A Money Lesson for the Schools

Most Americans would probably pay more to improve local schools, but few would willingly write a larger check for the same old disappointments. Colorado voters, thinking along these lines, might strike an unusual bargain with school officials that links tax dollars to test scores. Voters in two school districts will be asked Nov. 2 to approve an increase in their property taxes for education, but the schools won’t get the additional operating funds unless academic performance improves and students meet specific goals.

This linking of funding to results, rare in the public arena, should help ensure that success is rewarded, failure is punished and someone is actually held responsible for results. Coloradans are weighing something that ought to be carefully watched for wider application--even in some form in California, though it funds schools much differently.

In Colorado Springs School District 11, the school board is putting this novel test before voters after a failed tax hike. The proposed tax increase would give schools an increase of 25%, or in some cases nearly 50%, in discretionary funds for better classroom materials, smaller class sizes or even extra teachers. Voters in Colorado’s Jefferson County, in the Denver suburban area, are considering a similar and even more generous arrangement. The local teachers unions are going along with these plans.

Of course, such initiatives are easier to try in relatively well-off suburban school districts. But if these incentives work on a small scale and reading and math test scores rise significantly, the idea should spread.

In California, voters would have to strike a different deal. Because of Proposition 13, the state, not local districts, sets the level of school funding. However, voters can consider a special local tax, like an unsuccessful 1986 measure that would have added about $60 to each local property tax bill and raised $54 million to expand the Los Angeles Police Department. Such a local measure must be approved by a two-thirds vote, difficult to achieve.

Statewide, voters can consider special school trust funds financed by the Legislature and managed by independent investment bankers. The interest from such funds could be used to reward schools that met or exceeded targets, which could be adjusted for the huge disparities between a school in Beverly Hills and one in, say, Compton. Public education trust funds, though none are now proposed in the Legislature, have been given a great deal of thought by Ted Mitchell, former dean of the UCLA school of education and now head of Occidental College.

California, like 16 other states, has already approved reward plans. The state will pay a bonus of $150 per student to schools whose students improve scores by five points on next spring’s Stanford 9 test. The state’s new accountability plan, targeting low-performing schools, also offers lump-sum rewards of up to $25,000 to teachers if their student test scores go up 10% or more. On the other hand, if the schools fail to improve for two years, the campuses could be shut down, teachers could be reassigned and the principals could be dismissed, which, in this state, are largely unprecedented consequences for failure. These sanctions are a significant first step.

Voters want better for their children, and because they understand that good schools are reflected in property values they are even more willing to pay for real results. Consumers will not knowingly purchase inferior goods at high prices, but they will pay more to get something better. Smart educators are beginning to see that education is no different. Excellence and accountability are always linked, and local voters in Colorado might be onto a bargain worth repeating.