School Funding Reform: A Fast Approaching Disaster

[Bill Call]

See: http://www.news-herald.com/site/index.c ... t_id=21849

Why a disaster?

Because the reformers are assuming that one school fails because another succeeds; that Brunswick is at a disadvantage because Cleveland Heights spends so much. The solution? Make Brunswick spend more. The fact that Brunswick gets better results with less money is not relevant.

What are the goals of the "reformers"?

Remove local control for spending priorities.

Mandate annual increases for education funding, i.e, guaranteed double digit raises for the bureaucracies.

Mandate spending equality, i.e. huge increases in property taxes.

Mandate property tax exemptions for special classes of voters, i.e, create a critical mass of voters who will vote yes for property tax increases for the other guy.

Mandate spending but not results. Lots of money and no accountability, the perfect bureaucratic solution.

What aren't the "reformers" interested in? Finding out why schools that spend less achieve more.

A better reform?

Mandate that Cleveland Heights spend no more than Brunswick but get the same results. Just mandate that it happens and ABRACADABRA, it happens!

[Gary Rice]

In so many, many ways, a great deal of "local control" has gone the way of the mastodons and saber-toothed tigers.

With the "No Child Left Behind" mandates and state curriculum guides, our schools are already well on their way to becoming homogeneous; in many ways, not unlike fast-food restaurant chains.

Some approve of this, as raising standards. Others decry it, as failing to address diversity.

What it really seems to mean, is that schools, and how to fund and run them, have moved to the forefront of American politics.

Regarding "reformers"? There will always be reformers from every corner of the edu-political spectrum. The difference these days, seems to be that reforms seem to be measured less for their educational benefit, and sadly, more so for the political.

[Ivor Karabatkovic]

Bill,

it always amazes me how you make everything seem so easy to accomplish.

As for keeping our taxes down when more "Phases" of rebuilding come along in the near future, I don't have any answers to that other than when they closed down half of the school because of asbestos and kept us in it breathing that crap in every day instead of cleaning it up, it came back to haunt them and us the tax payers in two years.

I won't be here to vote or do any of that stuff in Lakewood I hope, because I'll be $35,000 in debt in Athens pursuing the best communications degree in the country.

Talk about paying for education...

[Bryan Schwegler]

I think if you create a state-wide uniform funding process, then teacher/staff contracts and salaries also need to be determined on a state-wide basis as well as other costs.

You can't regulate a state-wide revenue stream without doing the exact same thing on the expense side.

But to be honest, I'm not a big fan of the idea in general.

[Bill Call]

I think if you create a state-wide uniform funding process, then teacher/staff contracts and salaries also need to be determined on a state-wide basis as well as other costs.

My biggest beef is that the grand poobahs of the education bureacracy will announce a "minimum level of funding" that they say will be the result of thousands of hours of effort and complex funding analysis' that in reality is just a number they pull out of a hat.

If the minimum level is $8,000 how do they arrive at that number? How much for salaries, benefits, administration, books, field trips, special needs children, supplies, equipment? Will districts like Cleveland Heights that spend $15,000 per student have their funding cut? Will districts that refuse to pass levies have their funding raised? Who decides that $100,000 in pay and benefits is to little?

The whole scheme is a bureaucrats dream come true! An unending stream of ever increasing revenue with no accountablity! No need to ask for a levy just spend the money and send in the bill!

[David Anderson]

Bill, you can't be at this again? Am I in the movie "Groundhog Day"?

I love ya, Bill - as much as one "poster" can love another "poster" whom he's never met. But seriously!

You wrote, "A better reform? Mandate that Cleveland Heights spend no more than Brunswick but get the same results. Just mandate that it happens and ABRACADABRA, it happens!"

Where to begin? Okay, referring back to our debate months ago ...

1) Cleveland Heights/University Heights spends close to $2,700 more than Brunswick in per pupil instruction. It has a different student population with different needs. For example, 42% of CH/UH’s 6,139 student body is considered “economically disadvantagedâ€Â￾ as compared to 16.9% of Brunswick’s 7,269. Also, 17.7% of CH/UH’s student body are “students with disabilitiesâ€Â￾ as compared to 10.9% of Brunswick’s – this distinction comes with specific student/teacher ratio’s which are reflected in the bottom line.

2) The age of the school infrastructure has much to do with CH/UH spending $3,746 per pupil for building operations and expenses as compared to Brunswick’s $1,576.

3) CH/UH spends $363 per pupil in staff support such as professional development. By spending $101 per pupil on this item, Brunswick feels this is not important. (By the way, Orange District spends $879 of its $18,247 per pupil expenditure on staff support.)

4) Do not assume that graduating from high school implies that a Brunswick or CH/UH student has the skills needed to succeed in college, a trade, the military or other.

