Underfunding American Schools...Why Suddenly No Money?

[Fire Fly]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/08/17 ... index.html

Schools turn to courts for funding
15 states fight funding lawsuits; 10 more threatened

Tuesday, August 17, 2004 Posted: 11:14 AM EDT (1514 GMT)

OVERLAND PARK, Kansas (Reuters) -- The Spanish teachers are gone along with the guidance counselors and intramural basketball games. Teachers have been fired and classrooms closed.

But as the bell rings in a new school year, U.S. public schools from rural Kansas to New York City are still suffering significant funding shortfalls despite the cutbacks.

So while the kids gather up their backpacks, a wave of fed-up parents, teachers and administrators are turning to the courts to demand that states find new and better ways to pay.

At least 15 states are fighting lawsuits over school funding problems and another 10 states are threatened with litigation, according to the American Association of School Administrators.

"There is a problem with school funding across the country," said Education Commission of the States policy analyst Mike Griffith. "People are really upset. They're saying 'The only way we can get the money we need is to sue the state."'

Funding problems are nothing new for public schools, but an economic downturn coupled with costly new mandates tied to the federal "No Child Left Behind" legislation, which set new educational benchmarks, have stretched finances thin.

Add to that the fact that estimated enrollment has hit a record 48 million students this fall, and that a growing number of students don't speak English or have other educational challenges, and it's a formula for a funding nightmare.

"If we're going to make sure that those kids succeed, meeting the new mission will be costly," said Bruce Hunter, public policy analyst for the American Association of School Administrators.

Polls ahead of this year's presidential election show that education ranks high as a voter concern, and policy and economic experts, including Federal Reserve Chief Alan Greenspan, have warned of a marked decline in the quality of the U.S. educational system.

Most of the funding burden for public schools is borne by state and local taxpayers while federal aid makes up on average about 8 percent.

How the money is distributed varies widely by state and even by district, depending on how much in property taxes is generated, whether taxpayers are willing to pay additional local taxes earmarked for schools and the size and demographic of the student populations.

Further complicating funding formulas is the fact that money generated by taxes in wealthier areas is often diverted to poor districts to try to equalize resources. Critics say money distributed unfairly

As costs outrun revenues, critics charge the money is distributed unfairly and that it simply is not enough.

Some small, rural and inner-city districts complain they can't afford textbooks or air conditioning, while some suburban districts are laying off librarians and art teachers.

In Kansas, a frustrated district court judge sought this summer to scare legislators into action by ordering a halt to all state funding of schools until lawmakers come up with a funding formula that is fair and adequate.

The judge, who was hearing a case brought by several small districts, said undisputed studies show the Kansas system is underfunded by more than $1 billion. The ruling was appealed and the Kansas Supreme Court takes up the matter Aug. 30.

"By and large, all districts are feeling squeezed by the funding that is available," said Ann Kindling, one of the attorneys involved in the Kansas case. "Our goal is to try to reduce as much as we can as far away from the classroom as we can. But we're running out of options."
-- Shawnee Mission, Kansas, schools budget manager Tim Rooney

A similar lawsuit went to trial last week in Texas where more than 300 school districts are claiming the system there is not providing children with an adequate education.

In New York, a State Supreme Court judge has ordered the state to revamp its funding system and come up with an additional $4 billion to $10 billion in school aid over the next three to five years. The judge on Aug. 3 named a panel of special "referees" to come up with a plan.

Further funding lawsuits are being waged in Maryland, Ohio, and Alaska. In Alaska, parents, school districts and the teachers' union filed a lawsuit Aug. 9 against the state alleging its education funding is inadequate.

Back in Kansas, the Shawnee Mission school district is perhaps a textbook case. Once considered one of the highest-achieving and wealthiest districts in the state, it has seen declining enrollment in recent years, and elementary school children there no longer have Spanish teachers or full-time guidance counselors.

With those and other cuts, the district reduced core spending by $23 million over a four-year period. But when the district presented its 2004/05 budget to its board Aug. 9, the shortfall still totaled more than $3.3 million.

"It just becomes very frustrating," Shawnee Mission budget manager Tim Rooney said from his office in Overland Park, Kansas. "Our goal is to try to reduce as much as we can as far away from the classroom as we can. But we're running out of options."

