Archive for the ‘school finance reform’ Category

Cut school funds? Good idea?

Wednesday, February 16th, 2011

Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper (D) announced his budget Tuesday that includes somewhere around $325 million to $375 million in budget cuts for school districts.  He says that K-12 education is the state’s most important priority, but…

Colorado’s public education budget has gradually become the state’s problem since the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) passed in the early 1990s.   What used to be a 40-60 split between state and districts is now a 65-35 split.

The recession has amplified the problem.  Property tax revenues have dramatically declined and will continue to flatline, as it may take a decade before the foreclosure wrench is over.  Since properties are reassessed only every two years, recovery will not come soon.

The state budget is short $1.2 billion for 2011-12.  With school finance representing about 40% of the state’s General Fund, cuts will hit schools disproportionately to other programs funded outside the General Fund.  Which brings us to the state’s severance tax.

Colorado, like other western states, has lots of minerals, oil, and gas resources, but especially gas.  With the price of oil rising over the last few years, the state’s natural gas has become more valuable and has attracted drillers back to our more rural counties.  Northwestern Colorado, the home of Dinosaur National Monument, is experiencing another boom, as drillers are putting down wells and filling our small rural towns with lots of workers and their needs for good roads, clean water, clean air, and education for their kids.  Ah, the rub.

The state collects two taxes to help with the impact of extraction: the ad valorem property tax and the severance tax.  The property tax is assessed against the value of the gas extraction as property.  The severance tax is assessed to compensate for the lost resources, never to be returned to the earth.  Cities, counties, and school districts use the property tax.  Royalty owners can deduct 87.5% of the property tax off their severance tax.  The state is supposed to keep the remaining 12.5%.

Traditionally, the state has recycled much of the severance tax back to the rural counties for roads, clean water, sewage treatment, and other infrastructure needs.  The cities and counties have counted on this money as their towns boom and bust with the energy industry.

But now the whole state is bust, and the legislature wants to retain severance tax money to bridge the state’s budget gap.  Rural cities and counties are crying the blues, as well as other traditional severance tax collectors such as the Colorado Water Conservation Board.  This Board uses severance tax money to give out loans to water districts for water projects.

So traditionally, the severance tax money has been kept pretty far away from public education.  With the budget gap, the state needs to pull back some of this money from water, agriculture, cities and counties to prevent complete public school funding catastrophe.  As Hickenlooper says, “Public education is our most important priority.  What can be more important than educating our children to prepare them to be quality workers for our future?”

What can be more important?  Water projects for dam repair and storage?  Roads?  Tourism?  The Governor has chosen to put $17 million into tourism, money that might otherwise go to public education.  He has also chosen to put dollars into economic development and job expansion.  He has chosen to pull out only $31 million from the Colorado Water Conservation Board, out of $116 million.

What he has not done is set a water conservation policy that will reduce the need for agriculture and municipal water storage.  He has not set an extraction policy that will ensure the state receives the best value for its minerals, oil, and gas property.  He has decided that the state is not in the mood to raise revenue, because Coloradans have to vote to increase any tax, including the severance tax.  He has decided not to make the case to the state’s population that now is the time to review our tax policy and contradictory tax constitutional amendments.

The Governor has decided that now is the time to cut state revenues, even though the state has been cutting for the last three years.  He is apparently receiving advice from the business community that its interests are more important than public education, and six year olds can take it on the chin.

Unfortunately, the 2011-12 budget is just the beginning for school districts.  The revenues look bad for several years out.  And the Governor has already committed to at least two years of every government worker sucking it up, even though they have already experienced two years of up sucking.

State Republicans are firm against raising taxes, and are even trying to restore tax credits lost last year, including for bull semen, a uniquely Colorado tax feature.  Many Republicans want tax decreases, even as they say that education is their most important priority.  Frankly, with public school teachers unionized, public education will never be the Republican’s most important priority.  And with the Democratic Governor in thrall of cutting state revenue, public education, no matter what he says, is not his top priority.

Watering and feeding business and agriculture supersedes watering and feeding the brains of the state’s children.

More on Tenure - Good riddance? Save Money?

