When you talk to legislators about political reform, whether it’s in the schools or anywhere else, they are often interested in making small changes — largely because those seem to be the only kind anyone thinks can be made. (The technical psychological term for this is learned helplessness.)
I’ve been thinking for a while now about the smallest change we could make to the public school system that would yield the biggest results. And I think it’s to stop using state adequacy aid to pay for attendance, and start using it to pay for proficiency.
I wrote about it back in 2019, explaining why it’s a good idea. But after talking to some state representatives at a recent 603 Alliance barbecue, I think it’s worth revisiting, largely because it would require the simplest of changes to be made to existing law. (As Ryan George might say: “Super easy, barely an inconvenience.”)
All we would have to do is replace the formula that allocates dollars on the basis of how many butts were in seats during the previous year, with a formula that allocates dollars on the basis of how many of the brains attached to those butts were able to read proficiently at their grade levels by the end of the previous year.
For example, instead of saying
There were, on average, 235 butts in the seats in this school district; so we’ll provide the district with 235 times some standard per-student figure.
we would say,
Of the 235 students attending school in the district, 75 were able to read with proficiency at grade level; so we’ll provide the district with 75 times that same standard per-student figure.
So currently, this district would receive, say, 235 times 4000 dollars, or 940,000 dollars. Under the new plan, the district would receive 75 times 4000 dollars, or 300,000 dollars. Which seems reasonable, for a district in which fewer than a third of the students are reading at proficiency.
This one small change would have several very large effects. .
First, it would be a step towards switching from the failed pay-and-pray model that we currently use to fund schools (and EFAs) to the immensely successful standard commerce model that we use for everything else.
Second, it would be a step towards recognizing in statute that literacy, which affects everyone in the state, and which protects everyone’s rights (something required by Part 1, Article 3 of the state constitution), is a suitable subject for state support; while things like music, drama, sports, and vocational training, which affect only the individuals pursuing them (something prohibited by Part 1, Article 10 of the state constitution), are not.
Third, since a school district that fails to secure adequacy funds because of its incompetence would have to make up those funds with higher local taxes. This would send to districts all across the state the kind of wake-up call that is now being experienced by the residents of Claremont. It’s a call that taxpayers in those districts desperately need to hear if they’re going to wake up from the dystopian nightmare that goes by the name of public schools.
Note that all this really does is bring existing statutes into alignment with the name adequacy funding. Failing that, a bill should be introduced to replace the term adequacy with the more descriptive term attendance, wherever it occurs. Because if that’s what we’re actually paying for, the very least we can do is be up front about it.
