Posted on: Friday, March 12, 2004

EDITORIAL
For education reform, follow the money

One of the core elements of virtually every education "reform" proposal now circulating at the Legislature includes some variety of a plan to get school spending into the hands of local school officials.

In fact, there is such widespread support for this idea — at least in theory — that one wonders what all the shouting is about.

As recounted by Education Writer Derrick DePledge, there is growing agreement that principals should be given greater authority over both their budget and their curriculum.

But as the talk becomes more serious on this idea, the difficulties and complexities of actually making such a change become apparent.

Today, while around three-quarters of the overall state public school budget is spent "on" schools, relatively little is spent "by" schools.

That is the philosophical ground on which most of the talk stands: A shift from spending on schools to spending by schools.

Gov. Linda Lingle is talking about putting up to 90 percent of all spending in the hands of school administrators. She and her supporters cite Edmonton, Canada, as a model. But even Edmonton does not actually put 90 percent of spending in the hands of individual school administrators.

When you shred out a small amount for provincial (state) expenses, district expenses, "non-allocable" expenses such as transportation and construction funding, the bottom line appears to be measurably lower than that magic 90 percent mark.

And even then some of the money that gets to the schools turns right around and goes back to the district, in the form of direct purchase of support services such as information technology, counseling and the like.

Supporters of the package developed by Lingle's advisory "CARE" committee argue that the Democrats in the Legislature have adopted much of the reform rhetoric but in reality are still interested in retaining central power.

That's easy enough to test. Are the various sides willing to sit down and, in a rational way, sort out what spending can and should be handled by the schools and what must, or more logically should, remain under the control of a central authority?

That work is largely technical; that is, there should be no real political or philosophical issues that govern where the money is spent.

Once that work is complete, then it is on to the toughest nut of all: That distinction between spent "on" and spent "by." A true commitment to spent "by" the schools means giving up a fair amount of today's centralized power.

It is clear where the Lingle administration stands. It wants the money spent by the schools. If the Democrats are sincere, they'll stick with this key concept and then settle down to work out the details.

The debate over governance, as important as it might be, can come later.