Area charter schools and traditional school districts should begin the discussion now about whether or not to pursue the choice options that the recently passed legislation, Mastery Advancement Pilot Program can provide for students and parents. The passage of this legislation (House Bill 493) is truly significant and can help Idaho families and students in a number of ways. Unfortunately, it is a “pilot program” and only 21 school districts and 3 charter schools will be accepted into the program. Program applications will be made available by mid July from the State Department of Education and those applying districts and/or schools must have their applications submitted by September 1, 2010.
Why should a charter schools or a school district even bother to get involved in this program? In general, schools should apply and take advantage of it if accepted, because it can empower students with some ownership of their education decisions. Specifically, it could benefit students and parents financially by reducing the cost of a college education. Here is how that might work for some students. This program will allow a student to challenge classes beginning in elementary school and finish the grade k-12 curriculum up to 3 years early. Essentially, this means that a student could take college level classes at their home high school for 1 or 2 years and have a 2-year degree by the time they are 18 years old. Then they could elect to enroll in one of our public institutions of higher education and have only one or two years left to obtain a 4-year college degree. A college education, even at our state supported universities is expensive, so if a student could eliminate one or two years of that cost, the savings are significant. You can do the math, but it is not a stretch to see possible savings of $25 to $30,000 for a student participating in this program.
Obviously this program is not for every student, but every school and district has one or more who could benefit by it. Every school and district should try to take advantage of it for the good of their students.
Schools wishing a briefing on this new legislation are invited to contact the co-sponsor of the legislation, Rep. Steven Thayn.
In many Idaho communities, taxpayers have stepped up to the plate to help finance the building of nice new schools with modern amenities. Today’s teachers, in comparison to just a few years ago, are better trained. Nearly all teachers are fully certified for the subjects they teach, almost all have four-year degrees and a great many have advanced degrees. In short, our schools, from almost every standpoint appear to be better than at any time in our history. But if our schools are better, than why do we continue to have high dropout rates and low achievement. And why do our schools, that once led the world, rank low on the world stage? Why haven’t they improved?
The reason schools don’t improve is because they don’t have to! Are there consequences for poor performing schools and poor performing teachers? For the most part the answer is NO! The state funding continues whether our schools succeed or fail. Kids continue to arrive at school every day, every year. They do so because they have very little choice. The traditional school, in most Idaho communities, is the only “game” in town and nothing really changes. Failure and mediocrity are continuously rewarded. All kinds of efforts have been tried over the past few decades to make substantive improvement, beginning with the school improvement study and recommendations of “A Nation At Risk.” Many readers will recall this hard-hitting and damning paragraph of that 1983 report:
“If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war. As it stands, we have allowed this to happen to ourselves. We have even squandered the gains in student achievement made in the wake of the Sputnik challenge. Moreover, we have dismantled essential support systems, which helped make those gains possible. We have, in effect, been committing an act of unthinking, unilateral educational disarmament.”
Now, 27 years later after spending billions of dollars to improve our schools, where are we? No better, and perhaps we are worse. We have allowed our educational status in the world to fall further behind. Again why? It is because schools are a monopoly with no competition, and parents and students are not empowered with choice. Without choice for the consumer and without incentives to improve there is no change.
Competition works! It has worked in every facet of our lives to give us the best standard of living on the planet. It can work to once again make our schools the envy of the world.
What can be done? First, our policy makers at every level must come to grips with the reality of the situation. When our policy makers truly understand the problem and the solution they will come to the conclusion that a drastic change must take place. That change must be in some way, to empower parents with the right to make the decision where their children attend school. Parents also must be given the monetary power through tax credits, scholarships or vouchers to do so. Affluent parents have always had education choice. Now is the time to give that same option to all parents.
The naysayers about choice will downplay the idea of competition. Opponents of choice use children as a “shield,” saying schools can’t compete for students. Doing so, they charge, will lead to the collapse of the education system and hurt kids. Not true. In fact, schools DO compete for students. Higher education is a perfect example. Students aren’t told to attend a state university based on their zip code. Universities compete statewide, nationally and globally for students. These schools do so by offering as superior a product as they can and targeting the academic interests of their prospective students. These colleges and universities recognize that if they fail to compete — if they revel in mediocrity, students will vote with their feet. They’ll attend school elsewhere. Therefore, unlike traditional public schools, failure is not an option for colleges that must compete in a free market.
It is time to get serious with empowering parents with choice as to how and where their child is schooled. Then, unlike the last fifty years, we will really start to see changes and improvements in our education system.
“If one could do one thing to improve our country it would be to improve our schools!”
