Republicans insist we address our nation’s crumbling infrastructure and create jobs.
Democrats demand equity in school funding.
Here’s a bipartisan proposal on how to spend federal funds for our K-12 schools — more wisely than we just spent $7 billion under the Obama administration.
Fix their roofs and boilers. Make our schools safe.
I’m sure Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., sees the inequity for schools on the Eastern Plains. In November, his home county turned down the request for a $17 million bond issue to renovate and expand Yuma High School (1,086 against and 1,008 for). Gardner knows the struggle for small rural communities. Just in his former congressional district, similar bond requests also failed in Cheyenne County ($7 million request), Crowley County ($5.7 million), and Rocky Ford ($4.5 million).
I’m sure Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., understands why the new federal law, Every Student Succeeds Act, shuts down the largess of the School Improvement Grant (SIG). The U.S. Department of Education tell us that the Obama administration “has invested over $7 billion (since 2009) to transform more than 1,800 of the country’s lowest performing schools.”
But did it?
As a former superintendent who agonized over how best to turn around just one high school — Denver’s Manual High — Bennet surely realized, as few senators would, that Washington’s constraints on the way to spend billions for the “bottom 5 percent” (choose one of four models: turnaround, transformation, restart, or school closure) impeded flexibility and local control.
Several national reports present a positive story about SIG-funded “turnaround” efforts. Perhaps true, in at least a few states. But in Colorado, most of us who have followed the impact of the $70 million Washington has showered our way since 2010 — directed to 50 of our lowest-performing schools — are skeptical. Numerous reports on our SIG-funded efforts have shown little to celebrate.
One telling figure: No Colorado district has garnered more SIG dollars since 2010 — close to $30 million — than Denver Public Schools, intended to bring “dramatic improvement” to 19 low-performing schools. But look at Denver’s 2015-16 School Performance Framework. Only three of those schools is categorized as “meets expectations”: Fairview, Trevista, and North High School. The rest are “accredited on watch,” “on priority watch,” or — as with three still limping along — “on probation.”
Both parties can now see that it was foolish to speak of large grants from Washington as a way to “fix” chronically low-performing schools. The verb works for things, not people. You cannot fix weak leadership, poor teaching, or a dysfunctional school culture. But you can fix a roof — regardless of where the dollars come from.
If Republicans find all this maddening, Democrats are equally appalled at how unfair it is that students in Colorado go to school in aging buildings that do not meet a decent standard.
Under a President Donald Trump, we expect the federal government to take aggressive steps to improve our infrastructure. The big three areas we hear about: roads, bridges and airports. Add schools as a fourth, and most Americans will agree.
Since 2008, Colorado’s Building Excellent Schools Today (BEST), a competitive grant, has made a difference for many school districts. It “focuses on helping public schools with a multitude of capital construction needs, from new roofs and boilers to major renovations and new schools,” according to the Colorado Department of Education. The CDE reports that, when you add BEST grants and matching local funds, more than $1.2 billion has been invested in school projects, creating or supporting close to 20,000 jobs.
But itap too little. For all that good news, however, $1.6 billion in requests to BEST for capital construction projects has been denied — more than a few addressing basic health and safety concerns.
Most disturbing, last year’s statewide facility assessment found our schools need $17.9 billion in capital construction through 2018.
BEST remains a Band-Aid. Perhaps my proposal is simply another one.
I suspect Trump’s pledge to commit nearly $1 trillion for infrastructure is campaign hyperbole. And who can doubt that? As George F. Will wrote on these pages recently, government-initiated construction projects invite a host of “boondoggles.”
But there is something modest — and realistic — in saying, if federal dollars can help, we are probably better off not having Washington tell us to change your principal, replace 50 percent of your staff, and add more after-school programs.
Letap first get the boiler to work.
And keep that roof from caving in.
Peter Huidekoper Jr. is a coordinator for the Colorado Education Policy Fellowship Program.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit or check out our for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
