School Spending Archive

For our September “What is Ready?” cover package, the editors of ASBJ interviewed educators, scholars, and researchers about the topic of student readiness for the 21st century. Over the coming weeks, we will post many of those interviews on asbj.com in our “online only” section.

Today, we kick off the series with answers to our questions from Richard Rothstein, the former New York Times education columnist and author of Class and Schools: Using Social, Economic, and Educational Reform to Close the Black-White Achievement Gap. As you might expect from Rothstein, who has contributed a number of articles to our magazine, his answers are provocative and thought-provoking.

Here is an excerpt:

Editors: What is "ready"? What specific skills should students have when they leave high school to enter higher education or the workforce?

Rothstein: This is the wrong -- or at least too narrow -- question. Contemporary education policy places too much emphasis on preparation for higher education or the workforce. Our public education system, historically and today, exists for more than this. Also of great importance is preparation for citizenship, for community responsibility, for good health (physical and emotional), and for adult leisure which benefits from an appreciation of the arts and literature.

For example, for citizenship, what kinds of conflict resolution skills do students have? Do they accept a responsibility to support or dissent from public policies, when appropriate? Can they combine advocacy with respect for differences? For physical health, are they in the habits of regular exercise and good nutrition; do they engage in responsible and safe sexual practices?

A colleague, Rebecca Jacobsen, and I wrote about these multiple goals in the October 2006 issue of the American School Board Journal.http://www.asbj.com/MainMenuCategory/Archive/2006/October/WhatBoardsWantfromSchoolsDoc621.aspx In that article, we described a survey we conducted of a representative sample of NSBA members, confirming that school board members support a broader mission for public education than preparation for higher education or the workforce alone.

For more, go to our “Online Only” section and click on Q&A: Richard Rothstein.

Glenn Cook, Editor-in-Chief

A new school building is one of the biggest, long-term expenditures a district will make. For some districts, opening multiple new schools each year is routine, others only a need a new building every 50 years or so.

Regardless of the quantity, the design of the school will affect the quality of the education and services provided there for years to come. And despite some design disasters from past decades (think open classrooms), we’ve recently learned a few things about how the built environment impacts students and their learning. I’ve discussed a few of these in October’s cover story, “Building the Perfect School.”

No, we really don’t believe there is a “perfect” formula for building a school—but there are some elements that can be incorporated into any building, anywhere, and will likely stand the test of time.

Recent research shows that physical elements such as natural light, good acoustics, and intimate spaces for small learning groups can have a significant impact on academic achievement. And we know indoor air quality affects students’ and teachers’ health and their ability to learn.

School architects also realize that today’s biggest trend in teaching or classroom design may be replaced by something entirely different tomorrow, so they’re finding ways to make spaces more flexible. For instance, they’re building classrooms in a variety of sizes with retractable walls and furnishings that can be easily rearranged.

And, for better or worse, the long, gray, institutional lockers are slowly being replaced by other means of storage.

Joetta Sack-Min, Associate Editor

Think your last school construction project was over budget and behind schedule? Take comfort in the latest news on the former Belmont Learning Center in Los Angeles.

The school complex, now known as Vista Hermosa, is finally scheduled to open next year—nine years late and more than $350 million over budget.

The total tab for the Los Angeles Unified School District is expected to be more than $400 million, undoubtedly making it the most expensive K-12 school construction project in the country.

The project began in the mid-1990s as a state-of-the-art high school complex to alleviate overcrowding and long bus rides for 5,000 students in the nearby low-income neighborhoods. But in 2000, poisonous gases were found underneath the site, a prime 34-acre parcel in downtown L.A. that was a former oil field. Construction resumed in 2002 after consultants determined a fan and vent system could alleviate the toxins, but the project was halted again later after the discovery of an earthquake fault line running across the property.

Eventually, then-Superintendent Roy Romer and the school board worked out a plan to demolish the buildings that sat on the fault line, scale down the size of the school to 2,600 students, and use part of the acreage for a community park.

Even as the project finally nears completion, the mention of Belmont is still synonymous with incompetence and bureaucratic waste—and many of the city’s politicians and editorial writers still relentlessly criticize district officials. So far, the project has been a headache for four LAUSD superintendents.

But some, including Romer, felt the project needed to be salvaged. And L.A. City Councilman Ed Reyes, who represents the area, recently said that the project would provide a much-needed school and park space for the nearby communities, even though the money should have been better spent.

“They probably could have built three more high schools, maybe four” with all the money spent, he told the Monterey County Herald in July. “That’s a very painful reality. I think 70 percent of the cost was not necessary.”

Joetta Sack-Min, Associate Editor

I can’t tell you how much this article disturbed me …… OK I’ll try.

Recently, the Washington Post reported on research concerning our propensity to believe myths or untruths. In fact, not only are we more likely to believe falsehoods that are repeated over and over -- something one would expect -- we’ll believe them even in the face of denials, if those denials involve repeating the original false information. (As in, “I did not kick my dog.” Listener’s translation: “You are a dog-kicker.”)

It seems our minds are quite willing to believe either what we want to believe, or have been told to. And it’s not just silly urban legends: These beliefs have real consequences. As the Post noted, 59 percent of Turks and Egyptians, and 56 percent of British Muslims, believe Arabs were not responsible for the 9-11 attacks. Across the Atlantic, one in three Americans think Saddam Hussein was “personally involved.”

It’s probably obvious why this bothers me, but let me explain. I can’t think of anything that’s more important than the truth. And telling the truth -- or, at least, trying to get the facts straight -- is what journalism is all about. But if our minds are programmed to believe all sorts of fabrications, we reporters have our work cut out for us.

