Use Resources to Maximize Learning

Strategy 3.3: Deploy resources to maximize student learning.

StudentsFirst will work to eliminate the laws and regulations that hamper school districts' ability to optimize limited resources to improve student achievement.

Smart spending has long been a challenge for school districts across the country. A myriad of federal, state and district rules conspire to severely restrict how superintendents and school leaders deploy staff and other resources. As noted in Section 2, they have little control over whom to hire, how many to hire, whom to let go, or what compensation their workers will receive. Discretionary funds are relatively rare and usually not sufficient to achieve much reform. Despite complicated schemes to distribute funds and limit spending on non-essential areas, it is difficult to tell what money is spent on students and student supports as opposed to bureaucratic overhead. As a result, districts and schools make many non-optimal decisions every day, every month, and every year with the precious resources available.

Central management focused on students. One place where education misdirects resources is in the central bureaucracy. The central office should exist to make sure that teachers can focus on teaching and students can focus on learning. Central offices should provide strong support for important accountability measures and state and federal requirements and should be organized to maximize support at the school level. In order to make sense of central budgets, they first need to be organized so leaders, policy makers, and the public can see how money hits the students. A good first step is to break out anything from a central office budget that is a true "student support." This category would include things like food service, transportation, and instructional coaches. Once true "student supports" have been separated from the overall bureaucracy, districts can begin the process of identifying inefficiencies.

Over time, central offices that are not focused on how every position serves the schools increase layers of bureaucracy to serve adult interests. When systems do a real analysis of all positions, they will likely identify many redundancies. As it is, students are not well served by the inefficiencies of the bureaucracy.

Bloated central offices should be pared down to eliminate redundancies in a way that connects every member of the central team with a goal of driving student outcomes. By requiring an overall reduction, districts will have the ability to direct precious resources in ways that benefit students most.

Spending Restrictions. Additionally, some things that "feel good" have not systemically produced the results that matter for students. For example, small class sizes and required higher pay for higher degrees may have marginal benefits, but the evidence of their effect on student achievement is weak.

Many states have legislatively mandated spending on class-size reduction at the cost of billions of dollars. The evidence, while allowing that smaller class sizes contribute to positive learning environments in lower grades, does not bear out similar results above grades PK–2. State law that caps a student-teacher ratio may feel good, but the lack of evidence supporting its impact on student achievement should prevail when crafting policy. The same rationale applies to mandatory and upward salary adjustments for teachers gaining master's degrees in education. There is some evidence that content-specific degrees in math or science can help develop more effective teachers, but master's degrees do not categorically create more effective teachers. Meanwhile, districts have to spend millions of dollars on these practices in favor of practices proven to enrich a student's education. In fact, it is currently estimated that school districts nationwide spend $9 billion on supplementary pay for additional degrees, which have no correlation to student achievement. A redirection of these dollars to support higher salaries for highly effective teachers is a more responsible use of public funds.

Human Capital. Throughout this agenda we have underscored the need to ensure every child receives instruction from an excellent teacher. Over time, many good district and school leaders who recognize this imperative, but are hamstrung by arcane personnel laws, have struggled to find creative ways to deal with ineffective teachers. In the absence of meaningful legislative reform, some districts have determined that it is in the best interest of students to have these ineffective teachers out of the classroom, even if it means they have to keep paying them until they can "exit" them under their district's rules, regulations, and state laws. (See Strategy 1.5, 1.6.) Unfortunately, some of these efforts have cost districts and states enormous amounts of money as they have paid salaries of teachers removed to "rubber rooms." Districts and school leaders simply do not often have a choice between paying to keep an ineffective teacher on payroll or redirecting these resources to support improved outcomes for students. The result is that taxpayer dollars often go to ensure that adult needs are met while students wait for a new microscope.

Facility Management. Finally, while new facilities are usually financed through non-district bond authorities, the planning, development, and maintenance of facilities is often out of step with the needs of students and saddles districts with hefty ongoing maintenance costs. Identifying areas that are not part of the core competency of education and recognizing viable, affordable solutions can have multiple benefits. Outsourcing facilities construction and management to competitive sources has helped many charter school operators, for example, cut facilities costs in half compared to their neighboring traditional districts. A few districts, such as the Los Angeles Unified School District, have begun "outsourcing" new buildings and failing schools to school providers with proven student achievement track records. This type of solution can maximize resources while allowing educators to focus on what they do best: creating better environments for student learning.

StudentsFirst will pursue a path that empowers superintendents and school leaders to allocate resources to optimize results for children. This approach not only benefits students, but it also benefits taxpayers by helping assure that precious taxpayer funds are used as productively as possible.