The Real Problem of School Cost Increases?
Ohanian Comment: This is an outstanding piece. Bill Mathis, a Vermont school superintendent points to the never-mentioned financial costs of NCLB. For starters: The U. S. Department of EducationĂ˘€™s own Inspector General says there are at least 588 state and local compliance requirements in the federal No Child Left Behind Act.
This article provides a format for people to repeat in every state.
Ă˘€śWith small flags waving and tinny blasts on tiny trumpets, we shall meet the enemy, and not only may he be ours, he may be us.Ă˘€ť
With tinny trumpet blasts emanating and echoing from Montpelier and Washington, our policy makers do not realize that they may be the bigger part of the problem. Ironically, they also have the keys to the solution. Yet, they continue to demonstrate about what is convenient rather than what is necessary.
Contrary to current political proclamations, imperial decrees commanding school costs to stop rising has little effect upon these tides. We must look deeper.
Beginning with the federal government, the U. S. Department of EducationĂ˘€™s own Inspector General says there are at least 588 state and local compliance requirements in the federal No Child Left Behind Act. Unnoticed in VermontĂ˘€™s cost debate is that federal education funds have been level or decreasing for the past three years. Using national added cost factors, these mandates are estimated to cost Vermont schools $360 million in new, hidden or displaced costs. To pay these costs, the feds give us $61 million.
While the sensible decision would have been to turn down such a bad deal, our state policy-makers accepted the law -- and then complain about local schoolsĂ˘€™ bad spending habits.
Subtly, these factors ooze into school cost increases. For example, the governor has said Vermont school staffing has increased 22%. The state department of education official records reports a more modest 1.8% increase between 2003 and 2006. Digging a little further, teacher and aide numbers have gone up less than one-half of one percent. However, data processing staff has increased 126%, and business office clerks have shot up by 33%. What do these new people do? They fill out state and federal forms, count beans and comply with mandates.
In 2006, the Vermont Department of Education sent 410 memos, 166 Ă˘€śadvisoriesĂ˘€ť as to how programs should be run, and issued 92 separate requirements or orders compelling local review and action. Twenty-four more mandates spewed forth requiring actions of some group.
Certainly, state mandates regarding bullying, hazing, harassment, action plans, school quality surveys, air quality, emergency drills, testing, etc. have laudable purposes. While schools are stretched to meet these requirements, they are buried beneath an avalanche of paper -- as our state policy-makers say that local districts are spending too much money.
The Governor, for example, calls for caps on school spending increases which would step down to 3.5% per year. Some legislators, apparently unaware of the natural variation in costs, have proposed that citizens in towns that spend 15% above the average should pay a tax penalty.
Sadly, this kind of thinking punishes the victim. Neither the federal nor state government has distinguished itself on health care reform (although Vermont has taken some steps). Over the last ten years, health costs alone added an average of 1.8% per year to school budgets. Likewise, federal and state special education mandates increased the budget an average of 1.2 points annually. New technology needs, mandates and paper-pushing add another point. If we give teachers and staff a 3% cost of living increase, that adds another 1.8% per year. ThatĂ˘€™s 5.8% per year.
The GovernorĂ˘€™s proposed cap of 3.5% is busted by outside budget pressures alone.
Yet, the state could do something about the real problems. They could push aggressively for relief from pass-through federal mandates or for adequate federal funding. They could say Ă˘€śnoĂ˘€ť to programs that cost more than we get. They could remedy school and business health care costs. They could eliminate mandates in their own laws and regulations. They could relieve dubious process and reporting requirements. Caught in the convenient, they donĂ˘€™t do the necessary.
Certainly, school spending has increased faster than inflation. But only a part is within the control of local schools. (Most notably, small class sizes which are requested by parents, and improve academic and social outcomes).
Fundamentally, school costs can only be addressed by resolving the real drivers of these costs. At the same time, policy makers must recognize that blaming the victim leaves only barren ground.
If we merely wave small flags and blow tinny trumpets while proclaiming solutions that donĂ˘€™t solve; we will have met the real problem Ă˘€“ and it will not be the schools.
William J. Mathis
INDEX OF NCLB OUTRAGES