Innovation and Truth-Telling in an Austerity Era

Innovation and Truth-Telling in the Austerity Era

The boom-to-bust cycle of California's economy is wreaking havoc with school budgets. Now that the Governor has announced his proposed $1.9 billion mid-year cuts, education leaders are searching with sorrow for limbs to amputate. They have already cut out the fat they could find. Now they're cutting to the bone.

However, necessity is a mother of invention. This may be one of those rare educable moments from which more creative solutions emerge. One such example comes from Irvine Unified. Their citizens collected $900,000 — a voluntary tax — to preserve smaller classes in grades one through three, during the last school year. This was a stunning act of generosity in the heart of the tax revolt.

Peter Schrag, the respected author and journalist, suggests in the Sacramento Bee of December 4, that this may be the right moment to ditch fashionable reforms that have doubtful benefits (i.e., class-size reduction). He urges instead focus, focus, focus.

Whether you're a board member, education leader, or involved parent, here are several opportunities to stand and deliver important lessons — not about school finance — but about civic engagement.

THE BIG PICTURE OF SCHOOL FINANCE NEEDS EXPLAINING

Few parents are aware that schools' operating budgets are tethered to state general revenues and property taxes. It is hardly logical, and equally far from obvious. Kids' educational needs don't fluctuate according to economic cycles. Only our capacity to pay changes. When citizens grasp this, they are far more willing to do what Irvine citizens did, or to impose parcel taxes or other forms of creative funding.

Equally baffling is the notion that school buildings must be funded by bond measures. We are in the odd historical moment when operating funds are likely to shrink, just as school construction and renovation funds are about to expand. The complete separation of these two funds — in fact, the legal requirement that they never be commingled — imposes a terrible inflexibility.

Two questions are worth airing:

1. If school districts can borrow to build, why can't they borrow to operate (especially with interest rates at historic lows)?

2. Why must school buildings be owned outright by districts? And if they could be leased, why shouldn't the cost of leasing be carried by debt?

INNOVATIVE AND RESOURCEFUL SOLUTIONS ARE NEEDED

Being frugal in austere times should mean more than just penny-pinching. Let the public know how you're managing all resources: class time, teacher assignments, building capacities, and contributions from volunteer and business partners.

What under utilized resources can be put to work? Unused field time can be rented to adult soccer clubs. If your schools are in areas where parking is at a premium on weekends, why not rent out your playground space? Schools have meeting spaces that might be of value to other organizations. Measure what counts, and account for what you measure. Show the public the metrics that matter. If your schools are crowded, how crowded are they? If you have administrators or teachers who volunteer time, measure and report it.

REVEAL THE IMPACT OF CUTS ON EACH SCHOOL, AND THEN REVEAL THE DISTRICT'S STORY

If cutbacks are on your board's agenda, the public will have a slew of questions. Parents usually begin with a concern about how the cuts will affect their children's schools. So begin revealing the impact of cutbacks at exactly the point where the public's questions begin: with a baseline accounting of each school's actual expenses.

Do you have actual school-level expenses to report? Real site-specific costs are what the public wants, not district averages. Those teachers' actual salaries (and benefits and pension fund contributions) — those buildings' actual maintenance expenses — that school's actual share of central services like transportation. The two-year-old Standardized Accounting Code System (SACS) enables district business officers to do this site-level roll-up. So there are no good excuses for failing to tell the school-by-school expense picture clearly and accurately.

THE PUBLIC POLICY DEBATE AHEAD: "ADEQUACY" FUNDING

The legal principle known as "adequacy funding" would make it the state's responsibility ultimately to provide adequate resources and funding for all students, no matter what the economic news of the day. It is far different from the equity argument made in the Serrano vs. Priest decision. Rather, it calls for minimal funding, based on an analysis of what basic resources are required to provide an adequate education.

Here in California, the Williams lawsuit argues that the state should be ultimately responsible for providing students with the resources required for an "adequate" education: books, facilities, teachers. The case will be heard in September, and is now a class action lawsuit.

The New Hampshire Supreme Court recently ruled that its legislature is responsible for providing adequate funding for all students. The case is triggering a redesign of the entire state funding system, and resulted in a new statewide property tax to pay for it. To read more, go to Education Week's May 1 story on the court decision.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

This austerity era may not be a short one. But whether it is long or short, innovation is always called for. To better understand what's possible, take a look at the Public Strategies Group, a "reinventing government" consultancy that's an oracle of wisdom.

Their special report on how to improve programs while cutting budgets is a bold, smart, and funny document well worth reading. They are especially school-smart, in part because their president, Peter Hutchinson, was previously acting head of Minneapolis Public Schools.

TOP OF PAGE