April
8, 2002
NMFEE Press Release
The Political Economy of Educating Children
by Christine Trujillo, president
New Mexico Federation of Educational Employees, AFT/AFL-CIO
Sliding down the slippery slope of privatizing New Mexico's public
schools has begun in earnest. On April 3, the Albuquerque Public Schools
Board of Education agreed to put out to bid the management of 'low
performing schools' by for-profit corporations.
Edison Schools, Inc., the nation's largest private educational
management firm, was present at the board meeting. Edison representatives
urged the board to move quickly. Federation representatives voiced
concerns based upon Edison's past performance record.
On April 5, a committee of the State Board of Education met to draft
language that would allow private corporations to bid on 'probationary
schools' statewide. Edison, Inc. and other for-profit corporations were
invited to attend the meeting.
The Federation must ask, "Why are policymakers and politicians so
anxious to turn over our schoolchildren to these out-of-state profit
centers?" Why the rush to experiment when decision makers have not
exhausted local remedies? And, why should politicians want to give Edison,
Inc. public tax dollars when its claims about improving school performance
are not supported by the facts?
First, let's look at the local remedies politicians should try before
giving private corporations public money to solve public problems. From
our professional viewpoint, legislators and school boards are simply not
investing enough resources in public education. That's the real reason for
'low performing' schools.
Since 1981, public education money, which depends on income and gross
receipts taxes, has not kept pace with inflation. Adjusted for inflation,
New Mexico's education dollar is worth just about as much as it was in the
70s. Recently, Sen. Kent Cravens said on a local radio show that the
schools would have to get their houses in order before he would vote for
more money. We would like to see how efficiently Sen. Cravens could run
his new business on 1970 dollars.
The old saw, "...public schools get almost 50 percent of the state
budget, therefore we won't invest anymore...", just doesn't cut it.
It's like saying America can fight the new war against terrorism without
investing more money in Sandia Labs or the military. It can't and won't
happen.
If policymakers are sincere about fixing the 15 percent of New Mexico's
schools that are not performing adequately, then they'll simply have to
invest more money.
And, let's be clear about the number of public schools that are doing
well, too. A full 85 percent of New Mexico's schools are performing at or
above academic standards. That's a solid 'B' or 'very good' in our grade
books.
Professional educators, be they classroom teachers or school support
personnel, know what must be done to help students who are not performing
up to standards. Unfortunately, no one ever asks educators who work inside
public schools what needs to be done, so we're going to tell you now.
In our humble opinion, so long as lawmakers have the responsibility of
funding public education then they must find the money necessary to invest
in quality education.
Policymakers, as well as legislators, are responsible for New Mexico's
47th national ranking in what it pays educational employees. They are also
responsible for New Mexico's 27th national ranking in what it spends on
schoolchildren. It is nothing short of a modern miracle that public
educators are doing the great job that they are with such a small
investment.
Increasing investments now so New Mexico can improve these two rankings
will do more to help 'low performing' schools and schoolchildren than
anything else.
In a marketplace governed by the rules of capitalism, we must accept
the fact that higher pay will attract better-qualified educators thereby
resulting in higher student performance. There is a direct correlation.
Hiring more qualified educators will create lower pupil-teacher ratios
thereby resulting in smaller classes, more individualized instruction and
improved student performance. There is a direct correlation.
State-of-the-art educational materials, equipment and technology will
add to student performance, too.
Newer and remodeled schools also will contribute to better overall
student performance.
Finally, policymakers must move away from the old-world idea that
standardized test scores are a meaningful student performance indicator.
Better testing methods, such as criterion-referenced tests, must be used
to measure what students actually know and need to learn.
Implementing the local remedies listed above will be very expensive.
They will require an investment upwards of more than $500 million.
Policymakers and legislators will have to find and invest this money now
because these remedies are the only things that will get the job done.
However, turning over New Mexico's 'low performing' schools to
for-profit centers like Edison, Inc. will not get the job done. The sooner
lawmakers understand that, the less likely they will waste the public's
money. All one has to do is take a look at Edison's claims and contrast
them with the record.
Independent studies document that Edison schools perform at levels
similar to their host districts, but fail to make the gains Edison's
professional spin doctors claim.
Study after study compared student test data from the Edison schools
with data on schools in surrounding school districts as well as with state
and national norms on standardized tests. Edison students did not perform
as well as Edison, Inc. claims. In fact, Edison students'
criterion-reference performance often lagged behind district performance
and well below state standards, according to the studies.
(Editor's note: NMFEE has provided the ABQ Tribune and Journal with
hardcopy of two extensive evaluations of Edison schools' performance
record in other states. Newspapers readers can access these evaluations on
the Federation's website, www.nmfee.org.
When you surf to the website, click on the hearing, 'Edison's Record'.
Briefly, the reports demonstrate that Edison Schools do not substantially
perform better than public schools. But, read the reports and judge for
yourself.)
In fact, the Edison schools tend to cut corners so they can earn
profits and distribute them to their shareholders. This is, as President
Bush's Secretary of the Treasury said, "The genius of
capitalism." But is this what we want for our schoolchildren?
For example, Edison, Inc. hires novice teachers because they can be
paid less than experienced teachers.
Edison Inc. also hires fewer educators so pupil-teacher ratios are
higher in Edison schools.
Edison schools are open for 200 days a year and have an 8-hour school
day. Unfortunately, Edison, Inc. says it cannot compensate school
employees, who must volunteer to work in an Edison school, for the
additional work at their daily rates of pay.
Finally, there is a higher than normal turnover of Edison teachers and
paraprofessionals.
These facts are just some of the reasons why Edison schools cannot get
the job done, but reasons enough for policymakers not to invest the
public's money in Edison, Inc.