Olson-Daugaard Education Cuts: Permanent Inequality in South Dakota Schools

A couple weeks ago, I discussed a New York Times article that finds American teachers lagging in pay and professional esteem relative to other college graduates. The article finds that gap greater here than in other nations that outperform us on achievement tests. The article also notes that, compared to other nations, we spend a disproportionate amount on non-academic items like transportation and sports facilities. Yes, Mrs. Brown, he said sports facilities.

The redoubtable Mr. Dahle does some legwork and tracks down the full Paine and Schleicher report referenced in the NYT article. Mr. Dahle focuses on the report's support for the argument that policymakers must view education as an investment, not an expense. Paine and Schleicher note that the United States reaped a century of economic gains following its investment in free universal high school at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. The American Century began with an enormous investment in public education.

The report then discusses a serious funding flaw that now distinguishes the American system from most of the countries that are beating on on PISA test scores:

The U.S. also spends its money differently [from] the most successful PISA performing nations. It is one of only four OECD countries that appears to spend less money per student (based on teacher/student ratios) in its economically disadvantaged schools, while spending more in richer districts.

In about half of OECD countries, disadvantaged schools tend to have a lower teacher/student ratio, on the assumption that children from less economically advantaged neighborhoods and cultures should have more and better teachers. High-performing Singapore, for example, sends its best teachers to work with students who are having the most difficulty. That pattern is reversed in the U.S., Israel, Slovenia and Turkey &ndash the only four OECD countries to favor their economically advantaged schools with more teachers on a statistically significant basis.

In the U.S., this is partly due to the fact school systems are locally financed with tax rates based on the value of local homes and businesses. This allows people who are better off financially to form a school taxing district that can raise more money for hiring the best teachers and providing other highly funded resources [Steven L. Paine and Andreas Schleicher, "What the U.S. Can Learn from the World's Most Successful Education Reform Efforts," McGraw-Hill Research Foundation, Public Policy Paper: Lessons from PISA, 2011.03.14].

Charlie Johnson, add that to your argument for tax reform. Our property tax system imposes a terrible extension of "the rich get richer, the poor get poorer." Countries that are beating us on academic achievement level the playing field with a more uniform funding system that corrects local inequities.

That's exactly the opposite of the direction Governor Dennis Daugaard and his minion Senator Russell Olson are taking South Dakota. They slashed state funding for education this year. Governor Daugaard says districts that want to increase funding locally can do so, but that leads us directly into the trap Paine and Schleicher describe: communities with lots of money and growth like Harrisburg and Dakota Valley will spend more, while communities who lack money will cut programs and leave their kids at a permanent disadvantage in the global economy.

South Dakota's Constitution imposes on our Legislature a duty "to establish and maintain a general and uniform system of public schools." Our property tax system and our Legislature's retreat from funding education leaves us derelict in that duty. We must restore and increase state funding for education to help students from poor communities overcome their economic disadvantages and enjoy opportunities equal to those found in rich communities.