More Public Ed Fertilizer

by Craig Cantoni

Something of value can sometimes be found in a pile of fertilizer.  That is the case with the Scottsdale school district's facilities plan. The consulting firm that produced the pile, er, plan, is getting something of value:  a fee of $288,000.

The plan lists two options for upgrading schools over the next 10 years, one costing $294 million and the other costing $300 million.

Curiously, the plan does not list doing nothing as an option, although doing nothing deserves serious consideration, for two reasons. One, the district will be in compliance with state facilities standards by the end of this fiscal year without the need for $294 or $300 million in new spending. Two, current facilities will be able to absorb the district's projected enrollment growth without the need for the additional spending.  

So why does the district want to spend $294 or $300 million and not anything less?  To satisfy the wishes of parents.  It knows the wishes of parents because the consultant has been asking them what they want.  For example, parents were asked if they wanted larger or smaller class sizes.  They also were asked if they wanted longer or shorter distances between home and school.    

Asking parents what they want for their kiddies is like asking five-year-olds what they want for Christmas.  Cost does not matter in public education, because parents pay only a small fraction of the cost and have no idea what the district spends to educate their darlings.  The consulting firm did not give them the numbers, thus sparing them the pain of finding out that there is no Santa Claus.

I know exactly what it costs to educate my son.  It costs $340 a month in tuition.  I know the cost because he attends parochial school, where the teacher-pupil ratio is 1 to 35, where the school building is 45 years old, and where the cost is about half that of public schools.  I do not want a smaller teacher-pupil ratio or a fancy new campus closer to home, because the money would come out of my pocket.  That makes me weigh cost-benefit tradeoffs, which is something that public school parents and district consultants do not have to weigh.  

I also know that academic achievement has little to do with buildings.  My Catholic alma mater is considered one of the best high schools academically in the St. Louis metropolitan area.  Built in 1910, it would have been torn down long ago by the Scottsdale district, which believes that anything built before 1970 has reached the end of its useful life.

The Arizona School Facilities Board commissioned a study to determine if there is a correlation between the quality of buildings and the quality of education.  The study was inconclusive.  Yet the state is spending hundreds of millions on buildings under the Students First legislation.  But even that is not enough for the Scottsdale district.

A valuable lesson can be found in the district's pile of fertilizer.  The lesson is that cost is no object when it comes to public money. That explains the runaway costs of not only public education but also of Medicare, Medicaid and other entitlements.  It also explains why the state is facing a huge budget deficit.

Unfortunately, the public school establishment has been dishing out fertilizer for so long that it has gotten used to the smelly business of flushing other people's money into the bottomless pit of public education.
____________

Mr. Cantoni is an author, public speaker and consultant.  He can be reached by e-mail at ccan2@aol.com.

Last update: 3/12/2002; 7:46:08 PM.