A Citizen's Guide to Indiana

Masson's Blog

Stokes on SB 305 – Education Financing

by 13 Comments

Kyle Stokes at State Impact Indiana has a post entitled The Boring School Financing Bill That Could Change Everything. The bill is SB 305, introduced by Sen. Breaux which would increase from once to twice per year the dates on which school attendance is counted for purposes of funding.

Consider this: Two count dates would mean — for the first time ever — Indiana districts wouldn’t get a constant level of state funding through the school year. If the bill passes, funding levels would fluctuate with the natural ebb-and-flow of students entering and leaving schools through the year, making every district’s budget process much less predictable.

Apparently what they have now uses a five year rolling average. The new bill would be more of a “real-time” approach tied to the idea that the money should follow the kid. Such an approach does not, in my mind, reflect the realities on the ground where fixed costs are not easily adjusted and where some kids are simply more expensive to educate than others (not to mention my opinion that education is a public good and not a personal entitlement.)

The Stokes’ story has some good analysis from the lawmakers and those involved in making policy on why the legislation will likely pass if the right-to-work roadblock can be lifted.

School Voucher Implementation Off To Bumpy Start

by 5 Comments

Mikel Livingston, writing for the Lafayette Journal & Courier, has an article about the implementation of the recently passed school voucher law, HB 1003, in the Lafayette area.

I expect they’ll work them out. Parents are calling schools and unable to get all the details about the vouchers. Some of the private schools are concerned about the accreditation requirement. And, of course, a lawsuit has been filed challenging the validity of the voucher law.

I’ve discussed some of this in prior posts, but it’s probably worth mentioning again. I had an exchange with Abdul over at Indiana Barrister, and we had a fundamental disagreement about what public school money is actually for. He had a vision where that money was, in effect, for the benefit of the individual students and, by extension, the student’s parents. For my part, I think we’re using those public funds in an attempt to buy an educated populace. With those very different visions of what the money is for, we naturally reach different conclusions about the desirability of a voucher system.

Under the first view of things (I hesitate to call it the “Abdul” view in case I have not accurately described it), it’s the student’s education & it’s the student’s money. They should be able to spend it how they please. Under my view, the public is attempting to buy an educated populace – not solely out of the goodness of its heart; but because an educated society is more pleasant to live in, easier to manage, and less prone to crime.

In the voucher debate, there is a lot of discussion about the fairness of allowing the student to “choose” their own school and to having a particular amount of money allotted to each student. But, this sort of entitlement model does not address the fairness of taxing, for example, the childless to pay for the education of those who have decided to have kids.

Taxing the entire community to pay for education makes sense only if the entire community has a skin in the game. And they do. A broad base of educated people is beneficial to the entire community. Where the two models diverge is if we set up a system where the entitlement model results in worse education for a substantial portion of the population.

Voucher proponents insist this won’t happen. Quite the reverse, they assure us. Free market pixie dust will result in better schools for everyone. The pressure of competition will make the bad schools improve their product. However, in my opinion, this ignores the fact that a market system only works where one party is able to walk away from the transaction if its cost is too high for the party’s liking. So long as we are committed to universal education, the freedom to walk away is not present.

One of the dirty little secrets of public education is that kids are not widgets that are equally expensive to educate. Some are pretty easy, almost taking care of their own education. Others require constant attention and, what’s worse, through their disruptiveness threaten to make the easier ones more of a challenge. But, it’s a “stitch in time saves nine” scenario. Take care of those kids now, and it’s a bit of a hassle with better behaved kids effectively subsidizing their education. Fail to take care of those kids now, and you’ll be carrying them in your jails and/or unemployment rolls for a long time to come.

I foresee vouchers resulting in a dynamic where the cream gets skimmed off the top by private schools, leaving the public schools with the more difficult students and less money to deal with them. Since no such idle rant about education would be complete without a modest proposal from someone who knows little about educating, I have one. We should try a voucher system available only to those students in the bottom percentages of their schools. These are the ones who aren’t, for one reason or another, thriving in the public school. And, it would also alleviate the concern about the cherry-picking dynamic. There. Problem solved.

Gov. Daniels versus the State on Education

by 13 Comments

Nikki Kelly has an article in the Journal Gazette contrasting some of Gov. Daniels education priorities with a recent poll on the public’s preferences for education.

Much as I like needling Gov. Daniels, I’m also skeptical of the value of polls on people’s policy preferences. People who are smart enough in their own areas of expertise don’t necessarily have the time or inclination to be informed on details of government policy.

But, for whatever it’s worth, people favor financing struggling schools more generously than those with rapid population growth. Gov. Daniels goes the opposite direction. Coincidentally, I’m sure, older schools with more challenging student populations tend to be in areas that are more likely to vote for the Democrats. Schools in high growth areas tend to have more children of affluent people who are more likely to vote for Gov. Daniels.

People think parental involvement is more important than changes like paying teachers more. Gov. Daniels says you can’t mandate parental involvement. He’s mostly right with that, but I’d say policies he favors that put downward pressure on wages contribute to the lack of parental involvement. It’s simply tougher for parents to be involved where you need two incomes to support the family instead of being able to have one parent at home.

