Posted by
Waski_the_Squirrel on Monday, June 22, 2009 12:30:51 PM
I am lucky. In the midst of this recession, my state boasted the largest budget surplus anyone can remember. When our legislature met this year, most of the argument happened because there was just so much money available. Responsible legislators wanted to avoid funding things that they might not be able to fund in the future. My own school is putting on an addition so that we can spend down a surplus in our own budget. Times are good in North Dakota.
Times aren't so good elsewhere.
California seems to be in the news a lot, probably because its problems are so extreme. Naturally, when a government is running a deficit, it is forced to cut spending. Some governments will deficit spend for a while, but eventually it is impossible to go on. California can't go on and our Federal government is getting close to that point. So where to cut? (We might also raise taxes, but that's a topic for another day.)
I happen to think police protection is important. I also think roads are important. Due to my profession, I think education is important. Others might argue that senior programs are important or public welfare or the arts. What is easy for me to dismiss is vitally important to someone else. When money must be cut, we all point where we want it cut, but we say, "Please not here. This one is too important to cut."
What we call a budget cut isn't always a budget cut. If funding is not increased, that is often reported as a cut. Sometimes if funding isn't increased as much as expected, that is a cut as well. Language should be more precise. The public is easily led to outrage over a budget cut to a popular program that may not actually be a cut. As I've mentioned before, "Never let the facts get in the way of a good opinion."
That said, California and many other states are looking at real budget cuts. Nothing should be sacrosanct, not even education. However, if the state is going to cut funding, it should also cut requirements. Often schools (and other programs) do not have the freedom to spend money to their needs. Some examples that spring immediately to mind are class size reduction, teacher salaries, required electives, and the like. A great example is the Title 1 funding (federal). My school will be returning a lot of that money because our Title 1 program just has nothing to buy with it. So the money is there, but we're not allowed to spend it where we need it: specifically special education and English Language Learners.
Cuts should also be focused on return. Some popular programs don't give much return in terms of benefit. For example (and I've mislaid the link), the Head Start program (federal) is extremely popular, but hasn't been shown to give much benefit. Sometimes, special interests must be satisfied. To step (slightly) outside education, we've seen the Obama administration slash funding to the organization that investigates unions. Meanwhile, a bill is winding through congress (card check) that will create a government agency to mediate labor disputes.
To tie all this together, no agency should be immune to funding cuts. However, some should be cut more than others. One useful question to ask is, "If someone wanted to create this new right now, would we do it?" We would probably continue with roads and schools, but we should cut expenses within those categories. On the other hand, we might entirely slash artistic endowments.
I want to close with a note of hope. Cuts are a huge challenge to schools, but they're also a great opportunity. These cuts provide an opportunity to rethink how money is being spent and to set the priority on what gives the greatest returns. Schools have the chance to cut out the deadwood and perhaps find new, more efficient ways to deliver services. Schools could emerge from the other side of this leaner, more efficient, and better able to use the money when it starts to arrive.