And so do the schools. Have you ever heard someone who had little or no knowledge of public education (and, perhaps, your connection to it) tell you how abysmal, how unsafe, how money-sucking -- whatever -- the schools were? I have. And I wonder how much of that comes from the mark of failure that influential detractors have been able to affix to them.

In his 1981 inaugural address, Ronald Reagan famously declared, “Government is not a solution to our problem. Government is the problem.” Is it any coincidence that two years later a high-level commission would expand on that theme, declaring in A Nation at Risk that, had these government schools been foisted on us by a foreign power, we would consider it “an act of war?”

There are plenty of bad schools out there, but it’s not Canada’s fault. And fixing them will take more than sanctimoniously saying, “It’s the government’s problem.”

That Post article does offer one bit of hope. Not everyone believes the myths. “But the mind’s bias does affect many people, especially those who want to believe the myth for their own reasons, or those who are only peripherally interested and are less likely to invest the time and effort needed to firmly grasp the facts.”

The key, then, is to move the “peripherally interested” into the mainstream -- to show them why they should care about their schools, and learn the truth about them, learn their real problems as opposed to those fabricated by people who may not have the best interests of the public schools at heart.

It will take a lot of effort.

Lawrence Hardy, Senior Editor

Educators often see the same trends circle back around every few years or decades. It’s now taken about 80 years for the push for community schools to come back into vogue, but community planners and leaders are realizing that school facilities can play host to many types of activities, for many ages.

Each year, the American Architectural Foundation and the Knowledgeworks Foundation honor a school and community that have built an exemplary example with its Richard Riley Award, named for the former U.S. Secretary of Education. Riley’s pet project since leaving office in 2000 has been facilitating community partnerships and advocating for better school buildings.

This year’s winner is Rosa Parks School at New Columbia Community Campus in Portland, Ore. The campus includes a new K-6 school, Boys and Girls Club, and a community center that offers a variety of classes and programs for non-school-aged residents.

Financing of the project also used a partnership: The campus was built on land donated by the Housing Authority of Portland and construction was paid for with market tax credits, which give investors tax breaks in exchange for a low-income community development project.

And perhaps most impressive, the facility has received a Gold LEED certification for its sustainable design and environmental practices—something that will give back to the community for generations.

For more information about community schools and an update of how schools in New Orleans are being rebuilt as the centerpieces of their neighborhoods, there’s a terrific article in October’s ASBJ written by architect Steven Binger and Martin Blank and Amy Berg from the Coalition for Community Schools. For more information about this school or the award, check out AAF’s website at www.archfoundation.org.

Joetta Sack-Min, Associate Editor

“Here we go again,” my normally cheerful husband grumbled as he dropped our property tax bill into the mail the other day. Property taxes are a sore topic for us, not because we don’t like paying them, but because the home we own in Loudoun County, Va., is not nearly worth what the county has assessed it for -- and this is after we appealed and received a lower bill.

We know our property value well because we’ve been trying to sell it for months -- and like many homeowners across the country, we’ve seen the housing market go from bad to worse to even worse. We only wish we could sell our home for what the Loudoun assessors say it’s worth.

Homeowners aren’t the only losers in this market -- many of the public school systems that rely on property tax revenues to fund their programs may take a big hit as well. Loudoun, one of the fastest growing jurisdictions in the country, already has had to postpone several much needed school construction projects. Neighboring Fairfax County, another fast growing district, may not see any increase in their education budget in fiscal 2009 because tax revenues are expecting a shortfall, according to the Washington Post.

The rapid increases in home prices in recent years allowed many Virginia localities and others across the country to lower their tax rates as assessments increased. But nobody likes tax increases, so it’s going to take a while for this to even out. In the meantime, this situation shows the need for a better school finance system, one that is equitable, fair, and reliant on stable revenue source, not a fluctuant property tax.

I wrote about the possibility of a property-tax funding crisis for School Board News (www.nsba.org/site/page_sbn_issue.asp?TRACKID=&CID=682&DID=9461) last year, and I will continue following this issue. If you would like to share a story (or buy a lovely three-bedroom home in Loudoun County), please reply to the link below.

Joetta Sack-Min, Associate Editor

It’s been more than a week since Utah voters overturned the state’s voucher law, and now that voucher proponents have had a chance to lick their wounds, I’d like to offer them a piece of advice: Give up.

It’s not just that I think vouchers threaten to drain taxpayer dollars from public education, or that I’m concerned that research still hasn’t show voucher programs are any more successful than the public schools in raising student academic achievement.

No, I think voucher advocates should throw in the towel for a more pragmatic—and cynical—reason. Making taxpayer money available to private and parochial schools threatens their unique and independent status in American education.

As I see it, once private schools begin to accept taxpayer money, they’re in trouble. A few headlines about misspent public funds, unsafe school conditions, and biased student admissions policies, and lawmakers will spring into action to “right the wrongs.” Within two decades, private and parochial schools will be as regulated as the public schools.

Some private school supporters already have voiced this warning. But the lure of state and federal dollars is strong. It will be a bitter irony if the voucher movement ever “wins” the fight for taxpayer dollars and destroys private education as we know it.

And, alas, it does damage to public education as well.

Del Stover, Senior Editor

You’ve got to put this in perspective. Yes, two District of Columbia school employees may have spent more than $13,000 in student activity funds on things like an $82.50 bottle of wine and a strip club outing. But it’s not easy working for the D.C. schools these days, especially with all the criticism they’ve received. And compared to the $31.7 million allegedly stolen from the city treasury in an elaborate property tax return scheme, $13,000 seems like pretty small change -- in fact, it’s less than the cost of educating one district student. So, I mean, what’s the big deal?

OK, not very funny. But neither are the stories of fraud and mismanagement that seem to pop up regularly from one of America’s most troubled school system. And it’s especially disturbing to me after I spent more than a year writing a series (Children at Risk) that basically said the nation needs to spend more money on poor children and the schools they attend.

