Category Archives: School Finance

The Mackinac Institute for Public Policy’s Michael Van Beek — who is essentially the Michigan equivalent of my friends in the Education Policy Center — brought some interesting news to my attention with a recent posting: The Traverse City Area Public School district is raising transparency to a new level by posting on its website the contracts it proposes to unionized employees. At present, only the proposed transportation employee union contract is available, but eventually, all of them will be. So what, you say, that’s more than 1,000 miles away. Why should little Eddie in Colorado care? Glad you asked for me. Several months ago my Education Policy Center friend Ben DeGrow wrote an issue backgrounder called “Colorado Education and Open Negotiations: Increasing Public Access to School District Bargaining.” He noted that only one of 42 bargaining districts in our state have policies that ensure public access to the union negotiating process.

Interesting results from a survey by the Foundation for Educational Choice came out recently, gauging opinions and understanding of education issues of voters in six different states: Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas, Mississippi, New Jersey and New York. Taking a look at the full results (PDF) is fascinating. A few items about school choice jump out. Respondents in all states strongly support charter schools and private school tax credit programs and also favor vouchers. But interestingly, there was a lot of skepticism about virtual schools. Maybe if voters in these states were more familiar with online education as we are in Colorado, their opinions would change.

So you just got elected (or re-elected) to the Colorado state legislature. But it’s not as much fun as you thought, because they say there’s this big budget deficit that has to be made up. And that means some spending cuts, which won’t make you the most popular person with a lot of the interest groups that depend on funding from tax dollars. That includes K-12 education, which makes up the biggest part of the state’s general fund budget (about 45 percent). Some cuts will have to be made. But does that mean bad times for schools and students? Not necessarily, not if state leaders are willing to make some tough decisions. What sort of decisions? Well, I’m glad you asked. The Independence Institute has created a really thick report known as the Citizens’ Budget to show how legislators can find lots of ways to save money without harming important services. This big project helps to show in detail what my mom and dad have taught me so well: it’s not about how much you spend as much as how smart you are about spending it. (That’s saved me from breaking the piggy bank on a couple occasions.)

I’m super busy working on a new Lego project today, so forgive me for keeping this one short. But I wanted to bring your attention to an investigative piece by Greg Campbell at the online Colorado news service Face The State. The story? “Stimulus funds lavished on special ed – even where the need is in decline.” Apparently, the $150 million in special education dollars kicked down from D.C. to Colorado in the 2009 stimulus (aka the magical money tree) isn’t necessarily paying attention to where the special education students are: In the Sheridan School District in Arapahoe County, for example, enrollment in special-ed programs fell 22 percent from 2005 to 2009. And yet the amount of federal money the district can spend on such programs ballooned by more than 105 percent between 2009 and 2010, thanks to an infusion of cash from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Likewise, Colorado Springs School District 11 saw its enrollment in special ed decline by 12 percent from 2005 to 2009, but the amount of federal money available to run such programs increased by 114 percent from 2009 to 2010. The same is true of several other districts, large and small, including […]

Thanks to Mike Antonucci’s Intercepts blog, I learned that today is “National Blogging for Real Education Reform Day.” The American Association of School Administrators and ASCD (formerly the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development) are hosting this “grassroots effort to bring together Pk-12 and higher education educators.” I like to help educate people and am definitely grassroots, but I probably don’t fit the bill of whom they’re looking for to blog on the topic. Nevertheless, here’s a post for real education reform on November 22, 2010, and it has to do with educators. Specifically the way they are paid. I’m talking about all the money we pay teachers and other educators just because they have a master’s degree. As noted in a Saturday Associated Press story (H/T This Week in Education), we spend about $8.6 billion nationally each year on these “master’s bumps” — which have no connection to improved student learning. In Colorado, thanks to the research of the Center on Reinventing Public Education, we know the amount is nearly $140 million annually (that figure is from year-old data). My Education Policy Center friend Ben DeGrow pointed this out in July 2009 testimony he gave before the state’s Fiscal […]