The last item said that the public favors, by a 2-to-1 margin, supporting current schools rather than creating more charter schools. I tend to chalk up continued support for charter schools – in the face of evidence that, on the whole, they don’t perform notably better than traditional schools – to a love of union busting.

Public Instruction

by 21 Comments

Joy Leiker of the Muncie Star Press has an article on Superintendent of Public Instruction (But Certainly not a Creationist) Tony Bennett’s latest proposition for changing the rules about who can teach. On its face, it seems more or less plausible: cut out the bureaucracy and focus more on the substantive education, making sure the teachers have more expertise in the subject areas they are teaching.

But, not to put too fine a point on it, I don’t trust the messenger. There has been a fervor for breaking the teacher’s unions – and where proposals for education reform might tend to break the union, my cynicism leads me to believe that’s the purpose of the exercise.

I don’t know the specifics of Bennett’s proposals – my fault. But as a general rule, I would suggest that the younger the child, the more important the teacher have received education about how to teach as opposed to, necessarily, education in the particular field. It’s much more important that a first grade teacher know how to communicate with six year olds than that the teacher know differential equations before teaching the kids addition and subtraction.

My passing impression of the education system is that there is plenty of unnecessary bureaucracy and job-protecting jargon. But, efforts to cut through those things should be coupled to a commitment to paying and treating our educators like professionals. The article briefly mentions Bennett’s apparent belief that teachers can cram their continuing education in during some unspecified period of the day reminds me a bit of Wal-mart managers who locked their employees in the stores and required them to work without pay.

Indiana Education Chief: Featured Creationist Speaker

by 8 Comments

Indiana’s Superintendent of Public Instruction, Dr. Tony Bennett is listed as the featured speaker for the “Creation Evidence Expo 2009” which makes the claim that only God the Creator, and not Natural Selection, can be proved scientifically.

We at Creation Evidence Expo seek to bring change within the public school system across the United States by providing overwhelming evidence that the Genesis account of Creation is the only viable and truthful explanation for the origin of man. Therefore, it should be considered as superior to Darwin’s theory of evolution in explaining the existence of the universe and everything in it.

Another notable performing in this extravaganza are former Congressman Mike Sodrel.

Sodrel is a trucking magnate, private citizen since he was bounced out of office, and can do what he wants, but I think some intrepid young journalist ought to get the head of our state’s educational system on record as to whether he agrees that “the Genesis account of Creation is the only viable and truthful explanation for the origin of Man” and whether he holds the opinion that the Genesis explanation is superior to that of the natural selection explanation.

Sex Education

by 7 Comments

Oseye Boyd, writing for the Muncie Star Press, has an article about sex education. The article cites polling data suggesting that the public would generally like kids to receive accurate information about birth control and preventing STDs while quoting school officials who believe the public prefers abstinence only education.

Regardless of what the study indicates, Liberty-Perry Community School Board President Keith Davis says the board’s decision to teach abstinence-only education is what his constituents want.

“I can assure you if we started teaching our kids the proper way to use birth control, we would hear from our community — I’m sure,” Davis said.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the loudest part of his constituency would freak out over the notion of teaching students about condoms and the like. The available evidence suggests “abstinence-only” sex education results in more pregnancies and STDs than medically accurate sex education. The fact is, we are doing ourselves and our children a disservice by being squeamish about talking about sex. I’m sure I’ll have to overcome some discomfort with the topic when it’s time for me to talk to my own kids. But it’s my job to make sure my kids have the best possible chances in life, and knowing how sex works and how to minimize the unwanted consequences are important bits of information. Having a child as a teen certainly has a way of limiting one’s options.

Educational Culture

by 11 Comments

I caught a segment on NPR this afternoon featuring the W.E.B. DuBois Society and its efforts to make academic achievement a point of emphasis for black kids. One of the problems, apparently, is that there is a cultural message out there telling black kids that, if they study too much, maybe that makes them too “white.” I don’t pretend to be familiar with black culture except as it bleeds into my mostly-white world, so about the most I can say is that I’ve heard this described as an issue for academic achievement among blacks from other sources.

Certainly no one ever told me that studying or academic achievement would make me not a real white. That said, there was definitely an antagonism against learning from many of my peers. In middle-school, I distinctly remember being put down for using 25-cent words. But, it’s middle-school — your peers are going to use whatever club is closest at hand for putting you down. I was fortunate in that, whatever messages I was getting from some segments of my peer group, I was getting stronger messages from my parents and teachers.

Blacks may well have additional obstacles to overcome in terms of an anti-educational cultural bias; but American culture generally seems to have a strong anti-intellectual bias. Witness the rise of “Joe” the “Plumber.” Hell, witness the rise of George W. Bush. One of his political *strengths* was that he wasn’t “too smart.” We raise a man of intellectual mediocrity to the heights of power, and then ask our kids to take us seriously when we tell them a good education should be their primary concern? They may not be that well educated, but they’re not (by and large) stupid.

