Moving forward

More than two months ago, we called on legislators to engage in a realistic school funding debate.

Last week, we asked readers to share their thoughts about K-12 school funding - a perennial source of contention that has legislators gridlocked again this spring.

Republican lawmakers have drawn a line in the sand, saying a 1.25 percent increase is all the state can afford given projected revenues. Democrats argue it's worth spending part of last year's surplus to give schools the money they say they need to maintain or enhance current services. They initially proposed a 6 percent increase, then offered a compromise increase of 4 percent. Finally last week, in an effort to strike a deal, they proposed increasing state funding by 2.635 percent. Republicans held firm.

Meanwhile, school districts have until April 15 to finalize their budgets. Clearly, something's got to give.

As Opinion Editor Jennifer Hemmingsen wrote last week, 'We are in danger of finding ourselves back in this position during every budget discussion until we agree on some questions of value, recognizing each choice will require us to give up something else we want.”

She offered three options for consideration:

' Control education budgets to keep increases in line with revenues, even if that means school districts have to dig deeper to find efficiencies within budgets that are earmarked, overwhelmingly, for staff.

' Fund schools at the level they need to maintain current services at the expense of other budget priorities.

' Fund schools in a way that pushes them to innovate in hope of a dramatically better return on our investment (i.e., outcomes for our kids), given the uncertainty it will involve.

About a dozen readers weighed in, with lengthy, thoughtful responses. Here is a snapshot of their views.

Option 1: Align with revenues

Patrick McGarvey, of Mason City, wrote: 'The main reason every year for the public school districts need (demand) more money is for the union to deliver far above-the-norm salary and benefit increases.

'Let any school board spell out in detail where they spent the additional money: Enhanced staff salary and benefits. If this requires cuts in staff in addition to the new money to balance the books, so be it.”

Cedar Rapids' Eugene Bahnsen wrote that he'd like to see schools study how they might cut administration expenses, and offered one suggestion: 'One place would be the information specialist that is supposed to keep Cedar Rapids residents informed of school functions,” he wrote. 'How about the superintendent's secretary sending The Gazette a letter every week or two or three? I am sure there would not be much time involved.”

Option 2: maintain services

'I'd trust state educators, not state legislators, to determine what Iowa's education needs are,” wrote Steve Haufe, of Clinton, who said he's married to a teacher.

'Cutting education is like eating a poor diet to save on your grocery bill; your health ultimately suffers permanent damage.”

'We are failing our students,” wrote Larry Hodgden, of Tipton. 'I have served on the school board, and I trust local boards to get the best education from each dollar they are allowed to spend. In fact, if given the opportunity, many school districts would tax themselves higher to support educational funding.”

Gordon Taylor, of Anamosa, also spoke to the community benefit of an educated workforce.

He wrote to say he thinks education should be the number one budget priority - ahead of economic development, tourism, agriculture and even health and environmental issues - since an educated population will lead to progress in other areas.

But Taylor also questioned whether the system is being run as efficiently as it could be.

'I am left with the distinct impression that there must be an inherent inefficiency in the convoluted system that is currently in place,” he wrote. 'We manage to fund consultants to establish efficiency within our Regent's system. I have to believe there is a similar need for efficiency improvement in our overall pK-12 system.”

OPTION 3: encourage innovation

No readers wrote to say they preferred the option of funding schools to spur innovation, although Phil Owen, of Monticello, wrote to say he thinks innovation is the more important issue.

'The U.S. spends more per student than nearly every nation, with students graduating or dropping out of school not prepared for entry-level jobs,” he wrote. 'The reality is that other nations now have an educated workforce that once lagged far behind the U.S.”

'If we look at the early roots of public education we find cornerstones of an education model still in use today - but with new inputs and more requirements forcing educators and legislators into a corner with no escape,” Owen wrote.

'The original model for public education, created by Thomas Jefferson, had a single and simple objective: educate young men, from wealthy families, with a stated outcome of ‘racking the genius from the rubbish'” he continued. 'In reality, this element of Jefferson's education model still is in effect today. Children of middle and upper income families perform better in school than children from low-income families.”

He argued for a thorough accounting of the public education system and examinations of and its objectives, including assumptions that all students should learn at the same rate ('in lock step”) or follow a college-prep curriculum.

'We desperately need more leaders to guide our nation toward consensus on the urgent need to redesign public education - with the objective to provide education resources that will enable every child to achieve their full potential.”

OPTION 4: NONE OF THE ABOVE

Readers also wrote with their own ideas: spend more now to catch schools up, or increase revenues so spending increases aren't a source of conflict.

'One option you didn't offer is to simply spend more money for a year or two out of our swollen reserves to bring Iowa back to a leadership role in education, however much that may be, then adjust each year to maintain that level” wrote Ann Christenson, of Iowa City. 'If people don't want to support public services from the reserves, then let's pay what it takes through our taxes. In this Easter Season, let us remember that ‘to whom much is given, much will be required.' (Luke 12:48).”

Craig E. Wood, of Cedar Rapids, wrote: 'Republicans frequently say, ‘You can't solve a problem by throwing money at it.' To which I always respond, ‘If you have a leaky roof, you better throw some money at buying some shingles unless you want your house to rot away.' There are two ways to fix a deficit budget: 1) cut spending; 2) raise revenue. My choice is to raise revenue.”

' Comments: (319) 398-8469; editorial@thegazette.com