There is corruption in the public sector and in the private sector as well. People predisposed to mistrust the public sector will generalize from examples like those above. Critics of the private sector will point to their Enrons and Tycos.

Certainly, the District of Columbia schools -- and many others -- need to be overhauled; the dead wood pruned, the corruption and sheer incompetence exposed. And, as I said in an earlier blog, I think new school Chancellor Michelle Rhee may be the right person for the job.

But at the same time, I hope people don’t conclude that this is all districts serving disadvantaged students need. If you’re skeptical, look at the Education Trust report, Funding Gaps 2006, which shows that schools serving the nation’s low-income students received far less funding, on average, than those serving advantaged ones. Or read the report Growth and Disparity: A Decade of U.S. Public School Construction 1995-2004, which shows that district with poor students spent thousands less on infrastructure than their wealthy counterparts, and that the money they did spend was more likely to be used on basic repairs rather than educational enhancements.

So, please, keep making the case that schools -- all schools -- need adequate funding. Keep up the campaign. Just don’t use D.C. as your poster child.

Lawrence Hardy, Senior Editor

A few weeks ago I provided a link (and hopefully some of you followed it) to a telling study produced by the non-profit think tank, Public Agenda. Walking a Mile certainly corroborated what I’d discovered in my reporting of December’s ASBJ cover story: Very few non-Indians understand the issues, challenges, and misconceptions American Indians face.

I include myself in that group. I knew that Native Americans had treaty rights, but I didn’t how that started, what it meant, and how it affects life for American Indians today. I had some vague sense that the federal government had entered into agreements with hundreds of distinct indigenous tribes in exchange for land many, many years ago.

But I didn’t know what the government had promised, and even more importantly, if it had honored those promises. A 2003 report by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights shows they have not. “A Quiet Crisis,” which reviewed the budgets of the six main federal agencies tasked with serving the 562 federally recognized tribes, is, to put it mildly, shocking.

Here a just a few of their findings:

Slightly more than a quarter of Native Americans enjoy medical benefits through an employer; most rely on the Indian Health Service. Yet annually, IHS spends 60 percent less on its recipients than the average per person health care expenditure nationwide. In fact, the government spends less than any other group it has direct health care responsibility for, including veterans, Medicaid recipients, and prisoners. Is it any wonder then that American Indians have higher rates of diseases like tuberculosis, diabetes, and alcoholism resulting in a life expectancy that is lower than any other racial/ethnic group?

Of the roughly 4.5 million American Indians in the U.S., less than half a million live on reservations, land held in trust by the government. The housing situation on the reservations is grim, with about 40 percent of homes deemed inadequate compared to 6 percent nationally.

Today, less than 10 percent of American Indian children attend schools operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs -- a complete turnabout from a half-century earlier. Maybe it’s because in 2004, BIA schools spent about $3,000 per student, less than half the amount spent in public schools. Or could it be that BIA schools are generally in worse condition than schools nationally, even inner-city schools, with the backlog of needed repairs and construction tallied at close to $1 billion in 2001.

But what about all the benefits tribes receive, you ask, like tax exemption and the power to run casinos? Tribes are not exempt from paying taxes and, in fact, often pay more than their share. A study by the Arizona Commission on Indian Affairs, for example, found that for every dollar the state spent on a tribe, nearly $42 was returned through taxes levied on businesses on the reservation and sales tax on items bought by American Indians off the reservation.

For more details, visit the report at www.usccr.gov/pubs/na0703/na0731.pdf .

Naomi Dillon, Senior Editor

Think you’re good at math? Economics? Bet I can trip you up.

Which increase in domestic discretionary spending is a greater threat to our nation’s fiscal health:

A) Four percent for one year
B) An average of 7 percent a year over six years.

Did you guess A? Congratulations! We have a job for you in the Bush White House.

You see, 4 percent was the cap on domestic discretionary spending growth demanded recently by the president. Never mind that over the first six years of Bush’s term, domestic discretionary spending averaged 7 percent a year, according to a Heritage Foundation report cited in the Washington Post.

But that was when Republicans controlled Congress. Now that the Democrats are in charge, the White House is getting all fiscally responsible. Sort of.

Bush vetoed a $22 billion spending increase and rejected Congress’ offer of an $11 billion hike, but then announced this week that he was “pleased” with a budget bill, passed on Monday, that would exceed that $11 billion limit with “emergency” spending on border security, veterans care, and other items.

What got cut in the process? Title 1 funding of $280 million, and $250 million for special education -- a program which, many years ago, Congress vowed would be 40 percent federally funded.

Meanwhile, Congress and the president all but guaranteed the deficit will rise next year after Congress approved an arguably needed $50 billion rollback of the Alternative Minimum Tax (originally meant for wealthy taxpayers but now affecting 20 million upper-middle-income households, according to the Post) but without new offsetting taxes on private equity managers, which Bush opposed.

“I have difficulty seeing how $11 billion or $22 billion in discretionary spending on the domestic side of the equation is so fiscally irresponsible when juxtaposed against these major AMT provisions of $50 billion, or certainly against the $70-plus billion they want for the global war on terror, Iraq, and Afghanistan,” G. William Hoagland, a budget adviser to former Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, told the Post. “It doesn’t pass the sensible man’s test.”

Who said anything about sensible?

Lawrence Hardy, Senior Editor

If you were to purchase an $80,000 BMW M-series sports car -- or any vehicle, for that matter--you’d most likely change the oil and fluids as recommended, right? Or, at least you wouldn’t be surprised if the engine failed after a few years of neglect?

So it seems like a no-brainer that if a school installs an expensive new heating and cooling system, it should keep up with the routine maintenance, right?

