The PEBC Network
Click to PEBC.org
Click to EdNewsColorado.org
Click to Boettcherteachers.org
Click to Education Research and Practice

Archive for the ‘School funding and finance’ Category

Does CEA care more about school funding or political allies?

Friday, March 12th, 2010

Sure, the Colorado Education Association loves to increase funding for K-12 schools and retain member jobs. But sometimes, its pleas for school funding simply don’t add up. Yesterday’s CEA blog entry “Amazon: play fair, support school funding” is just such an example:

In other words, Amazon firing its affiliates does nothing to impact the fact that Amazon.com is still required to collect sales tax or, at a minimum alert their customers to this requirement under state law. The giant retailer is using its political weight to protest losing its tax-free status and having to compete on par with other Colorado retailers.

Why should you care? Because sales tax revenues fund public schools. A portion of all sales tax revenue goes into the State Education fund, the first source for nearly all K-12 public education programs, from the state’s share of Total Program to funding for full-day kindergarten. (more…)

Popularity: 2% [?]

  • Share/Bookmark

Success, not seniority, should determine layoffs

Wednesday, March 3rd, 2010

Leave it to the National Council on Teacher Quality to get their fingers dirty in doing the research and breaking down a timely and important education reform topic. Their latest effort, eminently readable at 10 pages, is Teacher Layoffs: Rethinking “Last-Hired, Last Fired” Policies (PDF).

In tough budget times like these, the goal for school boards is (or at least should be) to minimize the impact on the classroom. But K-12 more than 60 percent of its employees serving as classroom teachers or instructional aides, it’s very difficult — and in some cases, perhaps inadvisable — to make the cuts while leaving classrooms pristine.

The NCTQ report relies on its database of collective bargaining agreements of the nation’s 100 largest school districts, which includes two from Colorado (Jefferson County and Denver). According to the report, both districts use seniority as the determinant to make the painful layoff decisions. Douglas County’s Reduction-in-Force provisions also indicate a reliance on seniority “except when a teacher
with less seniority must be retained in order to meet identified program needs.” Procedures in Aurora are less clear, based on the language of the bargaining contract.

Considering the research-based observation that teachers on average retain effectiveness from their third year onward, it would make more sense from a fiscal standpoint to lay off more senior teachers first. You would lose fewer teachers for the same price tag, and have a random chance of picking the same ratio of poorly-performing and mediocre instructors as the other way around.

But ultimately that would be no more rational than the existing approach and might offer up its own set of unintended disincentives. As the report points out, much more consideration needs to be given to a teacher’s demonstrated performance in making these tough decisions. And that means boosting or overhauling existing evaluation systems.

State lawmakers could act, too. Current statutes don’t have much to say on the topic, except for the stipulation that first-year probationary teachers must be let go first. If not a mandate, then incentives should be given to local districts and schools to incorporate more performance measures into their reduction-in-force procedures — and maybe to follow the lead of those like Harrison School District and the Cole Arts and Science Academy innovation school that are building new and effective evaluation systems.

Following many of NCTQ’s recommendations is one way Colorado lawmakers and officials can show we give higher priority to success than to seniority in our schools.

Popularity: 8% [?]

  • Share/Bookmark

Handicapping Race to the Top

Saturday, February 27th, 2010

This analysis suggests Colorado has reason to hope.

Popularity: 21% [?]

  • Share/Bookmark

An appeal to ostriches on fiscal crisis

Monday, February 22nd, 2010

The voice crying in the wilderness is back: Behold, K-12 leaders, prepare ye for the fiscal tidal wave.

I had hoped for some sort of response to the last post, rather than the powerful feeling of shouting alone from the left-field bleachers. But this morning I got the next best thing to a direct response: a (sort of) similar independent observation from Milwaukee School Board member Bruce Thompson posted in the Journal Sentinel about the serious financial woes faced by his large urban school district:

Didn’t anyone see this coming? The answer is yes. For the past 10 years at least, anyone who studied the numbers could see the coming disaster. The only question was how quickly it would come. Of course, many tried to pretend it would not happen; when the School Board expanded the early retirement plan, it rejected our proposal for an actuarial study of the cost.

The bigger question is why didn’t anyone do anything to avert the disaster that clearly loomed on the horizon. Part of the answer is, of course, the natural human instinct to put off unpleasant decisions in the hopes that something will turn up. But the bigger explanation, I believe, is a failure of democracy, or at least what passes for democracy, in the MPS context….

