The Independence Institute’s Ben DeGrow says Colorado needs a brand new educational system, not more resources crammed into a slightly modified version of the current one.
The bipartisan adoption of Senate Bill 191 teacher evaluation reforms a few years ago was a legislative feat. But in historical accounts of Sen. Michael Johnston’s political career, the fight for SB-191 may be remembered more as a warm-up act for the school finance bill of 2013.
If reports are to be believed, the School Finance Partnership’s long road still has a few more weeks to go before the next key landmark is reached. February should bring us the introduction of Johnston’s school finance legislation. For months he has framed the project as a “grand bargain,” knitting together “bold” reforms with a “bold” request for more K-12 tax revenues.
Any tax increase component will have to be presented to citizens statewide for an up-or-down vote. Unlike the legislative debates over SB-191, this intrinsic piece of the proposal means he will have a very difficult time attracting support from more than a few – much less all – Republicans. The resounding defeat of 2011’s Proposition 103 isn’t the only reason for their well-placed skepticism.
Strictly speaking, though, Johnston only needs fellow Democrats to win the simple majorities in both houses needed to refer a tax measure to the fall ballot. I was glad to hear him express openness to some outside-the-box reform ideas shared at our Dec. 6 “Financing Student Success” panel event. Let funding follow students directly to the schools, and even the courses, of their choice.
But to the degree the bill sponsor is serious about bold improvements, he will face a larger challenge to muster 33 House and 17 Senate votes. The more watered down the reforms are to secure passage, the tougher the sell to Coloradans. If the proposal is light on substance, what else could be used to persuade?
President Obama may have taken to using child props in the national firearms policy debate, but tax hike proponents probably would be loath to follow suit given Sen. Rollie Heath’s unsuccessful precedent with Prop 103. An abstract prop like the “Year of the Student” may have to suffice.
Forget campaign props, though. Citizens would be well served just to have a common set of K-12 funding facts on which we can rely – facts from the Colorado Department of Education. Seeing that the average Colorado student is funded at a rate close to $10,000 might change the dynamics of the whole discussion, TBD or no.
Because our state needs a brand new system, not more resources crammed into a slightly modified version of the current vessel. As Paul Hill noted after the Center on Reinventing Public Education’s years of studying school finance systems: “…money is used so loosely in public education – in ways that few understand and that lack plausible connections to student learning – that no one can say how much money, if used optimally, would be enough.”
Like the little boy who pointed out the emperor’s unclothed condition, someone would raise the inevitable question about the needed overhaul that could benefit students so greatly: Why hold it hostage to another tax hike?
About the author
Ben DeGrow is senior education policy analyst for the Independence Institute, a free market think tank. Since joining the organization in 2003, DeGrow has focused on collective bargaining, teacher employment and school finance. He oversees the Education Policy Center’s informational website for teachers and coordinates the institute’s outreach to teachers.
Fair enough – I’d like to call Mr. DeGrew’s bluff on this one. Since Mr. DeGrew believes money isn’t always the answer I would propose that we take money from the wealthier school districts in the state (i.e. the higher achieving ones) and give it to the poorer districts in the state (i.e. the lower achieving ones). Since money (and poverty) don’t matter according to Mr. DeGrew let’s track the districts’ progress over 10 years. And if the poor school districts do worse because they have more money and the wealthier school districts do better because they have less money then I think we should proceed with the brand new educational system that Mr. DeGrew idealizes but doesn’t explain. Until then, talk is cheap, especially when it’s based not on reality but highly partisan ideology.
Bob, You may wish to re-read and check your assumptions about what I did or did not say. You also may wish to learn how to spell my name properly if you are going to refer to it as often as you do. It doesn’t help your cause. Then I’d be glad to have a more in-depth conversation about the design of a new educational system than the space for this column would allow.