Keep saying it to yourself: The election is almost over. Last week I told you about the low-profile contests for Colorado State Board of Education and the Denver Post endorsements in those races. My takeaway: Wouldn’t it be cool to have more education transformers on the Board? If you have State Board members on your ballot and you’re not sure how to vote, or you just want to be a more informed citizen, I commend to you the profiles posted today at Education News Colorado. Candidates in the 2nd, 5th and 6th District — the three seats up for grabs in 2010 — responded to questions about school funding, selecting a new commissioner, common core standards, testing and Race to the Top. Check it out. So all you big people out there, arm yourselves with the information you need. While you’re filling out your ballots for those big races and issues, don’t forget to get educated on the people who want to represent you in overseeing our state’s K-12 public education. One other resource: an iVoices podcast you can listen to with current State Board chair Bob Schaffer explaining what it is the Board does and how it works. You […]

One argument in education I’m already tired of is what’s the impact of union collective bargaining on student learning. Do unions help or hinder achievement? The problem is it’s an oversimplified question, as I once explained a long time ago. But the ever insightful Mike Antonucci from the Education Intelligence Agency put forward an interesting twist to the question on his Intercepts blog. The real effect of teachers’ union contracts, he says, is the 20.7% cost premium for states (including Colorado) with collective bargaining. To take it a step further, it would be good to control this finding for the cost of living to see how much of the premium remains. On that note comes an interesting story from California (H/T Joanne Jacobs): a school employees union “is protesting a program to place parents in volunteer positions on campus.” I guess it comes down to whether you think our K-12 system is primarily a taxpayer-funded jobs program or a means to help educate students and prepare them for the future. I vote for the latter. Whichever priority you choose has consequences–including the cost of education. Definitely something that deserves a closer look.

It’s been a long time since I’ve written about the federal government’s “magical money tree.” Funny how we forget so quickly about $100 billion of borrowed taxpayer funds shipped around the country to prop up the K-12 status quo. Or have we forgotten? Rich Lowry at National Review writes a column today that takes a big-picture view of stimulus education funding from the perspective of someone outside the education field. Sometimes it takes that kind of perspective to provide needed wisdom: The stimulus bill devoted $100 billion to education (about $80 billion of it for K–12). As Reason magazine notes, that’s twice the Department of Education’s annual budget. “Race to the Top” is less than 5 percent of this staggering gusher of money. It’s not “Race to the Top” that is the Obama administration’s signature education initiative, but spending that the teachers’ unions would only have dreamed of two short years ago. These funds have kept school systems from having to undertake wrenching changes, or any changes at all….

The past week has brought all kinds of big buzz in the education world. The news that 26-year-old billionaire and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has pledged to donate $100 million to schools in Newark, New Jersey, is as big as any. We’ve yet to see the details, so it’s hard to say for sure whether this is a good idea or not. Of course, as recently as yesterday President Obama made national headlines acknowledging the obvious, stubborn fact of education reform that simply pouring more money on the problem does no good. The USA spends more than $500 billion on K-12 education a year, about a billion dollars annually in Newark. So that should give some perspective to Zuckerberg’s generous challenge grant donation. (That, and the fact I broke open my piggy bank to start counting pennies and got nowhere close to $100 million.) As the Heritage Foundation’s Lindsey Burke observes: …the only hope of success for Zuckerberg’s $100 million venture into large-scale philanthropy is if the money is used to fundamentally reform the existing broken system in Newark.

This morning President Obama spent a 30-minute live interview on NBC’s Today Show talking about education. The headline from the President’s remarks, including in the Denver Post‘s featured AP story, was that money alone can’t solve education problems. True enough, and hats off to the President for acknowledging what has become abundantly clear to those studying the long-term trends in American K-12 public schooling. As my Education Policy Center friend Ben DeGrow has noted on the Ed News Colorado blog, the challenge today is how we are going to stretch the school dollar. In his interview, President Obama also touted a longer school year, his Race to the Top grant program to states and a newly-proposed initiative to recruit 10,000 new teachers from the math, science and engineering fields. That’s all well and good up to a point. But sometimes it’s hard politically to get beyond the soft-sell. What most caught my attention was this section from the AP story: