Freedom on a Firm Foundation: Matt Denn on Financing Delaware's Schools

If you stood on a floor that was weak and thought it might give way, would you dance on it without trepidation? Would you hesitate, perhaps not dance it at all, or dance with abandon possibly risking your well being and the well being of others? To be, creativity and freedom require a firm foundation. Otherwise they degenerate into timid rigidness or impulsivity. Insurance Commissioner and candidate for Lt. Governor Matt Denn believes a delineated and strong financial floor are needed in order for Delaware's schools to provide quality instruction:

Lieutenant governor candidate Matt Denn discussed his plans Wednesday to overhaul education spending policies as a plank of his platform on children's issues.

Denn, a Democrat, wants the state to create a funding floor for education spending as an element of a four-part reform in public education spending. Policies also would be created to increase audits of district contracts, create financial oversight committees made up of citizens, and work to implement recommendations from the LEAD Committee, including implementing interim steps toward school consolidation.

Why does Delaware need this funding floor?

"Experience has shown us that the people running our schools do not always make wise decisions about spending for our kids," Denn said.

The Christiana and Red Clay School districts come to mind as does a sobering statistic Denn cited:

Denn said 58 percent of state funds are spent on instructional costs, compared with the national average of 61 percent.

It's a simple truth but one whose profundity is missed as it slips away from us. The point of public education for our children is to maximize instructing them. How does Denn intend to maximize that financially?

Under his proposal, school districts would be required to spend a certain percentage of appropriated state money on "people who provide direct services to kids and the materials those people need to do their job." Denn said the exact percentages and what expenses fall into that category would be the result of about three months of discussions with teachers, administrators and community members.

Given that the students in our public school today will face global competition in the jobs market, the state government has a legitimate interest in ensuring that school districts prioritize and maximize classroom instruction. Denn is correct in his implication that prioritizing and maximizing classroom instruction are a legitimate baseline of public policy. Nevertheless Denn recognizes that school districts, individual schools and, indeed, individual students have particular needs that must be addressed in order to make the maximization of instruction possible. It's here that Denn rightly calls for flexibility and the permission for school officials to act adaptively and creatively:

After creating the floor, Denn said he would like the state to remove some of the requirements currently attached to education funds given to districts. In doing so, schools would have to spend a larger percentage of money on the expenses that meet his definition, but they would deal with fewer ties to specific projects.

Denn's plan reminds me of much of what I admire about him and his approach to solving problems. His plan is smart. It leaves no area unaddressed. It is principled but pragmatic. That Denn's emphasis is on a workable plan is shown by how it is expressed in functional terms: x percentage of dollars must be spent on "people who provide direct services to kids and the materials those people need to do their job." I like elected officials whose high principles get expressed in workable terms. To me they epitomize real leadership. Understandably, Matt Denn's opponent, Sen. Charlie Copeland, doesn't agree with Matt Denn's plan:

Republican candidate Sen. Charles Copeland, West Farms, said he supports increasing the percentage of funds used for classroom expenses, but doesn't think creating a mandate is the way to reduce overhead spending.

To begin with, Commissioner Denn clearly indicated that the amount of funds designated for instruction is a matter subject to the input of the various stakeholders. Beyond that, I can't imagine why Copeland wouldn't believe in at least a minimum mandate. If some school districts designated only 35% of their funds for instruction, wouldn't he think in terms of some kind of mandate then? But Charlie Copeland seems to think that reducing costs and increasing public scrunity alone will magically cause more funds to be targeted for instruction:

"For the last six years I've been fighting to get more of the percent of the dollars into the classroom," Copeland said. "The private schools, the charter schools and the parochial schools get more of their dollar to the classroom." Copeland said the state needs to increase public disclosure of school spending, so residents can hold districts accountable or send their children to other schools if they're dissatisfied with the way money is spent. Copeland pointed to legislation he wrote, which died, that would have required districts to publish their spending records online. "The citizens will make the districts lower their costs," he said.

No one should be mistaken. In the context of "reducing overhead" when Charlie Copeland talks about "private schools, the charter schools and the parochial schools get[ting] more of their dollar to the classroom," he is talking about the comparative low wages and the minimal and zero benefits paid to many of the teachers in these institutions. These schools might get more dollars into the classroom, but they also get more teachers moving in and out through a revolving door. Circumstances can vary but as a rule people move on when they can earn higher wages and get better benefits elsewhere. (An interesting study would compare the average age of these instructors with the average age of mainstream public school teachers.) Besides, reducing the pay of teachers won't by itself guarantee that more money would flow toward the classroom. It could still go toward ancillary administrative staff and expense accounts. I support and continue to support Sen. Copleand's suggestion of the public disclosure of school financial records. But apparently I support it for different reasons than him. I support it because I believe the public has a right to know how their money is spent by public institutions. But I never conceived that individual citizens pouring over disparate financial records would either replace or augment professionals auditing the books of school districts. To be sure, citizens can make surprising and helpful discoveries and Denn recognizes it when he recommends they play an important (and more organized) role as members of citizen financial oversight committees. But they cannot possibly eclipse the need increasing the audits of district contracts, as Denn has suggested. Copeland's mistake is to think that the quantity of available dollars per se make will guarantee a greater investment in instruction and that will magically produce better instruction. Neither of those consequences follow from his fuzzy proposals. Whereas Matt Denn wants to ensure that quality instruction is financially prioritized and maximized. But not establishing a firm floor like Denn, Copeland's plan lacks a responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars. Look for Copeland to invent new proposals, ones that essentially resemble Denn's. He'll have to because at this point, he has lost the argument to Matt Denn. _______________________ source