Barrett Rainey's Second Thoughts

Oregon school districts are on the cusp of a twilight zone of sorts. School boards and superintendents, already trying to stay above water with nearly unprecedented revenue losses, are about to get hit with a new state law that could make accurately predicting student enrollment numbers a crap shoot.

Last year, our legislative friends threw this time bomb into all districts by passing House Bill 3681 by sizeable majorities. The bottom line: starting next school year, students will be able to transfer to any school they – or their parents – want, losing districts won’t have to give permission and neither the new nor old district will be able to stop them in many cases. How would you like to set your next year’s budget with that moving target?

As is so often the case with legislative – or congressional – action, the bill became law without instructions for implementation. Or even a clearly written intent. And – as is also so often the case – confused districts asking the state education folks for explanations have received conflicting answers. Or no answers. What else is new?

In Oregon, each public school student is worth about $8,900 per year paid through the Oregon Dept. Of Education. Sometimes a little more or a little less and sometimes a few federal dollars get mixed in. But that’s a good figure for planning when budget setting is done. A year ahead.

The problem is – and this is a huge problem for the losing district – the dollars go with the kid. If 60 kids suddenly go elsewhere when schools open, that’s a $534 thousand hole in the budget. Right now!

And there’s this. Suppose the district the kids all want to go to – your district – is close to full? What happens to classroom sizes or special needs students? How do teachers cope with all those new faces?

So do school districts get into open competition for students – read “dollars” – to stay afloat? Some superintendents think that’s possible and that sort of gamesmanship could create some major problems. Nearly all districts are waiting to see if the state comes up with more guidance. So far – it hasn’t.

The law allows districts three choices: admit everyone incoming who wants to transfer, set a ceiling to stop excess flow or stick with the case-by-case policy most have now. But that $8,900 per head could be persuasive to keep the doors – and the policy – open.

There’s also the matter that the losing district gets a double whammy here. First, it doesn’t get a voice in students leaving and – second – if there’s an attendance hemorrhage, that’s $8,900 per head loss to make up somewhere.

There’s more. If your enrollment policy is “open door” to catch those per-head student dollars, can you reject someone who has been a major discipline problem elsewhere? Or several “someones” if the whole gang wants to come? What if you can’t handle more special-needs kids? By federal law, you can’t pick and choose. And special-needs programs can be a budget-buster in small districts.

When I was a kid, nobody said “When I grow up I want to be a school district superintendent.” Well, a lot of us are all grown up now and I still don’t hear anyone wanting to change career fields. Superintendents and all those unpaid school board members are faced with closing schools, firing teachers, dropping whole curriculums, selling off school busses, turning down the thermostats and whatever else they can do to keep the doors open and meet all the state and federal standards on the books. We’re not even talking about new buildings, old buildings falling apart, updating text books, buying computers or even buying current software. And, of course, that competition from more and more charter schools draining dollars.

Now, your friendly legislator – the one who campaigned about “local control of our schools” – has added another state straw bale on the already overburdened local administrative camels.

My gut tells me this “everybody-goes-where-everybody-wants-to-go” concept came from some large districts looking for more dollars who lobbied hard for HB 3681 which was just one “housekeeping” part of a large education package. And they got it. But the people casting the votes apparently didn’t think the idea through – or more likely didn’t read all the package – and now their friends and neighbors in more rural districts at home are facing what could be a major problem.

It’s hard to teach readin’ and writin’ if the folks doing the votin’ don’t read all the writin’.

Share on Facebook Both comments and pings are currently closed.