School funding: If the state funds a cabin, can a local community use its own resources to build a mansion?
How should we fund our schools? A new commission is considering that complicated question. (AP Images)
I wrote a live blog out of the state Education Finance Study Commission meeting yesterday, but wanted to write a second piece today that offered a bit more perspective.
The newly formed committee of educators, lawmakers and business leaders is supposed to produce initial recommendations for the Legislature in January, and others for the 2013 session.
The commission seems serious about reforming the education funding formula, although its first swipe targeted, as many members admitted, “the low-hanging fruit.” I find that reassuring since every other effort has failed, usually because the conclusion — schools need more money — was not politically viable.
The funding formula and the state law governing schools are outdated in many instances, including their lack of recognition of technology and its pivotal role in education today.
In fact, state School Superintendent John Barge held up a copy of the 374-page Title 20 in which he had placed flags on material that he said “was outdated, was language that was no longer applicable or relevant, things that could be helpful to change or helpful to eliminate and things that just do not apply any more.” There were dozens of flagged sections.
The commission is truly bipartisan, best illustrated by the invitation to Joe Martin, Barge’s Democratic opponent for school chief last year, to speak on how to best reform the formula. The commission allotted Martin an hour for his presentation, reflective of his expertise in school funding. Martin helped write the Quality Basic Education Act in the early 1980s. His inclusion was all the more extraordinary because Martin led a consortium of rural school districts that sued the state over how it funded schools.
I credit the open-mindedness of the commission to its co-chairs, legislators Brooks Coleman of Gwinnett and Fran Millar of DeKalb. Millar, in particular, is a frank guy who says what is on his mind. (See earlier blog on his “moron” comment at the meeting yesterday.)
The commission also has lots of smart people on it, including Kelly Henson, who heads the Professional Standards Commission and is a former school chief. It also has business leader Jim Bostic, who is an upfront guy with a lot to offer.
The commission has created subgroups to delve into individual areas, and those groups came back with some common-sense proposals after their first go-around, including ditching the 65 percent classroom spending rule, restoring school nurses and revamping capital outlay formulas that hurt smaller districts.
But the hard part is ahead: How should Georgia fund its schools at the building level? Can the money follow the child across district lines when we have some communities where the locals dig very deep to augment the money invested in education by the state?
What can the state do about districts that lack the political will to fund schools to a level required for adequacy, never mind excellence?
If, as Martin says, the state should pay for a foundational education for every child, what is that foundation?
What does it mean today to give a child an educational foundation? Does it mean foreign language and advanced math? Does it mean art and music?
People complain that zip code now determines school quality, but shouldn’t a community be allowed to tax itself more if it wants better schools for its children?
Again, people hold Decatur out as an example of a school system that works, but a key component is that the property owners of Decatur pay far higher taxes than anyone else in the state to support their small schools and ambitious programs.
Should a district be allowed to look at the funding floor provided by the state and elevate it dramatically so that their students get much more than children a county or two over?
Should metro schools continue to outpace most of the schools in the state because their taxpayers can either afford to pay more toward education or are willing to pay more because they have a greater belief in the value of education?
In other words, if the state funds a cabin, can a local community use its own resources to build a mansion?
And within a single system, should a school blessed with dedicated and financially able parents be allowed to add more teachers or programs because those parents are willing to pay for them out of their pockets?
These are questions being asked around the country, and I don’t have the answers as I can see both sides. I think it’s a mistake to discourage parents from giving to their schools, but I also have seen communities where one or two schools become the envy of the rest of the system because of exceptional parental support, creating a sense of two worlds within the same system. (This has been a problem in New York City, where parents wanted to pool their own money and hire more teachers to bring back classes cut by the district.)
Any ideas?
–from Maureen Downey, for the AJC Get Schooled blog
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
66 comments Add your comment
November 6, 2012
August 26th, 2011
4:23 pm
As to taxes, Decatur’s taxes are based on 50% of Assessed Value, whereas the rest of Georgia is taxed on 40% of Assessed Value.
