Today's guest column is by Richard A. DeColibus, president of the Cleveland Federation of Teachers. It is excerpted from a letter he wrote earlier this year to State Representative Patrick A. Sweeney to protest a $3.7 million cut in Cleveland's school budget and a proposed law to use public funds to sent children to private schools.
These are not good times for public education. All our best efforts threaten to be drowned in the rising tide of poverty and human misery our students experience at home and in their neighborhoods. While it is easy to attack the schools and say that we are at fault for pupils who do not come to school or do not learn, no one has yet told me how we are supposed to alter the new structure of the American family in order to produce children who are effective learners.
Contrary to what seems to be popular opinion, we are not simply a black hole which consumes money and produces nothing. Our per pupil expenditure of $6, 112 is almost exactly in the middle of the county (16th out of 31 school districts). Our salaries for experienced teachers are in the lower third of the county range.
My best guess is that your next concern runs something like, "Well, you may get about the same amount of money as everybody else, but your test scores are abysmal so obviously you don't use what you get wisely." I'd be the last to claim we use every cent wisely since half my life seems to be a battle with a central office administration that consumes enormous amounts of financial resources to sustain itself at the expense of the educational programs. However, even if that is cleared up our fundamental difficulty remains: How do you educate and train individuals who have no interest in being educated or trained?
I believe you understand that where the home does not provide a supportive environment, the child does not succeed, in school or in life. No doubt you're tired of hearing about it and consider it an excuse. Whether it is or not, it is a reality. Studies done in education, child development and anthropology support that conclusion.
If you believe we have not been successful in tailoring an educational structure to deal with this situation, you are correct. Neither has anybody else. Furthermore, it is hard even to convince people that we need to change. And if you clear that hurdle and get agreement on what the change ought to be, it still comes back to the parents. Let me correct that: It still comes back to the parent. In Cleveland, there are so few two-parent families with children in the schools that we no longer bother to use the plural.
A recent study done by researchers at Ohio State showed little correction between per pupil expenditure and achievement. Oh, really? Good. Then give us the $11,422 per pupil Beachwood can afford to spend on its children. Since money doesn't matter, there should be no ill effects on Beachwood' s student body.
What would I do with this windfall? The Business Roundtable says that every child must have an adult advocate. They are correct. The most troublesome pupils show amazing changes in attitude and behavior when paired with an adult who cares about their progress in school. In a 70,000 pupil district, we know from past experience that at least 30,000 of our students will not graduate unless we effectively intervene with a mentor.
Teachers can't do it. Most teachers make immense efforts to deal with students' social and emotional problems. But the number of children with problems and the depth and intractability of the problems are simply overwhelming. There is no time, and teachers are evaluated on student achievement through standardized test scores, not on solving student emotional crises. Find me 30,000 volunteer surrogate parents and I will agree with you that money won't matter because we will have what we need.
Everyone wants us to "get back to the basics." Trust me, we're very basic. Our curriculum is so basic, it's primitive; what we do not offer these kids is criminal in its neglect. I'm not a fan of the "school should be fun" theory of education, but it doesn't hurt to give students a few options they might enjoy, like a real music or art program.
Would you like us to cut some frills? Find me a frill to cut. Indeed, one of our most vexing problems has been that the Ohio General Assembly insists that we do this or that and then declines to provide us the money to do it. It's not that what is mandated is unworthy or evil; we agree with virtually all of it. Of course we want to educate all handicapped children in special education units. We do. But you do not provide the extra funding for all the units we need so we must take the difference from the general fund. We want everyone who intends to drive on Ohio roads to have driver education; indeed, you told us we had to offer it. But you didn't give us enough funding to cover the cost. I don't believe it's unreasonable to ask you to fund what you demand.
It is the responsibility of the Ohio General Assembly to provide adequate and equitable funding for public education in Ohio. I submit to you that the current situation whereby school districts must constantly beg an electorate for school levy money is a failure of that charge. Furthermore, in Cleveland, where we have a horrendous poverty rate, a large proportion of retired and other people on fixed incomes and only 25 percent of taxpayers with one or more children in the school system, it may NEVER be possible to pass a levy. What, then, are we to do? Do more with less? You are the elected representative of many of these children; we are awaiting your solution.