Skating on PC thin ice--The Alaska Budget Report story on a Senate Finance Committee hearing held on Valentine’s Day brought this nugget:  “Is the rumor true that using the third floor of the Pioneer’s Home has resulted in a rash of prune fights?” The question from Sen. Gary Wilken was directed to Department of Education and Early Development Deputy Commissioner Karen Rehfeld and was a reference to use of the third floor of the Sitka Pioneer Home by the state’s Mt. Edgecumbe boarding school. Rehfeld responded neutrally: “The (pioneer) residents are very happy with the arrangements and so are the students.”
Missing piece--Sen. Gary Stevens (R-Kodiak), a member of the Finance Committee subcommittee reviewing the state’s education budget, was asked at  the first subcommittee meeting last week by chair Sen. Gary Wilken (R-Fairbanks) if the agenda for the subcommittee looked okay. The Senator from Kodiak responded in the affirmative, but he wanted to know why the large map of Alaska, printed in light gray scale as background on the office letterhead used for the agenda by the Senator from Fairbanks, didn’t include his home island of Kodiak.
Hidden numbers--Today’s column on the school foundation funding formula is just one part of the debate on who gets what when it comes to education dollars. For the last couple years there’s been intense scuffling over another formula that affects the foundation formula. It’s known as the area cost differential and is generally expressed as a multiplier--if the cost differential number is greater than ‘1’, it means that the school district, generally smaller and rural, gets a bit more money per student to cover the  higher cost of doing business. Some high-priced consultants have been reviewing the area cost differential assumptions for legislators but their report has been buried in Sen. Gene Therriault’s office for weeks. The report was due at the beginning of the year--rumor has it that it may finally be unveiled tomorrow. When it is, every legislator will run their finger down the number column to see whether their school district is a net winner or net loser. Generally, those who lose money say the formula is flawed and those who get money say the formula is fair.
|
There comes a
time in each new legislature when constituents finally get to know
if campaign promises are made of papier mache or gold.
We’re approaching that point as the debate about school funding gets
legislative legs.
 Not
a single successful legislator ran on the promise to flat-fund
public schools. Instead, there was a chorus of support for stemming
the bleeding and strengthening our K-12 commitment. But the
governor’s proposed additional funding for K-12 schools means more
cuts for school districts because his new dollars don’t cover
mandatory boosts to teacher and employee retirement contributions
plus the erosion of inflation.
In the
first legislative test on commitment to public schools, two House
committees tossed a few more dollars than the governor did into the
education pot but the broth they’re brewing is still too weak to
promote growth. The broth is so lo-cal it forces a diet that saps
strength instead of promoting health.
The funding gap between what the governor proposed and what’s needed
to just maintain the status quo in public schools is a hefty $23
million. The two House committees have cut the status quo gap to
about $15 million. Juneau, Kenai and Anchorage school districts say
the real gap between what the governor proposes and what’s needed to
actually add back a tiny increment for student achievement is $50
million. The urban school districts’ gap analysis is echoed by the
statewide parent group Kids Count! and other education
professionals.
To put this funding
debate in context we need to look back as well as forward. For the
last dozen or so years we flat-funded our public schools so  much that the erosion of
inflation made each dollar we used to spend on schools worth about
72 cents today (the National Education Association of Alaska folks
say the 2002 education dollar was worth just 48.3 cents if you go
back to 1983). With the exception of state funding blips in 1998 and
last year we’ve done little to close that 28 percent cut over the
last 12 years or the more than 50 percent cut claimed by the
NEA.
While we’ve let inflation erode our
commitment to public education, we’ve also added new mandates for
school boards, administrators and teachers. These mandates are
passed on from the feds (No Child Left Behind the most dramatic
example), the state (exit exams are an empty, dangerous solution
without resources to help struggling students) and school boards.
The collision of mandates with inflation means larger class sizes,
fewer teachers, loss of programs, older text books, and a host of
tiny cuts that over time now amount to major, systemic
bleeding.
I’ve joined several colleagues
in the House and Senate to sponsor legislation that boosts education
funding enough to make some incremental additions to urban and rural
school district budgets--funding that means instead of looking for
cuts, districts can start rebuilding. The funding level matches the
requests from Kids Count! and the Anchorage, Juneau and Kenai school
districts. Our legislation is predicated on what school districts
say they need instead of what the governor says he’s willing to
give. Our funding level still doesn’t restore us to historical
levels of state commitment to schools but it does set us on a path
of slight growth instead of persistent
retreat.
Juneau says it will spend the
slight addition to pay teachers and special education aides that the
governor’s proposal would have forced the district to cut. They’ll
also be able to add new special ed teachers and make a small
reduction to class size. Anchorage says new funds that do more than
cover retirement costs and inflation will be used for struggling
students, some class size reductions, meeting No Child Left Behind
dictates, and new algebra books and
calculators.
Our legislation also helps
rural districts that have been doubly hammered during the last
several years. Changes in the education funding formula in 1998
penalized their schools and the soaring cost of energy has cut into
their classroom budgets far deeper than for most urban
districts.
As we watch some lawmakers
try and match campaign rhetoric with education votes in committee
and on the floor, it’s important to watch for some code words: words
like “accountability” or “efficiency”. Some of us use these words
the way Webster’s defines them. Too many others use them as excuses,
as in: “I’m all in favor of more money but schools need to account
 for what they did with last
year’s boost.” Or: “Money is part of the solution but financial
resources must be matched with increased
efficiency.”
What makes legislators
think they are better at accountability than local folks serving on
school boards? How much more efficiency can you induce after you let
inflation erode the value of education funding by more than 25
percent?
The truth is that some legislators think you can use a
dachshund for an Iditarod lead dog if you use a big enough whip.
Those same legislators think (even after the accumulation of years,
now decades, of mostly flat school funding) schools can do better
with less. Even if they said something different when asking for
Alaskans’ votes. |