How much money a school system has at it’s disposal is not as important as what is done with that money, i. e., if you gave the DCSS twice as much per student as is being given now, that would not necessarily equate to a better educated student. It would probably mean that the DCSS would just have more money to waste.
November 6, 2012
August 26th, 2011
4:41 pm
And BTW, I pay DeKalb County Taxes also. Even though my assessment went down, my county tax bill increased by 30% this year over 2010. Folks, it’s not only the DCSS that has problems managing money……
Another Voice
August 26th, 2011
5:12 pm
@ex aps – I totally agree – the so-called “Ron Clark model” works in a very small, very isolated island. He has strong corporate supprot – because what company wants to be seen as denying opportunity to highly-motivated disadvantaged kids? as well as a cadre of devotee-teachers. Take away the ADHD personality of Clark, and basically you have a KIPP-like model.
And on top of Mayor Reed’s latest pipe-dream of free college education for all APS grads … what a waste. That rewards the under 50% of students who make it thru APS, instead of focusing on the 50%+ that dropout. We’d be better off taking all this corproate energy and funding and focusing on those students and getting them thru 12th grade with a functional education, rather than these isolated instances of high-achievers. The high-achiever/motivated kids will find their way.
tar and feathers party
August 26th, 2011
5:27 pm
Has anyone here actually gone to the free khanacademy web site and tried the math videos? Before you throw my property tax dollars at teachers you should look at what is freely available and of higher quality than 99% of teacher led math courses anywhere in the public school system. BTW, have noticed that Georgia Tech has no problem filling its freshman class with students who score a perfect 800, or close to it, in math? Only 10% are foreign. The difference between them and the once who cannot count is the amount of time spent doing problems, not the quality of teaching. There is no known cure for being lazy.
Back to B.A.S.I.C.S.
August 26th, 2011
5:38 pm
@ ex aps teacher: Ron Clark Academy does well when they are on television depicting students “singing and danceing” to everyone’s Awwwws and Ohhhhs. However, every aspect of his guaranteed improvement methods is copyrighted and he is a for profit organization. I have talked to several parents who were not happy because the Academy did not hold up to their guarantee!
NewMinority
August 26th, 2011
6:36 pm
@Once Again
Well said!
Dr. Craig Spinks/ Augusta
August 27th, 2011
2:45 am
Your question: My answer is “sure.”
september 11 2011
August 27th, 2011
9:35 am
It is just amazing to see how some people have such a blind faith in “the market system.”
I also believe that public education should forget about the GT programs. They should focus on the basic education, including arts/music.
Tony
August 27th, 2011
11:46 am
To Ned Puddleman – all of your remarks are based on lies and distortions. Please take some time to review some truthful information regarding the performance and expenditures of American public education. You have provided a good example of how easy it is for people to start believing things to be true just because they have heard the lies repeatedly.
outsider
August 27th, 2011
12:04 pm
It’s funny that the wealthiest of Americans send their children to private schools (including universities) where the teachers/profs are paid very well, have numerous arts programs, extracurriculars, and small class sizes. Then we’re told repeatedly that money doesn’t matter for the vast unwashed.
Clearly, we can’t afford to send students on study abroad to Italy. We certainly can afford up-to-date textbooks, classroom supplies, nurses, art, music, foreign language, advanced math, and an occasional raise for teachers. We choose not to do so because of some blind ideology that causes people to go on about “government schools” and how the government can’t do anything right (except fight wars and run prisons).
Tony
August 27th, 2011
1:00 pm
Outsider – you are on to something!
CharterStarter, Too
August 27th, 2011
1:45 pm
I have some thoughts on the funding formula and on schooling in general. I certainly welcome others’ thoughts on my ideas.
