Page 20_ RAIN January 1979 dee ntralizing t '\chools ~ by Fred Lorish There was a great deal of concern expressed in Oregon about the future of the public schools in light of what seemed to be the imminent passage of a Proposittion 13 look-alike in the election. True to form, Oregon voters rejected both the copy and a watered-down variation. But other states weren't of the same bent, and passed property tax limitations. Schools in those states are likely in the midst of a period of soulsearching. The reason is clear: property taxes are the lifeblood of the public schools. Without the taxes, the schools curl up and consolidate. Which brings me to what is the curse and, at the same time, the possibility of such tax limitations. First the bad news. Soon after1Proposition 13 passed in California, the rumors and scenarios began filtering their way north as to what the ramifications might be. One of the more odious scenarios went like this. In the wake of lost revenues from the local tax base, school districts begin to depend increasingly on state and federal monies to maintain basic programs. As more subsidies flow in, so do the restrictions and regulations. A large state and federal bureaucracy is formed .to implement, maintain and police the 'flow of funds. Local control is ero?ed to the point that there is little citizen input. The bureaucracy in Sacramento b~comes the "central office" for a state-wide school district:'Sacramento then funnels federal money (in addition to its own) to local areas, and finds that it, too, has to deal with federal restrictions and guidelines. Soon federally mandated curriculum and administrative guidelines are instituted, and education becomes the tool of a mammoth federal bureaucracy. This scenario has the ring of authenticity, sadly. Teachers, administrators and school boards are already witnessing an erosion of local control and individual initiative. And yet, the historical reality is that nothing could be worse for children or the schools than a top-heavy, distant bureaucracy pulling the strings. This is a scenario that can't be allowed to happen, though there are those who would clearly benefit from such a move. The reality is that this needn't happen at all. There is another path. With decreased access to the usual funding source, school districts are faced with a very real test: either cut back expenses drastically, or face increased state and federal incursions into local schools. The latter choice seems universally abhorred but grudgingly accepted as ine-vitable. If school districts choose to deal with the former, then the question centers on how to do it: cut programs? decrease staff and thus increase class size? cut out a top-heavy administrative bur'eaucracy? The answers, whatever they are, seem to beg the real question. For what is implicit in much educational planning is that the most costeffective way to run the schools is through consolidation and centralization of facilities and services. If the choice is to cut services or decrease the workforce, the schools are left overcrowded, under-staffed, and poorly supplied ... but somehow cost effective. And what has really happened is _that we are looking at schools and studen·ts in terms of "cost per full-time equivalency," "unit cost," etc.- economic jargon that quantifies the effectiveness of education-in terms of dollar value per child. The quality of educational process arid environment is given a much lower priority rating, if considered at all. But wheri we look at the "state" of the public schools, • there is certainly much evidence that calls the efficacy of the bigger-is-better public school model into question. The tax revolt argument that schools are too expensive is absolutely correct; it is just that cutting back and returning to "the basics" does not improve the quality of education..
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz