Rethinking schools (cont.)

I said on Friday that John Charles, of all the voices given space on the Trib's editorial page, had the only proposal of substance  for restructuring schools.  Let me follow up on that by looking specifically at the suggestions made by Sue Hildick of the Chalkboard Project and by Scott Bailey of Community and Parents for Public Schools.

Hildick's proposal typifies the ineptitude of the Chalkboard Project, neatly summed up by Hildick's admission that "...after two years of work we’ve found there are no easy answers."  The single accomplishment of Chalkboard touted in her piece is a website allowing voters to compare the expenditures of school districts across Oregon. (It's not accomplished yet, but here's a sample of what it might look like.) To what end?  To inspire "...greater confidence in K-12 schools... ."  In other words, we can't actually do anything until voters are reassured that schools aren't squandering taxpayer money.  Didn't Gov. Kulongoski say just that as he began his term as governor?

But not only is the idea unoriginal, it's redundant!  There already exists a site that lays out school district budgets side by side.  It's called the Oregon Department of Education, which provides reports on everything having to do with school finance.  Here  for example is the Portland School District's budget expenditures for 2005 -6. 

Well, maybe it's not the most user friendly cybersite, but the information is there.  Shouldn't the Chalkboard Project put it's foundation money to more productive use?

Scott Bailey covers more extensive ground in his recommendations.  Problem is, they're contradictory.  His first recommendation, for example,  is to provide every child with a "challenging curriculum", even those who come from non-English speaking homes.  Bailey doesn't define "challenging curriculum", but I would assume that any classroom for a non-English speaking student is challenging. 

What Bailey is suggesting is what other "reformers" mistakenly believe is the path to higher achievement - really hard classes, especially in math and science.  That's nonsense, of course, and extremely wishful thinking.  I wrote about it some time ago in a post entitled "Rigor, or relevence"?  And again in "Academic rigor redux."  Here's a quote from the first:

"Of course, the governors also want to cut the high school dropout rate, which raises the question: Can you keep kids in school by making all of them take college prep courses?  By making high school even more difficult, and for some kids, even more boring?  Hmmmm.  I don't think so."

The second contradiction in Bailey's piece is the assertion that "school finance is a complex subject", after which he goes on to demonstrate that it isn't.  Oregon, he points out, is a low tax state, with an especially low business tax.  The result?  Per student spending in Oregon is nine percent below the national average. 

What's so complex about that?

Bailey and Hildick should put their efforts into solving the school funding crisis in Oregon. That's a proposal with some heft.

There's more.  The Trib published an entire little magazine with ideas for Rethinking Schools.  I've read it.  And I'll share my reactions in the next post.

Comments

[Bailie]

Terry,
You suggested the solution, and you are exactly correct.

You say, "In other words, we can't actually do anything until voters are reassured that schools aren't squandering taxpayer money. Didn't Gov. Kulongoski say just that as he began his term as governor?"

Yes, the Governor called for a freeze in compensation for K-12 employees. This suggestion of his didn't come without a knowledge of K-12 funding problems. He identified the precise problem with Oregon K-12 funding. Oregon K-12 employees are among the highest individually compensated in the U.S. At the same time, Oregon is one of the "poorer" states (ranked 36th in per capita income. These two diverse economic forces are direct components to Oregon's funding problems. It is not that Oregon has under spent everyone else. Oregon has funded K-12 better than Washington for more than a decade following Measure 5. Only last year, did Washington per pupil spending, equal Oregon.

[Marvin McConoughey]

Terry, can you provide a reference for "Per student spending in Oregon is nine percent below the national average."?

[Marvin McConoughey]

Reference "the school funding crisis," Bangladesh might have a school funding crisis. Haiti may. Somalia almost certainly does. But Oregon, one of the better off regions of the planet? Perhaps PPS should have planned better for a known termination of the temporary tax. It could have sold more real estate, forged a harder line on contract negotiations, lobbied the legislature to drop the five-year teacher education requirement, and done many other things to prepare for future revenue reality.

[Terry]

It's a sad day when we're reduced to comparing Oregon's educational system with those of Haiti or Bangladesh. But I do agree that PPS' leadership, meaning the board and the superintendent, have not been up to the task of securing adequate funding for the district. That's one of many issues where I've been critical of those in charge.

As to the nine percent figure, that was from Scott Bailey, as I recall. But it sounds about right. In 2003-4, Oregon ranked 28th in per student spending nationally, and it is probably lower now.