Amy Moore teaches fifth grade in Newton, Iowa, and writes often for the Des Moines Register. In this article, she chastises Governor Terry Branstad for promising to make education his top priority, then spending his time in office refusing to fund the schools.
She writes that educators will tell the Legislature how much money the schools need and legislators will lecture teachers and administrators about how greedy they are and why they need to do more with less. She says about Governor Branstad, “If this is how he handles his top priority, then I’d like to beg him to put us lower on his list.”
The way I see it he has reached into our pockets to steal millions of dollars set aside for our children. He put locks on our school doors until a date that he — and his business partners who care only about squeezing every last cent of profit from Iowa families — deemed appropriate. He plans to mess with school monies to try to help agricultural businesses get off the hook for water they polluted. He allowed for a push to implement Smarter Balanced assessments, which will make huge money for testing companies coming from our state, and is being dropped by other states that have found it to be problematic to say the least. The only real school improvement plan he has focused on is his teacher leadership initiative, which sends the clear and incorrect message that teachers are the main problem with our schools.
Aren’t Republicans supposed to believe in less government intrusion? I’d like governor to stay true to his party and trust local districts to spend the allocated state money. Districts have a strong track record of knowing what is needed to serve our local communities, and the diversity of school populations across the state makes one-size-fits-all mandates nonsensical.
With talk of next year’s budget there is inevitably the constant assertion that “just throwing money at it won’t help.” I wonder if the millions of Americans purchasing Powerball tickets this week would agree with that?
I have to admit there are times when having extra money cannot help. For example, if you’re being attacked by a grizzly bear, I don’t believe throwing money at him will help. Or if you’re grieving the loss of a loved one, no amount of money can take away the pain.
But when it comes to children, having more money can almost always improve lives. More money can mean more books to read in the home and better quality clothes. It can mean more available time from a parent who doesn’t have to work three jobs to make ends meet. It can mean superior health care, child care and healthier foods.
It is the same with children in a classroom. Money means smaller class sizes with more individualized instruction. It means updated materials and technology. It means well paid, high quality teachers who feel appreciated to be compensated for their professional skills. It means fully staffed art, counseling, music, preschool and health departments. It means safe and comfortable school environments. It means the ability to offer courses to reach the interests and abilities of more students. It means field trips, extracurricular clubs and non-dilapidated textbooks.
Amy insists that the Governor and the Legislature must appropriate the funding that the children of Iowa need and hold the lectures about austerity.
Look where Iowa is according to this data: http://www.cbpp.org/total-state-funding-below-2008-levels-in-most-states. That is by design! We are not a state like Illinois with serious budget issues; Iowa has money saved. Iowa’s political leaders choose to invest in business by cutting taxes for those businesses which also hurts education funding in the state. Should you need to be reminded that funding schools is important see https://schoolfinance101.wordpress.com/2015/12/28/school-finance-reality-vs-the-money-doesnt-matter-echo-chamber/?blogsub=confirming#blog_subscription-3. I am hoping to tell as many Iowa politicians the same.
What a biased point of view! Branstad did NOT cut the budget for education! He expanded it widely, by millions of dollars – but that went to the Teacher Leadership Quality etc. etc. etc. cost. Whee I work it added FIVE million per year. This initially was branded a grant, for three years – bat was later added to the regular budget, coming back year after year after year… SOME teacher benefited from that with anywhere from $ 3,000.00 to as much as $ 12,000 extra, per year.
Of course, that did have an impact on the ALLOWABLE GROWTH expenditure – but everybody should have known that would happen. And was too short-sighted to think about the long-term impact of the change from grant to budget.
So the governor did not “cut” the budget. He expanded the overall (albeit a limited benefit) by millions of $$.
No one seems to remember that it was Governor Culvert who really cut school budgets. then the LOST (Local Option Sales Tax) went from county based to State based, and a number of Districts list an average of 5% per student.
It takes a long time to recover from those kinds of losses…
I did not use the words “cut the budget.” He vetoed the 55 million that was approved by a bipartisan effort to go to schools this year. He simply decided that we couldn’t have it. He is allowing our schools to slowly have to cut programs and services, to put off needed improvements, to do with fewer staff, to spend money on assessments rather than on instructional materials. He focuses on teacher improvement rather than on quality of life improvements for our students that would enable them to become the learners that they have the potential to be, while at the same time making life as easy and rich as possible for business interests. Go ahead and defend that if you’d like but I sure can’t
What is Teacher Leadership Quality? It seems to mean different things in each state but somehow seems to be connected with teachers competing for money. I don’t want to make assumptions about Iowa’s plan. I can’t say I have heard anything positive about programs that are built on competition.
Shameless man! Wonder who are those greasing his palms?
No doubt the private schools are pleased. Their business will undoubtably expand.
I think the bottom line has to do with teacher salaries. This whole fiasco, nationwide, is about the pretense that schools must “manage their money wisely” and that means paying teachers less. They drive away older trachers who have attained middle class salaries, bring in temps from TFA or freshly graduated, break up unions, and they feel that they will put teachers “back in their places” earning a liwer wage, not a professional salary.
In addition, I believe that a large number of people simply choose to homeschool or charter or parochial schools because they want to have their children exposed only to their own religious beliefs.
Part of the issue the author contends with is that in some areas of Iowa, the average individual teacher makes more than the average household income of the area plus many school personnel have access to good benefits (pension, time off, access to health insurance) compared to many in the private sector–the administrators do even better. This makes selling more money for schools a hard sell to some households.
I don’t agree with allocating a bunch of money to the teacher leader programs–the schools need more flexibility in how the funds are spent.