The state’s funding has been cut every year since I believe 2002, so clearly there is inadequacy there that we can all agree needs to be addressed (i.e., outdated textbooks costs, austerity cuts, etc.) The whole issue of state tax revenue going down is a null point to me, as I believe it’s more of an issue of priority of our legislators in the budgeting process. Education dollars should, to the extent possible, be protected, as it becomes a long-term economic issue for EVERYBODY. More dollars don’t always equate to better education outcomes, but there has to be ENOUGH to adequately instruct or quality instruction is bound to decline. When schools don’t even have funds for updated textbooks/technology, there’s a problem.
Secondly, I believe if you re-think the class-size, there are dollars to be captured. There is really not a lot of strong evidence to support that lower class sizes impact instructional outcomes. The practical side, of course, is that with more kids in a room, the administrative burden on teachers is higher and it is harder to differentiate. Ok, then why not raise class average sizes and fund paras to support the teachers? This would save on not only teacher salaries and benefit costs, but also on facility space needed for additional classrooms. Paras would also alleviate the administrative burden and could be used to support instruction, too.
I like Joe Martin’s suggestion of an 80/20 state/local responsibilty and think this would help greatly with the disparity in funding levels across the state. Allowing rural districts to continue to apply for additional state aid based on need for exceptional circumstances would help address this issue as well.
There is often a lack of prioritizing at the local level and a disproportiate number of funds going to central administration…. umpteen curriculum directors and other truly unnecessary positions that could be handled with distributive leadership at the schools (and get more buy-in from the educators and possibly better results). Adequate funds don’t ever make it to the classroom. So here’s what I think about that….
The first place to cut from the QBE funding formula should be central administration. The locals should have to foot the bill for how they choose to organize their central office and the state should not subsidize it. That would be approximately $25M freed up to be moved elsewhere in the budget (i.e., textbooks/technology). And some stellar reporter ought to do some investigative reporting around election time about how local tax dollars are spent at the local level and what percentage of local dollars are actually making it to the classroom. I think local taxpayers would be shocked. Tax payers need to understand how their tax dollars are being spent to educate kids. There is a general lack of clarity and transparency that needs to be addressed.
Transportation has been terribly underfunded considering districts have to run zillions of bus routes whether kids use the service or not. My first thought is why in the world does transportation have to be provided for all? For example, I take my kids to school every day, and yet, the district gets funded for driving by my house (and almost all of my neighbors’ houses) every day. The bus load is generally less than 1/3 full. Why can this not be something based on FRL or a combo of other factors? Why couldn’t it be outsourced or there be some sort of more logical state-routing system. I am actually closer to the county line of a neighboring county – why couldn’t the 2 counties share routes that are determined at the state level rather than just county-based? Why can’t the state purchase fuel and oil in bulk for a better rate rather than having each district negotiate the purchases with less buying-power? Why can’t the state fund regional mechanics, and pay for statewide insurance premiums etc. rather than each district having to fund this? Some of the northern and midwestern states don’t provide transportation at all. I know this is a bit more complicated than I’m laying out here, but I do think it bears some thought. Transportation is crazy expensive.
Why do we have a twice per year count? Why can’t we have a daily attendance average that is used for budgeting purposes? Districts are always operating based on last year’s data. For declining enrolllment districts, this works out just fine, but for growing districts, it’s a nightmare trying to juggle.
Rural districts take a huge hit due to sparsity. I believe that districts should be incentivized to combine central office functions. There is absoluntely no sense in funding a superintendent in a district of less than 1,000 students. We have counties as low as 210 (Talfiero)…and several others under 1000 (Quitman – 372, Calhoun – 628, Chatahoochee – 925, Talbot – 592, Baker – 349, Twiggs – 981, Warren – 756, Webster – 478, Wheeler – 992). I’d rather have the state fund these districts for textbooks/technology or even more teaching staff. I recognize that the districts have a lot of square mileage to cover, but if we’re talking about finances, payroll, and facilities, what does that matter? What I’d REALLY like to see is a combination of counties (and I understand this would be a constitutional change). I understand the “culture” thing with football, but really…could the football teams based on jurisdiction not stay intact and instructing students not be able to be combined for efficiency? The collective averages of some of these districts’ local funds would yield a lot more dollars for education than a singular district.
