Over the past year, this column has dealt with Riemann surfaces, Galois Theory, Direchlet boundary conditions, differential geometry and algebraic topology—topics in higher math that reflect the general intellectual level of our readers. However, every now and then, we have to take several steps back to some pretty basic concepts to help correct an oft-repeated misconception that has become part of the public discourse. These days, we’re dealing with a false notion that was started either by people who didn’t understand the basic math, or, more likely (and in a more sinister manner), by people who did understand the math but simply twisted and lied about it to advance a political agenda.
Last week, I got a long email from somebody (I’ll call him Lance, since he used one of those fake email names that screams “I’m-mad-as-hell-but-not-enough-to-use-my-real-name”,) who told me that it was about time that I stop supporting public schools and recognize the future by getting on the charter school bandwagon. According to the emailer (I’m paraphrasing here), charter schools do a better job of educating kids than do real public schools (wrong!); they get by on less money than public schools (wrong-a-dee-wrong-wrong); they have better teachers than public schools (wrong-aronamus rex); and they have administrative staffs that are more streamlined and more efficient (wrong-a-palooza).
He then repeated the rant du jour that not enough money is “getting to the classroom.” This was cited when Gov. Doug Ducey pulled his sleight of hand by claiming that he was increasing spending for schools when he was actually decreasing it in one part of the educational budget and shifting the money from one side of the table to the other. Lance and many others have said that, in several school districts, the percentage of money “getting to the classroom” has decreased in the years since the economy crashed. In many cases, that’s true, but poor Lance doesn’t realize that he’s actually making my argument for me.
Let’s say that in 2008, a school was getting a certain amount of money. For each $100 it had to spend, $46 of it went to things like buses and bus drivers; maintenance and custodial services; electric, water and gas bills; toilet paper, fuels costs and on and on and on … and administrative salaries. This means that, put somewhat simplistically, $54 (or 54% of the money) gets to the classroom, mostly in the form of teacher salaries, books and supplies. That 54 percent figure is actually above average for the country; not spectacular, but pretty good.
So, the economy goes bad and the State Legislature, not wanting to go back on campaign promises of cutting taxes for rich people, takes the knife to school budgets, instead. Instead of that $100 it once had, the school now has $90. Those aforementioned expenses aren’t going to change, although the costs of those things will inevitably tick upward, even in times of low inflation. You still need buses and bus drivers, toilet paper, electricity and janitors. The expenses stay the same, but suddenly, that $46 eats up 51 percent of the budget, meaning that only 49 percent is getting to the classroom. Nothing has changed, but the ostensibly sacrosanct getting-to-the-classroom percentage is down to a politically disturbing level. That’s just one of the reasons why focusing on that percentage is, at the very least, misleading and, more correctly, just plain wrong.
Of course, cuts must be made and, unfortunately, all too often, teachers get cut first. You can cut an administrative position at a school and that could probably save 1.5 teaching positions. Even so, a reduction in funding is almost always going to result in the percentages heading in the wrong direction, at least for a while.
There are certainly districts that are top-heavy in central administration. You can cut 10 or 12 administrative positions and maybe save $1 million, but, spread out over an entire district, that might result in the saving of one teaching position per school. That’s making the best of a bad situation, but the overall percentages will still be problematic for some.
Here in Arizona, we have an extra, special case. The voters of Arizona instructed the Legislature to come up with money to at least try to keep up with inflation. As we all know, the Legislature has refused to live up to its constitutional responsibilities for several years now. The courts have ruled that, for just one of those years, the Legislature owes the schools $331 million (and probably owes $1 billion more for other years). Most of that money would go for teacher pay, in one form or another.
The distribution of 301 monies would boost the “going into the classroom” side of the ledger. The illegal withholding of those funds, coupled with the fact that even with salary freezes and cutbacks, some unavoidable costs still go up, serves to tilt the balance away from the classroom.
It is at least disingenuous for Republican lawmakers to gut school spending, including a significant amount that would go into the classroom. and then publicly bemoan the classroom/non-classroom ratio. It’s like the kid who kills both of his parents and then begs for mercy because he’s all of a sudden an orphan.
You don’t get to create the problem and then complain about the problem. Unless you’re a Republican Legislator in Arizona.
This article appears in Feb 19-25, 2015.
It is also disingenuous AND hypocritical to suggest that more than enough money is being spent on public education while at the same time sending their own children to very expensive private schools, as Governor Ducey does.
The big question is whether the Arizona Republican legislature will find yet again, a way out of paying up the monies they shorted the schools of Arizona, to the tune of billions of dollars. The court has ruled they must cough up the dough. IF they do not I suggest we the public throw the bums in jail. Not out of the question. It has been done before.
“The courts have ruled that, for just one of those years, the Legislature owes the schools $331 million (and probably owes $1 billion more for other years). Most of that money would go for teacher pay, in one form or another.”