The mission of every legislator has to be to improve education in Idaho. Nothing they do is as important as creating an education system that helps our kids succeed in whatever career path they choose. This legislative session has ended and elections are near, so please make this your re-election centerpiece. Strive in every way possible to make our schools better. Our communities, our state and our nation depend
upon it.
However, striving to improve our schools does not mean throwing more money at schools. That is simply not the answer, for if it were, our schools would be the best in the world. Our schools are not the best and it is NOT due to a lack of money. It is due to a failed system, which continues to plead for money as the answer, instead of reinventing itself with students, parents and taxpayers. Indeed, the one thing our schools do best is focus on the needs of school employees, not on the needs of those who need to be educated.
We can’t continue to conduct “business as usual.” It does not work! We need legislators who know and understand the true condition of our schools, which have horrendous dropout rates and low achievement. Our schools lag behind our foreign competitors in every discipline. We need legislators who are willing to say, “I am mad as hell and I am going to do something about it!”
A legislator who is committed to fixing the broken system and restoring the promises of a quality education for all Idaho students will ask tough questions about our current school system. He or she will ask why do we continue to:
- Fund a flawed transportation system where buses run all over, some nearly empty, and sometimes crossing school district boundaries with 50 percent of the bill to be paid by the state?
- Fund hundreds of administrator salaries (superintendents, assistant superintendents, curriculum directors, clerks, public information officers, federal project directors and so on) when half that amount could do the job if school districts were to consolidate?
- Fund an appropriation for teachers who achieve “National Board Certification” when there is absolutely NO correlation between that certification and student achievement?
- Maintain a funding formula that rewards districts with greater funding if they hire the most experienced and most educated teachers, when it is known that there is NO correlation between those two factors and student achievement?
- Support a funding formula that places small and rural school districts at a teacher recruitment disadvantage with the larger more urban school districts?
- Support a funding formula that provides a “stumbling block” for more charter schools?
- Ignore what most Idahoans know, that tenure, (continuing contract) for teachers is detrimental to our kids?
- Believe the education establishment’s plea, “we must have more money or our kids will suffer,” when Utah educates its students just as well as Idaho (maybe better) and for $1,000 less per student per year?
- Continue, to fund a growing bureaucracy of the Idaho Digital Learning Academy when private sector providers can do the same job better, and at less cost to the taxpayers?
- Continue to stifle education choice, such as a cap on charter schools, when the vast majority of Idahoans support charter schools and more school choice options, such as tax credits or vouchers?
- Perpetuate a flawed teacher compensation program where only time in service and credits earned determine salary and neither of which has anything to do with how well the teacher performs or how well students learn?
Place hurdles on the authorization of more charter schools when it is a known fact that they DO NOT consume any property tax and they do a better job of educating kids?
Those are hard questions, but they all need to be addressed, one at a time perhaps, but not ignored. In my 50 years of committed involvement with our schools, I have witnessed our schools become great places for the adults, but one that has gradually deteriorated for the student. Only when lawmakers are willing to ask the tough questions can our schools improve. If our schools are improved, we will leave to our kids and grandkids a state and a nation that is far better off than it is today.
Our schools across the nation and here in Idaho are faced with doing their job with less money. The question posed most recently in this newspaper was about moving kindergarten from half days every day to alternate full days in order to save money. It seems that whenever there is a shortfall in money the solution is to always do away with or curtail some program that directly impacts kids and parents. It does not have to be that way. There are a host of other possibilities but schools never want to impact the adults, the employees. School budgets are 85-90 percent employee salaries and fringe benefits. If you want to save money you have to look where most of the money is spent.
If the classroom and the teaching of kids is the most important function of schools, and I am sure most would agree, then teacher assignments and teacher aide responsibilities must be of the highest priority. However, even these high priority positions will have to bear some of the brunt, but it can be done without impacting kids and parents.
The school district has asked for patron input to determine how to cut approximately $5 million out of the budget. The district does not provide much data for patrons to use when making those recommendations. It would have been helpful if the patrons were aware of the district’s maintenance and operation budget which was in excess of $75 million 2 years ago, and that there are more than 50 administrators, and that the top administrators are paid over $140K. It would have also been helpful for the patrons if they had not only the current numbers to consider, but a host of other relevant data. It is difficult to make recommendations without sufficient data.
So, even without that current data I will make some recommendations that would NOT impact the kindergarten program or reduce the teaching staff, or in other words, would NOT hurt kids.
