Welcome
In 2004, then Superintendent of Public Instruction Mike Ward called the discretionary reduction a "misguided" proposal. Eight years later, public school superintendents have begun to speak out against the policy, which requires school districts to return a portion of their state funding. Are there political motives behind their sudden realization that the discretionary reduction is bad?
Bulletin Board
- On Tuesday, April 17, NC SPIN will be celebrating the presentation of their 700th weekly program. Join the NC SPIN gang and special guest Bob Schieffer, host of CBS TV’s Face the Nation, for what promises to be an entertaining event. The celebration will be held at the American Tobacco Complex (Bay 7) in Durham and begin at 6:45 pm. To register, visit the NC SPIN website.
- The North Carolina History Project would like educators and homeschool parents to submit lesson plans suitable for middle and high school courses in North Carolina history. Please provide links to NC History Project encyclopedia articles and other primary and secondary source material, if possible. Go to the NC History Project website for further information.
- JLF’s research newsletter archive. Booyah!
CommenTerry
Last week, the NC State Board of Education and Department of Public Instruction hosted a budget forum for district superintendents. Many of the 26 school leaders that attended the event complained that the General Assembly would continue to require districts to return a portion of their state funding allotment, called the "discretionary reduction." (The discretionary reduction is also called the "LEA adjustment," "flexibility reduction," and "negative reserve.") Of course, these complaints would have been useful several years ago when the Democrat controlled legislature began to add millions of dollars to the discretionary reduction.
Democratic legislators began incorporating a discretionary reduction in the budget to conceal cuts to public education spending, but these reductions remained relatively small until 2009. As I pointed out last year, the Democratic majority passed a budget in 2009 that included a $225 million discretionary cut and a $304.8 million reduction the year after. The 2011–13 budget proposed by Governor Perdue maintained the cuts at the $305 million level, but Republicans added millions more. I have gone on record as opposing the discretionary reduction and still believe that Republicans were wrong to perpetuate "another foolish Democratic idea for the sake of political showmanship."
But NC’s State Board of Education and Department of Public Instruction (DPI) took showmanship to a new level last week by hosting a budget forum for public school district superintendents. One by one, these superintendents railed against the discretionary reduction, the expiration of federal education funds, and other hardships that, they implied or claimed, could be solved instantly through substantial increases in funding.
At the April State Board of Education meeting, Chairman Bill Harrison denied that partisanship was involved in the superintendent forum. Yet budget decreases and discretionary reductions are nothing new. What changed? Could it have anything to do with the fact that Republicans now control the General Assembly?
Predictably, Harrison failed to explain why the state had not organized similar events in the past. Such an explanation would have forced him to admit that state education officials praised the discretionary reduction when Democratic majorities ruled the legislature. In a 2010 DPI press release, state education officials declared,
There are positives in the Senate budget, including the additional flexibility tools local school district leaders can use to make decisions about funding cuts at the local level. The Senate budget also left the discretionary reduction — also known as a negative reserve or flexibility adjustment — at the $304 million level already written in the 2010-11 budget rather than increasing it. The flexibility adjustment is a requirement for local school districts to return a specific amount of state dollars as a part of the budget.
In other words, DPI argued that the discretionary reduction was "positive" in 2010 but "negative" in 2012. What happened to talk about "flexibility tools" and the ability of school districts to "make decisions about funding cuts at the local level?"
I am disappointed that state budget writers continue to employ the discretionary reduction concept. And I have no doubt that it has forced public school superintendents to make tough budget and personnel decisions. Nevertheless, state education leaders and school superintendents would have had much more success lobbying the legislature to eliminate the discretionary reduction in its infancy. For their failure to do so, they only have themselves (and their politics) to blame.
Random Thought
Let’s come together as a community and agree that the exclamation "booyah" should never be used again.
Facts and Stats
Next year, the discretionary reduction will require public schools to return 6.8 percent of the state funds appropriated to them. (NC DPI, Supplemental Budget Request, p. 1)
Mailbag
I would like to invite all readers to submit announcements, as well as their personal insights, anecdotes, concerns, and observations about the state of education in North Carolina. I will publish selected submissions in future editions of the newsletter. Anonymity will be honored. For additional information or to send a submission, email Terry at [email protected].
Education Acronym of the Week
LEA — Local Education Agency
Quote of the Week
"LEGISLATORS:PLEASE ELIMINATE THE DISCRETIONARY CUT"
– John D. Farrelly, Superintendent of Washington County Schools, in a presentation titled "Crisis in the Community, Crisis in the Classroom," April 3, 2012.
Click here for the Education Update archive.