Yet another investigation into the financial nightmare known as the District of Columbia Public Schools has revealed that the district’s facilities department did not perform routine maintenance in the 400 boilers operating in schools, some of which were state-of-the-art systems installed less than 10 years ago at a cost of $80 million. And, not surprisingly, many of those boilers are now broken, some beyond repair.

The routine maintenance, according to a Dec. 31 article in the Washington Post, (www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/interactives/dcschools) would have used water treatment chemicals to remove harmful mineral deposits in the boiler systems. Without the treatments, which would have cost about $100,000 a year for the entire district, deposits clog and corrode pipes and the boilers’ inner workings.

But D.C., for all its woes, is hardly the first district to make such a deferral. Far too often, building maintenance is the first cut when a district’s budget tightens, leading to more expensive and severe maintenance problems. Over the years we’ve heard countless stories of collapsed roofs, failed heating and cooling systems, mold, and other disasters that could have easily been avoided (at much lower costs) if districts hadn’t cut the maintenance. Besides, how can you expect kids to learn if their classrooms are too cold/hot/loud/leaky/etc. to be comfortable?

As we head into the coldest winter months, keep in mind that a school building is also the symbol most community members associate with the school district. So if your buildings don’t appear to be well maintained, public confidence in your school system may erode along with those boilers and roofs.

Joetta Sack-Min, Associate Editor

Green schools provide students and staff with a healthy atmosphere in which to learn, as well as, more opportunities for hands-on educational experiences. And although it may seem like going green would use up a large portion of a district’s budget, much of the money spent on green projects would be restored through savings on energy and water costs. According to the U.S. Green Building Council, the average green school saves $100,000 annually.

But according to Marcus Egan, NSBA’s director of federal affairs, more research and independent data needs to be conducted on going green to determine upfront costs and project benefits before schools make costly commitments. The House of Representatives’ Green Schools Caucus, formed in December 2007, could encourage this kind of research but have yet to make any serious gains, says Egan, who spoke about the subject at NSBA’s Federal Relations Network conference earlier this month.

Until then, Egan says, schools can certainly find small ways to make a big difference in their school environment and teach students about energy. The Green School program in Montgomery County, Md., for example, allows students a rare opportunity to explore energy efficiency by establishing “Green Teams” of students, who assess their schools and promote recycling efforts. According to the Washington Post (www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/30/AR2008013001763.html), conservation measures by “Green Teams” saved the school system $1.2 million in electricity costs last year.

With the economy experiencing a downturn and many school districts feeling the pinch, who couldn’t use a little more green?

Stacey Hollenbeck, Spring Intern

No one knows the exact figure. But, best guess, about one in three high school students in the class of 2008 will drop out of school before graduating.

The dropout rate is even higher in high-poverty urban centers—sometimes surpassing the 50 percent mark.

In recent years, officials in a number of states have proposed a worthwhile—but somewhat simplistic solution: Raise the age of compulsory school attendance to 18.

Sounds good in theory. But there are concerns: First, although 27 states have raised the legal dropout rage to 17 or 18, there’s spotty evidence that this mandate has had any real impact in the dropout rate. After all, how do school officials keep uninterested and restless older teenagers in school if they don’t want to be there?

And how many schools seriously track down truant near-adults and "compel" them to return to school?

There also are budget implications to this approach. Officials in Maryland recently estimated an older dropout rate would require the state’s high schools to find classroom space for as many as 21,000 students.

They’ll also need to find 1,100 more teachers—in a state with an acute teacher shortage—and come up with about $200 million in extra operating costs.

Certainly the investment is worthwhile. It’s a personal tragedy when a student drops out of school. And there’s a monetary price tag for society, as well: A study in North Carolina concluded that the dropouts of a single year cost the state $169 million annually in lost sales tax revenues, higher Medicaid costs, and more tax dollars poured into prisons.

So I understand why there’s interest in raising the legal dropout age.

But let’s be honest: A legislative mandate alone isn’t going to solve the problem. What we need are reforms to the large number of schools identified last year as "dropout factories." What we need are early intervention efforts that ensure every student entering high school is prepared for ninth grade. And what we need are school programs that keep kids engaged in their education.

So we’ll see how this plays out. It would be nice if state lawmakers put some money behind these good-sounding mandates. Alas, the record for such sound legislative policy is mixed, at best.

Del Stover, Senior Editor

Over the past few months an investigation by the Washington Post has provided an ample supply of the most heartbreaking and infuriating anecdotes as evidence of the dysfunction of the District of Columbia’s public school system.

But those media reports “are just the tip of the iceberg,” one of the insiders says.

Allen Lew, who was recently appointed director of school construction by D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty, used the terms “hopeless” and “deplorable” to describe the state of the department he took over last summer, but he says even those words can’t sum up the magnitude of the situation. “You just can’t imagine how bad the school system is,” he told attendees at a school design symposium at the University of Maryland this weekend.

It was so bad that repairs were backlogged for years, a third of the schools didn’t have working boilers, contractors weren’t paid on time or at all, and even though many school buildings were way under capacity and needed major repairs, the suggestion of closings could end a career.

How to fix such a mess?

Lew’s first priority was to ensure each school had a working heating system by Oct. 15, 2007—accomplished after two temporary boilers were quickly borrowed from Kentucky. Longer term, while Fenty and School Chancellor Michelle Rhee are moving forward with a controversial consolidation plan and curriculum reforms, Lew wants to build relationships with other agencies that could have a stake in the school system. Lew says his plan is centered on making a school building—a new or nicely renovated structure with a working boiler—an integral part of the community.

Lew seems like a very smart and honest guy, and his credentials as a developer and public servant in D.C. are impressive. Listening to him speak gives hope that in time, this can be fixed. But we all know it will take years of dedicated, relentless, and fearless leadership to make significant progress. Let’s hope he can do it.

