Paying for the schools we need

The First Judicial District Court’s momentous decision that New Mexico’s school finance system is inadequate may provide the impetus, at long last, for meaningful action to improve the state’s dismal education performance (“School funding decision a win for kids,” Our View, July 24).

District Court Judge Sarah Singleton’s ruling spotlights the state’s failure to provide “sufficient” schooling for lowincome, limited-English-proficient and other at-risk students. It sets an April 2019 deadline for corrective action. The court’s powerful findings, combined with a new administration taking office in January, may create an opening for the substantial funding increases and changes in resource allocation needed to upgrade New Mexico schools.

While no magic number of additional dollars would guarantee “sufficiency,” two points suggest the relevant magnitudes:

The state’s per-student appropriation for public schools for 2018-19, adjusted for inflation, is almost 12 percent below its pre-recession (2008-09) level. An additional $370 million would have had to be appropriated in 2018-19 just to restore the 2008-09 level of support.

The state’s main school funding formula, the State Equalization Guarantee, gives districts only a token extra allotment, 6 percent, for each poor and English language-learner student. To raise that percentage high enough to support meaningful supplemental services for such students — say, to 25 percent — would require $250 million to $400 million in additional annual funding, depending on how “at-risk” is defined.

These increases, combined, imply $600 million to $700 million in added annual spending, or 21 to 25 percent more than the actual $2.8 billion appropriation for 2018-19 — and this omits such other highpriority items as universal pre-K education and raising teacher salaries.

If additional funding on such a scale were to materialize, how should it be allocated to better educate New Mexico’s at-risk children? Simply dispensing more money through the State Equalization Guarantee formula would be ineffective. Even allotting 25 percent extra per at-risk student would shift funding only modestly toward districts where such students are concentrated. More important, it would not ensure that those particular students actually benefit. To provide that assurance requires a different mode of financing — one that allocates funds specifically for programs that increase either the amount or the intensity of instruction for at-risk students.

The state does support one program, K-3-Plus, that increases the amount of instruction for some at-risk students by

extending their school year by 25 days. With sufficient funding, K-3-Plus could be transformed into a universal, formulafunded program that serves all at-risk students in grades K-3 and beyond. But there also are alternative approaches, such as extending the school day or intensifying instruction by providing, say, five-student reading classes or one-to-one tutoring. No single program design would have to be imposed.

What does seem essential, however, is that at-risk students be served by distinct categorical programs, funded by formula separately from the general funding of schools. Separation is a prerequisite for accountability. It would allow for the vigorous monitoring and enforcement needed to guarantee that funds designated for at-risk students actually generate additional services for the intended beneficiaries. Judge Singleton, in her decision, identifies a new accountability system as critical for ensuring that the needs of at-risk students are met.

New Mexico has a chance now to redress its grave, longrunning education shortcomings. To do so, the state must increase school spending and direct much of the increase to programs for at-risk students. Both new funding formulas and new accountability mechanisms are needed. We do not know now either how the judicial process will play out or how the Legislature will respond. Let us hope that state policymakers will rise to the occasion, so that the present opportunity will not be missed. Stephen M. Barro, Ph.D., lives in Placitas. He served as witness for the plaintiffs last August in the trial of the school finance case before Judge Sarah Singleton.