An “across the board” reduction in salary of 8 percent would solve the current problem but that would not be fair to the teacher who makes $31,000 or the teacher aide, or custodian making substantially less in comparison to a top administrator who earns $140,000. But to deal with the cut that the district says is necessary some salary reduction appears to be essential. It is certainly better to deal with teachers earning a little less than having fewer teachers! Perhaps a reasonable approach would be a tiered system, where the lower end salaries would be frozen at current levels, and an upward ratcheting of cuts of the higher salaries to achieve the desired level of savings to the school district and ultimately to the guy who pays the bills, the taxpayer.
If this remedy gets some “traction” a possible response from affected employees is to reduce work if pay is reduced. In other words shorten the school year. Bad idea! That certainly would negatively impact kids.
Another area that should be examined for savings is the amount of money spent on the various fringe benefits such as a host of different insurance programs. It is customary in most government agencies, especially school districts, where ALL of the employee insurance and sometimes even the insurance for the family is paid by the taxpayer. Certainly some savings could be achieved in this area Not only would some savings be achieved by having the employee assuming some of the cost of his or her insurance, the employee would have some ownership of their insurance program. Through such ownership, the employee would place more value and undoubtedly have a greater appreciation and would use it more wisely.
Examination of the current non-teaching staff is essential in two ways. First, any vacant non-teaching positions should not be filled and remaining personnel should be reassigned to fill any void. Secondly, perhaps there are some non-teaching positions that should be eliminated. There are a host of positions that may not have any impact on the mission of the school, “teaching and learning.” I have never understood why a school district needs a public information officer. Yet in this valley’s school districts, nearly a half million dollars is spent annually on this one position. There are other non-teaching positions that are expendable, especially now as districts try to protect their primary function.
The district could go to the property taxpayer and ask for more. Currently the supplemental tax levy is $1,600.000. The district could ask their Nampa voters to approve an additional amount to help cover the $5 million shortfall. However to ask voters to approve an increase over the current level, and to ask voters to approve a greater tax load on themselves, when many are without jobs, or have had pay cuts, would be a colossal mistake!
Already Nampa property owners are paying .0037% on their property value for schools, a significant property tax, so to attempt to increase that amount could create two potential problems. First, voters might turn down the entire levy, thus exacerbating the fiscal problem and secondly, by asking the property tax payers to solve the problem rather than solving it from within would certainly not help the districts perception in the “eyes” of the Nampa patrons.
Another source of funds, which is always on the “front burner,” is the district’s “rainy day account. It is always prudent to have some “cushion”, but to use a portion of this account to soften the fiscal problem is always a possibility.
Finally, there is an answer to the question posed at the onset. “When Cutting Education Costs, Why Does It Always Have To Be At The Expense Of Kids?” The answer; it doesn’t have to!
For further data on the salaries of all employees of the Nampa school district please go to OURIDAHO.COM
click image to view
Understanding Idaho school finance can be a daunting task as there are numerous sources of funds, formulas, and rules and regulations. However, there are some indisputable facts that have not changed for years. For example, funding of our schools is derived from a number of sources. Chief among them is the funding school districts receive from the State. In addition to the State sources, school districts also receive a significant amount of revenue from local property tax as well as federal funds. Also, a small amount of support is derived from local sources in the form of fees, gate receipts, rental of facilities and interest earned on idle funds. With the exception of the last source, (local) all other funds are derived from the many and varying types of taxes that we all pay.
Most schools receive funding from all four sources, with the exception of charter schools, which receive their funding primarily from State sources. Charter schools also receive some funding from the federal government and a small amount from local sources. They do NOT receive any funding from property taxes.
Lets examine the four sources and how school districts access them.
1. Local sources. In the overall scheme of things this source is a minute one. All schools and school districts receive some funding from gate receipts, rental of facilities and earnings on the investment of idle funds. It is a very small amount.
2. Property taxes. The amount of property taxes accruing to districts, with the exception of charter schools, varies a great deal across the State. Statewide, property taxes totaled $225 million for fiscal year 2010 and accounted for 11.3% of the total revenue for schools. The amount received is determined by various levies imposed on the real property of the district. Most of these levies must be voter approved such as plant facility, bond and supplemental levies. Those proceeds from bond and plant facilities levies must be used for specific purposes, while the supplemental levy, as the name suggests, can be used for any purpose as determined by the board of trustees. Other property tax levies, such as the emergency levy, can be imposed by a vote of the school board without voter approval. Once again, the only schools in Idaho that do NOT receive any of these property tax proceeds are charter schools!
3. Federal funds. Statewide about 15.3% of a school districts revenues are derived from federal programs. There are assorted titles, grants and programs that provided about $398 million for fiscal year 2010 for our schools. Schools receive funds for school lunch, for handicapped children, federal forest funds, impact aid funds and other assorted funds, most of which are available in varying amounts to all schools, charter and traditional.