Joetta Sack-Min, Associate Editor

Journalists—at least the ones I know—tend to forget stories shortly after they are published. But occasionally there’s one so compelling that you have to go back.

I first heard about Brick Township, N.J., a decade ago while writing a story on autism for Education Week. In the late 1990s, very little was known about treating the disorder, much less the causes. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was studying Brick because of a perceived “autism cluster,” given its seemingly high rate of children diagnosed.

The quiet oceanside village was bombarded by press, and parents and residents were frantic to know why so many of their children were afflicted. Most believed environmental contaminants played a role, although medical mishaps and genetics were also frequently mentioned. School officials, though, pointed to an entirely different supposition—since Brick was one of the first places to provide educational services specifically for children with autism, desperate parents were moving to send their children to Brick schools.

When I decided to write about autism for ASBJ—this time looking at the costs, treatments, and how little is still known about the causes—the first place I researched was Brick. Surely by now there would be an answer to this medical mystery, the CDC must have found some fascinating evidence to explain the autism cluster, right?

Instead, I found that Brick’s rate of identification is now the norm in New Jersey, probably because medical experts’ heightened awareness of the disorder means many more children have been identified. And the CDC report raised more questions than it answered, essentially laying out in painstaking detail the lack of good national data and information.

But what Brick and several other districts have figured out is that, regardless of causes, they must educate and embrace these children. My story in this months’ ASBJ shows how they’re doing it.

Joetta Sack-Min, Associate Editor

WANTED: Seven high-energy middle school teachers for new charter school in Washington Heights, N.Y., near the Bronx. School will initially serve 120 mostly low-income and Hispanic students. Teachers will work a longer day and year than at most public schools and have bigger class sizes. Background in education not required, but knowledge of Latin a plus.

And did we mention salary? The new school, called the Equity Project, will pay you $125,000 -- that’s right, $125,000 -- plus a potential bonus based on school-wide performance.

Not surprisingly, according to a story in the New York Times school founder and principal Zeke M. Vanderhoek has received such a flood of responses that the school’s voice-mail message has begun urging applicants to use e-mail instead.

The school, said the Times, “will test one of the most fundamental questions in education: Whether significantly higher pay for teachers is the key to improving schools.”

The key? Well, I would guess that if every public school in America could pay its teachers $125,000 plus incentives --- which Vanderhoek plans to do by using city, state, and federal money, as well as grants – the vast majority would indeed improve, and some dramatically so: It’s a simple question of economics. And, while the prospect of universal six-figure salaries for teachers may seem remote for now, the mere mention of that kind of compensation could have a real impact in the debate over how best to “professionalize” the job. (One way: Show them the money.)

Of course, when “boutique” projects like this one succeed, it’s often because of their very uniqueness; they possess qualities that aren’t necessarily transferable to bigger systems. For example, to make ends meet, Vanderhoek plans to pay himself, and any principal who after him, less than his teachers. The school will have only one or two social workers for a school serving a disadvantaged population. The only electives will be music and Latin. And the story didn’t say anything about football.

Unrealistic? Maybe for now. But experiments like the Equity Project give us all something to think about.

Lawrence Hardy, Senior Editor

If you think you’re spending more and getting less these days, you’re right -- at least for school construction.

School districts spent almost $20.8 billion on new buildings, renovations, and additions last year, an $800 million increase over 2006. But that money resulted in fewer projects because the average square-foot costs increased about 6 percent.

Using numbers gathered by Market Data Retrieval, School Planning & Management magazine recently released its annual school construction report, which looks at both the national picture and trends in 12 regions across the country.

Overall, it found that 63 percent of the $20.8 billion was spent on new construction, 18 percent went for additions to existing structures, and 19 percent was used for renovations and retrofits for older buildings.

The percentage spent on new construction was the highest since 1979 -- shortly before the bulk of the baby boomer generation graduated and enrollments dropped. And those buildings still continue to be big, debunking the trend of smaller learning environments.

The analysis shows that the vast majority of money was spent in fast-growing southern and Southwestern states, and the region that includes New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.

School construction spending has reached record levels this decade, but don’t expect to see more increases in coming years, though -- SPM expects total spending to drop below $20 billion this year, based on data for projects that are underway.

Joetta Sack-Min, Associate Editor

Is there something wrong with public education? Or is there something wrong with our expectations for students?

I’ve been bouncing these questions around in my head for the past year, searching for an approach that will make for an interesting magazine article.

At the core of my musing is a somewhat radical and politically incorrect hypothesis: All the critics of public education are wrong. Our schools do their job well. They do exactly what they’re designed to do. They offer a solid education to America’s young people.

The problem is that all young people can’t take advantage of that education.

Oh, I believe all children can learn. It’s just that children living in affluent households—or those living in poverty who have a stable family life—are best prepared to learn.

And the rest—those living in abject poverty, unsupported in dysfunctional homes, or unable to speak English—start off with such disadvantages that it's unlikely they'll succeed. Worse, there is no way -- short of massive resources and individualized attention over many years -- that our society can negate that reality. Tens of thousands of children are doomed to fail. Many will drop out. And many are destined to lead diminished lives.

Of course, our idealistic, optimistic, and generous nation just can’t accept that reality.

As a nation, we’ve tried to help these children. We’ve poured billions of dollars into Title I programs. We’ve tried untold instructional approaches. We’ve restructured schools and taken over school districts.

Yet children still fail academically and our nation’s dropout rate remains shockingly high.

So where does that leave us?

Ah, there’s the rub. Should this be a story about the need to expand vocational education opportunities and scale back our unrealistic expectations that ever child can be prepared for college? Or is it a story about equity — and the need to focus even more financial resources on schools serving sizable at-risk populations?

