There’s constant discussion about the problems with how we fund schools. Should they be funded locally, or at a state level? Should funding be distributed as an entitlement, or as assistance? Should the money be given to schools, or to parents? What taxes should be levied on whom, in what way, and for how much? But none of these discussions address the fundamental problem with the way we fund schools.
The fundamental problem with the way we fund schools is that there are no refunds.
Suppose the government gives you money to buy heating oil, and you give that money to a heating oil company, and the company doesn’t actually give you the oil. The company has to refund your money!
Suppose the government gives you money to help you pay for housing, and you give that money to a landlord, and the landlord doesn’t let you into the apartment. The landlord has to refund your money!
Suppose the government gives you money to help you buy food, and you give that money to a grocery store, and the store doesn’t give you the food. The store has to refund your money!
Just imagine for a moment that schools worked this way.
That is, a town would fund a school. There would be clear expectations established for what kind of increases in achievement the town is paying for. If those expectations aren’t met, the school would have to give back all or part of its funding to the town. (‘Only 40% of the kids made adequate progress? Give us 60% of our money back.’)
If nothing else, this would force both parties — the town, and the school — to be a lot more honest about what’s going on! That is, the school couldn’t pretend that it’s actually living up to whatever its mission statement says; and the parents in a town couldn’t pretend that ‘our children’ need ever-increasing amounts of funding in order to ensure their ‘bright futures’, or whatever the latest aspirational phrase is. The discussion would have to be a lot more transactional in nature: this is exactly what you’re offering, it’s what we’re paying for, and if you don’t deliver, you have to give the money back.
To take just one example, which I happen to be familiar with, here’s Newport’s mission statement:
The mission of the Newport School District is to inspire, prepare and challenge ALL students with a relevant, rigorous curriculum, driven by outstanding instructional leaders in partnership with our families, businesses, and community, consistent with our core values.
Now, anyone with kids in Newport schools knows that the schools don’t even get within shouting distance of living up to this. But when parents in the town try to convince everyone else to pony up more money, they — along with the school — can pretend that a ‘relevant, rigorous curriculum, driven by outstanding instructional leaders’ is what the money will be purchasing.
(Let’s not even get into things like how having a football team is a reflection of this mission statement.)
Now, suppose instead that Newport’s mission statement said something like this:
The goals of the Newport School District are to (1) provide a place for parents to leave their kids while they go to work, (2) help at least 75 percent of those kids reach proficiency in reading and math, and at least 95 percent reach basic proficiency in those subjects, and (3) provide additional instruction in academic subjects for students who have already reached proficiency in reading and math.
Here’s something the school might actually be able to deliver on! And the deliverables would be specific and measurable. The town would know what it’s paying for, and whether it’s getting it… which would be a good first step towards being able to bring quality up, and costs down.
Does this seem radical? It’s not. The basic principles are pretty simple, and already observed practically everywhere except where schools are concerned.
First, you don’t pay for what a service provider hopes to do. You pay for what it does. And second, neither you nor the provider pretend that it can do more than it’s capable of doing. Ignore either of those principles, and you’re setting yourself up for a lot of pain.
Note that there is already a precedent for something very much like this, although it’s based on attendance, rather than on achievement. That is, a school district gets state adequacy funds only for the kids who show up, after they’ve shown up. The money shows up the following year. No kids, no funds.
Imagine how schools would change what they promise, if they had to actually deliver on those promises in order to get paid.
