What’s the best way to cope with overcrowded classrooms and aging school buildings? For many school systems in North Carolina, constructing bright and shiny new schools – funded by school bonds – is the remedy of choice for our statewide facilities crisis. For the most part, taxpayers have given the go-ahead, passing 74 school bond issues (.pdf) since 1995, and rejecting just 20. The price tag for such taxpayer beneficence is a steep $7.3 billion.
On November 6th, voters in Mecklenburg County will head to the polls to weigh in on a $516 million bond referendum for Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools (CMS). Bond proponents are doing their best to ensure the measure gets a green light from voters, highlighting dilapidated structures and classrooms brimming over with children.
County residents are listening. According to a recent poll, 65 percent of registered voters favor the bond package. But if history is any indication, support could erode before final votes are cast. Indeed, back in 2005, early polling indicated that 60 percent of voters supported Mecklenburg’s then $427 million bond issue. But 57 percent went on to vote against – and ultimately defeat – the referendum six months later.
This time around, opposition is coming from citizens who question district spending priorities, what they see as an inequitable distribution of resources, and neglected suburban schools.
It can’t help, either, that the credibility of claims about exploding CMS enrollments recently came under fire. According to data released Tuesday, officials overestimated student growth by about 40 percent. This marks the first time in four years that actual growth failed to meet projections.
Supporters have also minimized the potential economic fallout of the bond on taxpayer wallets, suggesting it could have an impact of about four cents on the property tax rate, or about five dollars a month on a $150,000 house. But as NCEA director Lindalyn Kakadelis pointed out in a recent debate (airing on PBS affiliate, WTVI), unless our spending paradigm changes, the current bond measure actually represents a down payment on a 10-year, $3.7 billion school construction plan. This isn’t just a one-time drop in the bucket.
Still, there’s no denying the fact that attendance in many state schools exceeds capacity. What should we do? Rather than relying so heavily on school bonds, we ought to approach our facilities needs with a healthy dose of creativity and frugality.
One way to do this is by promoting greater school choice – removing the state’s cap on charter schools and offering tuition tax credits to families using private or home schools. Doing so would substantially alleviate the current financial burden on taxpayers: after all, these schools do not receive state or local dollars for capital expenditures. According to John Locke Foundation education analyst Terry Stoops, even with limited school choice in North Carolina, “Charter, private, and home school students saved taxpayers nearly $900 million or approximately $5,600 per student in capital costs since 2000.” Based on Stoops’ analysis, school choice in Mecklenburg County has already saved taxpayers close to $185 million in facilities expenses since 2000.
Counties should also build smarter, not bigger. The Winston-Salem/Forsyth system has a strong record of doing just that: efficiency and functionality in school building plans routinely trump style, delighting the cost-conscious taxpayer if not the school architect.
Finally, school systems could look to a panoply of affordable bond alternatives to help with facilities needs, including: providing incentives for more public-private partnerships, employing modular construction, and re-purposing vacant buildings.
Here’s the bottom line: sure, facilities are important, but constructing architectural marvels isn’t the end-game of public education. If we’re serious about getting the biggest bang for our educational buck, let’s keep our buildings basic and target most of our resources for classroom instruction and programs demonstrated to improve student performance.
It’s your tax money anyway. Make sure county leaders spend it wisely.