Thompson goes on to call for a change to the school board election process, low turnout affairs typically dominated by vested interest groups (read: teachers unions). I covered the topic of Dr. Terry Moe’s relevant research in this area as recently as a few months ago.

George Mitchell (no, not that George Mitchell, or even that one) at Education Next highlights Thompson’s commentary under the heading “Public Education’s Looming Fiscal Train Wreck”:

What makes Thompson’s analysis significant is that it could be applied to a substantial number of public school districts today—urban and rural. More and more, school officials are looking at the numbers and realizing they don’t add up. More and more, the consequences of collective bargaining are beginning to be felt.

Yes, Thompson’s commentary doesn’t tap into all the major points of Guthrie and Peng’s analysis. Yes, his proposed solution is a small but important piece of the puzzle. And yes, Mitchell latches onto the metaphor of a man-made disaster rather than a natural one (something to ponder and quibble about at a later date).

But at least it’s not just me. There are a handful of us sitting in the left-field seats, or maybe even patrolling the outfield grass. In any case, I’d at least feel better if someone could take on these arguments and show me where the projections of fiscal trouble go astray. Otherwise, I might as well be talking to a herd of ostriches with their heads in the infield dirt.

That won’t stop me from digging deeper into the topic and continuing to ask the questions that need to be asked.

Popularity: 8% [?]

  • Share/Bookmark

It’s time to face the fiscal tidal wave

Thursday, February 11th, 2010

I’ve been gone from these pages for awhile, but return a voice crying in the wilderness. Not exactly as a prophet of doom (I don’t have the long gray beard or ragged robes for the part), but I do wish to make a point emphatically in hopes that citizens, officials and policy makers will lift up their heads and take action before the very real threat of a fiscal tidal wave arrives.

Jeremy Meyer’s story in the Denver Post today contains the unpleasant news of the budget cuts faced by many Colorado school districts. No one will deny the difficult and painful decisions that must follow. All our hopes are for cuts that minimize the impact on classrooms and student learning.

But I am now confident more than ever that it is imperative for school districts and state lawmakers to seize the moment and fundamentally redesign systems for efficiency. Houston superintendent Terry Grier’s controversial call to stop funding master’s “bumps” is a modest but important step that demonstrates just how difficult this process will be.

For those who have dedicated themselves to the work of public education for years or even decades, stepping back to look at the big picture may not be easy to do. But it must be done. A tepid approach today exacerbates tomorrow’s pain and likely worsens future consequences.

Last month the Fordham Foundation and American Enterprise Institute co-sponsored an event titled “A Penny Saved: How Schools and Districts Can Tighten Their Belts While Serving Students Better” (our own Commissioner Dwight Jones was a panelist). The greatest value of the event is the repository of serious and scholarly analyses on effective ideas to save money. There simply isn’t space here for me to rehash them all. Please check them out.

Most important among the published analyses, and first on the list, is James Guthrie and Arthur Peng’s well-researched examination of the big picture “A Warning for All Who Would Listen: America’s Public Schools Face a Forthcoming Fiscal Tsunami” (Please note it’s a draft document, I look forward to the final product). Guthrie wastes no time getting to the point:

A 100-year era of perpetual per-pupil fiscal growth will soon slow or stop. The causes of this situation are far more fundamental than the current recession. Schools should start buckling their seat belts now.

This article has two major points. First, even when controlled for inflation, school spending has been increasing substantially for a century. Second, political and fiscal pressures will soon coincide to reverse this condition. Issues of productivity and performance will become paramount.

In other words, public school agencies have had it good for a long time, but tough times really are coming (we’re talking 2012 and beyond, after the recession). Judge for yourself whether Guthrie should be taken seriously. But he argues persuasively that changing demographics, the pension time bomb, massive shifts in dependency from local to federal revenue, a mounting national debt, and growing competition from political interests will combine to unseat K-12 from its privileged funding perch. Something has to give, my friends.

The public’s fascination with small class sizes, or at least the expectation that the fundamental classroom design will remain unchanged in perpetuity, is among the things to give. And we can expect the general amity between teachers unions, other education employee interest groups and the public at large to fade as well. Competition for a suddenly shrinking pie of resources will do that.