Or, as much as we hate to consider the idea, is the story about a harsh reality: That it simply costs too much to educate every child to their full potential? That we don’t know how to educate large numbers of at-risk children? We don’t have the political will to do so? And we don’t have the intellectual guts to accept any of this?

I'm not as pessimistic as these musings suggest. But out of provocative ideas can come great article ideas. So I ponder such things.

Yet, it can also end up a pointless exercise. The readers of American School Board Journal will never give up on our nation’s schoolchildren. And they shouldn’t. They want answers. They want solutions.

So I need to keep looking for the right way to deal with this hypothesis. It may be a while before I start writing.

Del Stover, Senior Editor

Money is a concern for most people these days. With prices rising on just about everything, the housing market and spending falling, and mass layoffs and unemployment beginning to outpace figures from last year, people are grasping for anything firm, solid, and stable.

In schools, that would be teacher salaries; though it’s not as if districts haven’t already tried to change the single salary schedule or -- as it’s euphemistically called -- the “steps and ladder” system.

With about 80 percent of most districts’ budgets going to salaries, reforming how teachers are paid has been an idea that has been around for some time, as I discovered in reporting on “The Merit Pay Conundrum,” in this month's issue of ASBJ.

Unfortunately, it’s been an idea that has failed many times for a host of reasons.

Take Texas, for example. In 2006, the state presented a school reform package that included two teacher bonus plans that together promised to be the largest educator incentive program in the nation. So, why have only a third of Texas’ districts jumped on the bandwagon? Well, as they say, the devil is the details.

The state Legislature allocated $148 million to the District Awards for Teacher Excellence (DATE) program, but it required districts to put up a 15 percent match. In addition, the legislature pinned the awards, which will begin next year, to improved test scores and similar student measures -- a tack that has been unpopular among educators.

But what really turned a lot of Texas school districts away was the uncertainty of future state funding for the program.

“When they looked at what it would take to be eligible for the program and the fact that state funds could not be guaranteed in future years, they had second thoughts,” Karen Moxley, president of the Grapevine-Colleyville Education Association, told the Dallas Morning News. The district backed out of the program after initially agreeing to participate.

The lesson here? In good economic times, but especially during bad ones, people yearn for stability -- even in bonuses.

Naomi Dillon, Senior Editor

You’ve probably seen the autism awareness logo, the ribbon with multicolored puzzle pieces that’s popping up on car bumpers, T-shirts, and all sorts of items. It’s all part of a well-financed and coordinated campaign to not only boost awareness but also find a cure.

It seems like autism came out of the blue a few years ago—in fact, the rate of the disability has increased some 900 percent in the last decade. It’s now estimated to affect about one in 150 students, mainly boys, as I explained in our recent story, “The Cost of Autism.”

But every report seems to unleash more frantic questions than answers: Why the sudden increase? Have there always been children and adults with autism who were just thought to be a little “off”? What causes autism? What can be done to treat it? What is the cure?

Unfortunately, right now researchers are still struggling with the first question, trying to figure out just how many children have autism, whether some regions of the country actually have higher incidences or are just more apt to make a diagnosis, and whether there’s been a sudden increase or just acknowledgement of the disorder, which varies widely from highly intelligent children whose social abilities are somewhat idiosyncratic to very low-functioning children with multiple disabilities.

But some researchers worry that the quest for a cure is overshadowing the fact that children with autism can greatly benefit from readily available treatments and interventions.

“There are no definitive answers to anything—but we haven’t met anybody with autism who can’t improve and improve significantly” with the right interventions, said Lee Grossman, the executive director of the Autism Society of America.

Edward Carr, a psychology professor and researcher at the State University of New York-Stony Brook, notes that some 90 to 100 genes, plus potentially thousands of environmental triggers, may be involved with autism, making even the possibility of a cure elusive.

“It’s very important to explore what the causes are, but people have to be realistic and understand that autism is at least as complicated as cancer,” he said. “The real issue is living with autism.”

There are many people who are currently living with diseases such as diabetes and heart disease, he added. “None of these are curable but that doesn’t mean their life is ruined -- that is the hopeful message that isn’t getting across in autism.”

Joetta Sack-Min, Associate Editor

When people ask me if I played sports in high school, I usually ask, “Is yearbooking a sport?” Uncoordinated and non-competitive, I preferred scoring A's to scoring goals.

But although I never made it on the field, I always appreciated sports in schools. Athletes are often the most motivated and well-rounded students, having learned valuable teamwork and time-management skills.

Sports can also be a great way to foster parental involvement and develop community partnerships. Unfortunately, tight budgets have some schools shutting off their Friday night lights.

School districts across the country are considering reducing or eliminating funding for extra-curricular activities, including sports, to make up for devastating budget cuts.

Earlier this month, hundreds of angry students from Alameda, Calif., walked out of class to protest a $265,000 cut in athletic funding, reports The Mercury News.

Officials in Orange County, Fla., say cuts there could lead to the dismissal of district coaches, says the Orlando Sentinel.

Parents and students have been vocal about the negative effects of such maneuvers. Cuts in athletic programs could prevent students from earning college scholarships and staying out of trouble after school.

Reducing or eliminating sports would also diminish community involvement and prevent generations of students from learning the value of discipline.

Many schools have used ticket sales and concessions as a way to raise money for athletic programs. Unfortunately, not even hot dogs can stop the nation’s economy from curbing some schools’ sports budgets.

Stacey Hollenbeck, spring intern

There’s some new evidence that all the efforts to cajole kids into trading chips and candy for carrot sticks and yogurt really do work.

A widely publicized new study shows that school-based nutrition programs in Philadelphia helped many of their students avoid obesity and make better food choices.

The schools that implemented a broad-based plan to cut back on high-sugar and high-fat foods, coupled with nutrition education, found that fewer students became overweight. In the end, about 7 percent of students who’d taken part in the program had significant weight problems, compared to about 15 percent of students at the schools in the control group.