Perhaps someone could enlighten me, but lately, I've been reading about huge budget woes from schools all across the country. What's the deal? I know its always been an issue but suddenly it seems like schools are going bankrupt and thier budget shrinking. I just read in the paper the other day that a local school had to raise prices on everything including lunch meals, activity fees, parking permits, registration costs, etc. In Chicago alone, dozens of schools are already facing closure due to lack of funding. Are we on the verge of a gigantic crisis in the American educational system or what?

[Col. Crackpot]

i can only speak for Rhode Island schools, but the problem here is that we have over twenty seperate districts with 20 seperate unions. Consolodation would save money. However, neither the unions nor the administrators want to consolodate and give up power. Currently in the suburban city i live in (Warwick) the union's contract has expired They are demanding a 17% pay raise over a three year period. This is a raise of the pay scale, teachers get raises based on experience anyway, this raise just boosts up the whole system of tiers. Education funding has actually increased modestly here, but not enough to meet union demands. Even if the union scales back it's demand other programs would need to be cut despite a modest increase in funding. Currently i pay a rate of $14 per thousand of assessed value in property taxes to the city annually. that works out to be about $2500 on my house and $500 (on top of state and local income taxes and state sales taxes). If they think for a minute that they are going to squeeze more than the three grand a year they get now out of me without a fight, they are sorely mistaken. You want to know why shit is getting cut? Thats why! We have to pay ridiculous fucking raises every year the greatly outstrip the rate of inflation.

[Keevan_Colton]

Damn those rich teachers!

[Iceberg]

We're seeing the result of 30 years of Republican indoctrination to see taxation as an absolute evil, rather than a necessary one. Since public schools are paid for out of tax monies, cutting taxes, either directly or indirectly, hurts them.

[Col. Crackpot]

Damn those rich teachers!

no, damn the power hungry administrators and union locals that cand grasp the simple concept of Economies of Scale.

[Col. Crackpot]

yeah, thats the answer Iceberg, throw money at the problem. that always works.

[Iceberg]

yeah, thats the answer Iceberg, throw money at the problem. that always works.

Works better than taking away money and telling schools to cope or die.

[Col. Crackpot]

yeah, thats the answer Iceberg, throw money at the problem. that always works.

Works better than taking away money and telling schools to cope or die.

did you even read my first post? i know it isn't the case all of the time, but its a damn big part of the problem.

[Iceberg]

yeah, thats the answer Iceberg, throw money at the problem. that always works.

Works better than taking away money and telling schools to cope or die.

did you even read my first post? i know it isn't the case all of the time, but its a damn big part of the problem.

Why the hell did you assume that I meant "mindlessly throw money at the schools without addressing issues of educational waste"? Motherfucker, that's stupid talk.

[Stormbringer]

Works better than taking away money and telling schools to cope or die.

did you even read my first post? i know it isn't the case all of the time, but its a damn big part of the problem.

Why the hell did you assume that I meant "mindlessly throw money at the schools without addressing issues of educational waste"? Motherfucker, that's stupid talk.

Probably because all you do is complain about the tax rates.

[Col. Crackpot]

Works better than taking away money and telling schools to cope or die.

did you even read my first post? i know it isn't the case all of the time, but its a damn big part of the problem.

Why the hell did you assume that I meant "mindlessly throw money at the schools without addressing issues of educational waste"? Motherfucker, that's stupid talk.

because one strawman deseves another

[Alyrium Denryle]

k ths is a prime example of where laws passed by congress have hurt people No CHild Left Behind. A nice, unfunded mandate

First, get rid of that. We need to accept the fact that not every child has the ability of the motivation to learn, and we should not punish the school for their failure.

Adjust for infltion.

Few other things I cant think of at the moment

[The Kernel]

yeah, thats the answer Iceberg, throw money at the problem. that always works.

Like it or not, well managed funds will improve the situation. It's a simply formula:

More Money = More Teachers + More Classrooms = More teachers per student

[Iceberg]

While conservatives are quick to (correctly) point out that money is no guarantee of success, they always seem to miss the corollary that lack of money is a guarantee of failure.

[Col. Crackpot]

yeah, thats the answer Iceberg, throw money at the problem. that always works.