I think SPED is a huge stresser for districts. I believe the state needs to re-think how it allocates funds for low incidence exceptionalities, or any student that has to be served by a 1:1 ratio. I recognize there is a pool in place at the state for REALLY high cost service, but I think the cut off is something like $25,000. Paying a para to assist a student 1 on 1 is still a lot of money, and districts have to juggle to make it happen sometimes. We need to serve these students adequately rather than the districts having to play a numbers game with the IEPs to be able to affort to serve the children.
The retirement plan is ridiculously high and continues to rise. Why in the world are we not looking at other options for teachers to invest? The state health plan is exteremly high as well at more than 18.5% of payroll – surely the state as one of the largest employers has better negotiating power. Other states subsidize health at a lower rate – why can’t we?
A whole lot of resources are going towards remediation for kids who don’t make it to the classroom to learn do to excessive absences and tardies or are so disruptive that they and their peers can’t learn. First, I believe that some legislation and policy changes need to be made to REQUIRE order in the classrooms and to give the teaching staff back their authority. Discipline is out the window these days, and it’s costing us a bundle. Districts are afraid of being sued and teachers have no authority. In the worst disciplined high schools, the police should be present in greater numbers to keep order. Alternative schools must be better utilized and re-evaluated. And most of all, parents need to be accountable. I’m all for parents who allow their kids to lay out of school or don’t get control of the behavior to be jailed or fined. You cannot lay it all at the door of the schools. The legislature needs to consider some accountability for parents, too. Why not hold drivers licence privileges until you get a high school diploma? I know this won’t fix it, but it might help some.
The idea of “portable funds” is interesting, although, admittedly problematic. I totally get the thought that there are certain “fixed” costs that districts have. Ok, so why not structure the formula so that certain funding levels are based on average district size and other funds are portable (i.e., instructional dollars)? I haven’t put a ton of thought around this, but it tickles my curiousity and I will be mentally chewing on it some more.
And finally, I DO think we have some schools that are failing students. I’m a charter proponent (obviously), and for charters not meeting their charter objectives (growing kids and being good fiscal stewards), I would advocate for closure. Accountability is the name of the game. I believe the traditional schools should have this same consequence. I DO believe in due process, restructuring, etc., but there has got to be an END to it, and one that doesn’t take 3 more years of failure. We have a moral obligation to address this. And besides that, the cost of supporting a prisoner or someone on Welfare is a lot higher than the costs for just ensuring an adequate education in the first place.
Just some food for thought. I know some of these suggestions may be problematic and maybe not even be viable, but the point is that we need to think outside the box and stop protecting the status quo. We owe it to our kids.
Ronin
August 27th, 2011
6:43 pm
@Charter Starter Too, you make some good points. However, the real issue, in my opinion, is control. Most of the districts are run like a personal kingdom, and the rulers (administrators and superintendent) like it that way. I agree, cutting central office staff is the place to start. I pulled up some of the salaries for a local district and showed several people at a local gathering. They were shocked, human resources manager 125k a year plus benefits, 125k for a media relations manager plus benefits and a pension plan. If people realized where the money is actually being spent, highly paid central office staff, and not IN the classroom, I believe they would be outraged.
I agree with you, there needs to be school choice.
CharterStarter, Too
August 27th, 2011
11:33 pm
@ Ronin, I can’t disagree with you on the control issue.
Beverly Hall
August 30th, 2011
8:27 am
I think Atlanta has the answer…just look of what a great job I’ve done.
Logic
August 30th, 2011
8:28 am
Let me guess…the answer is always more money.
What about competition? Vouchers are our only hope.