What should the state spend on public schools?

In Olympia today, there is only one right answer: More.

And that answer has budget-busting consequences.

Gov. Chris Gregoire, the current education governor – when has the mansion not been occupied by an education governor? – has proposed increasing per student spending by 25 percent. Republicans don’t disagree, though they might spend it differently. And the governor has called her education budget, which goes a long way toward depleting a $1.9 billion surplus, just a down payment.

Not satisfied with promises, nine school districts went to court earlier this month, suing for more state money. They didn’t say how much they wanted, possibly to avoid low-balling the judge. The courts can be very generous with other people’s money.

But there are limits to how much is available. The current surplus will be spent in a few years. And when “more” means higher taxes, public support erodes quickly.

Perhaps, rather than focusing on how much we are spending, we should be asking how well existing money is being spent.

Marguerite Roza, a researcher with Education Sector, an independent education policy think tank supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and other national foundations, has asked and answered that question. Dr. Roza believes nearly $1 of every $5 spent on public education could be put to better use. As she points out, education is a labor-intensive business.

In her recently released report, Roza looked at eight common provisions of teacher contracts that “obligate schools to spend large amounts of money on programs that lack a clear link to student achievement.” Among them: basing pay raises on years of experience and educational credentials, professional development days, paid sick and personal days, class-size limitations, use of teacher aides, and above-average health and pension benefits. Nationally, these provisions tie up about $77 billion in “frozen assets,” 19 percent of school budgets.

Seniority pay, “a bedrock principle” of industrial unionism, ties up the most money, about 10 percent of school spending, more than half the 19 percent she’d like “repurposed.” Roza says there’s no direct relationship with seniority and classroom effectiveness. Pay may be more productively tied to performance. Similarly, increased compensation for additional education can’t be justified across the board. Master’s degrees in math and science may yield direct benefits, but she finds scant evidence that graduate training in other fields makes much difference. There’s more. She makes a compelling case for compensation reform and contract flexibility.

Thawing these “frozen assets” would allow leaders to redirect the money to programs more likely to improve student achievement. For example, she says schools could boost minimum salaries for teachers, provide bonuses for teaching in low-performing schools or specializing in tough subjects like math and science, invest in new technology, extend the school day or offer Saturday classes.

A University of Washington researcher with a UW doctorate in education and undergraduate degrees in math and economics from Duke University, Roza is not the educators’ enemy. Her approach is entirely consistent with Gov. Gregoire’s emphasis on improved government management and accountability.

But as folks who follow this stuff know, there’s little appetite for education reform that doesn’t begin – and sometimes end – with substantial new spending. There’s been only token media coverage. All I’ve seen is a single story in the Washington Post and I’ve found nothing on it locally. Union leaders and school administrators are quick to defend a clearly flawed status quo. She’s being roundly criticized on the union blogs.

Still, when I interviewed her last week, she was hopeful.

“I think we have been seeing a lot of progress (nationally),” she says, “and we’ll see more (as) contract provisions align with student achievement.” That means putting money where it will do the most good, scrapping lock-step compensation schedules and allowing labor and management to work together to produce the best results. Without fundamental change, it’s unlikely that increased spending will lead to better outcomes.

The state will spend more on education this year – the money’s available and the WASL math scores are awful. No objection here. But if they want to win over a skeptical public, lawmakers will want to turn the heat up on those frozen assets.