We Have Three Weeks: Make School Funding An Election Issue

The election is only three weeks away, and despite how long the campaign cycle has been and how much it has dominated the news and social media, we have barely heard a thing about education.  It certainly was not brought up in the presidential or vice presidential debates (although it was nice to see the first town hall question get asked by a teacher!).  The only way this can change is if we demand that education get the attention it deserves.

Down-ballot races certainly do spend much more time discussing education.  There, you will find a refreshing level of discussion on a variety of education topics.  The League of Women Voters in Omaha puts out videos each election of candidates responding to various questions.  Here are the two candidates for the Nebraska Unicameral in my legislative district, Rick Kolowski and Ian Swanson:

They talk about embedding mental health programs within school districts, the need for charter schools, and developing educational opportunities that help keep the next generation of Nebraskans in Nebraska.  The State Board of Education candidates (their video can be found here) bring up the importance of early childhood education, reducing the ratio of teachers to students, and competency based education among other ideas.  Still, even in those down ballot races, there is one glaring topic that is missing:

How will we fund our schools?

Our schools are underfunded.  There are fewer teachers in Nebraska now than there were ten years ago, despite the fact that there are more students.  Districts have attritioned out positions, cut their budgets, and eliminated as many peripheral programs as they can to try and keep the impact of being chronically underfunded as far from the classroom as possible.  Candidates for elected office will often speak passionately about education initiatives they would like to see get implemented, but almost NEVER discuss how those will be funded.  Yes. We absolutely should have a comprehensive preschool program available for our young kids.  How are we paying for that when districts are already cash strapped now (my district, Millard, increased its budget by less than one percent this year)?  Yes, having more time for one on one instruction will undoubtedly help students – but how will you pay for the additional FTEs necessary to make that happen?

We need to hold elected officials accountable. For too long we have let them get away with speaking about how much they value strong schools, and how much they care about teachers while at the same time demanding cuts in funding sources for the very same system they claim to value so highly.  It is an absolute tragedy that teachers are being told that their district can either put money into salary and benefits or maintain current staffing levels to keep class sizes down.  If teachers were truly valued, districts would never be placed in a position where they would have to present teachers with that choice.

Funding is not a panacea.  It has to be used wisely, and with clear intent.  But too often, people have pointed at districts with high per pupil costs and low achievement as proof that funding requests are not needed for schools, but simply wanted.  Those instances are good examples of a break down in oversight, not examples of why we should not fund schools. 

There is nothing wrong with running on a platform to reduce property tax burdens, but we need to challenge candidates to explain how they will make up the lost revenue for schools, because otherwise they are not just in favor of tax cuts, they are also in favor of school cuts.

Often times, wasteful spending will be trotted out as a response to the idea that we need to increase school funding - that if schools simply cut out unnecessary personnel or a program that does not directly benefit learning, then they would free up the needed funds.  The problem is that cutting “waste” has rapidly diminishing returns.  If I spring clean my house from top to bottom over a weekend, I can brag about how much dirt and grime I got out of my house.  If I vow to do the same thing the next week, I would remove a lot less dirt and grime the second time because I just cleaned my house like crazy only a week ago.  Cutting “waste” is a one off solution at best, and then we are right back to the issue of a funding shortfall.

I want to be clear that I am saying this as both an educator AND tax payer.  Every bond issue I support, every levy change I advocate – I feel that as a home owner because I live in the district I teach in.  The biggest issue I have found is that even the most vocal supporters of their schools are often late to the party when it comes to political engagement.  Take the budget battle in neighboring Westside School District for example.  Facing a funding shortfall, the district was preparing to cut their elementary music program. The community rallied to the program’s defense, including an appearance at a board meeting by the CEO of the Omaha Symphony.  They clearly care about the programs that are available to their kids.  But here’s the problem – at that point it became a binary choice for the district.  If they save the music program, they have to cut somewhere else (and they did, they eliminated elementary Spanish instead).  Where were those parents when LB959 was proposed in the Unicameral that put spending restrictions on schools?  How many times has the CEO of the Omaha Symphony testified to the Unicameral about the need for more funding for schools?  We need to tap into the countless parents and community members who love and care about their schools and proactively engage lawmakers to realize that we need to fund these schools at adequate levels.

When I graduated from Millard West in 2003, there were around 1700 students.  Now we are at about 2500.  There are the same number of administrators.  The same number of administrators to work with 800 more kids and a much larger faculty.  How can I expect them to evaluate me as effectively as they evaluated their teachers fourteen years ago?  How is it okay that we have kindergarten classrooms in the mid to upper twenties for class size?  How can we even consider implementing a teacher residency model, providing more interventions and other services for high needs schools, increasing plan time, providing more meaningful staff development, giving new teachers better support … all things that have a huge impact on academic achievement … if districts are struggling to finance their existing programs?

This all comes down to engagement.  Lawmakers push tax cuts because that is what they hear from their constituents.  We need more people to tell lawmakers to fund our schools.  And it needs to be done with the intention of informing and sharing perspectives.  If lawmakers sense that this is a community priority, they will advocate for it.  We have three weeks until Election Day.  What will you do to get education funding on the radar of candidates in your area?  What proactive steps will you take to make sure you do not have to stand in front of your school board, pleading with them to not cut a program that positively impacts your child? 

Nebraska is facing a revenue shortfall.  The only thing being discussed right now is what cuts can be made to solve the problem.  Revenue creation is not on the radar.  As it stands, schools will see a reduction in state aid (and remember, Nebraska is already 49th in the country when measuring state dollars as a percent of total school funding).

Three weeks.  Let's get to work.