Earlier this week House and Senate Democrats began a state wide budget tour to criticize the Republican-authored state budget and job losses in state government and the public schools. Democrat law makers, local officials and individuals directly impacted by budget cuts dutifully showed up at various stops to criticize policies and plead for more money. While media coverage reported plenty of criticism and hand-wringing the only item that seemed to be in short supply was the truth.
Democrats criticized cuts to public education as too large and acted as if public school budget reductions are virtually unprecedented.. Last week in Raleigh, State Board of Education Chairman Bill Harrison said “For the first time since the Great Depression, North Carolina’s General Assembly has adopted a budget that sends education backward.”
Is Harrison right? Assuming Harrison is referring to state funding for public K-12 education, there are two simple ways to answer this question; review changes in the level of overall public support and public support per student.
A quick glance of historical tables shows that overall public support for K-12 education actually declined five times since 1983 and most recently in 2008-09 when it declined by 3 percent or $267 million below the previous year.
A better indicator for gauging support for public education is support per student. It’s regarded as a better indicator because it takes into account changing student populations. So what do trend lines in support per student tell us? Since 1982-83, there have been seven years when the level of state support per student was less than the previous year. Percentage declines have ranged from 0.5 percent to 5.9 percent.
Thus, in reality the current fluctuations in total K-12 support and per student support is far from unprecedented.
It’s hard to miss Democrat indignation at the impact of Republican budget reductions. It seems that outrage is on display at each budget stop. The only problem is the outrage is selective and disingenuous.
While it is true public schools absorbed staffing reductions this year, schools were also asked to absorb staff cuts in 2008, 2009 and 2010. Last I checked, Democrats controlled the House, the Senate and the Governor’s office in all three of those years. During those years, Democrats eliminated a combined 10,761 education positions and laid off close to 3,700 public school staff.
Yet where was the outcry from teachers or Democrats about job losses? According to the Department of Public Instruction, 534 teachers will lose their jobs in 2011-12 to budget cuts. However in the three previous years (2008, 2009 and 2010) close to three times the current number (1,580) of teachers lost their jobs due to budget reductions.
Much of the controversy surrounding the budget discussion focuses on job loss numbers released in August by the Department of Public Instruction. According to the document, over the past four years, more than 17,100 public school positions have been eliminated and over 6,100 staff laid off.
While those numbers are certainly significant and involve real people, it must be noted that there are substantive concerns about the validity of the job loss numbers. Three are worth mentioning. First, the survey results are for self-reported data only, DPI does not provide any means to objectively assess the validity of the survey results. Second, because most schools continue to hire school personnel through September, the numbers of layoffs and positions eliminated will be less than reported on the August surveys. Third and finally, when you compare the results of the DPI job loss data with employment surveys in other DPI documents there are significant discrepancies in staffing numbers.
Even with all that said, it’s important to ask: How significant are public school job losses for the upcoming year? If all laid off public school employees (2,418.1) were divided among all K-12 schools (2,424 — charter schools were not included in the survey) each school would lose less than one (.99) employee.
Is the impact of budget reductions felt more deeply in larger districts? An analysis of job losses in the twenty largest LEAs reveals that on average LEAs will eliminate 166 positions and lay off 70 staff. The 20 LEAs laid off a total of 264 teachers, with almost half of those coming from one district (Cumberland). Interestingly, 13 of the 20 largest LEAs reported no teacher layoffs for 2011-12. For the twenty largest LEAs, layoffs as a percentage of LEA work force averaged 1.05 percent.
Of course Democrat leaders have every right to meet with constituents and share views on policy differences. However, is it unrealistic to ask that those views involve accurate numbers and a realistic assessment of policy impacts?
Simply more spin. Did you forget that the school age population is growing? That reductions in local tax revenues to support schools, particularly in rural areas, is also shrinking? Did you consider reductions in Federal expenditures, not only in education but in social welfare commitments,impacts local school schools? A crash and burn budget policy will leave scars on the social environment for years to come.
Andrew,
I don’t understand the point of your comments. This article factually represents statements made by Democrat politicians on their current bus tour and provides historical data demonstrating not only the inaccuracy of the statements, but the relative insignificance of the cuts. You respond with “crash and burn budget policy.” All the questions you posted are irrelevant. School age population is dealt with in “support per pupil.” Federal expenditures have not been cut. There’s not even a federal budget! As far as “scars on the social environment,” what do you think the public education system has been leaving for decades? The government run educational system in NC has been stagnant at best, and when compared to international competition, it has steadily declined. Throwing more money (that the state government doesn’t have) is always the core of any “solution” offered by left leaning politicians. Allowing the money to follow the students and giving parents the ability to choose the schools they want to send their children to would reduce costs and allow the free market to quickly improve the quality of education in this state.
I value opinion and debate from all sides, I just wish yours was more thoughtful.
Did anyone tell them that if they cut out forced busing Nation Wide, but sent the kids to the nearest school where they lived, that they could save enough to easily keep all of their teachers, and in all likelyhood…. give them a raise?
It seems to be the same old story…you must spend never cut. I wish some of the real problem in education could be addressed nationwide…get rid of tenure and allow ONLY qualified teachers, of which there are many, in a classroom. But that’s a union thing so forget about that so long as the Democrats are in control.
How many illegal alien students are sucking up the dollars that rightfully belong to our american taxpayers children. this is what needs to be addressed.n get rid of the illegal felons and part of our funding problem is solved. send the children and there parents back to there country of origin.
Oh, by the way, who owns this bus, does it belong to the Obama admin. when he took his bus to the road, which in fact he hardly ever got on the bus. This is another another democratic fraud being perpetrated on the dumbed down public.
Andrew:
Thanks for your comments. With regard to your concerns about growing school age population and shrinking federal dollars, please remember most rural districts in North Carolina are losing –not gaining population. In the last two years, North Carolina received about $1.3 billion more in federal dollars than it normally receives for public education. While the dollars may have helped keep some programs running, the funding also allowed decision makers to put off or delay important budget decisions. If you look at the actual percentage changes in budgets from year-to-year, it’s impossible to accurately describe the current budget changes as “crash and burn”
Bob Luebke
“is it unrealistic to ask that those views involve accurate numbers and a realistic assessment of policy impacts?”
YES!