Explaining Walker's K-12 Cuts to the Kids

Just as the fight over Governor Scott Walkers budget repair bill centered on changes to collective bargaining for public employees, much of the attention given to his budget focuses on his cuts to school district aid for K-12 funding.  The sound bites from the budget hearings have included a few supportive ones, but the majority of comments about a reduction in aid for K-12 have been quite negative, and at times bordered on hysterical.

If I recall correctly, the West Allis hearing featured a woman speaker who challenged supporters of the Governor's budget to look in her daughter's eyes and explain to her what was happening, or something to that effect.  OK, here goes.

In Wisconsin we spent about $10 billion dollars on education in 2007-2008 according to the US Department of Education.  That works out to be around $10,500 for every student in the state.  There are almost 900,000 students total.

Some of the money to run the schools in Wisconsin comes from the state government.  The other way that schools raise money is through local property taxes.  The Governor is opposed to tax increases, generally speaking, so he is also proposing to limit the amount that school districts can increase taxes to offset his aid cuts. 

Tony Evers is the director of schools in Wisconsin.  He says the Governor's proposal will reduce total school spending by a little less than $1 billion dollars per year between the aid cut and the tax limit. This is about 10%.  To put it another way, the spending per student could go down from around $10,500 to $9,500. 

The Governor has also proposed to increase the amount that teachers pay toward their pension and health insurance to help offset some of the reduced aid from the state.  The Governor likes to highlight this aspect of his plan, but it most likely won't offset the entire amount of the cuts.  I believe I heard Mr. Evers on Wisconsin public radio today saying this change could offset as much as 40-60% of the cuts.  If so, we would be back to only a 5% reduction in education spending, rather than 10%.

Whether it's 5% or 10% in the end, if you listen to some of the Governor's critics this relatively small cut in spending spells the end of education in Wisconsin and we might as well just all give up.  As for me, I'm skeptical cuts of this size could really change public schools that much.  Even if per student spending went all the way down to $9,500, this is still much more than it was in the late 1990's.  It's probably more than was spent per student when your mom and dad went to school here in Wisconsin.

The student/teacher ratio here in Wisconsin is about 15 students for every teacher.  I suspect your class may have more than 15 students because this ratio probably includes teachers who specialize in small groups of students that need extra help.  Regardless, a ratio of 15 is right at the national average.  A political ad that is running on TV here in Green Bay alleges that the Governor's cuts to education could increase class size to "35 to 40 kids in a class."  Again, this sound like it is intended to scare people into opposing the governor.  It's too bad that so many people will be convinced by an accusation that is almost certainly untrue.

What about his increased in spending on roads you say?  I know, you can't drive so this doesn't affect you.  I agree that the Governor should concentrate his efforts on reducing spending wherever possible, so maybe this is something that should be looked at very carefully by voters and the legislature.

When you step back and take a look at the big picture, you will see a Governor that has proposed the first budget in a long time that addresses the gap between spending and revenues in this state.  That goes for governor's of both parties.  Yes it is true that education funding will be reduced by the Governor's proposal, but this does not automatically mean that the quality of the education you receive will go down dollar for dollar.  Ultimately, the quality of the education you receive will likely be tied to where you live.  That is the case throughout the United States and is not likely going to change as a result of a single state budget.

So in the end we may spend a few less dollars on your education now, but we will still spend quite a lot, and the education you receive will be quite good.  In exchange you will get a state budget that starts to put Wisconsin on sounder financial footing.  That may seem unimportant now, but it may make the difference between a prosperous state and a bankrupt one by the time you are older and are starting to pay taxes.  Doing this now is important to Wisconsin's future, which, after all, is your future too.

Jeb Bush, Egalitarian

Since Dad29 threatened to ruin Thanksgiving with the news that Jeb Bush was considering a 2012 run, I just thought I'd pass along an item I recently ran across from The American Conservative's @TAC blog:

A longtime friend of mine, the former chairman of the political science department at the University of Illinois, Robert Weissberg, has published a devastating book on the educational industry. In Bad Students, Not Bad Schools (Transaction Publishers, 2010), Weissberg takes apart so many misconceptions about mass education that the reader’s head may be spinning by the end....

Weissberg quotes with searing contempt former Florida governor Jed[sic] Bush, who would not rest content until all high school graduates in his state were in college. Weissberg asks what these students will be doing in college, when their level of mathematical and writing competency is often no higher than that of competent elementary school students.

"Everybody's All American" is not a coherent education policy for a serious candidate. Please keep this in mind as the 2012 horserace starts to heat up.

The Bush note is not the focus of the post, though, and the whole thing is worth a read. From elsewhere:

Weissberg cautions about throwing more good money after what has already been misspent. Let those who want to drop out of high schools go; and let’s try to educate students who are willing and able to learn to become even better. Weissberg does not belittle the uninterested student. He is simply trying to be realistic about what schools can do

Visit the @TAC blog to read the whole thing.

This time will be different: Education Edition

The Obama administration is prepared to turn its attention to education this week. Unfortunately for the nation's students, its approach is anything but innovative. Instead, it perpetuates the system of federal intervention in local schools, and the proposed changes appear to primarily affect the carrots and sticks used.

This was also the approach of George W. Bush. If the results of that effort were less than satisfactory, why should anyone believe this new proposal will be more successful? Apparently because Arne Duncan says so, at least according to the New York Times report:

The No Child law, passed in 2001 by bipartisan majorities, focused the nation’s attention on closing achievement gaps between minorities and whites, but it included many provisions that created what Education Secretary Arne Duncan on Friday called “perverse incentives.”

In an effort to meet the law’s requirements for passing grades, many states began dumbing down standards, and teachers began focusing on test preparation rather than on engaging class work.

“We’ve got to get accountability right this time,” Mr. Duncan told reporters Friday.

I agree that getting accountability right is important to improving education. I'm skeptical that revising the way the federal education bureaucracy distributes tax dollars to school districts is the way to do it.

My favorite line of the day

Cindy Kilkenny on 4 year old kindergarten:

What? You want to pop them out and hand them over to the state now?

Go read the whole (short) thing at Fairly Conservative.

Sen. Mark Miller Channels Bobby Jindal

WisPolitics Budget Blog covers the letter that Senator Mark Miller (D) sent to Education Secretary Arne Duncan expressing concern about strings attached the Race to the Top education grants coming with too many strings: 

As much as I and other public officials want to improve public school performance, we can only do so if we can pay for it. Wisconsin will be gambling with our educational future if we make these financial and policy commitments and then fail to keep them," Miller writes. "Because so much is unknown about how Race to the Top grant dollars will be allocated and for how long, we feel like a gambler trying to draw to an inside straight.

Miller's concern is that the Wisconsin will enact new programs in order to get one-time federal government money and then be stuck with the bill for on-going expenses.  Seems to me I've heard this argument somewhere before.

This was the criticism many Republican governors were making with regards to the stimulus bill several months ago.  Arguments which Democrats summarily dismissed at the time.  I wonder what's changed?

This case seems like little more than Miller pandering to a powerful constituency that opposes some of the reforms attached to the Race to the Top grants.