Does Local Control Work?

We often hear how important local control is regarding our local public school districts.  I wonder.  Consider tiny district 286 which serves maybe one third of Brooklyn Center, including my own grown children.  In many ways it is the little district that could, but it also posts some of the most disappointing test scores in Minnesota.  For 2007, the Global Report Card lists math at 18%, reading at 22%.  Adjoining suburban districts are around 45% math, 55% reading, but these extend well into western Hennepin County and southern Anoka County.  Even the Minneapolis scores of 29% math and 34% reading are no doubt buoyed by Southwest High School.

District 286 has been in statutory operating debt legal status for years, largely due to its inability to pass any levy referendums.  It just tried and failed again, the eighth straight defeat.  With the last active levy expiring this year, they will have no "extra" levies at all next year.  Some might correlate this with another disturbing result, that district test scores have fallen by about a third since 2004, when math was 29% and reading was 36%.

So here we seemingly have the ultimate in local control, a small area, rich in diversity but otherwise relatively poor economically.  It's understandable that high unemployment and falling property values mean no levies will be approved in the near future, either.  The budget has been truly cut year over year and will be again.  And yet, the district carries tens of millions in bond debt, much of that to rebuild Earle Brown Elementary about 10 years ago.

I would argue that we actually don't have the ultimate in local control.  As I've written many times, I think it is penny wise, pound foolish not to grant school boards full levy authority just like the cities and counties.  I of course am pleased that the Pawlenty era levy limits have expired.  Levy limits provide excuses for poor performance and lead to creative accounting to get around some of those limits.

The Brooklyn Center Schools will likely try again this fall, joined by about one third of the rest of Minnesota's districts.  Beat your chest and say no if you like, but bear in mind that spending will go up anyway, one way or another.  The local control we really need is over spending and curriculum, a process made more difficult if we must play games on the revenue side.

Comments

[The Big Stink]

Since they can't provide a satisfactory product, why don't they give vouchers to the parents and say "here - shop around?"

Oh, I forgot, public schools are the only option for poor folks.

[J. Ewing]

It seems to me that we DO have local control over curriculum and spending, but there is no "control" obvious, especially when the Board admits they must increase revenue. That is prima facie evidence that spending is out of control. Now if the Board comes to the public and says something like "Look, we either have to raise more revenue (by X$) or cut out this item, our lowest priority" then local control is working. But that isn't what they say. They "need more money." Why? What else have you considered? Is it possible class sizes are too small? Do you have too many administrators or other overhead? Have teachers taken a pay freeze? Are you offering classes you do not have to offer? Are there State rules that cost you more money than you believe local parents and citizens believe is appropriate? I would wager that NONE of these things have been thoroughly investigated, let alone offered to the public as real choices; just "We need more money." Since they obviously cannot control what they are expected to and charged with controlling, giving them control of something else-- revenue-- seems like a really bad idea.

[The Big Stink]

J: You're expecting responsible actions from them. You forget - they don't have to listen to the rhythms of the marketplace. They're beyond the pettiness of fiscal sanity.

I expect better from you, J. Open your wallet. Don't you care about the children?

[J. Ewing]

Yes, I do, which is why I don't want the school district spending so much time and effort (and taxpayer dollars) trying to get more taxpayer dollars rather than doing their jobs-- educating children as best they can with the gobs of money they already have. Now because of the overlapping and overwhelming State and Federal restrictions on how they do that job-- the lack of local control-- it is more difficult, but yet some districts do, LITERALLY, twice as well as others for the same money, even with those restrictions. Imagine what true local control, with engaged citizens, a competent administration and no union interference, could accomplish?

The other thing at work here, at which you only hint, is the fact that all of the incentives here are perverse. Boards aren't paid enough to risk offending the unions by firing bad teachers or holding down raises. Boards and administrations alike went into education "for the children," not to be good financial managers, or even financial managers of any stripe. None of them will or want to say "no" to any of the "stakeholders," who form the vast bulk of the voters and screamers. Governments are willing to give them more and more money with no accountability. Teachers and everybody else get the same pay regardless of results and regardless of ability. You can't be fired for almost any reason. Where is the incentive to innovate, improve or excel? Ha!

[The Big Stink]

The level of your frustration is palpable. Everything you ask for is doable - in the real world. In K-12 Land, your desires are pipe dreams which will never come to fruition. The system is irretrievably broken. My advice to anyone with a child under the age of four is to A) petition your legislator for tax credits and/or vouchers or, B) get a second job to pay for private school tuition.

[Speed Gibson]

I'm not quite ready to give up on the public schools, except of course for Minneapolis and St. Paul. With sufficient parental involvement you can make most work and you'll get a little more "real world" seasoned graduate.

[J. Ewing]

I think we need to be watching very closely any legislation that seeks to limit or control online K-12 education. Theunions recognize the growing threat and want to outlaw it. They simply must. I have long said that the public schools will only survive until one of them breaks ranks and discovers that they can "outsource" the vast majority of their classroom teaching to Internet software or to teachers tele-teaching from India. Kids will be taught for one third the cost and with results twice as good. Nobody will want the inferior product at the higher cost and public education as we know it will disappear. Good riddance.