Colorado may be relatively blessed. While our state’s real growth in per pupil spending has been more modest than the nation as a whole (25 percent over the last 20 years or so vs. about 40 percent for the national average), it seems likely that any crash would hit Colorado with less force. Not to downplay the fiscal pain in real terms, but this case would be one in which it would be relatively better to have a low national ranking.

Still, some day before long private school vouchers or tax credits may win the day largely on the appeal of saving taxpayer money. Public schools are thankfully an institution that will be here to stay, but they almost certainly will look a lot different a generation from now. It is up to the courage and persistence of Colorado school officials to help determine how much of the re-shaping will be at their own hands and how much will be imposed on them by outside pressures too great to control.

I hope this conversation will continue, and spread far and wide. Pressing local and state political concerns of the moment are always hindrances, but we need clear-headed leadership with long-range vision now as much as ever. So why do I fear everyone will just go on his merry way?

Popularity: 18% [?]

  • Share/Bookmark

How not to cut teachers

Wednesday, February 3rd, 2010

My district is facing huge budget cuts for next year. $24 million in cuts to be exact. Since our district is like most, where more than 70% of the budget goes to personnel, we are talking lots of jobs here.

Tough decisions will be made in the next few months. Decisions about which teachers will lose their jobs are based on our Master Agreement. Usually, non-tenured teachers are the first to go. Then, if you have all tenured teachers, you go to a special appendix in the agreement.

Here there are various formulas that you apply to teachers after which you assign points for each tenured teacher; low points=lost job. Points are given for years of service; you receive points for your level of education; and more points are awarded for extra-curricular activities that a teacher may sponsor, like hip-hop club. What would you award points for?

Does it matter? We are going to cut support personnel from the classroom. We will increase class size. Increase the duties that teachers will have to perform as in hall duty and so on. All of this will require the best teachers possible in the classroom. Yet, we won’t make our decisions as to who these teachers are based on their ability to handle the increased work-load. We will use longevity and levels of education to decide which teachers stay.

Perhaps our dire economic and budget situation will force to rethink how we assess teachers.

Popularity: 37% [?]

  • Share/Bookmark

Show us the R2T reviewers, please

Wednesday, January 27th, 2010

So Secretary Arne Duncan is keeping the Race to the Top application reviewers under wraps. Tell me why again? The Eduwonk does his best to lay out the argument.

It just doesn’t add up, though. As Rick Hess explains in greater depth, the justification for the USDOE’s lack of transparency is weak. Concerns about how the process is being handled may be much ado about nothing. But having set up ARRA with promises that money would be distributed with “unprecedented levels of openness” and given the current weakened political state of the Obama administration, this seems like a no-brainer. You err on the side of transparency.

Why? Read the scenario laid out by Fordham’s Mike Petrilli, and begin to wonder about the unnecessary risk to the credibility of the entire Race to the Top process. Colorado and other states should win or lose a share of the money based on the merit of their applications, not based on outside political considerations. So why even open the door to the possibility of such criticisms by closing the door on the identity of the reviewers?

I have avoided the strong temptation here to raise political questions about the motivations of national actors. So far. But presuming good intentions and strong dedication from Secretary Duncan and his team, we ought to see only a few states that demonstrated real seriousness about reform win the prize. And we ought to be able to see who is reviewing the applications sooner rather than later.

Popularity: 11% [?]

  • Share/Bookmark

Who will get hit the hardest?

Monday, January 25th, 2010

I wonder what Great Education Colorado and others who advocate  for more money for education (with little discussion of reform) are suggesting now that districts are going to have to slash anywhere from 5-10% of their budgets.  For the record, I believe Colorado needs some major reforms AND more funding for Pre-K to 20.

I’m somewhat surprised that there has been little discussion of the implications of a 5-7% budget cut on class sizes.   My rough calculation is that these cuts may have a 10-15% impact on class size depending on how districts and the unions manage the cuts.

The current seniority tenure system that forces most districts to operate under the mechanism of last hired, first fired will likely have a disproportionately large impact on the youngest teachers (and ultimately classrooms).   In a layoff situation, it may be easier to get rid of probationary teachers but it will result in a greater number of layoffs than a 5-7% budget cut might portend.

Districts like Boulder, Englewood, Cherry Creek and Littleton with more experienced teacher pools will be the hardest hit in this situation.  To top things off, most of these cuts are likely to done without any reference to teacher effectiveness.

By the way, it’s great to see the Harrison district leaping ahead of most other districts with new systems and a culture linking teaching to impact.  It will be interesting to see how Superintendent Mike Miles and his team manage these cuts.

