|
Editorial: Where does ‘enough’ end?
Op-Ed · March 05, 2015
Every school wants more money, and not just in Iowa. Yet we can’t decide where “enough” ends and where smart planning, good teachers and parent involvement do the rest.
On Feb. 19, West Branch Community Schools sent out a letter regarding the April 7 Instructional Support Levy and the current debate in the Iowa legislature regarding how much, if any, extra money the schools need in the coming year.
West Branch enrollment dipped 11 to 12 pupils this year, which, assuming the state funding formula does not change, would mean the loss of about $73,000. With about $5.2 million in its general fund, that’s only about 1.4 percent of the budget, but that’s an average teacher’s salary and then some. So why did the school district open teacher negotiations by offering a total package increase of about $103,000? We assume it is because the school district has a level of faith that the legislature will, in the end, boost funding for the coming year.
Republicans opened with 1.25 percent in the House, while Democrats finally agreed on opening with 4 percent in the Senate. State Rep. Bobby Kaufmann said he would like to see a 3-percent increase in this “allowable growth” and expects the legislature to fully fund whatever it decides. Even in the unlikely event the legislature approves the low-end 1.25 percent, that comes close to making up for West Branch’s shortfall. We think it will be 2 percent or higher based on the years after the 2008 recession.
But it is that recession, and other down years, as well as the state’s requirement to balance its budget, that comes with an upside: It forces government entities, and schools, to become innovative. At the school level, it challenges school boards and administrators to look hard at priorities, teachers to look hard at time in the classroom, and the school in general to reach out to the community for volunteers for classroom support.
In that Feb. 19 letter, Superintendent Kevin Hatfield includes per-pupil funding from nearby states to show how much more they spend than Iowa. Illinois, for example, spends $13,372 on each public school pupil, which is $3,611 more than Iowa’s $9,761. Yet Iowa has a higher graduation rate and higher ACT scores than Illinois. Clearly Iowa uses its funding more effectively than Illinois.
However, Minnesota spends $11,929 per pupil, some $2,168 more than Iowa. It’s graduation rate is almost as good as Iowa’s, and it’s ACT scores are even better. So that suggests that while funding may not directly lead to better education, some states are showing a certain level of correlation.
No one has made a definitive case for funding and education because too many factors are not quantifiable, like the quality of support from parents, the culture of achievement in the school and the top-to-bottom quality of the school’s staff. And when we’re talking about school staff, we don’t just mean teachers and administrators — West Branch has great people working as custodians, bus drivers, secretaries and teacher’s aides, too; and the children notice, because we hear them talking positively about them.
Yes, generally we would like to see more funding for West Branch schools. The school district has in the past few years added to its offerings in concrete, common-sense ways, like more science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) classes, fifth-grade band, middle school show choir, more Spanish and a push for more dual-credit courses through Kirkwood Community College. Obviously, additional funding is needed to do more than cover inflation.
We can’t help but wonder if Illinois has too much funding — so much that schools don’t think it necessary to reach out to the community, to foster a positive school environment, to hire staff with not just head knowledge, but good character. Could it be that families in Illinois are taxed so much for the schools that they figure the schools don’t deserve their time? There’s no easy answer.
All we know is that there is no perfect answer. We want the schools to have enough money for a healthy and enriching curriculum that prepares children for an ever-changing global economy, but not so much that schools begin to believe — and teach our children — that money is the answer to all their problems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
