Randy Bangert, editor of the Greeley Tribune, asked me to write a guest editorial because he “heard from a reader” that I am opposed to 3A, Greeley-Evans District 6’s attempt to mismanage more taxpayer money.  The request made me laugh because I’m guessing the Tribune editorial board would rather see Marilyn Musgrave’s words in print before granting me precious column inches on the Sunday editorial page.   But I’m probably the only person they could think of who is cold-hearted enough to vote against “the children.”  To their credit, the newspaper published the requested column today.  You can read the Tribune’s version here. 

However, the edited version left out a key sentence about transparency and district 6.  Supporters of the massive tax increase say the district will be more accountable because it is creating yet another citizens’ panel to tell us how responsible the school district is with our money.  Color me skeptical since school board member Bob Stack testified against transparency at the state capitol. 

Below is the complete text of my op-ed.  The crucial line that the Tribune chose to exclude from both the print and online version is emphasized in bold.

District 6 needs to focus on how not how much it spends

By Amy Oliver Cooke

 

Below state average is the best District 6 can do unless it gets more cash from taxpayers. Don’t buy it. It’s time District 6 focus on how it spends taxpayer dollars, not how much.

 

The business-as-usual suspects: school board, teachers union, Chamber of Commerce, Greeley Tribune, and a citizens’ panel want voters to approve a mill levy increase that will add nearly $200 per year to the property tax bill for a $150,000 home.

 

Supporters claim the district needs the additional funding because it ranks 147^th out of 178 Colorado school districts in terms of per-pupil funding. Without the funding, popular programs such as International Baccalaureate, Advanced Placement courses and magnet programs could go away.

 

Essentially, the school district is placing a fiscal gun to the head of taxpayers: “Give us the money or the programs get it.”

 

Also, the district claims it doesn’t have enough money for textbooks, buses and security. It does leave one to wonder how the district prioritizes its budget.

 

Before succumbing to fear, voters should demand answers to two questions. First, how has the district managed the money it currently spends? Second, will increased spending result in a higher quality of education?

 

Based on information from the Colorado Department of Education, District 6 spent $9,049 per pupil in fiscal year 2007-2008. For $9,049 District 6 taxpayers get below-average scores on state standardized tests, below-average graduation rates, above regional average for teacher salaries, and 557 central administration employees, roughly one for every 33 students.

 

Those are general numbers. The school district doesn’t provide detailed spending information. State legislation that would have required more financial transparency from Colorado school districts was defeated this year. District 6 Board member Bob Stack testified against the Public School Financial Transparency Act despite overwhelming public support.

 

The second question the district must answer is how increased funding leads to increased student achievement and higher graduation rates. The argument that District 6 needs additional funding because it ranks 147^th out of 178 is silly. If money were the only factor necessary to ensure a quality K-12 education, Washington, D.C., and New Jersey would be graduating Nobel Prize winners, while Utah, with the lowest per-pupil spending, would be lucky to graduate anyone.

 

Studies prove it. According to a Heritage Foundation report “Does Spending More on Education Improve Academic Achievement?” despite more than doubling education spending since 1971, academic achievement has not increased significantly and graduation rates have remained flat.

 

Heritage concluded that there is no consistent proof to show that simply increasing school funding results in higher academic achievement and increased graduation rates.

The Independence Institute came to the same conclusion.  “Counting Cash,” a 2006 “comprehensive analysis of relevant research, overwhelmingly showed no link between education spending and student performance, with several studies showing a negative relationship.”

How much is far less important than how school districts spend taxpayer resources. One area of how the district should address is teacher compensation. Studies have shown that automatic pay raises for teachers who advance their own education have no significant effect on student achievement. With our dismal achievement scores and graduation rates, it’s time the district embrace teacher compensation reform. Not all teachers are equal. As a community we must reward good teachers for their performance and not just for their time. Conversely, bad teachers must go.

 

If simply raising per-student spending led to increased achievement scores and higher graduation rates, the tax increase probably would pass even in this economy. But it’s not that easy. How the district allocates taxpayer resources is at issue. Until District 6 proves it is willing to focus on the how and not how much, I’ll vote no – despite having two kids in the system.

