"Borrowing is not a strategy to solve spending issues."
--Baker Kurrus
Good faith. It's hard to find a real community leader in Little Rock who's acting in any way except through good faith. Sure, a few union bosses or others might still hold a grudge against the state for taking over Little Rock's schools. But for the most part, all we see is good faith when it comes to improving the Little Rock School District.
Who'd rather see kids improve more than Johnny Key? Unless it's Baker Kurrus. Who'd rather see kids improve more than Baker Kurrus? Unless it's Michael Poore. Even guest columnists in this paper opposed to the tax extension say the other side has only good intentions. But you know what the road to the Other Place is paved with.
Early voting is underway for the special election Tuesday to extend a millage in Little Rock by 14 years. Some say it's not a new tax, only an extension. Technically they are correct. But if your house note stayed the same--but you had to pay it another 14 years--would you consider that an additional financial burden? Of course. Taxpayers would not pay any more property taxes annually compared to what they are currently paying. But there would be a cost to the school district.
If this tax extension passes, millions of dollars each year will go into servicing an additional $160 million of debt. Is that the best way to improve Little Rock's schools?
Baker Kurrus, the former superintendent of Little Rock's schools, put out a lengthy analysis of this tax plan the other day. We'll save our disagreements with him concerning charter schools--and how they help students, families and even school districts--for another day. Baker Kurrus, who knows a few things about numbers and the schools, says this will be the first school tax he'll ever vote against. And his reasoning is . . . well, he's Baker Kurrus. Which means his reasoning is worth considering.
"Although it is wonderful to have nice and new facilities," he writes, "the problems of LRSD will not be solved by this borrowing. Millions of dollars have been spent on facilities without any major impacts, and academic performance in LRSD is not correlated to the age or condition of its facilities . . . ."
Amen. When was the last time a school superintendent--or even a former school superintendent--admitted as much? There are charter schools operating in old business buildings that are doing wonders for kids. And the newest, brightest, most expensive classroom in the world can't teach a kid a thing. The secret to a great education isn't even a secret. Everybody knows what it takes: great teaching.
If Little Rock's school district could attract the best teachers, test scores would rise, and the decline in enrollment would stop. Folks would flock back to the schools if the schools were the best. And how do you get the best teachers and the best schools and the best of everything else? Competition helps. So does merit pay, bonuses for jobs well done, recognition for the best of the best. And, yes, even the trimming of those who are just sleepwalking to retirement.
You know, the same things that inspire folks in every other human endeavor.
The days of a monopoly in the public schools are over, not just in Little Rock and Arkansas, but throughout the country. Charter schools are here to stay because parents--and other taxpayers--demand it. Private schools will be here as long as there are folks willing to pay tuition. And families that can't afford private schools and can't get their kids into one of those charter slots have the option of moving to a bedroom community down the road. Little Rock can't not compete.
In Mr. Kurrus' analysis, he notes that when he was still superintendent, he thought that Little Rock could build a high school in southwest Little Rock if (1) the district cut administrative costs, (2) closed schools that were "substantially" empty anyway, and (3) eliminated excess positions.
But if this tax extension passes, doesn't that reduce the incentive to make these hard choices that could make Little Rock's school district competitive?
Baker Kurrus says the new debt service will be an incremental $8 million more every year until 2033 then another incremental $22 million from then until 2041.
Instead of paying millions more each year to service debt, wouldn't that money be better used to improve teaching and learning in all the schools?
We believe southwest Little Rock needs a new high school, and we believe it will be built with or without the new bond issue. We also believe Michael Poore inherited a lot of deferred maintenance issues with the schools, and those could be addressed quicker with the new bond issue. But we also think those could be paid for from the surplus from the current 12.4 mills devoted to debt service.
Many of those both for and against the $160 million in new bonds want a better school system for the long run. The question is what is the right decision to make Little Rock's school district more competitive. Whatever the vote, we believe Johnny Key and Michael Poore are the right leaders who will continue to improve Little Rock's school district until they get more schools out of academic distress and returned to local control. When they get the school district out of academic distress, we think that would be a better time to borrow more money and take on the heavier debt burden.
Editorial on 05/05/2017