Why Disruption in Education is Essential

The following Letter to the Editor appeared in the Concord Monitor.  Click the title to be directed to the LTE  in the Concord Monitor. 

Cathy Peschke 

Opinion: Why disruption in education is essential

Every year, small towns across New Hampshire grapple with ways to keep their budgets in check. This usually entails minor adjustments and revisions that tighten up spending, but don’t dramatically alter the character of town or school operations.

This spring, residents of the town of Croydon adopted a novel approach, setting the school budget based on a simple per-pupil formula multiplied by a total student population. The final number, $800,000, came in at less than half of the board’s original $1.7 million-plus figure. This budget was disruptive, as it was meant to be.

As one of 20 vilified residents who voted in favor of the budget overhaul, I’ve heard many concerns about this approach, from the reasonable “can we deliver on this small budget?” to the absurd “the kids will end up in prison because they didn’t get enough art class.”

Among the cacophony of hyperbolic scenarios, one comment sounds quite reasonable: “This budget amendment seems abrupt and severe. Why was it necessary to cut the budget this way?”

It’s a good question, and it deserves a good answer.

Public education spending has gotten completely out of control in New Hampshire. When recently polled at a school board meeting, not a single board member felt the previous $1.7 million budget was appropriate. All felt it needed to be reduced. Each board member suggested a small reduction.

So why not try incremental reductions instead of large cuts? Because incremental reductions in education spending don’t work.

I have personally fought this battle in Croydon for over 15 years, but it plays out every spring in town halls across the state. Some cut proposals get shot down immediately. Others make it through the vote, producing a brief respite from the waste typical of public schools. Unfortunately, any progress gets undone as soon as voters become complacent.

The cut-reverse, cut-reverse cycle is why New Hampshire schools find themselves with bloated budgets despite years of temporarily successful budget cuts. Even with our best efforts, the gravy train keeps rolling.

There is one glowing success of permanent education reform: school choice. This program took eight years to enact, defending against rabid resistance culminating in a lawsuit from Big Ed’s acolytes in Concord. Croydon prevailed in classic David versus Goliath fashion. School choice is now a reality in our town, and an option state-wide.

Our school choice initiative not only won the legal battle, it won the hearts and minds of residents. Many of its most vocal opponents became supporters in just a few years. How did this happen?

It happened because school choice was a disruptive, not incremental change in education. Enacting school choice did not involve tweaking an existing system, it altogether scrapped much of it. The entire structure of post-4th-grade education in Croydon was reworked to implement the new model.

Both promoters and opponents of school choice understood one important point. Once the public got a taste of school choice, they would never tolerate a return to the old ways. School choice, with its many benefits, is here to stay.

Croydon’s $800,000 education budget was designed to be small enough to require systemic change, yet large enough to make implementation practical. Ian Underwood, that dreaded Free Stater we’ve all been programmed to fear, made a case for the specific number of $10,000 per student based on high quality, functional, existing schools.

That this number, higher than some schools spend, is considered “unworkable” says much more about the mindset of public education finance than it does about Mr. Underwood’s “Bond-villain” plans. Any school district that demands over $22,000 per student in an area where other schools demand less than $9,000 is ripe for restructuring.

We’ve tried incremental reform, and it has failed. It’s time for a paradigm shift in public education. The amended $800,000 budget accomplishes this in a responsible manner. It will provide higher quality at a much lower cost. As with school choice before, the public will not tolerate a return to the tax-and-spend ways of yesteryear once they’ve enjoyed the benefits of the new budget.

The education establishment’s response to Croydon’s realigned budget is a “do-over” repeal vote scheduled for May 7th. Time will tell whether enough voters attend and cast ballots to restore the old model.

In either case, residents taking charge and enacting higher quality, cost-saving school budgets is an idea whose time has come. The old ways of making change at the town level don’t work anymore, and the public knows it. Expect to see more of this kind of citizen action in the future.

Jim Peschke