David Hann: Big-picture question on schools: Who has control?

I agree with John Malone ("Levy votes don't occur in a climate of fair debate," Nov. 3) that thoughtful dialogue about school funding is often absent in the political environment in which public schools exist. However, I take issue with the essential points of his argument.

Malone decries the fact that some suburban districts get more than 20 percent of their funding from local, voter-approved levies. Yet after the "Minnesota Miracle" of the 1970s and following recent property-tax reform, Minnesota ranks nearly the highest of all states in percentage of school funding provided by state resources. The point of the debate is: Should school districts be substantially locally controlled and funded, or should we continue on the path of making them administrative subunits of central state government? Under which scenario are parents likely to have the most control over the education provided for their children? Under which are they likely to gain the greatest accountability? Is it easier to change a school board or the makeup of the Legislature?

That many local voters are not persuaded to increase funding for their districts is concerning, but not for the reasons Malone maintains. The interests of school employees typically dominate local elections -- which are held during "off years" in order to be insulated from large voter turnout. If local residents cannot be persuaded to support increased funding for the schools their children attend, why should we expect citizens across the state to pay higher taxes to support them?

Malone also cites the recent phenomenon of "outside consultants" helping citizen groups organize opposition to levies as evidence of polarizing politics harmful to the mission of education. Yet we think nothing of the aggressive political natures of employment unions and their allies, or of district administrations and their lobbyists, spending huge amounts throughout the year, not just at levy time. We also should note that the funding sources for these organizations come from the tax dollars raised for education. In the case of the unions, we compel employees by law to contribute money as a condition of employment and pay school administrators to collect their dues for them. Is this kind of political activity benign? Does it contribute to "thoughtful dialogue"?

Lastly, I have to challenge the canard regarding the "absence of adequate state funding." This is proof that if something is repeated publicly often enough, people accept it as fact.

The website of the Minnesota Department of Education displays revenue trends over the last 14 years and shows that every school district in the state has received per-pupil funding surpassing the rate of inflation. In fact, the statewide average is 27 percent above inflation over that time period. In response to this, we often hear that we need to use a "more accurate" inflation index instead of the consumer price index. The irony here is that the largest share of school district expense is not driven by inflation at all; rather, the top expenditures of every district's general fund are salaries and benefits, costs arrived at through the contract-bargaining process. These are deliberate decisions made by school districts and unions, and to attribute this action to inflation is disingenuous.

I entirely agree that our education system is overly political. But the kind of reform Malone advocates is intended to increase the dominant political role in which his organization and others defending the status quo are invested. What they seek is to devise a funding system that will guarantee continually increasing amounts of money with as little public resistance as possible.

Concentrating the debate over education at the state level makes it much easier for it to be dominated by political interests. What we need instead is to depoliticize education by restoring authority over education to parents through stronger local school boards and more-robust school choice models. As with higher education, we should primarily fund students and families and allow them to take their dollars to the education venues that best meet their needs as they determine them.

Increasing the power of state politicians and publicly funded interest groups will only further the movement toward costly, ineffective schools and will increase citizens' resistance to playing the role of bystanders who are called upon only to provide unlimited amounts of money to be spent by those who claim to know better than they do how to spend it.

Meanwhile, the actual education of our children is relegated to an afterthought.

David Hann, R-Eden Prairie, is a member of the Minnesota Senate.

©2007 Star Tribune. All rights reserved.