Like it or not, well managed funds will improve the situation. It's a simply formula:

More Money = More Teachers + More Classrooms = More teachers per student

First, before this goes any further, i need to disclose a potential conflict of interests: My wife teaches kindergarten.

Second, i would have to disagree with that equasion. As i stated earlier, the suburban city in which i live is an example of that. Tax revenue is up, moderately increasing school funding, However the union is demanding a 17% raise in the multi tier pay scale over 3 years.

Third, what is wrong with demanding efficiency? I agree that well managed funds make a difference, but the emphasis needs to be on the well managed. My state is a perfect example. it ranks consistantly in the top 5 in per capita student spending and consistantly in the bottom ten in performance.

[Col. Crackpot]

dammit, i cut out a part.

section 2 should continue:

How can an organization with only a marginal increase in revenue deal with a 17% increase in payroll? It has to cut, the unions know this damn well, and use it to their advantage. This makes them part of the problem. Personally, i don't see why college educated professionals need to unionize anyway.

[Tsyroc]

In Arizona we certainly have the standard tax problem. IE, nobody wants to pay for anything, especially the retirees on their "fixed incomes". We all know that people who are retiring from out of state are just soooo poor.


Anyway, one of our biggest problem is the growning population of the state. That coupled with the resistance to increasing taxes to pay for things has hurt the already crappy education system of the state. More kids, means we need more schools, teachers and classrooms so what money the state has gets spread even further.

Some people might argue that our school funds also suffer from having to deal with dealing with so many students that speak only spanish or primarilly speak Spanish. I can't say that it's a major money drain myself and IMO it doesn't compare to the other problems of the increased population and the cheapness of the populous when it comes to paying for things that they don't feel benefit them. Heck, some of the cheap bastards around here would rather not pay for anything even if it does benefit them or if they use it all the time.


It doesn't help that much of the state is spread out all over the place. Having to make sure that all the remote areas are covered has to be more costly per student. Either that or those students are getting seriously shafted.

[The Kernel]

Crackpot, you and I are in complete agreement that mismanagement of funds can cause serious problems which is why I qualified my equation with "properly managed funds". I think you can agree with me though that more classrooms, more teachers, better learning equipment (computers, books, etc) are all directly applicable towards creating a better learning environment.

I myself grew up in both the California public AND private school systems and I am well versed on the differences. Do you know what the primary difference is? Private schools have a higher ratio of teachers to students. That's about it.

What this boils down to is that increased funds, properly applied, are essential to creating a good school system. I do believe that mismangement is part of what is holding back this effort, but it is only one part of many.

[MKSheppard]

Third, what is wrong with demanding efficiency? I agree that well managed funds make a difference, but the emphasis needs to be on the well managed. My state is a perfect example. it ranks consistantly in the top 5 in per capita student spending and consistantly in the bottom ten in performance.

Shush, don't tell Iceberg that! You'll make his head explode

[MKSheppard]

We're seeing the result of 30 years of Republican indoctrination to see taxation as an absolute evil.

Next on I know fuck all and am hurling accusatoins out wildly,
We learn that:

• Republicans are responsible for the meat spoiling in your freezer
• Republicans are responsible for birds crapping on your car
• Republicans are responsible for why you can't get laid
• Republicans are responsible for why cats hate you
• Republicans are responsible for ........

You get the idea

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Maybe it's because they can't spend their funds appropriately. At my college, instead of getting better/more professsors, better learning equipment, and better education systems, they built a new GYM!!!!!!!!

Yea. THat's usefull.

My Highschool did that too. Not new teachers. Not new books, but a new auditorium and gym.

[Alyrium Denryle]

We're seeing the result of 30 years of Republican indoctrination to see taxation as an absolute evil, rather than a necessary one. Since public schools are paid for out of tax monies, cutting taxes, either directly or indirectly, hurts them.

Taxing when you dont have to IS evil. And I am not a republican..

The funds have to be well managed and people need to stop feeding from the fucking taxation trough. Throwing money at the problem wont help, a funding increase MAY be necessary, or, the funds already brought in could be managed better.

[Stormbringer]

Perhaps someone could enlighten me, but lately, I've been reading about huge budget woes from schools all across the country. What's the deal?