4. State funds. Other than transportation reimbursement for allowable travel, the balance of the State revenues are distributed to school districts based upon support units. These support units are an integral part of the funding formula and are determined by ADA. (average daily attendance) So, if you have a lot of kids in attendance you receive a lot of state dollars. However, it is not quite that simple. For example: In a school district with 300 elementary students each support unit is equal to 21.5 ADA and in a school district with only 100 elementary students in ADA each support unit is equal to 16 ADA. (average daily attendance) More support units mean more state revenue. It is true that charter schools usually receive more funding per student from the State because typically they are small in numbers. Small schools of the same size, whether they are traditional or charter, receive the same level of funding. However, there is one exception, the traditional school district has a “safety net” if they lose a lot of students they still receive 99% of the prior years funding. Such “safety net” does not exist for charter schools. Another exception: Traditional schools can turn to the emergency levy to obtain extra property tax payer funds for student growth. Charter schools cannot get extra funding for either student increase or decrease.
For the current fiscal year 2010, state funding amounted to $1.45 Billion or 73.25% of the total statewide school expenditures. Those funds were distributed to school districts based upon the number of support units as calculated in the paragraph above, and 2/3 of that amount is distributed primarily through salary based apportionment. Again, those funds are distributed to school districts and charter schools as determined by their number of support units. Specifically, the calculations are as follows: For teachers multiply number of support units by 1.1 and for administrators multiply support units by .075 and for support staff multiply the number of support units by .375,
Summary:
- Over 99% of a school’s revenue is derived from 3 sources, local property tax, (11.3%) federal sources (15.3%) and State sources. (73.25%)
- All of these funds are paid by taxpayers
- All schools receive funding from all sources with the exception of charter schools which DO NOT receive any property tax proceeds.
- Charter schools DO NOT have any property tax levying authority.
State funds are distributed to all schools based upon a formula driven by the number of support units for that school. - The number of support units for a school is determined by the number and type of students in average daily attendance.
- The formula used to determine the number of support units uses a table of divisors which provides greater equity for the small traditional school or the typical charter school.
- The value of each support unit is determined by the state appropriation divided by the estimated number of support units statewide.
- The number of support units a school generates determines the amount of money it receives from the state.
It is a simple fact that it costs taxpayers less to educate a student in a charter school than in most traditional schools. In a recent posting on this blog I congratulated the City of Nampa on the approval for their 6th charter school. I also mentioned that this new school, “Legacy Charter School” would open in a brand new facility without the benefit of any property tax paid by the Nampa school district patrons. This will be a great start and one that could be duplicated many, many times around the State.
One of the posted comments suggested that the Nampa patrons ought to sue the State in order to get equal funding due to the erroneous assumption that the traditional schools in the Nampa school district receive less taxpayer support than charter schools. Again it is a simple fact that charter schools receive LESS taxpayer support than traditional schools NOT more.
Following are some annual costs per ADA (average daily attendance) for the 2007/2008 school year according to the Idaho State Department of Education website.
Boise School District………………………….$12,909 per ADA
Anser Charter School………………………….$ 7,442 per ADA
Nampa School District………………………..$10,798 per ADA
Vallivue School District………………………$10,256 per ADA
Thomas Jefferson Charter School…………$7,019 per ADA
Nearly one hundred percent of the cost to educate a student is derived from the taxpayer, either from state sources, local sources (property tax) and to a lesser extent from the federal government.
It is simply misleading to select one tax or one source to make a cost comparison.
The Nampa community will have a new charter school and a lot more parents will have their choice of schools for their students. The new school is “Legacy Charter School” and will open in the fall of 2011. Initially the school will enroll about 275 pupils in grades k-8 and will use the Harbor Method for their instructional model, a model that is widely used in Nampa and other schools around the state. The new school will open in a new building that will be constructed without impacting the local property taxpayers. This is an impressive beginning to say the least!
This new school, the 6th charter school in the City of Nampa, was approved by the Idaho Charter School Commission over the objections of officials from the Nampa School District. Those officials objected on the grounds that this new school would further compound the fiscal problems they face, as any new charter school will tend to dilute the state funds as they receive more money from the state due to their small enrollment. The formula used to distribute the annual state appropriation recognizes economy of scale, it therefore provides, via a table of divisors, some added funding to small schools, both traditional and charter. While this is true, the Nampa officials failed to acknowledge the fact that there are over 3,000 kids in Nampa on waiting lists for Victory or Liberty charter schools who want to enroll in a charter school and specifically a Harbor method school. They also failed to acknowledge the fact that via the exodus of nearly 300 students from the Nampa schools, the District will essentially have more money to spend on those who remain. They lose a few dollars per student from the State, but because of significant support in the form of property tax revenue there is an increase in total dollars available per student.
