Falling Behind in NC

A recent analysis by the Budget and Tax Center shows that funding for K-12 education has declined by almost 10% over the past 5 years while enrollment has increased by more than 2%.

While the counterintuitive claim that money does not matter in education has become surprisingly common in recent years, the effects of the declining investment in education have already been felt in the place that matters most for our state’s children – the classroom.

One of the few certainties in education policy is that high quality teachers are the key to improving student achievement, and over 90% of spending on K-12 education goes into teacher salaries.  North Carolina’s disinvestment in education has led to teacher layoffs as well as stagnation in teacher’s salaries, which lag well behind the national average.  Without investing in teachers, North Carolina schools will struggle to attract the highest quality teachers to the profession.

Other vital services that directly impact the classroom experience have been cut completely or dramatically reduced in recent years, including funding for textbooks, classroom supplies, teacher mentoring, and professional development.

North Carolina’s population is growing and the need for a highly educated workforce to keep pace with the demand for highly skilled jobs is already upon us.  Now is the time to invest heavily in education as a cornerstone of North Carolina’s long term plan for economic development rather than continue to chip away at the public education system that educates the overwhelming majority of citizens.

Uncategorized

A new report from the Brookings Institution finds that socioeconomic integration in housing is linked to improved school performance for low income students.  The study looked at the 100 largest metropolitan areas in the country and found that the achievement gap between the lowest and highest income students is significantly smaller in socioeconomically integrated metro areas.  The report concludes that there are compelling reasons to pursue inclusionary zoning policies that avoid the creation of low performing high poverty schools and their consequent denial of educational opportunity to low income students.

The most intriguing finding is that Wake County stood out amongst all of the metro areas surveyed as having a much smaller achievement gap between low and high income students than expected.  After controlling for characteristics such as household income inequality, racial demographics, median income, and the age of the population, Wake County’s test score gap of 14.7 was over 10 percentage points lower than its predicted test score gap of 25.5.  None of the 100 metro areas studied  exceeded expectations by such a large margin.  The only possible explanation of this phenomenon stated in the report is the school district’s history of district-wide socioeconomic integration policies.

Uncategorized

Today the U.S. Department of Education announced that North Carolina is among 9 states that won competitive Early Childhood Learning grants through the Race to the Top initiative.  North Carolina will receive between $50-$70 million dollars for early childhood programming over the next four years.  Because the grant is spread over a 4 year period, the maximum annual amount North Carolina can receive is between $16 and $18 million.  This amount of funding is insufficient to meet the $30 million mark identified by Governor Perdue as needed to replace the over 6,000 North Carolina Prekindergarten (NCPK) slots that were lost for the rest of this year as a result of the General Assembly’s budget.  Governor Perdue has correctly stated that the legislature still must allocate funds in order to comply with Wake County Superior Court Judge Howard Manning’s recent ruling mandating increased access to NCPK for at risk four year olds.  Regardless, the federal funds will provide some welcome respite for an NCPK program that has been working diligently to deal with a disproportionately large 20% loss of funding for FY 2011-12.

Uncategorized

A new, wide-ranging study from the Department of Education confirms what advocates for low income students have known for many years: states and school districts are failing to fund high poverty schools.  The Department of Education’s report looked at over 13,000 districts across the country, and found that nearly half of all high poverty schools received at least 10% less funding than the average amount of funding for schools in their districts.  This is in spite of the fact that high poverty schools are generally much more expensive to operate.  Title 1 funds are no longer extra sources of funding for disadvantaged students as was their original intention.  In states like North Carolina, they are being used to fill budget gaps instead.

According to the report, the main cause of this funding disparity is the differing levels that teachers are paid in different schools.  Many states, including North Carolina, provide funding for a certain number of teaching positions in each school and then pay that number of salaries to each school, regardless of how much the salaries may vary from school to school.  High poverty schools tend to have teachers who are less experienced and possess fewer teaching credentials and who are therefore paid less; high wealth schools tend to have the most experienced and highly credentialed teachers who are paid more.  Perversely, high poverty schools receive less money for teachers than do high wealth schools.

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan believes one way to address this problem is to close the “comparability loophole” in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) which requires that districts give high-poverty schools the same share of state and local dollars as other schools before the district can tap Title I dollars for disadvantaged students.  Presently-stalled bipartisan legislation reauthorizing the ESEA, sponsored by Sens. Tom Harkin and Russ Cochran, includes language designed to close this loophole.

Uncategorized

Critics of Wake County’s former student assignment policy and supporters of the current school board majority may be shocked to learn that the student assignment plan being proposed to replace the socioeconomic diversity policy will have higher transportation costs.  This week Wake County Superintendent Anthony Tata stated that the new student assignment plan will feature escalating costs in order to continue busing students to their current schools as well as implementing the new assignment plan.  Tata and his transportation staff estimate that Wake will need 15 to 25 new buses to make the proposed assignment plan work.  At $87,000 per bus, the new system will cost Wake County between $1.3 and $2.2 million at a time when the state has cut transportation funds by 2.5%.  Plus, the transportation staff is expending time and effort coming up with the new routes.

 

One criticism of the diversity policy that members of the current board majority commonly used in their bid to take over the board in 2009 was that it was inefficient and led to students being bused all over the county at a higher cost.  Research from Great Schools in Wake has already shown that the fiscal impact of busing for socioeconomic diversity was minimal as only 3% of busing was done for integration purposes and that the overwhelming majority of students attend school very close to their homes.  The main cause of Wake’s transportation costs and complex student assignment system was and remains growth.

 

It is indeed ironic that the proposed assignment policy would involve higher transportation costs than the nationally-acclaimed integration policy that it replaced because the entire point of the proposed system is that it favors proximity and stability.  The socioeconomic diversity policy was successful at avoiding the creation of costly and ineffective high poverty schools that plague other urban school districts.  The proposed policy will likely lead to higher concentrations of poverty in some schools that will be far more costly to maintain.  One would think that a system favoring stability and proximity at the cost of socioeconomic diversity would at least bring lower transportation costs, but it does the opposite.