The study’s lead author, Gary D. Foster, called the findings “a dramatic effect,” although he acknowledged that there were still too many overweight children. The study was published this week in the April edition of Pediatrics. The researchers followed about 1,400 students, grades four through six, in 10 Philadelphia schools for two years. More than half the students were eligible for free or reduced-priced lunches.

First, the schools replaced sodas with milk, juice, or water, and eliminated candy. Strict limits were set on the fat and sugar content of foods, and snack portions were downsized. The students were given rewards, such as raffle tickets for prizes, for choosing healthy options and were encouraged to exercise. And students and teachers spent many hours learning about nutrition and better habits.

While this report highlights the obesity problem and need for school-based interventions, any school dietician will attest to another looming problem: Food is getting more expensive, particularly the fresh fruits and veggies and whole grains that are staples of a nutrition program.

If your district is looking to increase its nutritional offerings or just better manage its food services division, stay tuned for ASBJ’s June issue, which will examine these and other issues facing school cafeterias.

Joetta Sack-Min, Associate Editor

Linda Ríos es muy amigable. Sonríe todo el tiempo. Es alta y bonita.

So who is this Linda, you ask?

Linda, a 16-year-old student in San Antonio, Texas, is the main character in El sueño de Linda, a book written by Tiffany Haney for first-year learners of Spanish. The book is published by Teacher’s Discovery.

And I’m trying to read the darned thing.

I’m not sure how much Spanish I’m learning with this exercise. But I am discovering just how hard it is to master another language.

I’m also gaining a greater appreciation for the immense challenges facing millions of English language learners (ELLs) struggling in our nation’s schools.

These are challenges that school boards ignore at our nation’s peril. In 2000, there were 2 million ELL students; today, there are 5 million. By 2025, one in four students will come from homes where English is not the primary language.

How well will our schools be prepared to educate them? That’s hard to say. Today, the nation’s public schools are doing great things in teaching these students English and raising their academic performance. Yet, the challenges are huge, so the achievement gap of these students remains disturbing—as does their dropout rate.

I wish I had some brilliant advice to give the nation’s school boards. I know they must deal with limited resources, shortages of bilingual teachers, and a host of mandates that also demand their attention.

But I also know that schools are struggling today to serve ELL students—and that doesn’t bode well for their ability to handle greater numbers in the years ahead.

Yet, they must. If America’s schools fall short, our nation will have a growing population that’s linguistically, culturally, and politically isolated. And that’s not a healthy situation for a robust democracy.

So all I can do is offer a reminder that the issue needs your attention. School boards need to look harder at the needs of ELL students. And state and federal lawmakers need to pony up the resources to help local schools meet these needs.

In short, using my modest understanding of Spanish: El futuro está viniendo.

Del Stover, Senior Editor

By now, just about everyone knows something is really wrong with California’s school funding formula.

California is the first place we call for heart-wrenching, firsthand stories of how budget cuts are affecting school programs, teachers, and students. California schools have seen student enrollments and schools’ needs rise as the state education budget from which they receive the bulk of their funding has pretty much stagnated.

It’s now become a spring ritual to hand out layoff notices to every eligible teacher and administrator. Several years ago I visited a school principal who was moved to tears as she told of having to hand the notices to some of her most prized and talented recruits.

So when I wrote about how state budget fluctuations have a lot of school administrators on edge for May’s ASBJ, I knew that California school officials would be wondering how much they would have to cut from their budgets. I was wrong. They’re already cutting classroom programs. And while the layoff notices used to be a formality -- most teachers knew they would be rehired once the education budget was hashed out -- now, thousands of teachers are certain they won’t have their jobs next year, even as some class sizes rise to 40 or more students.

What we don’t hear much talk about are solid solutions to this ever-present crisis, which would mean dramatic tax reform. Some 40 percent of the state budget goes to education, but the budget has been hamstrung by two voter-approved ballot initiatives, Proposition 98, which guarantees a minimum level of funding for schools except in periods of financial hardship (ie, now), and Proposition 13, which capped property taxes in 1978. When Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger launched an expensive campaign to overhaul Proposition 98 three years ago, he got clobbered.

What Schwarzenegger and other politicians won’t dare discuss is how to overhaul Proposition 13, as financial guru Warren Buffett has recommended. Prop 13’s formula uses the purchase price of a home -- no matter whether that home was purchased in the 1940s, 1970s, or 2005 -- as the basis and limits how much that tax can be increased each year. Designed to help elderly homeowners afford their tax bills, it’s created vast inequities, for both local governments and residents.

And as a result, school districts are beholden to the state economy and the whims of the state legislature far more than property taxes – which, despite the current national housing slump, are still one of the most stable revenues for schools.

How long it will take -- or how dire the schools’ crisis will get -- for lawmakers to address this issue?

Joetta Sack-Min, Associate Editor

The slowing economy has forced homeowners to foreclose on their property, companies to layoff employees and consumers to hold on to their money. Now it has forced education officials in Florida to pull back on some of its state assessment tests.

Eric Smith, the state’s education commissioner, proposed holding off on making the writing section of the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) a graduation requirement. He also recommended nixing an updated multiple-choice portion of the writing exam administered to fourth, eighth and 10th-grade.

All told, the changes--- which state board members have agreed to--- would save Florida an estimated $2.5 million. It’s not chump change, but it won’t be enough to stem a tidal wave of financial problems the state has coming its way.

The white-hot housing market has cooled significantly in Florida, with property values plummeting, home sales stagnating and foreclosures rising. To make matters worse for the school districts--- which depend on property taxes for their local revenue--- voters in January approved an increase in the state’s homestead exemption, which opponents (including educators) say would offer scant tax relief but cripple public agencies. Florida certainly has a rough economic road ahead.

