When more funding is less money

Spectrum, by Mike Chmielewski

Twenty years ago my four children were students in our Valley's public schools. They enjoyed the opportunity of selecting from a bountiful array of educational offerings.

Do your sons and daughters have similar opportunities? You be the judge.

At the risk of oversimplifying a complex situation, I'll compare 1983 to 2003 considering:

One high school's numbers: teachers, students and course offerings;

the state of Alaska's per pupil expenditures for education in constant dollars;

percentages of total district budget going to regular instruction;

and testing requirements for graduation.

What has changed in the past 20 years?

There are more students in classrooms and fewer course offerings.

Today, there are fewer teachers per student, as well as fewer support staff. In 1983, one district high school had 630 students, 32 regular education teachers and a 20:1 student/teacher ratio. In 2003, that same school had 886 students, 37 teachers and a 24:1 student/teacher ratio. These student/teacher ratios are gross numbers. Actual class sizes vary due to scheduling considerations.

Along with the increase in the number of students in classrooms in this high school has come a decrease in the variety of courses offered. We have shifted to providing required courses and offer a limited selection of advanced and exploratory courses. Gone is the variety necessary to a well-rounded education: Russian and Japanese languages, swimming programs, and a slew of advanced and support programs. To be fair, other excellent programs have been added over the years, but there remains less variety.

The amount of money available per pupil (in dollars adjusted for inflation) has declined.

In the 10 years from 1990 to 2000 alone, the Alaska Department of Education estimated inflation increased 30 percent, but public school funding increased by only 5 percent. Other estimates for the entire period 1983 to 2003 suggest an inflationary increase of at least 60 percent.

In 1983, there were 5,600 students in the district for which we received $23 million from the state ($4,100 per pupil). In 2003, we have more than 14,400 students for which we will receive $72 million from the state ($5,000 per pupil). On paper, that translates to an increase of $900 per pupil. However, an across-the-board comparison is misleading without consideration for inflationary impact.

Conservatively adjusting to 1983 dollars, this year's $72 million has a relative value of $45 million. Therefore, in adjusted 1983 dollars, we will receive $3,100 per pupil from the state. I believe this to be an accurate portrayal of the situation: a decline of about $1,000 per pupil in state funding when using constant dollars.

Some have suggested that the decline in state funds has been offset by local and federal increases. If we once again look at the 1983 budget, we find $5 million from local sources and $44,000 from federal sources. In 1983, that represented $900 per pupil. Turning to 2003, we find $32 million from local sources and $200,000 from federal increases (in 1983 constant dollars this equates to $19 million and $120,000 respectively).

Dividing $19,120,000 by 14,400 students we find local and federal contributions to be about $1,300 per pupil in 1983 constant dollars. In sum, in 1983 all sources funding totaled $5,000 per pupil. In 2003, using constant dollars, we will receive about $4,400 per pupil. This $600 per pupil difference when multiplied times 14,400 students equals a funding decline of more than $8,000,000. I leave it to the reader to verify his or her own experience with inflation's impact on costs over the past 20 years.

Creative adjustments by teachers, support staff, parents and administrators have moved a greater proportion of the budget to instruction.

In 1983 regular instruction received $10 million of a total revenue of $27 million. In 2003, just over $48 million is going to regular instruction out of a total revenue of $104 million. The percentage changed from 37 percent to 46 percent. These figures don't include other instruction expenditures such as special services, which would increase the instructional expenditure to more than 70 percent of the total budget. We continue to squeeze our budget to put more toward instruction.

The requirements for public education have increased.

The passage of the No Child Left Behind Act is just the latest in a long series of well-intentioned legislation that has taken time from instruction and imposed increasing burdens upon staff. As one example, the implementation of the High School Graduation Qualifying Exam requires testing which takes a significant number of students out of an instructional setting for three days, while requiring staff to devote time to preparing for and administering the tests under stringent guidelines. Essentially the test requirements have shortened the time available to learn what is being tested, all without additional funding or support.

So, what happened?

I submit that although the education service requirements have increased, students in Valley schools were funded significantly better in 1983 than 2003. I do not suggest that any particular group has failed to fund students. In fact some important contributions, such as the Mat-Su Borough's, have increased to the maximum allowed by law. We are all responsible for different aspects of the problem. But the bottom line is not pretty.

Was the level of funding in 1983 an aberration?

Alaska's population has enjoyed the benefits of economic "bubbles" that produced funding for many necessary services: schools and public safety services, among others. These "bubbles" included both income derived from oil and investment gains from a roaring technology boom in the stock market. What is clear is that the legacy of having not only a rich uncle, but also rich aunts and cousins, has left us accustomed to having our services paid by others. Our own contributions in property taxes, for example, have been significant but pale when compared to the "bubble" revenue.

Clearly schools throughout the state of Alaska will continue to suffer from difficult choices. Further cuts in services will be required unless funding increases significantly. I believe families have noticed the effect of previous years' cuts on their students' opportunities. School districts have been creative in dealing with a loss in constant dollars, and we will continue to be creative. However, if Alaskans want schools to provide a comprehensive set of educational opportunities, we will have to pay for them or lower our expectations.

Our task as a community is to define what we want our schools to offer and then commit to finding ways to deliver the services we demand and expect. This includes truly adequate funding. We invite participation by legislators and community members in the dialogue.

Mike Chmielewski is the president of the Mat-Su Borough School Board.