Charting our way to education reform

Feb. 10, 2010

To show the results of union dominance of the education system, John Stossel of Fox News’ “Stossel” show recently held up a convoluted chart that details, in small print, the amazing lengths to which New York school administrators must go to fire an incompetent teacher. It’s a long and detailed chart filled with boxes connected by arrows.

Just when one’s eyes peruse the end of it, Stossel reveals that this is only the beginning, as he lets loose several more pages that had been hidden, accordion-style, behind the first page of the termination chart, which has now unfolded toward the floor.

The joke, which actually is much sadder than it is funny, is on us as we realize that there’s no way that even the worst teacher can get sacked, and that it’s basically impossible to reform the public school system as it is currently structured. Yet local, state and federal officials go on proposing reforms that will surely turn the nation’s bureaucratic, government-controlled public school systems into models of efficiency and high-performance learning.

Many of the proposed ideas have a point, but trying to reform these unruly systems is like trying to improve a crumbling old crooked building resting on a cracked foundation by installing new dual-pane windows and nicer carpeting. No one, quite frankly, wants to strike at the root of the problem, which is the existence of a monopoly school system run by the government, financed by tax dollars and dominated by union employees who don’t have to please any customers.

California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office, which has a deservedly fine reputation for analyzing budgetary matters, in recent days released a new report, “Education Mandates: Overhauling a Broken System,” that jumps into the fray. It identifies a real problem —- the proliferation of state mandates that require districts “to perform hundreds of activities even though many of these requirements do not benefit students or educators.” The report pins the compliance cost on school districts at more than $400 million annually.

Furthermore, because of a voter-approved initiative (1979’s Proposition 4), the state is supposed to reimburse local school districts for the mandates it imposes on them, which means California owes more than $3.6 billion —- and the state tends to defer these payments to the future, rather than paying up in a timely manner.

“In short,” the report explained, “districts are required to perform hundreds of activities —- many of dubious merit —- without regular pay, resulting in billions of dollars in state debt.” Of course, many of these mandates were imposed by the Legislature to improve the oftentimes poor quality of public education across the state and try to assure that all districts were teaching some standardized curricula to students.

The LAO report points to a chart that reminds one of the long, pointless chart Stossel revealed. This “Mandate Determination Process” reveals a convoluted process by which local districts can seek reimbursement from the state. Given that school districts seem to care mainly about their budgets, it’s no surprise that this mandate-reimbursement issue is going to become increasingly contentious in these tough budget times.

Ironically, on the same day the LAO released its report, the leading Democratic contender for the attorney general’s race, San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris, advocated some costly new education mandates during a Senate Public Safety Committee hearing on school truancy. Harris has been particularly aggressive in using law enforcement in her city to battle truants, implementing a controversial program that prosecutes the parents of truants and subjects them to jail time and fines. She also proposed a statewide database to track truants —- a system that would tie state funding to the adoption of such a tracking system.

Truancy issues typically are local issues, which prompted a reply from Republican attorney general candidate Tom Harman, a senator from Huntington Beach: “What I wonder is how creating another statewide bureaucracy to monitor it will keep kids in school. I don’t think the state is in any position to create yet another new program —- especially regarding an issue traditionally handled by locals.”

Yet Harris’ testimony shows how difficult it is to reform the mandate process.

Surely, state officials will continue to turn local issues into state ones.

None of this will actually improve the functioning of the school systems. At best, the Harris approach will coerce more people into sending their kids to ill-performing schools, which epitomize the “customer service” approach common in government: Offer poor products and inefficient services and then force people to buy them.

Harris’ campaign, by the way, boasts her endorsement by former State Superintendent of Public Instruction Delaine Eastin, best known for trying to use her state power to shut down home schools, under the belief that home-schooling is a form of truancy. Let’s hope a Harris victory doesn’t signal a return to these dark days of California education policy. Home-school advocates already are fearful that Harris’ approach could endanger home-schooled kids.

The LAO offers this solution to the mandate issue: “We recommend comprehensively reforming K-14 mandates. If a mandate serves a purpose fundamental to the education system, such as protecting student health or providing essential assessment and oversight data, it should be funded. If not, the mandate should be eliminated.”

Who do we thank for that groundbreaking suggestion?

The state already spends more than 40 percent of its budget on education. There are stacks of mandates and volumes of legislative reforms that have passed in recent years. The system still stinks. The only solution is competition. Happy customers are a better sign of success than long flow charts and endless calls for new legislation and reform.

–Steven Greenhut