 

Amy Oliver Cooke is Director of Colorado Transparency Project for the Independence Institute and host of the Amy Oliver Show on 1310 KFKA. She can be reached at amy@i2i.org.

In the spirit of my friends over at Colorado Spending Transparency (COST), here’s a message to district 6: No taxation without information!

COST (Colorado Spending Transparency) just published the following post:

“..we are a board very concerned about transparency and oversight — about letting our constituency know what it is we are doing,” Greeley Evans District 6 school board member Judy Kron said at a meeting last night.

Really?

Perhaps Kron should read COST.  Then she would know that her fellow school board member Bob Stack testified against school spending transparency just a few months ago.

The Greeley school board voted last night to ask taxpayers to shell out an additional $16 million for textbooks, academic programs and buses.  The question will be on the ballot in November.

While the school board won’t provide taxpayers with detailed spending information, the board did approve a resolution to create an “accountability committee” charged with monitoring and reporting how the additional tax dollars are spent.

According to the Greeley Tribune print edition, Kron went on to say:

It would be very nice if we could say ‘trust us,’ and you would do so.  This isn’t an age of elected officials being trusted just because we are elected officials. So we want to do all we can to assure you that we will spend the dollars as you have asked us to.

Point of clarification — the school board is the one doing the asking, not taxpayers.

Perhaps the school board and school district should have been a bit more serious about transparency and accountability BEFORE asking for more money. 

I’ll pass along COST’s advice to District 6 taxpayers:  No taxation without information.

Below average graduation rates.  Below average CSAP scores.  Above average pay for teachers.  And Greeley Evans District 6 school board wants a mill levy override to raise an additional $16 million in taxpayer dollars.  They are supported by a citizens committee and the Greeley Tribune.

Neither group demands to see where or how the school district is spending the money it has right now.  If Greeley Evans District 6 wants more cash, then it should have the common decency to show taxpayers/stakeholders how their money is spent. 

That won’t happen.  In fact, District 6 school board member Bob Stack  was part of the massive K-12 education lobby that testified against SB 57 Public School Financial Transparency Act.

Colorado Spending Transparency (COST), another blog to which I contribute, has the perfect motto for this campaign: No taxation without information!

Unemployment is nearly 9 percent; the economy continues to contract; GM is bankrupt; New Frontier Bank’s collapse continues to plague all of Northern Colorado; and the Greeley teachers’ union (GEA) wants more than a 10 percent increase in teachers’ overall compensation including pay raises, retirement contributions and additional funding for health care premiums.

Furthermore, at 66 percent, Greeley Evans District 6 graduation rates are below state average and those of most neighboring districts.    And based on what I saw at Greeley Central’s graduation that percentage won’t go up next year.  District 6 also suffers from below average CSAP scores.  However teacher pay is above those of neighboring disticts.  In December 2007  the Greeley Tribune reported: “District 6 teacher pay had ranked in line with Fort Collins, Loveland and Longmont, but under the new agreement Greeley-Evans’ beginning and maximum salaries…will top neighboring districts…Additionally, with teacher pay in 2006-07 at an average of $47,866, District 6 exceeded the state average of $46,973 that year. ”

In fall 2008 a top tier teacher in District 6 could make over $80,000 per year.  With a 185 day contract, that’s nearly $433 per day.  Not bad pay!  That doesn’t even count the most generous, albeit insolvent, retirement program in the state PERA Colorado.   All of this is on the taxpayers’ dime.

A 10 percent increase in teachers’ compensation is unrealistic in today’s economy.  But it isn’t just teachers.  The administration is bloated.  We have a six figure mouthpiece because our Superintendent making nearly $210,000 doesn’t have time to talk with the press.  No wonder the district wants a mill levy override (pipe dream).

Much of this might not matter if we were graduating well-educated kids.  As it stands right now, we are barely graduating mediocre students.

Here’s a lesson that District 6 should take to heart.  In tough economic times, don’t ask people who are either making less than you are to shell out more of their hard earned money for marginal results.  It’s not a successful business model.  Too bad the delivery of public education isn’t more like a business.