The conversation in the NPR segment turned to the election of Barack Obama and how it might help fight the notion that an educated black person is too white. Obama’s strength in this regard will be that he is not only smart, but he’s cool as well.

I guess the lesson to be learned here is that you can’t be Poindexter smart – you have to be cool-smart. If only I had known. I’m conceited enough to regard myself as smart but not so deluded as to think I’m cool. I’ve gone the opposite route and now revel in my geekery. I’m not sure cool can be learned in any case.

Vonnegut on Public Schools in Indiana

by 17 Comments

I just, once again, stumbled across this Kurt Vonnegut quote about public schooling, and thought I’d share:

It’s my dream of America with great public schools. I thought we should be the envy of the world with our public schools. And I went to such a public school. So I knew that such a school was possible. Shortridge High School in Indianapolis produced not only me, but the head writer on the I LOVE LUCY show (Madelyn Pugh). And, my God, we had a daily paper, we had a debating team, had a fencing team. We had a chorus, a jazz band, a serious orchestra. And all this with a Great Depression going on. And I wanted everybody to have such a school.

My father, as it happens, is a Shortridge alumnus. So, I suppose, I’m an indirect beneficiary. More directly, however, I graduated from the public schools in Richmond, Indiana and have rarely, if ever, found myself to be less educated than the others I have encountered, including all of the private school kids from Cleveland and Cincinnati I met when I went to Miami.

That’s why I tend to bristle when people beat the drum about how public schools suck. I don’t know the answer to making sure that more of our kids graduate well educated, but I do know that a good education is available at our public schools. And, it’s not like I went to some top-flight exception to the rule. Richmond High School, at least 18 years after my graduation, was designated as one of ten Indiana “drop out factories” in an AP report.

Palladium Item on Education Funding

by Leave a Comment

The Richmond Palladium-Item has a story on education funding. The article points out that the General Assembly avoided raising taxes to fund education by shifting that burden to local school boards.

Without new local taxes, Richmond Community Schools would see a 1.7 percent cut in school revenues or a loss of about $667,553 in 2006. Another 1.7 percent cut would occur in 2007, superintendent Allen Bourff said.
. . .
“Things will be extremely tight,” Backmeyer said. “We don’t have any choice. The Legislature has acted, and we have to react. How long we can make things work in the face of rising costs and higher expectations, I don’t know.”

Schools need increases each year to meet teacher contract obligations, rising gas and diesel prices and soaring health care costs, superintendents said.

Muncie Star Press on Education Funding

by Leave a Comment

The Muncie Star Press has several articles on education funding today.

One, entitled Education cuts in proposed state budget not a done deal, describes various funding approaches for schools. It distinguishes between a “follow the student” approach and a “minimum guarantee approach.” The minimum guarantee approach recognizes the realities of schools having fixed-costs and students who require more resources to educate. (See my previous entry on my theory that, absent more resources, vouchers don’t work because easily educated children currently subsidize hard-to-educate children.) House Republicans do not favor the minimum guarantee approach and, instead, passed a “follow the student” formula. The article summarizes the House Republican’s education funding plan as follows:

Funding will follow the students and not the corporation

  • The School Funding Formula increases by nearly 1.5 percent over the two-year cycle.
  • School funding is now based on a rolling average enrollment rather than actual enrollment.
  • Charter schools are funded like school corporations
  • Use of Capital Project Fund is continued in 2006-07 allowing schools to pay insurance and utility costs from their CPF.
  • Schools given authority to increase transportation levies to offset past loss of state transportation grant funding.
  • Provides school funding flexibility by allowing monies between school funds is extended through 2007.

A second article is entitled, Public School Supporters Voice Concerns. The article describes a meeting between Muncie area Democratic Senators and area citizens.

The group mostly supported public education and opposed Republican House initiatives supported by Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels to change the school funding formula and increase public funding of charter schools.

Jennifer Abrell, a parent and president of the Muncie Community School Board, was outspoken in her criticism of the governor and Republican lawmakers for supporting charter schools and vouchers.

“Who is going to suffer?” Abrell asked. “It is the (public school) student. Is the governor listening?”

The meeting came at a time when Muncie Community Schools announced a plan to cut 75 teachers, administrators, and other staff. (The article contains a quote from Pat LaVelle, President of the Mount Pleasant Township Community School Board that, “The problem is with all of these unfunded mandates.” Either LaVelle didn’t elaborate or the article did not quote the elaboration. I was interested in hearing about the unfunded mandates. I wonder if LaVelle had details in mind or if that was just a knee-jerk political grouse.) One resident left the meeting concerned about the one-sided nature of the debate (only Democrats) and pointed out that the issue of why the cuts were necessary was not discussed.

A third article entitled, Uncertainty Rules in the Wake of Announced Cutbacks describes the announced layoffs of 75 positions. Class sizes will go up. Class offerings will likely be reduced, but it is tough to know which classes will be cut without knowing which positions will be eliminated and in which particular schools. This article discusses the negative effects of larger classes. And this article discusses parents’ concerns over the cuts.

A $24.3-billion biennium budget approved last month
by the Republican-led House allows state funding to follow the
child and generally equalizes that funding for each student.