Legal Obligation or Moral Imperative?

I am not completely certain the following thoughts perfectly align with a blog devoted to school law topics (probably better suited in a school finance blog – but, then again, there is a degree of overlap between the two disciplines). I recently received the following thought from Dr. Dan Maas, the chief information officer for a school district in the Denver area:

If you restrict the fuel into an engine, you should not be surprised when the car seems to struggle and under perform.

Dr. Maas used that fact as a metaphor to explain what is occurring in a vast majority of school districts across the nation. As a result of the 2008 recession, state funding for public education has declined over the last four years. These cuts have come with a cost. Public school officials are being asked to do more to ensure that the organization provides the same services at a reduced expense. However, there are not more hours in the day and educational leaders put in additional effort and time to the point of overwhelming fatigue. Eventually these overworked educators will either say “no” to additional work, and the work will not get done, or they will burn out. Neither option is ideal.

The question that Dr. Maas wanted answered was how do educators effectively communicate the current plight of public education to state legislators? This question has generated a few thoughts in my mind that I would like to share here.

As the nation’s economy slowly recovers from the recession there is a danger that some elected officials will be hesitant to provide public education with the requisite dollars to return to pre-recession funding levels since public education has functioned sufficiently well on the reduced budget over the last four years. State legislatures must work to restore pre-recession funding levels for public education and such efforts should garner widespread popular support. So, once again, how do those who are committed to ensuring that all students receive access to an adequate educational experience inform policymakers on the needs of public education?

The overly simplistic answer focuses on helping the community understand the fiscal realities of the current budget. Programs and services could be cut due to budget constraints. The problem with cutting programs or services is that it goes contrary to the core beliefs of most educators – to do no harm to children. Educators constantly work to insulate children from the financial side of public education. But, when children and, by extension, parents do not feel the impact of budget cuts then public education loses its most powerful group of lobbyist.

I have worked with a chief financial officer who once purchased the most dilapidated portable classrooms he could find the summer before the school district was to approach its voters about a bond issue. He then had the portable classrooms placed in the most prominent location on campus. The net effect of these efforts was that parents were appalled at the conditions and overwhelmingly supported the ballot measure in November. I feel like the same thing must happen to help public education return to pre-recession funding levels. Parents must become aware of the cuts school districts have implemented and appreciate the burden these cuts have had on the system. Just like the engine with restricted fuel, if the funding issue continues to go unaddressed then public education will begin to sputter and under perform.

A coalition of advocates for public education, including parents, business owners, and city officials (to mention just a few), could prove the catalyst to help policymakers shift the discussion from constitutional obligation related to funding public education to moral imperative. Only when elected officials view funding public education in the latter light will all children realize the Brown ideal of equal access to education for all children.

Comments

[Joel VerDuin]

"A coalition of advocates for public education, including parents, business owners, and city officials (to mention just a few), could prove the catalyst to help policymakers shift the discussion from constitutional obligation related to funding public education to moral imperative."

This would work if one were to assume that policy makers were not too far off the path already; I don't share that optimistic view of the motivations of our elected officials.

Living in Wisconsin, the decisions about educational funding were determined in the law offices of the dominant party and masked in the guise of budget crisis. The resulting billion dollar reduction to public education was sold as a necessary deficit reduction measure. The moral imperative in the decision is clearly more self-serving to politicians as the restrictions put in place essentially de-funded the opposing party. (That likely was the end-game idea anyway).

It is not as if politicians are driven by the voices of constituents on large-scale issues like this, the legislation looks eerily similar across many states. I'm unsure who ran on the platform of reducing school aid or where these conversations occurred, but I cannot fathom many people who gathered together and advocated for this.

In Iowa, legislators debated the need to fund low, allow flexibility for home-schooled children, and debated the need for tighter evaluation systems for teachers.

I'm not convinced that the motivation of our elected officials are even close to any moral imperative - it is coming from somewhere else.

This gets worse before it gets better.