Quality education? Then prove it

When the Legislature's Quality Schools Interim Committee finishes its business, it would be nice to have a complete explanation of what, exactly, they have done.

The school funding issue, to refresh memories, is the product of a lawsuit and a Supreme Court ruling that determined Montana's schools were not being adequately funded to provide a Constitutionally guaranteed "quality education."

So, naturally, we hoped that the Legislature would regard this matter as an opportunity to reform the way Montana schools are funded. And better yet, it could be viewed as a chance to actually improve the quality of education that's delivered in Montana.

That's most likely wishful thinking, judging from the recent actions of the committee.

The panel at one point approved a funding increase of $4,000 per classroom at a statewide cost of about $33 million, mostly for the purpose of improving teacher recruitment and retention. But last week, committee members voted to withdraw that increase, because they considered findings in a study showing that recruitment and retention is mainly a problem for Montana's smaller or more rural schools. Rep. Pat Wagman, R-Livingston, argued that money aimed at recruitment and retention should be targeted toward schools that actually have that problem.

This week, the committee voted 6-2 to reinstate the $33 million blanket funding, after being battered with criticism from other lawmakers and education leaders.

That's not a good sign for anybody silly enough to suggest something like merit pay provisions as a means to encourage teacher recruitment and retention, along with improving educational quality. Why spread pay raises equitably to the small percentage of bad teachers that are surely out there? How does that raise the quality bar? It doesn't matter, because funding increases from the Legislature are ultimately going to be parceled out, district by district, through collective bargaining. That means it's entirely possible for the teachers with the greatest longevity to get a $1,000 raise, while the lowest paid or newest teachers get a much smaller raise. How that will improve recruitment and retention is beyond us.

It is not encouraging that Wagman now describes the panel's efforts as "protracted labor negotiations" that are primarily concerned with "wages and contracts."

"We haven't talked about student achievement. We haven't talked about anything but health insurance and salaries," Wagman tells us. "It's about the system. It's not about the product."

A plan that just throws more money at schools is not likely to measure up to the expectations of Montana taxpayers, who rightly should insist on a better, more durable funding system that can at least resist future lawsuits. We fear that won't be the case. Another round of litigation could focus on the adequacy and quality of school facilities - a reality that the state of Wyoming is now dealing with.

There's another surprise in this for any Montana taxpayer who was living with the delusion that their local property taxes would not go up as a result of the Supreme Court decision. A big issue in this case revolves around the need to reverse a shift that has occurred over the last 10-15 years, where the state Legislature has been providing a lesser share of total funding while local taxpayers have been providing a bigger piece of the pie. Never mind that the money all comes from the same taxpayers, the only difference is in how it's distributed.

The legislative committee's plan will likely require the state to provide a bigger share, but the yet-to-be determined, total price tag for a constitutional "quality" education is likely to be high enough to drive up local property taxes as well.

It remains to be seen what, finally, will come from the committee, and whether it will be a good enough product to warrant a special session sometime in December. But whatever they come up with, we hope the committee can explain and justify its final product in detail. We hope they can sell it to the public, and not just to the education lobbyists who have been hovering over the committee's every move.