Listen to “School Funding Reform Requires More Than Money” on Spreaker.
The West Virginia Department of Education this week presented lawmakers with a proposal requesting an additional $410 million in annual funding; part of ongoing discussions about overhauling the state’s school-aid formula.
Nearly $190 million of that amount would address special education costs.
During last year’s legislative session, a troubling narrative emerged from county school systems: The cost of providing legally mandated special education services exceeds the funding counties receive from state and federal sources.
The result? Counties must make up the difference by drawing down reserves or redirecting money that would otherwise support other educational programs.
That is not sustainable.
Education officials also proposed additional funding for students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, enrollment stabilization, operations and maintenance, substitute teachers and other needs.
No doubt, every penny of the $410 million could be put to worthwhile use. But, the political reality is not optimistic regarding the entire ask. The price tag is simply too large for many lawmakers to stomach, especially given the state’s ongoing economic challenges.
Meanwhile, a number of legislators and outside interests believe public education already receives sufficient funding and must learn to adapt — to live within its means.
That’s not an entirely unreasonable expectation; neither is it a complete answer.
Consider special education.
When state and federal law mandate that county school systems provide certain services to students with disabilities, those systems have little discretion about whether to incur the associated costs.
The obligations are real. The expenses are real. And the consequences of failing to meet those obligations are real, including the possibility of losing funding.
Yet when the funding falls short, the money must come from somewhere else.
That means fewer resources for students and programs outside special education. One legally mandated obligation effectively competes with other educational priorities.
How is that sound public policy? If government requires a service, government ought to provide a realistic means of paying for it.
The Legislature would be wise to recognize that distinction when evaluating the department’s request for additional special education funding.
What then of the equally legitimate argument that public schools must economize? That they must make existing funding go further? Address low occupancy rates?
Completely fair.
What’s unfair is the regulatory environment in which they are expected to accomplish that task.
Public education operates under an extraordinarily heavy volume of laws, rules and personnel requirements. Remember the enormous blue Gutenberg Bible of education regulations State Board President Paul Hardesty held up months ago?
That mountain of regulation has consequences.
County school systems cannot always manage their workforces as they see fit or to match needs, reorganize operations efficiently, or make decisions based primarily on what makes the most educational and financial sense for their communities.
Consider the contradiction.
Lawmakers demand greater efficiency, yet maintain statutory and regulatory restrictions that can prevent local school leaders from achieving it.
They demand better financial management, yet limit the tools available to those responsible for managing the money.
They expect schools to operate more like businesses, yet deny them many of the management options available to businesses.
That is nonsensical.
None of this means public schools should operate without oversight, accountability or reasonable protections for employees and students.
Nor does it mean every county school system is operating as efficiently as possible. Some have difficult decisions to make about staffing, facilities, consolidation and the responsible use of taxpayer dollars. They have been taken over by the State when they fail to do so. Candidly, if a school system is taken over, its board should be dismissed.
But accountability must be accompanied by an ability to effect change. If state and local education leaders are to be held responsible for results, they must have meaningful control over the decisions that produce those results.
The Legislature may not be willing to allow public schools to operate under the comparatively simple rules – the index card Hardesty held up alongside “Big Blue” — governing certain other state institutions; that’s fine.
But lawmakers and stakeholders alike, cannot reasonably expect businesslike efficiency from institutions it refuses to allow to make businesslike decisions.
Any serious effort to overhaul West Virginia’s school-aid formula should therefore include an examination of the statutory and regulatory framework governing public education.
That exercise should include opening Chapter 18A of state code, which governs school personnel, and revisiting the administrative rules that accompany it.
It means identifying which requirements genuinely protect students and employees, and which prevent school systems from adapting to declining enrollment, rising costs and changing educational needs.
It means recognizing that funding reform and regulatory reform are not competing ideas. In fact, they are complementary.
The Legislature should be willing to provide the resources necessary to meet the obligations government imposes, especially for special education needs – one might argue they are constitutionally bound.
In return, education leaders should be expected to demonstrate efficiency, accountability and a willingness to make difficult decisions.
But lawmakers cannot have it both ways… they cannot insist that schools do more with the same money — or less as inflation erodes its value — while refusing to loosen the restrictions that prevent greater efficiency from coming to realization.
Fund the mandates. Remove unnecessary barriers. Demand accountability.
That’s how meaningful school funding reform begins.