staffing, utilities, and health insurance. Someone might say, if test scores aren’t suffering, it proves that schools have enough money to do what they need to do. I couldn’t disagree more. While districts in Minnesota are strong academically, each year student programs suffer just a little more. The losses are reflected in terms of larger class sizes, fewer choices for students, fewer electives, lost programs, higher fees, new fees, and fewer co-curricular opportunities. In District 16, class sizes have been increased, co-curricular fees have increased, custodial staff has been reduced, administrators and support staff have been cut, and supply budgets have also been reduced district-wide. Unfortunately, we are used to doing this each year. This extra effort in reducing budget and staff expenditures and/or occasionally running a referendum is part of a cycle that greatly impacts school organizations by diverting resources among staff and community members. It takes away from the energy needed to educate students, and build programs. School districts throughout the state now must also resort to private fund-raisers, public fund-raisers, foundations, endowments, and gifting as a source of funding for public schools. While school districts appreciate that support, it takes time and energy for school personnel, as well as parents and supporters, to keep these programs active and successful. All of this annual budget-cutting, belt-tightening, and fund-raising weakens our ability to effectively make progress on one of our most important tasks, to close the achievement gap among students. The fundamental question remains: whose responsibility is it to fund public education and to what extent? Without adequate and necessary state funding, we continually take options away from our students and place a greater burden on our communities through higher fee structures. An even greater stress is that, as school districts work to try to run their programs more cost effectively (reorganization, school closings), that, too, often meets with public disapproval. If the Legislature and the Governor want increased accountability from schools, so be it. School districts welcome it. Not only are we ready for it, but each year we provide a broader and broader range of measures of accountability, and not just with test scores. Our accountability also comes in the form of greater numbers of students demonstrating that they are well-prepared for higher levels of education. It also comes through providing a comprehensive and often individualized educational package for all students, and it comes through greater levels of parent, student, and community satisfaction. We’re ready for more accountability. And, if the governor and the 2005 Legislature are ready to accept an equal share of accountability in the form of adequate and sustained funding, then it will be a win-win situation for our students and families and for the state. We in education look forward to a productive partnership with the governor and the Legislature, where adequate, sustained funding is tied to educational accountability. This is a reprint of a column published in the January 14, 2005 Blaine-Spring Lake Park Life, the official local newspaper of District 16. |
 | |
 | ||||
