The new stimulus money for saving teachers' jobs is not limited to saving teacher jobs. Less than 500 teachers were facing layoff last spring in Washington - a fraction of the 3,000 Murray funded, as we reported in part I on August 13. What will the school administrators do with the money?
Peter Callahan at Tacoma News Tribune, who discovered the fiction of saving 3,000 jobs, dug further. He found that the money is not limited to saving jobs, as claimed, but can be used for almost anything. There is no barrier to school districts moving the funds; there is at the state level. Blank check. More administrators with nice offices, instead of teachers in the classroom. Pay raises for them?
In the continuing search for details about the $206 million in education jobs fund money that will start flowing to the state's 295 school districts next month, I asked federal officials about so-called anti-supplanting rules.Why did the federal Department of Education (DOE), which requested the bill, ask for such loose language?That's the language placed in most federal education appropriations to prevent states from replacing state money with federal money. The point is to make sure federal funds are to enhance support of schools, not simply replace money that otherwise would have flowed from the state.
But the anti-supplanting rules in the education jobs proposal (called Supplement, Not Supplant or SNS) apply only to states. There does not appear to be anti-supplanting rules that apply to the local school districts. This was confirmed by technical staff with the federal Department of Education.
The department wants the money to be used quickly and wants it to go toward school building jobs - rehiring laid off staff, preserving existing staff or hiring new staff. But because the money can be used on existing staff, spending it that way would presumably free up dollars already budgeted from existing sources - mostly state appropriations and local levy money.
So what can districts do with those freed-up dollars? Anything they would normally spend money on including the things that the program specifically prohibits the states to do such as fill rainy day funds or pay down debt. It could also be used for a purpose the federal dollars cannot be used for _ central administration. ...
This was done so that districts could have flexibility and be creative with the money, department staff said. And the department hopes it will be used to immediately boost education and preserve school-based jobsDOE "hopes" the money will be used for its intended purpose. They are pretty naive. There are a lot of creative people figuring out how to use it. Yes, their first interest is education. But they will make sure - sure - that they spend every dollar, somehow.
-- See also "Truth Needle! False: Murray's statement about teachers' jobs in today's Seattle Times.
Cross-posted at Economic Freedom.
Posted by Ron Hebron at August 24, 2010 08:00 AM | Email ThisObviously, the operative term here. Deceptive tactics like this, if exposed by Sir Dino in the 'debates' (hopefully they have some) can go far in his support. Come on Dino jump on this. :)
Posted by: Duffman on August 24, 2010 08:17 AMWhile in the big scheme of things this may not be the most egregious case of political pork:
Somehow it's a classic example of why the ''pork process'' is a bad idea:
Borrow (or steal, if you prefer) more and more money from future generations, and use inefficient and uncontrolled government redistribution to support the goals of short-term political expediency.
Congratulations. You couldn't have missed the point of the piece more deliberately. Well done.
Posted by: jimg on August 24, 2010 10:38 AMThe local school districts are failing kids at an alarming rate, spending more money than ever, and creating excuses instead of progress.
When - and if - local school districts prove they can manage themselves, we should trust them. When the drop out rate is better than 20% and less than a 1/3rd of kids in school take the courses necessary to succeed in college (nevermind business) I don't trust them one bit and neither should anyone else.
Posted by: johnny on August 24, 2010 12:39 PMThat results in situations like our where our school was paying for 15% more teachers out of our property tax levy (with great results after the targeted lowering of class sizes) about 8 years ago, and since we've had to cut those down to 0% additional in order just to pay the salary increases on the Federal paid teachers that the state mandates but wouldn't pay for.
To top that all off, our great state rules force us to come up with a ton of money for special ed, so much so that we spend additional teachers worth out of property tax (thus reducing our maintenance and the like so we have to make more capital expenditures later) because those aren't funded but we're required to spend them.
I could go on and on. The issue is more that the state and feds (and unions) put so much red tape and regulation on the districts that they have to try to teach kids with one hand and two legs tied behind their backs.
Posted by: Doug on August 24, 2010 01:16 PM"See NEA, look at all the suckers'--I mean---taxpayers' dollars we just threw at your members. We love using taxpayer dollars to buy votes! Now give us money for our fall political campaigns. We democrats aren't exactly in for an easy time of, ya know....
Posted by: Michele on August 24, 2010 08:31 PMDino WON'T vote for that garbage. Somebody ought to pin her down by making her say how she'll vote for this thing. I smell a rat in her current. "undecided" status. She knows full well that the garbage-y C&T is unpopular and is afraid to state her support for it, even though it is a liberal fascist's dream. Because she knows she could lose votes. I'm calling her out on this!
Patty, you don't fool me.....
Posted by: Michele on August 24, 2010 11:49 PM