Wednesday, February 9th, 2011

Two weeks ago a number of newly-elected governors joined a few die-hard education officials in another tirade about teacher tenure. The gist of the argument states that education improves when teachers unions give up tenure.

Even after labor’s one hundred years of bargaining to gain fair pay, safe working conditions, health and pension benefits, and the right to work without arbitrary dismissal, the easy thing to say when revenue dries up is unionized teachers have too much.

Anecdotes abound about highly paid teachers who are past their days of productive teaching. Classes full of students with low scores on state tests are the fault of those teachers. If they were gone, student scores would go up, schools would improve, and districts would not need so much to balance the budget. That’s what the rant tries to make the listener believe.

Nowadays, approximately 2.3 million public school teachers in the United States have tenure. It is true that the system can generate problems. The union system protects incompetent teachers by making dismissal difficult and time-consuming, by doling out money for paid leave and substitutes.

Here is what districts and states do to mitigate the problem of incompetent teachers. (From the November 17, 2008, Time article, “A Brief History of Tenure” by M. J. Stephey.)

The least effective is what California Governor Schwarzenegger called “the dance of the lemons” which means move poor teachers around to other schools. Then comes separation agreements, i.e., pay to leave-sounds like what happens to corporate CEO’s.

In 1997 Oregon abolished tenure, but replaced the benefit with two-year renewal of contracts and programs to help low-performing staff.

In other states, tenure is revoked, but due process remains before dismissal. A few states, like Colorado (see post 9-29-10), are trying a system to avoid tenure altogether by basing evaluation on yearly goals that determine salary and professional movement. A set of steps for improvement is provided before the teacher is dismissed.

The trouble with the obsession over abolishing tenure is that dismissing incompetent teachers and banking the funds will not save the low-performing schools, nor the funds that have disappeared because of a recession or a state legislature’s poor budget management.

Poor school finance measures fail to provide equal opportunities for students. In California in May 2010 (see post 6-2-10) a lawsuit on the behalf of teachers, students, parents, and school boards was brought to court against the state. To summarize, the status of California education finances are inequitable, inadequate, and overly complex.

Here are five proposals (At Issue: School Finance Reform by Margaret Weston, November 2010) from the Public Policy Institute of California, specifically devoted to California’s budget mess, but applicable to many states’ school budget problems. The steps are proposed with the funds available in California’s 2010-2011 budget. No revenue increase is expected.

Meet resource needs. No state can expect success using a one-size-fits-all spending ratio. Some students require more extensive help; for example, transportation costs are higher for distant rural students.

Structure incentives properly. For instance, English Language Learners struggle to achieve academically, but if the state awards failing schools, where is the financial incentive to help those schools improve?

Allocate funds transparently. Dispensing funds to school districts is only understood by a few financial wizards. Why? If the state needs revenue for schools, the tax-paying citizens need to understand the system.

Treat similar districts equitably. Allocate base funds at equitable per-pupil rates. Allocate extra costs equally; for example, to ELL students and special education students. Now, the expenditure rationale is almost always based on historical factors, not the current reality.

Balance state and local authority. Individual school districts have unique needs. Plan for local decision-making authority in exchange for accountability.

The report never speaks of eliminating tenure as a tool to improve school budgets. It does mention accountability, where tenure issues meet a better evaluation process for teacher, administrator, and school board.

When budgets are resolved, what do schools take up next?

Wednesday, January 12th, 2011

Suppose the California legislature agrees to resolve the most current budget deficit of $25.4 billion as of January 11, 2011. California’s Governor Jerry Brown presented his administration’s budget this week. It includes big budget cuts (but not to K-12 budgets), as well as temporary tax extensions to be voted on in the Spring.

Suppose the California legislature agrees to revise the state and local tax system which had become so unfair that Proposition 13 passed easily in 1978. The fiscal trouble that existed then has increased many times over as the state and local governments vie for revenues.

Suppose  California citizens agree that all services cannot be paid for individually or by initiative.  Some, like fire protection, police protection, infrastructure, parks, recreation programs, and schools are better provided by communal funds.

If all that were agreed, some schools are still found in very poor areas-both urban and rural. Those schools need to be turned around. It’s not easy.

