Learning Leadership column for eSchool News, April 2011—Where are we going? What’s going to happen? Those are legitimate questions regarding the future of public education in America.
Back in the summer of 2008, when I first started work as executive director of the American Association of School Administrators, the future seemed bright. We were in the midst of a presidential election and, regardless of who won the election, changes were bound to happen. Both Democrats and Republicans seemed disenchanted with No Child Left Behind, and both candidates promised changes to some degree. Then the unthinkable happened: the bottom fell out of our economy and we entered the Great Recession. Mr. Obama won the election, and immediately economic recovery became the priority of the new administration.
Linda Darling Hammond had been Mr. Obama’s chief advisor on education issues, so it was no surprise when she was selected to head the education transition team. I have known Linda since our days in New York, and I was delighted when we were invited to meet with her and her team. The discussions were robust, and we were excited by the emphasis on areas like early childhood education, teacher professional development, and the assessment of English language learners and special-education students. Talk of a plan to rescue the economy shifted our attention to providing input on education spending that would help stimulate the economy. School construction and maintenance, along with expenditures in technology infrastructure and hardware, seemed like appropriate suggestions. I recall seeing Anne Bryant, executive director for the National School Boards Association, leading a group of her members to meet with Congressional delegations while carrying little shovels that said “We have projects that are shovel ready.”
More from AASA Executive Director Dan Domenech:
School leaders need more help, and not red tape, to transform education
Frankly, at that point we thought we were being bold by recommending an expenditure package that totaled $10 billion. That was almost as much as the prevailing education budget. Imagine our surprise when the stimulus package for education was approved at $100 billion! The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) did not include as much money for school construction and technology as we had first envisioned, but it did include substantial sums for Title I and IDEA funding. The states also were to receive state stabilization dollars that could be used to support education—a windfall for education the likes of which we had never seen.
The windfall never quite materialized. With increasing unemployment and real estate values plummeting, the primary sources of school districts’ revenue began to whither. At the state level, governors and legislators began to use the ARRA state stabilization dollars to supplant the allocations in their education budgets as they were faced with significant decreases in sales tax and income tax collections. Many districts saw no revenue increase as a result of the ARRA funds. At the local level, districts felt an even bigger impact as real estate values fell, bringing down assessed valuations and the school taxes they generate. On average, local taxes make up about 37 percent of a school district’s revenue, while the state contributes some 46 percent and the federal government’s contribution is just eight percent.
Since the 2008-09 school year, school districts throughout America have been subjected to unprecedented reductions in revenue that have caused the elimination of many programs and services, reductions in staff, and steady increases in class size. Last summer, Congress approved a jobs bill that was intended to send additional billions of dollars to schools in order to save teaching jobs. As was the case with the state stabilization funds, many governors have appropriated the education jobs fund to close gaps in this year’s budgets, as well as projected deficits for next year. The Education Sector, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, projects that 44 states and the District of Columbia will have an aggregate shortfall of $125 billion this coming school year. This coincides with the dreaded “funding cliff” we keep hearing about—the time when the federal stimulus dollars run out, and states and localities do not have the revenue to make up the difference. The immediate future for public education is bleak, to say the least.
And now yet another threat is looming, also sparked by the economic recession but fueled by political ideology. Back in February, a few days prior to AASA’s National Conference on Education in Denver, we co-hosted a conference along with some other associations and the U.S. Department of Education. One hundred and fifty school districts sent teams made up of the superintendent, the board president, and the head of the teacher union or association. The conference’s focus was on improving student achievement through better labor-management collaboration. There are 35 states that have laws that require collective bargaining and 15 states that do not. It’s no secret that much of what Diane Ravitch refers to as the corporate reform agenda focuses on the elimination of such union staples as seniority, tenure, and collective bargaining. It’s ironic that while in Denver, Education Secretary Arne Duncan was promoting creative ways for collective bargaining to yield greater student achievement while Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker was attempting to legislative collective bargaining out of existence in his state.
More from AASA Executive Director Dan Domenech:
School leaders need more help, and not red tape, to transform education
Indeed, the Denver Post quoted Richard Lee Colvin, executive director of Education Sector, as saying: “What I see happening across the country are governors using the budget issues to make not just spending but policy changes.” Governors in New Jersey, Ohio, Tennessee, and Indiana seem to be pursuing similar agendas, making frontal attacks not just on teacher unions, but on municipal employees as well, along with their salaries and benefits. Combine the impact that the economic recession is having on schools with these developments in a growing number of states, and we have to wonder how this will affect the push for reform and improved student achievement.
As is usually the case, the economic impact will be felt primarily by the poorest school districts that are highly dependent on federal and state aid to education. And it is in those communities that we find the majority of “dropout factories” and failing schools. It is also the case that those are the schools and communities largely populated by impoverished African-American and Latino youngsters. Consequently, it is a fair assumption that, with increasing class size, the elimination of after-school and summer school programs, and the firing of specialists and support personnel, the very students that are waiting for Superman will suffer the most harm.
The average national salary for a teacher is $56,272. The average salary for a floor broker on Wall Street is $83,608. It is not the money that attracts people into teaching. In lieu of higher compensation, a semblance of security and a decent retirement plan seemed like a fair exchange, although still not sufficient to attract the majority of our college graduates. Now, with teacher salaries and benefits under attack, what will induce our best and brightest to go into teaching? As we get rid of the inadequate teachers who don’t belong in the classroom, who will take their place? Who will want to work in the dropout factories and failing schools in the isolated rural areas of America and in the ghettos of our small towns and cities?
As has always been the case, there will be educators who will rise to the challenge and volunteer to work with the students who will benefit the most from their passion and commitment. But there will not be enough of them. Our disadvantaged students are about to encounter the “perfect storm”: a lack of resources needed to ensure they are not left behind and an insufficient number of talented individuals, who will opt for work in any field but education so as not to be subjected to low salaries, poor benefits, and public abuse.
Dan Domenech is executive director of the American Association of School Administrators.
More from AASA Executive Director Dan Domenech:
School leaders need more help, and not red tape, to transform education
- 2 ways to support eRate modernization - May 19, 2014
- A college readiness tool that every district should use - January 2, 2014
- Time to focus on the real education problem: Poverty - October 3, 2013
