Schools Can Live With Less Wisconsin State Journal :: OPINION :: A16 Thursday, May 22, 2003
Paul Rux Somebody once asked Samuel Gompers (1850-1924), the first president of the American Federation of Labor, what labor wanted. He promptly answered, "more!" His answer applies to the current debate over raising taxes, more, more, and more to fund schools, for there is no more "more." Schools need to recognize this basic economic fact of life.
According to a recent issue of Milwaukee Magazine, Wisconsin is a "tax hell." For example, the latest newsletter from the Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance ranks Wisconsin fifth in the country for high income taxes. There are virtually daily news stories about job loss. Meanwhile, more and more people cannot afford health insurance. Now economists worry about a possible deflation, a downward spiral in prices and wages.
In short, we now live in an economy of "less." Schools need to wake up to this reality and stop repeating the tired mantra "more!" Relentless demands for more and more and more spending on schools, in fact, could boomerang into intergenerational warfare. Senior citizens now struggle to pay for prescription drugs and to meet ever-rising property taxes for schools. At some point, they are not going to let schools tax them out of their hard-earned homes. In other words, society has priorities other than its schools.
There are ways schools can adjust to the emerging "less." For instance, business and industry have "scissored" layers of bureaucracy to get "lean and mean." Some of the benefits are more decision making where the work gets done - and savings. Schools need more teacher-focused site-based management and continuous quality improvement techniques -- and fewer high-priced coordinators, assistant principals and assistant superintendents for this, that, and the other thing. Put them in classrooms to teach kids.
Second, some schools are creating nonprofit fundraising foundations to offset budget cuts and fund improvements. After religion, Americans donate the most money to education. Right now, colleges and universities gobble up 85 percent of these donated dollars. There is no reason why K- 12 schools cannot apply private college fund-raising techniques to get their fair share of this 85 percent. For instance, the Appleton schools have used the school foundation approach to raise $2 million tax-free dollars over the past five years.
A key benefit of school foundations is high accountability for stewardship of gifts and grants. Donors want documented "return on investment." They want results. If they do not get them, they can easily decide not to give to the next appeal -- or rescind the balance of what they have given. Gifts and grants come with high accountability.
When working people fear for their jobs and that ever-rising school property taxes will cause them to lose their homes, schools need to show better results for the money they now spend. My maternal grandmother finished eighth grade in a one-room country school. She and my grandfather owned a resort. My grandmother could write business letters and keep the books. Can you guarantee high school graduates can do that today after spending on average $12,000 each and every year on them in our schools?
After World War I, French Premier Georges Clemenceau noted that war is now too costly to be left to generals without imagination. Education now is too costly to be left to educators who know only one word, and only one way to produce results: "More!"
|
