Going Big and Doing it Well --A strategy for School Finance Reform-1

In his Strib Article, "Minneapolis schools must go big or go home" Peter Hutchinson, former Minneapolis superintendent warns against trying to fix our school finance system in tiny increments.  Jvonkorff on education tried to illustrate an aspect of this same idea in our last post describing St. Paul's budgetary challenges.  In summary, St. Paul received about 2 percent in formula increases, and $17 million new referendum revenue.  However those increases were virtually wiped out by enrollment decreases, compensation and other cost increases.   The net result is that St. Paul's strategic improvements, while well-conceived, are tiny compared to the need.  And, we argued, future cost increases will soon wipe out even the small increments installed this year. 

This is the point that Peter Hutchinson was making in the above referenced article.  Hutchinson served as Minneapolis superintendent in the 1990's, and he actively follows their progress.  He began by reminding us that we are failing too many kids.

The facts are pretty dismal. Only about 20 percent of Minneapolis students are college- or career-ready by the end of high school, while 40 percent of students don’t graduate. Another 20 percent don’t go on to get further education that is essential for success. And of the 40 percent who do go on to college or university, nearly half have to take remedial courses when they get there. In other words, they have to take high school over again. We are failing way too many kids, some outright and as many more even when we give them a diploma.

The thirty million per year referendum, he argued, was simply not enough.  It is equivalent to the district's persistent operating deficit.  In other words it would merely keep the district afloat, so that it could maintain existing levels of service without running a deficit:

So now they are coming to us. They are planning to ask us for $30 million more a year for the next 10 years. That amounts to about $850 per student on top of the $24,000 we are already spending. A 3.5 percent increase. What will we get for that? We will get to pay more for what we already have — but in a couple of years, after inflation eats it all up, we will be right back where we are today. It’s the wrong amount for the wrong reason.

(Parenthetically, we note that the figure $24,000 apparently includes all spending--for buildings and other indirect costs--the number that actually matters, total general fund spending that pays for for educational operations is about $16,000 per student.)  Hutchinson argues that Minneapolis's financial strategy is driven by the state's strategy, to go small; to leave things comfortably alone, and that strategy is bound to fail.    Hutchinson continues:

The Minneapolis Public Schools don’t need a little to keep things as they are — they need a lot to transform education and our city. We need schools that attract and hold families. That’s how we build strong, stable communities with rising property values. We need schools designed for the success of each student — not just 20 percent. We need teachers to guide students with a curriculum that is diverse enough to both challenge and support high achievement for each, and every, student. We need fewer but better school buildings, with 21st-century technology that connects students, teachers and families to the best educational opportunities in the world. Our students, families and teachers deserve these schools. Our city needs these schools.

Since 2004, when the Governor's task force warned that Minnesota must pay the full cost of delivering an education that meets state standards, one Governor after another has looked the other way-- avoiding the discomfort that arises from the truth:  we are never going to close the achievement gap by going small and staying comfortable.  When we add small increments, as just happened in St. Paul and Minneapolis, when we fail to both fund and demand transformative changes, we are perpetuating failure and contributing to the maintenance of a Minnesota underclass.  

Peter Hutchinson advocates for the strategy that we are advocating in St. Cloud, to address the needs of urban school districts we must go big and buy change. In Minneapolis, he argues:

We should take $100 million a year for the next five years and use it to buy (not just pay for) the changes we need — in buildings, technology, curriculum and teaching. “Buying” change means that no dollar is spent unless it produces at least a dollar’s worth of the change we need. No change — no money. Everyone should have the chance to be part of the change, but no one should be entitled to be paid for their good intentions alone. Being part of this change is only earned by delivering results.

In our next post, part 2 of "Going Big and Doing it well" jvonkorff on education will describe the strategy being pursued by St. Cloud advocates for school finance reform  in the courts.