SB-191 was passed to try to get Race to the Top funds. Colorado lost, so we didn’t get any RTTT money. The law, however, is costing lots of money to put into place (just how much remains to be seen). For example, principals (or other evaluators, who also have to be trained and paid) go from evaluating teachers once every three years to every year. That can’t happen with the current budget. School districts are already spending money of their own to figure out how to comply with the law, and that’s taking money away from classrooms that could be used elsewhere. SB-191 is just one example of an unfunded educational mandate, so to put the law into practice will require more money. It’s just that simple.
Ben,
I think it remains to be seen how bold Senator Johnston’s bill we be in terms of allowing money to follow students with additional weights for students with greater needs related to poverty, achievement or special needs. I know he wants to get there and do hope that the education establishment sees the benefits for kids.
I do think there is fairly overwhelming evidence that we need more money AND we need to change the school finance system. The only schools that are getting most of their low-income students to proficiency are doing it with different school designs, more learning time and additional resources. DSST, KIPP and STRIVE could not do what they are doing without the additional operating resources being provided. I do think school districts can be more efficient but even highly effective charters with public facilities need more operating income to work well.
I also doubt that more money by itself will move the system (there is lots of research to support this as I know you know) but not having more money will make it extremely difficult if not impossible to move the needle on achievement in Colorado.
We need major reform AND resources to improve education in Colorado.
You need more money to discriminate against English learners, Van? Who knew?
Actually, I agree with Ben DeGrow…to a point. The success that DPS has actually had with English learners, where the consent decree is complied with, is done without any extra appropriations from the district general fund. We just make policy to compel the district to focus on the right things, first.
The problem with the student-based budgeting model Van lauds (straight from ALEC, by the way) is that as kids leave a building, so does their funding. DPS suffers under these constraints now, so instead of funding a building according to programmatic needs, the ability to have social workers, interventionists, music and language teachers, libraries, etc., diminishes as kids move around. This is the problem with “school choice,” and it means that schools have to follow a sharp reductivist path in wholeness of school programs, just to make ends meet.
Education in Colorado needs more funding about as much as Barack Obama needs to unplug the teleprompter. Education dollars are routed to cover PERA short falls. Why is it that the first programs that are always said to be cut are the music and art programs. My child is in Orchestra, outside of supplying the teacher, the county has ZERO cost. The parents are the ones paying for the instruments. The answer why music is always the one is to tug at the heart strings. My child goes to the same middle school I went to. 25 years ago, this school had carpenter tools, power tools, work benches, vices etc. Tangible skills were actually taught in our system once upon time. Now resources are diverted to History taught by Howard Zinn disciples. You cannot tell me that cuts in funding eliminated these programs. The tools were paid for 40 years ago. The same school had a great collection of glockenspiels, choir bells, percussion instruments, vinyl record collection. Where did all of that go? The same goes to the vast libraries of 16 mm movies. Education has been declining steadily since the days of 16 mm movies. Why not go back to those learning aids, at least kids were being better educated then. Teachers are cannibalizing their own by refusing to pay a little bit more toward their already lavish benefit package. I love the lament from teachers when they say they arent going to get Social Security. I am not either, but I am paying into it!
I like Ben DeGrow’s comment on less is more when it comes to funding education. My educational career spans over 30 years and I have not seen where more money poured into education always increases achievement. It takes more than $ to reform education.
As far as how much money will be needed by Colorado school districts to finance SB 191 is anyone’s guess. My proposal is to enlist trained retired administrators and teachers to perform principal and teacher evaluations to offsett the cost. Smaller school districts definitely can’t afford to hire more administrators. The achievemant gap will widen!!! Why did we need a law to get school districts to do their job anyway?
I agree that more money does not always mean improved processes, programs, or student outcomes.
I have one question for those who actually know little about teaching but love to comment…
How many hours would you spend in a room with 33 six and seven year old children and a mandate to meet all of their needs while bringing each and every one of them to academic proficiency before you would run screaming for a bottle of 20 year old scotch?
