Kids could be trapped in bad schools to preserve district budgets
By Steve Gunn
EAG Communications
MADISON – The last time we checked, both houses of the Wisconsin state legislature were controlled by Republicans.
And as far as we knew, Republican lawmakers typically believe in empowering parents and letting them determine the best schools for their children to attend, regardless of artificial school district boundaries.
Has something changed in Madison that we weren’t aware of?
The State Senate is considering a bill that will alter Wisconsin’s K-12 open enrollment program. One key component of the bill would give parents more time to apply for open enrollment, an idea we strongly support.
Under the current program, families only have two weeks every February to apply to send their kids to a school outside their district. That regulation obviously inhibits the ability of students to move from one school to another.
But the Senate will also reportedly consider an amendment – already approved by the Republican-controlled Assembly – that would give a student’s residential district “a say” in whether a move is in the best interest of the child.
But would the home districts really be weighing the best interests of the student, or the best interests of their budgets? Wisconsin schools receive state funding based on the number of students they have enrolled. If some kids leave, so does the state money attached to them.
Do we really want to give school boards the power to block parental decisions regarding education, just because they want to preserve as much of their state funding as possible?
Shouldn’t parents know best whether a move from one school to another is in the “best interests” of their children? We’re guessing they’ve already made that decision if they have filled out a transfer application.
Choice more important than school preservationThat’s just human nature. Nobody wants to lose their job, and that’s certainly true for government employees.
But what if the preservation of an agency is not in the public interest? Shouldn’t the taxpaying public be allowed to decide that?
In terms of education, that would simply mean allowing parents to send their children to any school they choose. For schools that lose a lot of students, there is a message they should be getting: Improve to the point where you maintain enough students, or face the prospect of closing.
The world would not come to an end if a Wisconsin school district was forced to close due to lack of business. On the contrary, it could be safely assumed that the district was not adaquetely serving its students and probably deserved to be closed.
But it’s clear that public schools will fight to trap children and the state dollars attached to them, regardless of their particular needs.
A September, 2010 article posted on Madison.com pointed out that the Madison school district lost more than $2.5 million in state aid that year due to student transfers to other districts.
The article speculated that the Madison school board might lobby the state legislature to change the open enrollment law and limit the ability of students to change schools. This is an important and honest distinction. The Madison board did not ask for power to determine what’s in the best interests of students. It wants the power to maintain all the state aid it currently gets.
Public education enrollment should be simple. Parents should be allowed to enroll their child in any school in the state (public or private, in our opinion) and the state tax dollars should follow those kids.
By making their school choices, parents will be acting as consumers in the education market. They will frequent schools that best serve student needs, and those schools will prosper. They will abandon schools that do a poor job of educating kids, and some of those schools will shrink or close.
How is this not a good thing? Because employees at some of the less popular schools may lose their jobs? That should never be a consideration. Schools exist to educate children, not to offer secure employment opportunities for adults.
The state should let the people decide, through genuine open enrollment, which schools will sink or swim.
SUPERINTENDENTS SHOULD SET EXAMPLEWe are in a recession. Tax revenues are down and government funds are limited. Because of that, compensation for government employees, including school employees, must sometimes be limited.
But that should be true for all school employees, not just teachers and other union members. School administrators who complain about the runaway cost of labor should set a proper example by accepting less themselves.
Unfortunately that’s not happening throughout Wisconsin.
A recent article posted on Madison.com points out that several school superintendents within Dane County continue to receive big bonuses every year.
They include Verona Superintendent Dean Gorrell, who is scheduled to receive a $50,000 longevity bonus next year, on top of his $140,000 salary. Then there’s Madison Superintendent Dan Nerad, who reportedly receives an annual $10,000 bonus into his retirement account, separate from his state pension and $201,000 annual salary.
The list goes on, probably in school districts all over the state.
Some people, like Miles Turner, executive director of the Wisconsin Association of School District Administrators, argue that corporate CEOs make much more money than school superintendents. They say schools must pay big bucks to retain the services of talented leaders.
That’s the same argument the unions use to defend raises for teachers. But the simple fact is that schools only have so much money, particularly during hard times, and they need to preserve as much as possible to maintain a full teaching staff and a full program for students.
There is no excuse for a school cutting out the band and cross country team while the teachers still receive compensation for unused sick days. Likewise, there is no excuse for a school cutting out the student drama department and the tennis team while the superintendent receives a $50,000 bonus.
Teachers unions are self-serving, by their very definition. They are far more concerned about the finances of their members than the well being of students. But superintendents are supposed to work for the people and fight for the best interests of students. That often means advocating for lower labor costs. And lower labor costs would mean less compensation for everyone on staff, including superintendents.
Superintendents are the leaders of their school districts. They should be setting an example of self-sacrifice for the teachers and other employees to follow. Until they start declining the big bonuses, nobody is going to take their talk about the need to control labor costs very seriously at all.
WOULD REPUBLICANS SUPPORT HITLER?John Kuszarek, a social studies teacher at Slinger High School, responded to the newsletter by writing to Pridemore, “Of course you are in Washington County, where Hitler would have defeated Reagan had he had the ‘R’ in front of his name.” Kuszarek went on to identify himself as a “proud WEAC board member, Slinger teachers negotiator and Wisconsin citizen.”
Needless to say, the suggestion that voters in predominantly Republican Washington County are somehow Nazis caused a stir.
“I asked, did you really mean to insult the great supporters of our school system – the good people of the Slinger area who are always so supportive of us?” Reynolds said. He did not share the teacher’s response to that query.
Reynolds went on to say that the school board would investigate possible disciplinary action against Koszarek. As tempting as that might be, it would still be wrong. Koszarek is an American and has every right to express his political opinions, particularly since he made his comments during his personal time.
Besides, Koszarek did a great public service by exposing what teachers union leaders really think about the hardworking taxpayers who fund their salaries.
As Pridemore pointed out, schools are using Act 10 to save money and preserve crucial opportunities for students. That satisfies many taxpayers throughout the state who understand that schools are for kids.
But Koszarek still thinks something is terribly wrong. Schools with enough money to serve students are not good enough for him. In Kosarek’s world, schools should maintains enough money to give teachers and other union employees everything they want, regardless of economic conditions. If they fail to do so, they are not good schools, and the taxpayers who fund them are evil Nazis.
Sounds like the union is more concerned about the union than it is about students. But that’s not really all that surprising, is it?