I’m not as sanguine as Tom about how the monies owed would be spent – if ever released. Administration, like nature, abhors a vacuum and I expect the the revenues gained would be spent, as always, with less than half going to classrooms and even less to teacher salaries. Wouldn’t it be great if the lion’s share of those additional dollars were earmarked for raises in teacher salary and
benefits while replacing long term substitute positions with qualified full time professionals? Oh, and funding a grants program for teaching supplies to eliminate the out of pocket expenses that erode teachers already low incomes?
I have no problem with Charter Schools, in fact I like giving parents a choice. But I really do have a problem with the state cutting education funding and then turning around and, if the Governor gets his way, spending the money on yet another prison. Ironically the total education cuts (primary, secondary and higher) are about what the prison will cost. Where are his priorities?
What a waste of time reading this teachers union propaganda. Ooh one hundred per cent “likes” too.
Maybe I will catch you on talk radio again some day Tom. This is just boring.
Rick Spanier, I just want you to know that long-term subs aren’t there because there isn’t enough money for regular teachers. They are there because they can’t get teachers… We have an extreme teacher shortage in southern Arizona because of extremely low pay . Now you be saying that if the legislature paid what it should, we could have more qualified teachers.. yes I agree. Just wanted to clarify that. Plus we have a legislature that keeps cutting money, supplies and books are low. Couple that with a big group of Republicans that say really ignorant things like charter schools do better than public schools. (Astounds me that people say this. THey can look and see they don’t!). I mean with low pay, inadequate materials, people saying they don’t do a good job, why would they want to come to a public school in Tucson? I love the public schools. I support them in any way I can because I know how hard they work and are maligned by people who are greedy(using money from charter schools for profit and sometimes fraud) .
Vince of darkness(appropriate name to hide behind)…. there are no unions in Arizona to speak of. Remember … we are a ‘right to work state’? There are unions who have no bargaining power at all. What state do you live in or are you really that ignorant? Teachers have no choice… teach or live elsewhere. Republicans also shoot themselves in the foot by creating an education system that is 48th in the nation. What companies would want to move here? Some people REALLY care about children and education and it is very evident Arizona primarily Republicans do not. Prisons are valued more by the those that keep getting elected and maybe most of the people ??? I like Senator Steve Farley a lot… he does really good things but he is the only one I can think of right now. Let’s get dark money out of elections.
Wow, I am in awe of how he disposed of the arguments in the email. “You wrong-o. Tom right-o.” Must’ve been his debate team’s star.
Why the hate on charters? I know someone who is on the board of (and a teacher at) a small charter school. They do get less money. This is in another state, but I think it’s the same here. And, yes, I’ve heard the arguments that they somehow pick their students and save money not having the special programs. Some truth to it, but I know they’re radically underfunded and they get their share of troubled students.
The thing is. Money isn’t a magic wand. It helps, but it’s what you do with it that counts. And they’re able to do things you just can’t do in a public school. Among other things, they pursue an educational and disciplinary/motivational system that is very effective but you could never do it in public school because of politics and unions. They also have far more activities that schools probably wouldn’t have because the lawyers would say “no”.
Charters give parents a choice. This is something that, before charters, only rich people had. Now parents who are tired of the bureaucracy, relentless mediocrity, and discipline problems of their neighborhood public school can, free of charge, send their children to a charter of their choice. Yes, there may be bad ones, and the system may have problems, but parents will eventually figure it out unless, gasp, some for-profit schools actually do a better job and parents send their kids there in droves.
Isn’t choice a basic founding principle of this country? Whether it’s religion or educational system, you should have a choice how you raise your children.
Wrong again, Robin. As a retired N.Y. City elevator constructor I belong to Local # 1 of the Interntional Union Of Elevator Constructors. In order to work in the elevator industry in Arizona you need to join Local 140 of the I.U.E.C., a very powerful union. If you work for Pima County you can join the S.E.U. ( Service Employee’s Union) another strong group.
Robin, why not give up on making any more comments. You call Vince ignorant ? Talk about people in glass houses, you need to check out a mirror.
Arizona’s charter schools receive approximately $1,000 more per pupil from the State than do public schools. That’s at least part of the reason that school districts started converting some of their schools to charters. And, accordingly, it’s why the State Legislature banned the practice of conversion. Those people just HATE the thought of money flowing into public-school districts.
Wow CW13, isn’t this priceless?
I am called ” ignorant” by an obvious product of the TUSD education system.
Now Robin, go back and read your letter again and see how many mistakes you can find.
As for hiding behind a name, I just don’t want you and your dream pod ending up on my front lawn.
I saw what happened to Scott Walker’s elderly parents this week.
Those public employee unions are not gracious losers. Kind of like Tom after this last election.
Forgive her Vince, she knows not what she says ( or writes) She accuses you of hiding behind a fake name yet only uses the first initial of her last name. The B probably stands for brainless or perhaps braindead. I really love people like her as she proves us folks ( to quote Obummer) on the right are just that. Right. While the Left is just that . Left. As in left behind. Now watch these stooges start hitting Dislike even though they know I love it.
Like I said….