[Speed Gibson,
Thursday November 24, 2005 at 12:25am]
Battle of the Bulge
In the November 20 Minneapolis Star Tribune, Steve Brandt tells us of over-crowded classrooms. Grab you wallets. Here we go again.
You see, voters gave the Minneapolis Public Schools an additional levy in 2000 (and earlier) to specifically reduce class sizes. This was done, only to find the same problem once again in 2005, at least in certain grades and subjects. The dedicated funds ear-marked for a specific purpose have once again have found their way to the labor bargaining table as former Governor Arne Carlson often complained. Some of you may remember the late Gary Sudduth's 1997 demand for an accounting of $500 million in state and federal money that was supposed to raise minority test scores. The scores went down, the money was spent largely on salary increases according to one official at the time.
This scenario has played out in the suburbs, too, many times. When times are good, class size reduction is a priority, spending goes up, and yes, the sizes drop. When times aren't so good, the "squeezed" districts quietly allow the class sizes to rise again. That is, existing teachers get pay increases before any departing or retiring teachers are replaced.
The Minneapolis Public Schools have the highest per-pupil funding in the state. We can't even figure out where the suburban districts are spending their last 20% or so. To shore up some popular classes like those in the article should not require pleading to the public; just do it. In a budget that large, there must be plenty of less important work being performed.
Now, I don't believe in school operating levy referendums per se. We elect school boards, give them the power, just like the city or county. Voting down such referendums solves nothing in the long run and creates short term problems for everyone involved. The focus as always must be on the spending and results, not the resulting taxes.
The school boards (and the unions) must answer a fundamental question: if class sizes are so critical, why don't they cut something else less important? As it stands now, class size reductions are just a sponge to absorb excess tax receipts when times are good, then squeezed when times aren't so good.
You see, voters gave the Minneapolis Public Schools an additional levy in 2000 (and earlier) to specifically reduce class sizes. This was done, only to find the same problem once again in 2005, at least in certain grades and subjects. The dedicated funds ear-marked for a specific purpose have once again have found their way to the labor bargaining table as former Governor Arne Carlson often complained. Some of you may remember the late Gary Sudduth's 1997 demand for an accounting of $500 million in state and federal money that was supposed to raise minority test scores. The scores went down, the money was spent largely on salary increases according to one official at the time.
This scenario has played out in the suburbs, too, many times. When times are good, class size reduction is a priority, spending goes up, and yes, the sizes drop. When times aren't so good, the "squeezed" districts quietly allow the class sizes to rise again. That is, existing teachers get pay increases before any departing or retiring teachers are replaced.
The Minneapolis Public Schools have the highest per-pupil funding in the state. We can't even figure out where the suburban districts are spending their last 20% or so. To shore up some popular classes like those in the article should not require pleading to the public; just do it. In a budget that large, there must be plenty of less important work being performed.
Now, I don't believe in school operating levy referendums per se. We elect school boards, give them the power, just like the city or county. Voting down such referendums solves nothing in the long run and creates short term problems for everyone involved. The focus as always must be on the spending and results, not the resulting taxes.
The school boards (and the unions) must answer a fundamental question: if class sizes are so critical, why don't they cut something else less important? As it stands now, class size reductions are just a sponge to absorb excess tax receipts when times are good, then squeezed when times aren't so good.