9 thoughts on “Advocate for Fair Share Education Funding Formula”

1. Here’s my email, for those looking for an easy copy and paste:

   Dear Sen. Algiere,

   I am writing to urge you to support Senate Bill 2650, which would help make education funding more equitable and provide needed support to children in all our communities.

   Thanks for your work on behalf of children and education.

   Sincerely,

2. This is great news.

   I wrote a letter the the editor of the Herald concerning school funding.

   It is of my thinking that cities and towns can no longer afford the cost of a decent education system and state-wide regionalization is required.

   http://cranstononline.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5929&Itemid=35

3. While Andre’s idea of one statewide district makes a great deal of sense, it’s impractical because of the longstanding parochial attitudes in Rhode Island. Sen. Gallo’s bill is a creative way to approach the issue, but I think it, too, has little chance of happening this year.

   Practically speaking, it will be very difficult for Pawtucket and Providence to raise their tax levies to match other cities and towns. Taxes used to fund education are held artificially low because of how state funding is distributed to these two communities. I’d like to think Cranston would be in line for $12 million more, but I tend to doubt this number before knowing what these larger cities would have to do to “equalize” their tax levies with ours.

   I also think, to put it bluntly, the General Assembly can only handle so many radical ideas in one year. The Handy-Moura tax bill might be the extent of what they’ll do this year. It would only be a half-step, admittedly, but I don’t think — in an election year, particularly — the GA will do much more than change the tax code (and even that will be a Band-Aid) and get school funding back to the levels of four years ago.

   (And don’t forget the Garabedian bill to allow cities and towns to eliminate their school committees…)

4. I don’t mean to sound pessimistic, but I think the Handy-Moura tax bill(s) are dead. Art’s was held in House Finance on 3/26 for “further study” (read – dead this year) and Moura’s hasn’t even been set for hearing by Senate Finance. So, I don’t think either chamber is showing any “love” for any legislation that will equalize the tax burden on all Rhode Islanders. Perhaps we should all ask why in the upcoming election.

   As for Senator Gallo’s bill, I think we can all pick a little at some of the details, but what she does in this legislation is something that Rhode Island hasn’t seen in my lifetime, if ever; that is, provide some uniform, objective process that really provides predictability for cities and towns when they build their education budgets. That in itself is reason, at least for me, to support this legislation. Once enacted, we can then go back and tweak what needs tweaking.

   But it’s a tough sell this year for any bill with a price tag attached, even if the price makes sense.

   As for the one state-wide school district, I’m agnostic. I personally think a county-wide system might be easier to manage and could eliminate overlap, duplicate costs, etc., but I don’t think it’ll ever happen. The politics of this subject is too convoluted and entrenched in local power to easily change. Back in the “60’s” (here’s some geezer reminiscence)the legislature created a commission to look into redistricting and the result was the Thebault Report, which proposed creating five districts statewide. That report was DOA. For one thing, the suburbs didn’t want any part of any plan that would lump them in with a core city. Another was the reluctance to relinquish real or perceived power. Forty years later, I don’t think much has changed.

5. I find it very distressing that stubborn Rhode Island attitudes have prevented regionalization plans in the past and continue to do so now.

   It is sheer ignorance to think that our town and city funded school systems can be financially sustainable for the next few years to decades.

   I predict that as the money crunch becomes more and more unbearable, local school systems will go bust and the state will have no choice but to take control.

   There are two paths, a planned and deliberate proactive approach to regionalization or an expensive and angry reactive one. Because, either way it will eventually happen.

6. Geoff:

   Thanks for the legislative update. I missed that news.

   Sen. Gallo’s bill reminds me of another attempt at equalized school funding proposed by Richard Fleury (R-West Warwick) back in the mid-90s. This was right after a judge found the education system unconstitutional. Rep. Fleury’s bill would have provided the same amount of state money per student to each city and town, with increases for ELL and special ed. It went nowhere, unfortunately.

   As much as I hate to agree with Andre’a assessment (only since I, too, would rather believe our legislators can stop the problem before it happens — not that I have a problem with his argument), we’ll probably see more school districts fall under state control (Central Falls has been there for 8 years now, I think) before real action is taken to address the inequity of school funding.

7. The bottom line is that people would really have to rise up and demand regional school systems and I don’t see much of that going on. It’s impossible not to feel protective and want to advocate for your own home turf. For example, I realize that $12 million more for Cranston would mean less money for somewhere else, but when I look at our system and think of how I want to keep the quality parts of it for my daughter’s education, and for all the kids around her, well of course, this bill sounds right to me. Does that mean some kid somewhere else will get less money? I hope not, but if that’s the case, if our kids have greater needs and it costs more, so be it.

   But I am concerned about “weighting” children differently due to disabilities and ESL as this might lead to labeling kids in order to get more “weighted” dollars. The system working right would need to be audited and kept honest.

8. Man, I hate to sound like a broken record, but it starts at the federal level. We need to reverse 30 years of failed supply-side economics.

   Cutting taxes for the rich does not trickle down. The extra money does not necessarily create jobs–as the dismal job record of the Bush Admin has shown.

   What it does do is cut off a source of funding for schools and communities, forcing communities to pay for all their services with property taxes. What happens is that wealthy communities can and do pony up, providing a good education for their kids.

   The rest of us struggle–and, ultimately fall behind. And this at a time when only people with advanced degrees are getting ahead.

   You’d almost think the wealthy planned it that way. After all, it’s much easier now to get decent help than it was 20 years ago.

   Because “servant-type” jobs–cooks, nannies, gardeners–are one of the few growth industries in this country.

   So adequate funding our schools starts with a change in federal tax laws. It may not be enough on its own, but it’s a necessary step.

9. If you consider Hanna Gallo’s bill which would cost my community of S. Kingstown ALL of its state aid a fair bill, then I really question your definition of fair. To have a bill proposed that would pit one community against another in this fashion leaving some completely out in the cold is hardly fair. It is selfish, mean-spirited thinking. Our state needs an equitable formula, and our nation needs to take a few trillion out of Iraq and channel it into our schools and communities. Gallo’s bill is nothing but a scare tactic probably designed to open up talks on who knows what. I hope it fails soundly.