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?
Three weeks. Let's get to work.
No comments:
Post a Comment