It's been said that money is the root of all evil. In public education, it is often believed that money is the root of all failure. Many teachers, consciously or not, point to low socio-economic status as one factor in low student achievement. Administrators cite a lack of state funding as the reason they cannot provide services that will improve performance, and parents and community members often believe the state pours more than enough money into public education causing a lack of focus by increasing programs and overpaying teachers, which (I'm sure) could be blamed for low student achievement.

Opinions aside, school finance is a topic that many in our profession do not understand - either by choice or by circumstance. Teachers are not financial gurus - if we were, we'd be accountants or stock brokers. For the most part, we do well keeping our own checkbooks balanced and making provisions for retirement. We don't spend a lot of time researching tax structures, budgets and funding formulas. So it's no wonder many of us do not realize what is involved in school finance. We are usually content to let the "experts" handle that as we go about our daily lives doing what we're experts at - teaching.

Last night, I attended the Southeast Region MSTA School Finance & Salary Workshop. Each year, we bring in MSTA salary consultants who complete "workups" based on school districts' budgets. They take information from the current and preceding five years, plug it into a proprietary computer program, and print out sixteen tables that provide a glimpse at each district's financial condition, including estimates for the next year. This information provides local salary committees a starting point for negotiating salary increases.

The best place to start in understanding school finance is with the philosophy behind the funding formula. Prior to this school year, districts were funded based on a tax-driven formula. The calculations for funding were based on the district's tax levy, and any amount above the minimum $2.75 per $100 assessed valuation was beneficial for districts in that they received more local monies and more state monies. While the old formula was in place, our district passed a levy increase (the first increase in years) to $3.20. It was a huge victory for our school, but one that was very short-lived.

The new operating levy was in effect for the 2003-04 school year, providing a half-million new dollars for the district. This was around the time that then-Governor Holden withheld funding from school districts and the funding debate had almost reached a boiling point in the state Capitol. The next two school years would see a lawsuit that forced the legislature to address the issue, ultimately resulting in a new, student-needs-driven formula.

The 2006-07 school year was the first in the seven-year phase-in period. This year, we received 85% of our funding from the 05-06 formula and 15% from the SB287 formula. By the year 2012-2013 (ironically, the year after 100% of the students must score in the top two levels on the MAP,) we will be receiving 100% of our funding from the new formula. The phase-in period was set to allow for an increase in school funding without any statewide tax increases.

The basic elements of the new formula include

• Weighted ADA (average daily attendance),
• State Adequacy Target ($6,117 per student),
• Dollar Value Modifier (presumed to adjust for cost of living),
• and Local Effort (the amount of money the district collects from local taxes).

The basic formula is (WADA) X (SAT) X (DVM) - (LE) = State Funding. The philosophy behind the formula is admirable, and the effort put forth by the legislature and the Governor to pass a new funding formula to address the needs of students and districts is commendable. Unfortunately, certain provisions in the formula still contribute to inequity among districts and put more of a burden on some districts than exists for others.

For our district, the Dollar Value Modifier is the most detrimental aspect of the new formula. In our consultation last night, we were assured that the position that our superintendent has taken is correct, and that our DVM value is hurting our school. This index, presumably a way to adjust revenue for districts based on their costs to operate in their geographic location, was part of a compromise between rural and suburban legislators that had to be settled before the funding bill would pass. The philosophy behind the DVM was that a suburban district would have higher costs (construction, utilities, salaries, etc.) than a rural district. The compromise was to tie a factor, ranging from 1.000 to 1.104, to the new funding. While a district with a 1.000 DVM would receive $6117 per student, a district with a 1.104 DVM would receive $6753 per student. In our district, this would be a difference of $1,204,965.60.

When the DVM chart was first published, superintendents like ours started looking at neighboring counties and seeing that districts not far from them were given DVMs that were much different than their own. The distance of a few miles could mean the difference of up to 1% of the total budget, and that didn't sit well many administrators. At first, I dismissed this notion as unwarranted jealousy. Over the past couple of years and after last night's meeting, I am more convinced now than ever that something must be done to ensure equity among economically similar districts. In a future post, I will address the issue of Dollar Value Modifier and what can be done to fix the disparities. For now, I want to shift gears and talk about the real reason for the workshop - salary analysis.

In the six years that I have worked in this district, we have increased salaries twice. Besides normal steps on the schedule for experience and education, our teachers have not received adequate raises. While surrounding districts have topped the $30,000 mark for starting salaries, we are still stuck at $25,500. There is no financial appeal for a new teacher to take a job in our district, and if they do settle for one, the salary schedule does not entice them to stay. For the past few years, we have lost first- and second-year teachers to neighboring districts because they were offered a more attractive salary schedule.

I have prepared a chart that shows MSTA salary statistics for eleven districts in our area. Most of these are in the MAAA Conference. Of the eleven, we rank tenth in overall salary analysis. This chart is not something for our community to be proud of. The administration and school board realize this and would do anything they could to improve. With the current funding situation, their hands are tied at the moment.

Based on MSTA data collected from our budget and analyzed yesterday afternoon, the total net monies available for total teacher fund budget change for 2007-08 will be $309,006. Considerations must be made for the .5% increase in retirement for all employees, after which only a portion of the remaining increase could be used for salary increases. At this time, the analysis shows that our district should once again refrain from increasing salaries - a move that will leave us even further behind others in our area.

It is time for our teachers, administrators and patrons to take action - to lobby for a revision of the Dollar Value Modifier and seek out alternative ways to increase the teacher fund to be able to afford increased salaries. We have a long way to go to just catch up - and our race will only get longer with every year that passes. Until we are able to find an effective way to increase teacher salaries in our district, the officers of CARE are afraid that we will continue to lose quality teachers to neighboring districts.

Based on the financial analysis, I plan to put forth a challenge to the executive committee and members of CARE to work with the administration and board to take an active role in fighting for our fair share. In this ballgame, the ball is in our court. We've been holding it for far too long, and time is almost over. We must act quickly, and we must act decisively. We can't wait for the legislators to make the call - we've gotta run the play.