If the Nampa school district really wanted to be proactive instead of reactive they might consider the fact that in their community there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of parents who want a choice of schools. Specifically they want the opportunity to choose a Harbor school. Nothing precludes the Nampa School District from converting one or more of their existing elementary schools to a Harbor school, which would create a win-win situation. The District would retain the students that they have the fear of losing and parents would have the choice they desire. Nampa would not be the first school district to do just that. Wouldn’t that be a good solution?
Thanks and congratulations to the Charter School Commission for acting on behalf of kids and parents and not reacting to the cries of “foul” from the Nampa school officials.
Recently this newspaper published an editorial wherein they touted the advantages of local control especially during these tough economic times. However, local control is not always best. In fact at times it is very harmful to students and to taxpayers. For example: I am sure that every school superintendent and school board member was aware that FY 2010 was going to be a tough year economically with no letup for FY 2011. So common sense would have dictated a very cautious approach to spending in order to soften the crunch and the potential of eliminating positions, cutting some programs and negatively impacting the students they are required to serve. However, that “local control” allowed school districts to go on their merry way of spending as usual.
Statewide raises to teachers and administrators amounted to $22 million for the current school year with average raises in the local districts ranging from a low of $1,731 in Vallivue to a high of $3,501 in Nampa. Again, common sense would have dictated to local administrators and school boards to retain those funds for the “rainy day” that was sure to come.
Since the Legislature is now essentially funding 100% of our public schools current operation, perhaps they should also consider taking 100% control because it is obvious that local school boards and superintendents can not, or at least they did not exercise prudent fiscal responsibility when they agreed to spend that $22 million. Very few people support state control of our schools as most believe that schools should be controlled at the local level but “hard times” create tough choices.
In her recent letter to the editor, Melyssa Ferro claimed that schools are on the brink of collapse because Idaho lawmakers aren’t giving out more money to public education. What else is new? That is the constant complaint from the Idaho Education Association (Teacher’s Union). Ferro speculates that there will be fewer course offerings, bigger classes and assorted other problems for students because of the failure of the Legislature to throw more money into the public school system. If that does happen, it’s not because of the Legislature’s failure to dish out more money, but failure to focus resources in the classroom.
If Ferro and IEA members were really concerned about kids or about programs for kids, she and union members would have been up in arms about the $22 million that was passed out to teachers and administrators in the form of salary increases for the 2009/2010 school year instead of protecting functions and positions that impact kids. But they were silent, weren’t they? They’d also be up in arms that classes are being cut while employee benefits — sometimes offered at 100 percent taxpayer expense — are left untouched. They’d be outraged that schools are top heavy with administrative staff at the expense of classroom staff. Alas, the outrage is highly selective and disproportionately in support of the education establishment — the union, and not in the best interests of parents and students.
No wonder the public has lost confidence in their schools.
Few employees are getting raises during this economic downturn. In fact most employees are just thankful they have a job, as just about one in 10 Idahoans are unemployed. Further, most employees are taking some type of “hit” either in a reduction in salary or some type of fringe benefit reduction. But that is not the case with ALL employees.
In fact the opposite is true in the public sector. More than 7,400 Idaho school teachers and 384 school administrators did receive raises. They received collectively $22 million in salary increases for the 2009-2010 school year. Hard to believe, but true. Here in Canyon County there was no fiscal discipline exhibited. Nampa School District provided average salary increases of $3,501 to 136 employees. In Caldwell, 114 employees received an average increase of $2,509. In Vallivue, 290 employees received increases averaging $1,731 each. How do school districts justify that to some of their patrons who just lost their job?
That $22 million, coincidentally, is equal to the amount of emergency funding the Land Board voted last month to funnel to schools to offset the pain of budget cuts. Now, the money is just being used to reward schools for bad fiscal planning. What districts should have done is set aside money for the next school year, to save teaching positions, teacher aide positions, and other important functions directly related to students. Now, with a continuing economic downturn and an expected shortfall in the millions of dollars, you can be sure of one thing: The education establishment will be crying loudly for a tax increase next year to make up for the lack of fiscal responsibility.
Next school year, school administrators will complain they don’t have the money to give students a good education. And looking ahead to the 2011 legislative session, there will be a huge revenue shortfall and there will be all sorts of proposals to raise taxes presented. If either happens, school districts that managed to spend $22 million on raises during an economic downturn will only have themselves to blame.