Bill, by forming an argument through comparing Brunswick to CH/UH you are doing exactly what you accuse the “grand poobahsâ€Â￾ downstate of angling to do – pulling numbers, or, in this case, justification out of a hat based on nothing. (By the way, those grand poobahs have refused and resisted defining a formal minimum level of overall funding for a decade now but have ceilings as to how much state money goes to a district's administration, buildings and operations, staff support, pupal support and instruction expenditure catagories.)

I imagine a plan that sets a base level and allows local districts to pass levies that fund beyond the base if they value education to a different level (Orange). Wait a minute. This is what we have now. The problem is that the base is dependent on local property taxes and not a state sales tax (passage of which could/should be accompanied by property tax relief).

Honestly, I do appreciate this civil discourse and my references to that madcap movie “Groundhog Dayâ€Â￾ are in fun.

What system do you prefer and please don't reply with "Mandate that Cleveland Heights spend no more than Brunswick but get the same results." This isn't apples to apples.

[ryan costa]

the solution is pretty simple. We need to start offering young teenagers who behave poorly in school the opportunity to earn money working as agricultural laborers in the summer. They'll need two bus tickets and a foot locker for their bunks. Other than that it should pay for itself.

[Dee Martinez]

Mr. Call

Suppose the state came down with an edict and said "Lakewood you cant spend any more money on your schools, even if you want to. We decree by state law that you only spend $10,000 per student. Even if you want to hire more math teachers or buy more computers, we wont let you"

Wouldnt that be taking away some local control? Beachwood spends $17,000 a year because they WANT to spend it. Same with Shaker. They believe in a gold standard public education (and they appear to be getting it) Where is it the states place to say they shouldnt?
Are you asking the state to save us from ourselves?

And you keep referring to Brunswick. That is a city that is desperately trying to pass new taxes to pay its bills, bills which arent going to go away or get smaller. The people who have moved down there form Lakewood and North Olmsted are realizing they want the same kind of services they left. For now the old farmers and small-towners have kept them at bay but its only a matter of time before THEIR spending goes up too.

[Bill Call]

Suppose the state came down with an edict and said "Lakewood you cant spend any more money on your schools, even if you want to. We decree by state law that you only spend $10,000 per student. Even if you want to hire more math teachers or buy more computers, we wont let you".

Much of the argument over education is about fairness. Is it fair that one district spends more than another? In some areas of Texas(?) they have what is called a Robin Hood Tax. Districts that spend too much have to contribute to districts that spend too little. The problem with coming up with education plans that you think are ridiculous is that some one some where has already tried it.

Beachwood spends $17,000 a year because they WANT to spend it. Same with Shaker. They believe in a gold standard public education (and they appear to be getting it) Are you asking the state to save us from ourselves?.

The amount of money spent (within certain limits) has no affect on the quality of education. I'm asking the State to get out of the education business or get serious about real reform. How? The first step is to ask the simple question: Why do districts that spend less get better results?

And you keep referring to Brunswick. That is a city that is desperately trying to pass new taxes to pay its bills,

The Brunswick City schools are in fine financial shape. Of course, you are right when you say eventually they will spend more and need more, that's how bureaucracies work.

I guess my biggest problem with "school reform" is that it measures success by the amount of money spent and not by the quality of the product.

[Gary Rice]

One big problem is how, exactly, we begin to measure the "quality of the product".

Remember the old IQ test? With a single number, it was felt that a determination could be made as to ones abilities.

100 IQ- average

Reading expectancy in the 5th grade? 5th grade, of course.

80 IQ- Below average

Reading expectancy in the 5th grade? Below 5th grade ability.

130 IQ- above average

Reading expectancy in the 5th grade? Well above 5th grade ability.

Then we got into the concept of people having more than one intelligence, or that somehow nurture could make up for IQ, or home upbringing, or lack thereof.

Or the disastrous theory today, that somehow seems to say that by Friday at noon, all of the students will pass the test at the same time.

Or else.

Bill has a point... up to a point. Money alone does not make education.

The fact remains however, that so many other factors come into play with children.

One big problem?

UNFUNDED MANDATES

More and more, schools are told to assume greater and greater duties, without monies being provided to do them.

I wish it were as simple as helping each child to maximize their potential.

So many children these days are feeling like frustrated failures because they are having trouble jumping through the same hoops.

This is starting to spill out into the community as collateral damage, with having a generation of angry alienated youth to deal with.

We can do better. We must do better.

Get involved with your schools. Go to Board meetings, help to tutor students on your free time.

I do.

Look for any excess money floating around, while you're there. In 31 years of education, I sure didn't find any.


The more you know and do for our schools, the better our schools can be.