A lot of it is simply that with the economy tanking the state and local tax base which provides the overwhelming amount of the funds for education have shrunken. So unless people are willing to choke down higher taxes the revenue simply isn't available. Of course that for the majority of schools; the inner city school are largely the fault of the gangs and welfare culture that been developed there. You live on the dole instead of having a job and of course the money's not there for proper schools.

Are we on the verge of a gigantic crisis in the American educational system or what?

Yes, but it has far less to do with the amounts of money and has more to do with poor educational standard. Replacing a real education with a PC Indoctination is to blame for a lot of that.

While conservatives are quick to (correctly) point out that money is no guarantee of success, they always seem to miss the corollary that lack of money is a guarantee of failure.

That's true. However it's hard to justify throwing a lot of funds against a problem when they don't do any good.


And of course a lot of (liberals) mistake the belief that the Federal government doesn't have the constitutional mandate and is not the proper venue for education reform for a general anti-education level. A lot of Republicans are quite happy to spend on education at the state and local levels.

[Master of Ossus]

Crackpot, you and I are in complete agreement that mismanagement of funds can cause serious problems which is why I qualified my equation with "properly managed funds". I think you can agree with me though that more classrooms, more teachers, better learning equipment (computers, books, etc) are all directly applicable towards creating a better learning environment.

Actually, I disagree with some of those tautologies. It's better to hire a good teacher and pay him 1.5 times as much as a crappy one than it is to have two crappy teachers teaching classes--especially for advanced students who are preparing to go to four year institutions, anyway. A huge part of the reason why teacher's unions are so bad is because they prevent a school district from tempting a professional with excellent teaching skills away from business with a higher pay-check than the ones who only have two-year teaching credentials.

Also, IME, money spent on "better" learning equipment is almost totally wasted. Every time new book series come out they have more pictures and less text. My HS district recently spent over $10,000 per special-ed student buying computers with a particular program to help them read, when the same money could have hired a dozen more teachers or built a new (DESPERATELY needed) science building.

Again, part of this goes under "properly managed," but a huge part of the issue is that properly managed funds do not exist in public school districts. There's a reason why parents are willing to spend thousands of dollars annually sending their children to private schools (even one independent of religious fundamentalism).

The issue is top-down. Public schools in the United States are structurally designed in such a way that they MUST waste money. They use spend-thrift practices to hire administrators and teachers, while wasting money on virtually useless special programs while answering to ELECTED school-board officials who create a massive principle conflict interest, and administrators and teachers are almost never held accountable for poor performances.

I myself grew up in both the California public AND private school systems and I am well versed on the differences. Do you know what the primary difference is? Private schools have a higher ratio of teachers to students. That's about it.

They're also managed better. Private schools usually earn only a few thousand dollars per student, while public schools get the same funding as well as tremendous tax-breaks and other incentives. Somehow the private schools consistently score higher, providing better facilities, teachers, and scores.

My school district recently asked voters for a $17 million bond measure (a year after getting $20mil in a bond measure and three years after getting a $40 mil measure passed). The bond measure failed, even though the school district said that they would be unable to provide a number of services without it. They then hired a private company to oversee school spending, and within TWO WEEKS they saved over $37 million for their annual budget without sacrificing a single teacher, textbook, or after-school program. Amazingly, the superintendent was then REWARDED by the school board for saving that money, even though he was originally going to WASTE it and only came up with a solution when taxpayers refused to let him burn more of their money.

What this boils down to is that increased funds, properly applied, are essential to creating a good school system. I do believe that mismangement is part of what is holding back this effort, but it is only one part of many.

The issue here is not lack of funds. US schools get massively more money per student than many European and Asian schools, but score lower anyway. There are cultural reasons for this, but the first thing that needs to be changed is efficiency.

Schools need to make cuts in any number of areas--sports, after-school programs, divisional waste--but the first thing they need to do is get a team of real accountants in to look at what they're spending on and find ways of cutting costs while providing the same service. That will NEVER happen in public schools unless they see their budgets cut and people refusing to give them more money.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Don't look for where the money's coming from, pay attention to where it GOES. Louisiana Education has been in a severe money pinch for decades because of corrupt school admins, superintendents, and higher-ups.