March 2009

April is always a challenging time for my students. The month opens with acceptance letters from the schools that many of my students have dreamed about for years; the end of the month is when economic reality hits for many of them. I teach some exceptional young people, many of whom have put in twelve years of consistent, outstanding work, only to be faced with an economic climate and college costs that are, frankly, out of control.

It’s hard not to be frustrated when I read stories like this one in the New York Times, which notes that now, even the admissions process is colored by financial resources:

This year, many of these colleges say they are more inclined to accept students who do not apply for aid, or whom they judge to be less needy based on other factors, like ZIP code or parents’ background.

“We’re only human,” said Steven Syverson, the dean of admissions and financial aid at Lawrence University in Wisconsin. “They shine a little brighter.”

I don’t pretend to understand why tuition costs at college are far outpacing inflation; I didn’t understand it when my tuition increased by nearly $1,000/year when I was in school. I do understand, though, that it can’t do our society much good to make top colleges unaffordable for those with the ability to excel there.

I just don’t get it. Less than one full week after a story in the Independent Record that suggested the Helena School District was facing a potential budget shortfall of $1.4 million, the district met for contract negotiations and and decided that it was appropriate to offer a bonus of as much as $12,000 to experienced teachers who retire and give notice to the school district:

The permanent language change says if a teacher notifies the district the year he or she wants to retire prior to Jan. 15, the educator receives $9,000 in termination pay. It also says that if an educator notifies the district the year before intended retirement, he or she receives a $5,000 stipend and $7,000 in termination pay in the final year.

This is a permanent change, meaning the district won’t be able to entice retirements in the future when budgets are tight, and represents a wholesale shift of resources from younger teachers and students to the senior staff, who make as much twice the salary of beginning teachers.

If that kind of money exists in the system, it seems like there might be a few more sensible ways to spend it. If 15 teachers were to retire under this system next year, the school district will pay out $180,000, with no return on that investment. That kind of money could:

• place 200 computers in classrooms.
• hire 5 new teachers.
• offer a sizeable loan forgiveness programs for new teachers, who find it difficult to stay in Montana after the debt of college.
• create sensible, effective professional development opportunities for staff members.
• develop new programs for students or restore those that have been cut.

I don’t mean to question the effort and skill of teachers who have dedicated their lives to the profession, but they are already well-compensated. Prioritizing additional resources for teachers on their way out of the system, especially in a difficult budgetary climate, seems reckless and wrong.

From the Bozeman Daily Chronicle, March 26:

Montana State University President Geoff Gamble, who announced this week he plans to retire, earns $205,050 a year and gets a free house, free car and about $10,000 toward retirement n compensation so comparatively low among university presidents that finding a top-notch replacement may prove a challenge.

From the Helena Independent Record on March 23:

There are many factors school board trustees will consider as they look to balance the budget, but one discussion will center on eliminating the positions of teachers who are retiring.

Staff is often under the microscope because 90 percent of the general fund budget is personnel salaries and benefits, Superintendent Bruce Messinger said.

Nineteen educators have submitted notifications of retirement after this school year. Not replacing those teachers would reduce staff costs and have an overall impact – but not just on budget savings, say teachers.

From the Helena School District web page:

What does all of this mean? To me, it means that we need to do a better job when we talk about education than talking about dollar amounts. We need to talk priorities. Though I am deeply sympathetic of the plight of University Presidents who make only $300,000 annually for their work, I am more sympathetic for students who are seeing their scholarships put at risk, their tuition increased, and their dreams put in danger. Obviously, the salary of the University President is a small part of the overall budget of an institution like MSU, but it’s incredibly telling that they would even be floating a trial balloon for increased compensation at a time like this.

It also reveals the ugly side of administrative costs in education: they’re growing out of control. When my school district has seen a small, but steady decline in the number of students and teachers (the full day Kindergarten in 2008 the only exception), how can it justify increasing the number of administrators to manage those students and teachers?

It’s time for conservatives to move past blanket criticism of education spending. It’s time for liberals to move past blanket endorsement of more money. We need accountability for those dollars and explanations when universities and school districts grow their administrative ranks while students lose scholarships, teachers lose their jobs, and students lose their teachers.

As David Brooks mentioned in his column this week:

You ask a kid who has graduated from high school to list the teachers who mattered in his life, and he will reel off names. You ask a kid who dropped out, and he will not even understand the question. Relationships like that are beyond his experience.

When school districts and universities make their budget priorities in the next few months, I hope they’ll keep that in mind.