Columbus Public Schools' $19.2M deficit turns into $51.1M surplus. Magic?

[Casper]

When district Treasurer Penny Rucker delivered the six-month update of the state-mandated five-year spending and revenue plan to the school board last night, next school year’s $19.2 million operational deficit had changed to a surplus — of $51.1 million.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/10/16/columbus-schools-deficit-is-gone.html

 

So all of these commercials on TV about the dire need for money and this big push for passing the ballot was *gasp* a waste of money. 

[zx3vfr]

Unfortunately people tend to forget the story about the boy who cried wolf. One day people will learn and when the public sector is in real trouble no one will help, sans Barry

[Tonik]

Unfortunately people tend to forget the story about the boy who cried wolf. One day people will learn and when the public sector is in real trouble no one will help, sans Barry

 

They weren't crying wolf. School funding is just that f'd up. A 70 million swing is a little under a 10 percent swing in Columbus's.  State funding will swing that much several times a year. Everyone has a right to be seriously pissed off, but it is the State Legislature that should be the target of anger. Imagine being required by law to have a five year balanced budget but you have no idea how much money you will have next year let alone in five years. We don't even know how much, for sure, we will get THIS year until the Spring.

[smccrory]

They weren't crying wolf. School funding is just that f'd up. A 70 million swing is a little under a 10 percent swing in Columbus's.  State funding will swing that much several times a year. Everyone has a right to be seriously pissed off, but it is the State Legislature that should be the target of anger. Imagine being required by law to have a five year balanced budget but you have no idea how much money you will have next year let alone in five years. We don't even know how much, for sure, we will get THIS year until the Spring.

 

+1.  I spent a year as a PTO secretary (go ahead, yuck it up - my daughter appreciated it :-)) during a very contentious levy cycle and I learned more about the f'd up nature of Ohio school funding and expenses than I ever imagined.  I don't have time at the moment to list the major factors but suffice it to say it's a really tough gig, and every time something like this happens, good or bad, the public is given reason to drop their support for schools and thus start the funding emergency cycle all over again.

 

I don't know how to fix this.

[Tonik]

I don't know how to fix this.

 

It has to be totally blown up somehow.

[Casper]

It has to be totally blown up somehow.

 

Funding shouldn't come from property taxes. It only fuels a very unbalanced education system. We need to go to a flat tax for schools. Everyone pays their share, and it gets split up per student. Then offer a voucher worth X percent of the per-student allotment for folks who want to send their kids to private school. Issue solved. While you're at it, I think there should be statewide support systems such as IT. So much money is wasted by each district having their own data centers, equipment, hosting, etc. If they joined forces, a lot of money could be saved. 

[Tonik]

Funding shouldn't come from property taxes. It only fuels a very unbalanced education system. We need to go to a flat tax for schools. Everyone pays their share, and it gets split up per student. Then offer a voucher worth X percent of the per-student allotment for folks who want to send their kids to private school. Issue solved. While you're at it, I think there should be statewide support systems such as IT. So much money is wasted by each district having their own data centers, equipment, hosting, etc. If they joined forces, a lot of money could be saved. 

 

 

All of that is the correct answer. But funding won't change in your lifetime, let alone mine.  The rep's for the rich area's/suburbs will never vote for that. Doing it your way (which is the right way) the rich districts will be sending their money across the state...instead of to their own local schools. That will piss them off. They are happy to pay more, for their schools while the rest suffer.

[smccrory]

All of that is the correct answer. But funding won't change in your lifetime, let alone mine.  The rep's for the rich area's/suburbs will never vote for that. Doing it your way (which is the right way) the rich districts will be sending their money across the state...instead of to their own local schools. That will piss them off. They are happy to pay more, for their schools while the rest suffer.

 

Absolutely correct on all levels.  Westerville and Worthington and Upper Arlington and Dublin and Euclid etc. would almost surely see less value for their money while Obetz, Pataskala, Grovetucky, etc. would see more value.  Affluent communities will cry foul and blame communist income distribution with Casper's plan.

[Anden]

Robin Hood Plan.

http://publicpolicy.stanford.edu/node/351

[smccrory]

Taking the report's data as accurate on faith, it's interesting that both the rich and poor districts adjusted to the redistributions to maintain status-quo local funding levels.  Rich districts increased their taxes to maintain high levels of school system investment and quality, while poor districts reduced their taxes to alleviate personal tax burdens while keeping their school funding and quality as-is.  Both acted selfishly, with apparent different values of their schools.

[Grokked]

...While you're at it, I think there should be statewide support systems such as IT. So much money is wasted by each district having their own data centers, equipment, hosting, etc. If they joined forces, a lot of money could be saved. 

 

This is already implemented, not statewide, but regionally, with 23 "Cooperatives" or "Computer Associations" around the state.  See: http://www.infohio.org/web2/web2.html

Could things be more centralized or consolidated further? Possibly, but separating School funding from property taxes is a good step one.

[smccrory]

The money should travel with the child. Wherever the kid goes, the funding goes. Too much corruption and closed books, though. Just another facet of our disgraceful government at work. Inner city students suffer while white neighborhoods pass levy after levy. Kind of easy to see, really. A system implemented to help less fortunate students that doesn't help less fortunate students? Color me fucking surprised.

 

Yes, yes and yes, I couldn't agree more.  But then again I'm a social progressive and a fiscal moderate, so I don't get no love from either party trying to game the system.

[DAC]

My $.02:

The prime indicator for student success is parental engagement. That flows from the emphasis the parent places on education. "Rich" school districts are so because the residents of such districts earn high incomes through leveraging human capital they've acquired through... wait for it... education. They know what their kids will need to succeed.

Having said that, the school funding model is inconsistent with the constitution of this state, where the state government is tasked with funding a "... thorough and efficient system of common schools." It doesn't say the individual districts will fund this in in cooperation with the state. It says plainly the state is accountable solely.

Not that local input isn't needed. But think of this: Ohio has about 600 districts each with a school board of maybe 5 members or so. Thats 3,000 folks in leadership who are talented people invested in quality education in their communities. What do these people end up doing? Worrying about levies, bond issues, teacher and district labor contract negotiations, awarding building contracts, etc. As Casper alluded to earlier, we should centralize that funding and effort at the state level and let those local people work on driving student achievement.

Correlation is not the same as causation. The same force that drives good results in achievement testing and student success for certain districts often concurrently drives money into the districts' treasuries. This "force" comes from active parents who ascribe high value to education. Tearing down "rich" districts will not help "poor" ones.

[smccrory]

Thoughtful reply DAC

[Gump]

They should go thru a LEAN audit.

[scottb]

Stirring the pot a little bit, what about the people that do not have children?

Can that person direct "  school money " from taxes  to something other then the school?

Or, do the people without children just vote NO for all school related levies?

[smccrory]

Your first question is fundamental to not just school funding but to every shared public interest and you'll always get the same handful of opinions that make school funding debates so hard.

Should only parents pay for schools, or everyone because educated citizenry benefits society at large? In Florida, there's a huge retiree population that goes there specifically for the low taxes, resulting in a chronically underfunded and low-performing school system. I have a friend who teaches there and its appalling how little money they make and how few educational resources are available.

Similarly, should we all share the costs of a national highway system, or just toll the people who use it. That debate was key during Eisenhower's days when most of our public works investments were made, creating an economic powerhouse for businesses and citizenry alike. One could easily argue that subsidized minimum-level health care is no less a strategic interest to America, as are great schools.