For those wanting more background on some of these issues, check out Marguerite Roza’s policy brief from last year on the national implications of the recession.

Popularity: 30% [?]

  • Share/Bookmark

“Math progress” gives context to Quality Counts

Tuesday, January 19th, 2010

January is here. The calendars have turned, the legislative session is underway, and Education Week has released its Quality Counts survey. That means it’s also time for the desperate pleas of school funding poverty, unfettered by meaningful context. No talk of targeted spending or useful programs, but rather the underlying assumption that the next 100 million dollars would do something … because it just has to….

Following tradition, Great Ed (How are you? It’s been too long!) last week shone the light on Colorado’s alleged “Race to the Bottom.” I accept that as an invitation to add some missing context.

First of all, there are problems with the Quality Counts methodology, but let’s set them aside for now. Even if we were to assume QC is the gold standard of measurement, then it’s worthwhile noting that Colorado has remained steadily at somewhere between 37th and 40th in School Finance at least since 2005. This year we’re 38th. No precipitous (or even steady) decline there.

But rather than simply navel-gazing at aggregate inputs, let’s ask what Quality Counts has to say about academic outputs. The focus of this year’s survey is on “math progress” — and features a composite measurement of AP & NAEP status scores and growth, including the “poverty gap” between Free and Reduced Lunch students and their non-FRL peers.

The results? Colorado ranks 7th in “math progress” out of the 50 states plus D.C. with a rating of 70.9. Wyoming — our neighbors to the north and the state that earned the top rating in School Finance — finished 29th with a 64.7 rating.

More interesting than making mere comparisons of input rankings would be to study closely what QC’s lower-ranked School Finance states like Idaho, Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota and Florida are doing to rise to the top on “math progress” and urge other states to follow their example. Similarly, higher-ranked School Finance states like Wyoming, Connecticut and Rhode Island that seriously underperform on “math progress” should be examined to see what’s going wrong in this area.

Or we can just come around every year with new pleas of poverty, and build false hopes and misguided aspirations on them. Can Colorado do better than #7 in “math progress”? Yes, and I hope we do. But there’s no reason to believe just throwing more money into the pot relative to other states will make it happen.

Popularity: 10% [?]

  • Share/Bookmark

Tough choices remain for Jeffco

Friday, January 15th, 2010

As a taxpaying citizen of Jefferson County, I recognize that the school board has faced some very tough decisions lately. Ending up only closing down one school in the drastically under-capacity district, as the board did last night, is admittedly a token move that won’t solve the core budget problems.

But given the loud public statement made by students and other members of the community to leave alone Wheat Ridge Middle School and others, how can I say I would have acted differently? (It certainly would have swayed my vote more than a letter from the Congressman urging the board to save a school he attended more than 40 years ago. Sound policy is forged from better things.)

As Nancy Mitchell’s story captures well, the debate in Jeffco isn’t done. It merely has moved forward to a new phase. At least one board member (disclosure: whom I personally supported in the recent election) gets it:

“To every person in this district – wake up,” board member Laura Boggs told the ultimately happy crowd on Thursday. “We have too many seats for the number of children that we currently have and that we project to have … we need to fix the capacity problem in our district.”

And while board chair Dave Thomas raised alternative solutions to balancing the budget that might include furlough days, salary freezes, and/or layoffs, the local union leadership is left in its own difficult (and unrealistic) position:

[JCEA president Kerrie] Dallman, who addressed board members early in the evening Thursday, urged them to “provide us the leadership this district deserves in a time of crisis” by putting a tax increase on the November ballot.

The district “is trying to run a champagne program on a beer budget,” she told the board.

If by “beer budget” you mean a $1 billion budget supporting 14,000 employees to serve 84,000 students, then so be it. But now that Jeffco Public Schools has taken the very laudable step of pushing the envelope on financial transparency as a way to rebuild community trust, my fellow citizens and I will have to decide whether our families can more easily afford to pay more each month in property taxes or whether the district can find a way to be leaner in accomplishing its mission.

Right now, I’m leaning against the tax hike idea. Sorry, school board, but I see more very tough choices coming down the pike.

Popularity: 9% [?]

  • Share/Bookmark
Daniels fundColorado League of Charter SchoolsColorado Childrens CampaignCollege InvestPitton FoundationsDonnell-Kay Foundation