Naomi Dillon, Senior Editor

I ran a roundtable session for National Affiliate members at NSBA's annual conference in Orlando at the end of March. One new board member who attended had a story that will sound familiar to many of you.

He was having a problem with another board member. Whenever this member wanted to stonewall an idea, she asked, "is it best practice?"

The gentleman at my session asked, half-jokingly, if a "best practices" manual existed somewhere.

We at ASBJ hope that our Magna Awards program can serve as a starting point toward finding those best practices. For 14 years, we have been recognizing excellence in board and district programs on nearly any topic you can come up with.

Want to know how a district is dealing with dropouts? Magna has it. Want to find out how to engage Spanish-speaking parents with the schools? Magna has it.

Each year, we ask an independent panel of judges to evaluate the 300 or so entries we receive each year and find the standout programs. The entries are in three enrollment categories: under 5,000, 5,000 to 20,000, and over 20,000. This way, districts are competing against other districts of the same size.

We honored the 2008 Magna Award winners at the School Leaders' Luncheon at NSBA's annual conference in Orlando. The three grand prize winners took home checks of $3,500 each; all of the winners are featured in a supplement to ASBJ that ran in April.

Look online at the 2008 winners; then browse through the past winners. You'll find the contact names and e-mails of the district contacts so you can get more details about their wining programs.

While you're on the site, consider applying for a 2009 Magna Award, so you can add your programs to our growing "best practices" list.

Kathleen Vail, Managing Editor

Any school board member will tell you that they view technology as an important priority for their school system. But when money gets tight, do their actions match their rhetoric?

That’s a question I’d like to see answered. And it’s one of many that I’m asking school board members and technology directors as I research a future American School Board Journal article on smart practices for purchasing technology—particularly in a slowing economy.

So far, people are saying the right things. School leaders are aware that technology is an important component in teaching students 21st century skills. They say they want to see technology expand and enrich classroom learning.

They also voice an understanding of the dangers of deferring maintenance and trimming funds designated to replace older machines. They understand that aging technology will raise maintenance costs, and that cutting staff training adds to the risk that expensive technology will sit unused in the corner of the classroom.

I also was heartened by a news article reporting that the Massachusetts’ Dover-Sherborn Regional School Committee recognizes the dangers—and recently expressed concern when it received a budget recommendation for a modest cut in the technology budget.

“Some of [the budget] is not staying up with our five-year replacement plan,” one committee member commented. “To me, we could be putting ourselves on a slippery slope.”

The rest of the committee agreed, reported the Dover-Sherborn Press, adding that committee members feared “that if the towns get off-track with technology advancements now, it could lead to a disastrous snowballing effect a few years down the road.”

Smart policymakers, I think. But, as the economy sours and school revenues are trimmed, can this school committee—or any school board—hold the line? Will it matter that, in the long run, it’s a fiscally sound, efficient policy to protect staff development, maintenance, and replacement budgets?

These are questions that too many school boards might have to answer—and answer in ways they won’t like. Sue Helms, president of the Madison City Schools and Alabama Association of School Boards, is a big proponent of classroom technology, but even she is well aware that getting kids to school and putting a teacher in front of the classroom are higher priorities than any high-tech gadget.

“If a school system is trying to decide between a new school bus or computers in the classroom,” she notes, “that’s a no-brainer.”

Del Stover, Senior Editor

I stopped dining at fancy restaurants last year. I haven’t seen my hair stylist in months. I’ve nixed my occasional visits to the coffee shop. And the only trips I’ll be taking in the near future are for business. Ah, the sacrifices we make when money is tight.

No one knows this more than school districts, which are used to doing more with less--- though they’ll have to be even more ingenious and penny-wise in today’s faltering economy. For the May edition of American School Board Journal, I explored the strategies and approaches that school districts take under financial duress.

“Any cut means someone is losing something,” Luz Cazares, the chief financial officer for Alameda Unified School District, said bluntly. The California district is one of many in the state that were blindsided by Gov. Schwarzenegger’s proposal of 10 percent across-the-board cuts to fill a $14.5 billion deficit.

Schwarzenegger’s proposed budget would mean a $4.8 billion reduction in education funding across the state; for Alameda it would mean $4.5 million in cuts for next year’s budget.
“The Governor has put us in a position to cut half of what it took us seven years to do,” Cazares said of the $7.7 million the district had to trim soon after student enrollment began to decline in 2000. “We were blindsided.”

As are parents and children, some of whom stood in trash cans during a recent visit by Schwarzenegger. "Our students/teachers/coaches are too valuable to throw away,” read signs each held.

“There’s nothing like showing up when the governor’s there and sticking read kids and real teachers in trash cans and saying, ‘You know what? This is what you’re doing,” Brook Briggance, a member of the Alameda Education Foundation, told the Los Angeles Times.

Naomi Dillon, Senior Editor

Educators and journalists love a good "war story," and Michelle Rhee, chancellor of the District of Columbia Public Schools, did not disappoint. She spoke with reporters and writers at the annual conference of the Education Writers Association in Chicago last week.

One war story involved the all-too-common failure of the D.C. schools to put textbooks in the hands of students at the beginning of the school year. Last fall, Rhee made headlines by touring the school system’s book warehouse with D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty and finding pallet after pallet of untouched textbooks waiting for delivery.

Highlighting the problem didn’t prevent some foul-ups last fall in getting books to kids, and Rhee shared one shared one little-known incident.

A parent complained by e-mail that high school textbooks had ended up at a nearby middle school. That was bad enough, of course, but making it worse was that the central office had rejected the offer of parents to load up the books in their cars and personally deliver them to where they belonged.

The reasoning of bureaucrats? District rules insist that the textb