Mass Insight Education and Research Institute has laid out the steps to take. See www.massinsight.org.

Matteson School District (SD 162) in Illinois under Superintendent Dr. Blondean Y. Davis has given an overview of steps taken to improve student success. See www.edline.net/pages/Matteson_School_District_162

Success For All is used often, especially in eastern urban areas, as a specific reform for reading/language arts.  SFA lays out school-wide steps to make sure students learn to read and understand the meaning of text.  See www.sfa.org.

Edsource’s February 2010 report “Gaining Ground in the Middle Grades: Why Some Schools Do Better” explains steps that help adolescent students succeed.  See www.edsource.org.

Suppose schools began to turn around. What’s the next step?

Testing and the tests schools use is a huge complaint, whether the scores are used to assess student success or to evaluate teachers or to determine school quality.

The first problem is the kind of test: standardized, criterion referenced, short formative tests several times a year, one summative test a year; tests provided with software.  Who decides which kind of test to use: the state, the local school board, the federal Department of Education, the publishing companies of the United States?

Here’s another list of questions to resolve: which standards are tested; what do tests measure; how do results affect promotion, teacher evaluation, and accreditation for higher education?  See the Public Broadcasting Service’s Frontline program for an in-depth analysis of testing issues.

In education, the biggest concern is the quality of each school.  Does a single test determine all of the school qualities that establish success?

One statement can be made: once the budget crisis is resolved, state departments of education must analyze the tests they use. Successful schools depend on the steps taken.

Who’s going to take the tiger by the tail, the bull by the horns, or shoulder Sisyphus’ burden?

Give Us a Break

Wednesday, November 24th, 2010

Don’t lose perspective says Nicholas Kristof in the 10/31/10 issue of the New York Times.  Until 2008 we had only No Child Left Behind aka NCLB (the current name for the Elementary and Secondary School Act) which has been roundly criticized in education circles in spite of the initial bipartisan send off as the new century began.

By now, in California and other states minority groups form the majority.  See the San Francisco Chronicle November 17, 2010, “When minorities are the majority” by Arun Ramanathan.  You didn’t see this happening? Our education for those students is no longer the old style sit-in-your-seat-and-drink-it-in model.

middle school renovated after a bond passed

middle school renovated after a bond passed

It isn’t even the model that mostly white student schools use nowadays, especially when students reach middle school and begin to lag behind, if they haven’t already.  For anyone, studies describe what works.  For instance, Edsource’s report “Gaining Ground in the Middle School: Why Some Schools Do Better.”  You can leave it, but if you’re looking to change, you’d be wise to take it.

The latest anxiety is teacher education, never mind that educators have been hollering about it since the 1983 report Nation At Risk.  Give us a break–it’s a favorite worry of those who like to blame all on weak teachers.  If only teacher’s unions would let the experts get rid of “bad” teachers.  If only teacher training was upgraded.

The United States does need to look at what other nations do to find good teachers, accepting high quality scholars would help.  Raising salaries would help.  Training in critical thinking, problem solving, effective communication, and collaboration would help.  All were points made by Thomas Friedman in his Sunday, November 21, 2010, New York Times column titled “Teaching For America.”

Does the world think teacher training-whether pre-service or staff development– isn’t happening?  Does anyone think that various school boards haven’t analyzed the compensation issue, realizing that the old “steps” approach no longer works?  Do teaching institutions not try to accept the best?

Here is what everyone doesn’t remember.  In America individual states can listen to the federal government, but their decisions are made depending are where they are regionally and demographically in the country.  No one can tell all states to change.

The federal Department of Education can offer grants like Race to the Top which have excellent guidelines.  The president can be correct when he reminds the 300 million citizens of the U.S. that being well-educated is what makes a country strong.  The governors of the 50 states can designate a commission to come up with Common Core Standards and ask, but not require, the states to teach them.

However, three main things must be done no matter where you live.  State departments of education, school boards, and teachers must address the accountability issue and the assessments used to evaluate accountability.

They must address the gap in achievement for the minorities that are now the majority of traditional public, many charter public, and even parochial schools in this diverse country.  Every week another model is given accolades.

Last, state departments of education, school boards, and teachers must find a way out of the financial mess.  Whether it’s through changes in the pension system, a different road for compensation, changes in the structure of a particular school district, or the realignment of school districts, anything can be tried.  Keeping what is already there without paying is not an option.

The obstacle is to get states or regions in a state to agree on any of them.

Colorado Lost RTTT, but Jeffco wins big with TIF

Wednesday, September 29th, 2010

Public school teacher compensation has taken shots from every direction based on its lock-step grid structure.  Generally, all teachers in a district who have worked ten years and have 30 post-secondary credits receive the same salary.

Jefferson County School District in Colorado, the largest district in the state, is piloting a completely different compensation program funded by a $32.8 million federal Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) grant.

The grant provides money for a 20-school pilot project at elementary and middle schools with at least 50% of students on free or reduced price lunch.  Ten schools will pilot the new compensation plan; ten “control” schools will receive an across-the-board one percent pay increase and all the additional professional development services of the grant.  Teachers in the control group will continue to be paid for “steps and levels” negotiated in the District’s teacher contract.

The new strategic compensation plan is the result of collaboration by Jefferson County Education Association (JCEA), the teacher’s bargaining unit, district administration, and the school board.  It divides compensation into three tiers:  new teachers, experienced classroom teachers, and teacher leaders.  The pay structure looks like this:

Tier 1:  $40,000-$50,000

Tier 2:  $55,000-$75,000

Tier 3:  $80,000-$100,000

In Jeffco’s “steps and levels” structure, beginning salary is $33,000, and salaries top out at about $85,000.

How does the compensation plan work?

New teachers will start at $40,000 and will have a minimum of three years, and up to five years, to move out of the first tier.  During that time, they will establish annual individual, team, and school goals.  They will receive additional compensation, up to a total of $10,000, for goals met.  Goals include student achievement and growth using the Colorado Department of Education growth model.  Theoretically, new teachers can earn up to $50,000 their first year out.

Tier 2 teachers represent the experienced teacher corps.  These teachers will also establish individual, team, and school goals.  They will receive pay based on goal achievement levels, with up to $20,000 on the table.

Tier 3 teachers will serve as teacher leaders.  This level continues the career pathway set by Tiers 1 and 2, focusing on additional value that leaders bring.  These teachers may work longer days or more days during the school year.  They will mentor, provide data analysis skill, do model teaching, and/or perform peer performance evaluation.  With an entry salary of $80,000, these teachers can earn up to an additional $20,000.  Ideally, this tier will offer teachers a chance to try out leadership roles that can prepare them for administration leadership positions.

Additional professional development

Compensation change isn’t the only purpose of the TIF grant.  The district will create professional development programs for both pilot and control schools.  Schools will also receive an additional half-time vice principal to help manage the grant.

Overall the grant, distributed over five years, encourages creativity and innovation to ensure that children in low-income areas receive the support and powerful teaching necessary for their success.

Program received with mixed results

The JCEA is now meeting with the 25 elementary and middle schools that meet the free and reduced lunch criteria.  High schools are currently excluded from the study because of their size.  Issues have arisen around teachers at the top end of the current salary structure.  Some salary adjusting in Tier 2 will have to occur to accommodate the transition.  Some teachers are eager for the opportunity; others see risks and are “wait and see.”

Teachers’ union key to developing the plan

The Jefferson County Education Association was a critical player in developing the plan.  The union wants to take a lead role in figuring out how their professional compensation will look in the 21st century.  Kerrie Dallman, president of JCEA, said, “I am excited about this grant because it gives Jeffco teachers the opportunity to shape our profession now and in the future.  We know change is coming, and we want to help plan that change.”

Answering important core “reform” questions

Does teacher compensation affect teacher performance?  Does more focused professional development make the most difference for kids?    A related question is whether such a plan will attract a broader array of college students into the teaching profession if they can increase their income faster than in the current system.  JCEA wants to know if having a career path giving teachers more leadership opportunities will make a critical difference.

The five-year time frame may not be long enough to adequately test these premises, but much is at stake in the Jeffco study: new ways of thinking about compensation, professional development, career opportunities, new teacher training, and especially union-management collaboration.