Summer may be the season for beating dead horses (not literally). If so, I’ll take the indulgence of bringing some extra attention to a thorough and commonsense debunking of the $23 billion education jobs bill by the Washington Post‘s Charles Lane. Thankfully, Congress appears to have retreated from adding one more profligate and ineffective bailout onto the backs of the American people and from further increasing our schools’ obligation to the federal treasury.

Even so, Lane takes valuable pains to do the math, to discredit bill proponents’ claims and to deflate the NEA scare tactics with facts and context:

…Notably, however, even these sources usually describe the threatened positions as “education jobs” – not teachers. That’s because the figures actually include not only kindergarten through 12th grade classroom instructors, but also support staff (bus drivers, custodians, et al.) and even community college faculty. And 300,000 is the upper end of a range that could be as low as 100,000. Nationwide, there are about 3.2 million K-12 public school teachers.

Moreover, springtime layoff notices are a notoriously unreliable guide to actual job cuts in the fall, because rules and regulations in many public school systems require administrators to notify every person who might conceivably be laid off — whether they actually expect to fire them or not….

And so it goes. Certainly worth a full read. (Mike Antonucci of the Education Intelligence Agency capably did similar work a week ago. Bottom line? Even the scarcely believable worst-case scenarios only would send our nation’s class sizes back to the dreadful dark ages of 1996 or 1997.) Piling on, Alexander Russo reminds us with a helpful graphic of the other options school districts are pursuing to tighten their belts apart from teacher (and other education employee) layoffs.

Finally, Robert Enlow makes a terrific point in a May 25 USA Today op-ed: If the feds are determined to travel the route of wild spending, misguided “stimulus” and generational debt, the least they could do is attach the money to needy students in the form of vouchers. Still, I much prefer the message: No more bailouts, please. Let’s find a smarter way to deal with the short-term shortages while building long-term reforms. Sharing in a little of the pain now beats the alternative we all face.

Popularity: 12% [?]

My leading and ongoing frustration with the debate over K-12 school funding is the lack of clarity surrounding basic data. You may disagree with my conclusions about whether and how to increase K-12 funding (and no doubt many do), but shouldn’t we at least be able to agree about the big, round numbers?

What prompted me to chime in today was an Ed News article by ace reporter Todd Engdahl earlier this week about the new Race to the Top application. The final throwaway paragraph currently reads:

Colorado asked for $377 million in the first round and was selected as one of 16 semi-finalists, but the only winners were Tennessee and Delaware. An award can be spent over four budget years. Colorado spends roughly $5.5 billion a year in state and local operating funds on K-12 education.

Originally, the last sentence read: “Colorado spends roughly $5.5 billion a year in state and local funds on K-12 education.” The word operating was added in front of funds. The problem is the sentence still isn’t accurate. A look at data reported directly by the Colorado Department of Education tells the story.

Where does the $5.5 billion figure come from? I’m not sure. Even if you look at the core of school funding — the “total program” in the School Finance Act — you get a figure greater than $5.7 billion for 2009-10. But the “total program” figure doesn’t include categorical funding, local mill levy overrides or many federally-funded programs.

If you look at reported school district revenues and expenditures for 2008-09 (the most recent data CDE has available), you find the following:

• A look at the Comparison of Revenues and Other Sources shows that combined local and state tax revenue to schools (excluding federal money, bonds and user fees, etc.) was just over $7 billion — all revenue sources, including for non-operating expenses, total nearly $9.2 billion
• A look at Comparison of All Program Expenditures shows the combined money spent on Instruction and Support Services (excluding possibly some other expenditures that may be classified as operating expenses) was just over $7.3 billion
• A look at Comparison of Salaries and Benefits shows that money spent directly on employee compensation, excluding other operating expenses, was just short of $5.7 billion

Am I splitting hairs? You decide. But it’s clear as recently as 2008-09, Colorado spent at least $7.3 billion on current operating expenditures, or more than $8,900 per student.

Let me be clear: I don’t blame Ed News or Todd for the confusion. You won’t find better reporting on Colorado K-12 education anywhere else. But the fact the error occurred here shows just how much the public needs a school funding and finance reporting system that is clearer, more accessible and easier to understand. How do we get there? That’s the discussion I hope to start.

Because I believe it’s necessary to ensuring that Colorado crafts policy that most fairly balances the interests of students, educators and taxpayers.

Popularity: 14% [?]