Ben –
Sorry if this sound a bit abrasive – but your editorials are truly offensive. Do you have the capacity to think for yourself and ever break ranks with your Independence Institute right-wing anti-public school, anti-teacher talking points?? Nice try at the tired ol’ “lets privatize schools and see what happens!” corporate propaganda line again Ben. It might work for those with more relative privilege but would be especially devastating on those without it. Eliminating the public sector altogether is the corporate libertarian Independence Institutes dream and ultimate goal – we get it. We in public schools are the ones bringing “promoting the common welfare” to life. What public service role do corporate think tanks serve?
Your right – money is not always the answer. But it actually usually is especially in the case public education. Any teacher can tell you that; smaller class sizes matter. Being responsible for less kids overall matters. Having time to collaborate (study, implement, and adjust practice) with colleagues effectively matters. Having extra snacks, tissue, lunch money, and extra paper, pens, and pencils to provide for kids who simply don’t have them in class matters. Having technology (computers, internet that works, etc.) to teach with matters. More money does matter.
Colorado ranks near the bottom in the U.S. for per-pupil spending (http://www.cosfp.org/HomeFiles/Colorado_Trends_in_K-12_spending.pdf ). And Colorado has some of the lowest tax rates in the country (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/american-tax-havens.html). Perhaps you need some time in a public school classroom and away from your corporate propaganda mill fantasyland to get how that impacts real kids and real communities versus your corporate spreadsheet abstraction.
Actually, Mr. DeGrow spent, I believe, six entire months subbing at one point. A person with six months’ experience is the Independence Institute’s education expert. Six months in classrooms that weren’t even his own. Six months of following lesson plans that were left for him. Six months of no grading or planning. He’s probably the only person on the I.I. staff that’s spent even ten minutes in a school. Sheesh…..
Bret,
Do I follow you argument correctly when I summarize you as saying the decline of education is caused by People’s History wielding history teachers stealing resources from the students they aim to protect, forcing districts to garage sale off their noble glockenspiels and 16mm films with their worn scratchy soundtracks? Come into my classroom and try teaching with some 16mm film, LEAP will love you! Just bring the relevant films on crusty old white dudes.
Ben,
Could you please share some more detail as to what is in the “grand bargain” and how that is different than the status quo?
More glockenspiels! Not cowbells!
OK, Mark. I’ll bite. More cowbell.
Funny thing is that while money has gone up and while we no longer have those fine filmstrips or some great 35 mm films, most measures of achievement have only improved slightly for most groups of students. http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=171
I do miss the wonderful science film classics like Mr. Sun and Hemo the Magnificent from Frank Capra with all these brainy white guys doing science….they can be very useful teaching tools for reflecting science, the 50′s and how much thankfully the world has changed.
Van, You may be right about the need for more reform AND resources. But the way the system is constructed now, we can’t tell. If significant, truly “bold” changes are contemplated in the School Finance Act, that might change the equation.
Andres, I don’t find your statement that a piece written like the one above is “offensive” to be “abrasive.” What that is written above leads to your leaps in logic and assumptions that would indicate my agenda is as you describe? Critical thinking might distinguish more money for the K-12 system in general from more money for K-12 classrooms from money spent effectively in K-12 classrooms. Otherwise, we’re just spinning our wheels and not moving any serious discussion forward.
Thanks, Mary. Not accurate, but even more importantly, not terribly relevant. Some wag might respond by asking how someone with even less experience in tax collections could issue an opinion on tax policy and tax issues. Should you have to be a trained marksman to have an informed opinion on gun control? Should you be a career medical professional to have an informed opinion on health care policy? Please keep shooting arrows at me, though, rather than address the arguments about education that affect us all as educators, parents, and citizens.
Albert, The details of the “grand bargain” remain undetermined until the bill is introduced next month and the debates unfold. I am sure there will be more commentary to come.
Oh, and Andres — What kind of “corporate propaganda” think tank would so strongly oppose corporate welfare policies and schemes?
The kind that wants the public sector destroyed and sees no problem with unfettered corporate power. We’ll just sprinkle invisible hand free market fairy dust and every thing will be just fine!