School finance is used to being the ugly stepsister that draws little attention. Start a discussion about redesigning the school finance system, and suddenly its charming personality draws a little more attention. But when state budget forecasts clearly reinforce the fact that local school districts and other agencies won’t be loosening their belts in the immediate future, it’s time not only to see the inner beauty of school finance but also not to shy away from its tremendous potential as an agent of change.
No one enjoys talk of budget cuts or rollbacks, or wage and hiring freezes. No one in the world of education has gleefully anticipated the news that the additional $110 million in state funds for K-12 very likely won’t materialize.
But we’ll all be better off in the long run if we embrace the challenge as an opportunity to look at new ways of doing business. If a few weeks ago the talk of thinking “outside the box” seemed like a good and sensible idea, today it sounds more like a structural mandate.
Let’s do more than give lip service to ideas about financing productive schools, including Weighted Student Funding. Perhaps even consider ways to integrate technology for radical transformation. How much will we limit our thinking?
The alternative, and a dangerous temptation, will be to lean too heavily on growing federal education spending that could greatly further the trend of centralizing controls and weakening efficiency. Resist it. Inspire and encourage other states to effective reform.
No one says it will be easy, or enjoyable, or pleasant. But how many things that are truly worthwhile — in this case for the benefit of students and society in years to come — ever are?
Given the current fiscal state, this summer’s interim committee on school finance may yet play a landmark role in turning the wheels of successful education reform. Now wouldn’t that be beautiful.
Popularity: 2% [?]
I too hope that we not shy away from the tremendous potential of the current crisis to be an agent of change. Let’s look to California and see what disinvestment in the public sector can do to a once-great state. Let’s understand also what sort of disasters await us if we continue to insist on a fiscally handcuffed government. We cannot maintain (let alone improve) our schools, colleges, roads, prisons, courts, police, firefighters, etc etc if we continue to pretend that we don’t have to pay taxes to live in healthy civil society. Yes, we have a beautiful reform opportunity: we might realize the need to free ourselves of TABOR.
Welcome back, Quique. After a long reprieve, it’s good to hear from you again. Unfortunately, besides intentionally missing the point of the post, your argument is grounded in quicksand.
“Let’s look to California and see what disinvestment in the public sector can do to a once-great state.” Hmmm…. Based on latest Census data (2006), California state & local gov’t spent $10,100 per resident, or approximately 21+% of GDP. The U.S. average, respectively, is $8,400 per resident or just over 19% of GDP. (For comparison sake, Colorado comes in at about $7,800 per resident or just under 19% of GDP.)
Compare to 10 years earlier (1996): California spent less than $6,000 per resident, or about 19.5% of GDP. The U.S. average for the same year was about $5,300 per resident, or 18% of GDP. During the 10-year period, state & local government spending as a share of GDP grew by approximately 9.5% in California and by approximately 8% nationwide.
If you want to argue that is “disinvestment”, you had better re-think or explain the premise of your argument.
“We cannot maintain (let alone improve) our schools, colleges, roads, prisons, courts, police, firefighters, etc etc if we continue to pretend that we don’t have to pay taxes to live in healthy civil society.” This is a strawman argument. Who advocates the abolition of taxes or government services? I certainly am arguing nothing of the sort. What we’re talking about is a reasonable limit to the size and scope of government, which undeniably has grown faster than the economy (even in Colorado).
“Yes, we have a beautiful reform opportunity: we might realize the need to free ourselves of TABOR.” In case you haven’t noticed, Referendum C neutered TABOR. Nor have TABOR’s limits on government growth even come into play during this recession.
What we do have left in TABOR is the right for citizens to vote on and approve changes in tax policy that result in increased revenue (though even the recent state supreme court decision has watered that down). Do you want to take that right away from people? Why so hell-bent on killing TABOR for not even slowing the growth of government spending relative to growth in the economy?
I’m touched by your warm welcome, Ben.
In lieu of engaging in a back and forth about how to measure investment and disinvestment, let me just ask if you’ve spoken with anyone in California this year? Or, more precisely, have you spoken with anyone in California who gives a damn about higher education, parks, health care, state prisons, HIV/AIDS programs, or any of the other programs currently bearing the brunt of a state budget process tied in knots by nonsense similar to that in Colorado? Or, have you simply read the news? http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/06/16/california-tries-to-avert-budget-disaster/
btw, if Ref C so neutered TABOR, what is it that you’re trying to preserve? We both know that Ref C was a minimal and temporary solution to a much larger problem.
I know what’s going on in California. The problem is your fallacious assumptions of the cause. I’m not an expert, but I know California doesn’t have anything comparable to TABOR. Therefore, it’s really hard to see what you’re getting at.
Maybe it’s that Colorado has one of those anti-tax thingies (TABOR) & California has one of those anti-tax thingies (Amendment 13) — “you know, they’re all the same, more or less” — so there’s some sort of cautionary moral tale for our state government. Hmmm.
You still ignore the original point of this post, and have allowed your agenda to sidetrack us down a path, one which you have done nothing to provide a clear and convincing case for. But here I go nonetheless:
Are you saying that California state lawmakers own none of the current budget crisis, that they have been paragons of responsible fiscal policy? What if governments there had spent 20% instead of 21% of GDP, you know — saved for a rainy day? You wouldn’t argue that 20% of GDP would have starved any legitimate government services? The problem is that lawmakers indebted to special interest groups (including, most notably, public employee unions) don’t know when to stop spending — spending increases that largely don’t benefit the public who pay for them.
You go ahead and implicitly trust the politicians. Their track record tells me to do otherwise.
Whether or not you or I trust the representatives we elect through our democratic political process isn’t the point — I suspect we both hesitate to give that our full endorsement but both also hesitate to opt for something else.
California has a variety of restrictions on legislative spending and discretion (Prop 13, Gann, Prop 98, and the 2/3rd budget rule among them). So does Colorado (TABOR [modified by C], Amendment 23, Gallagher, and the hopefully departed Arveschoug-Bird). They are different in their specifics, but many of us see the effects as eerily similar.
Yes, I see an important lesson for state government. The point of my original comment is that I hope others see that lesson, too. These anti-tax crusades should be understood for what they really are: anti-public-sector crusades. Jarvis, Gann, Bruce and similar policy crusaders hate(d) government, from everything I can tell. For those of us who want to see a strong and vibrant public sector — schools, colleges, roads, parks, public safety and the like — I do hope California provides a ‘morality tale’ of sorts: untie the hands of our elected representatives. If you don’t like what they do, don’t re-elect them. But don’t doom the entire public enterprise to failure.
For those on the right who don’t like this idea, imagine that the U.S. Congress had a 2/3rd majority requirement on military spending. If you see the danger in that but not in starving our schools and other public services, then our differences lie in our spending priorities rather than in our ideas about sensible and workable decision-making.