Lemme see if I got this right.

Providence has about 14% of the population (1.2M/170K) and is angling for 35% of the money ($240M/$690M). Is that right?

Sounds fair to me.

Not.

Simple. Determine what a kid costs to educate. Multiply that by the number of students in a district. That's what you get.

Now figure out how to de-couple it from the property tax you myopic morons in the GA.

It is not really correct to present this as an "urban vs. suburban" issue. As someone on RIFuture has pointed out, it's more of a North-South issue. While it is true that most urban areas benefit under the proposed plan, Newport does not. Also, many suburban and rural districts benefit (Barrington, Coventry, Cranston, Cumberland, Foster-Glocester, Lincoln, N. Smithfield, W. Warwick). Add to those the urbans, (Pawtucket, Providence, Woonsocket, E. Providence) and you'll see that a majority of students (and citizens) come off better.

But the district vs. district debate is wrong and divisive. Districts who lose under the current system say "we want more". Districts who do well say, "I got mine, Jack so buzz off". The real way to make progress is to think about what is fair, and turn it into a formula. I think the proposed formula accomplishes this, but I'd be glad to hear a reasoned argument for an alternative formula. The idea that we should just continue as we have is not acceptable. When PA acts this year, RI will be the ONLY state in the Union without a funding formula. That's another last-position ranking that I hope AR folks will want to remove.

ChuckR- it's not just the total population that matters, but the number of students, which can be quire different. Secondly, it's not just the number of students that matters to cost, but also the different costs for different kinds of students. Students who need free lunch, or extra English-language work, cost more. Finally, the formula considers not only cost-per-student, but also the property tax base and property tax effort required to raise the same amount of money.

Apart from the importance of taking variable costs-per-student, Greg is exactly right. We should go as far as possible to uncouple education funding from property taxes, especially considering that we are next-to-worst in the nation regarding our reliance on them.

Hi Thomas

Let's ask it another way. Why does Providence need the state to pay approximately $7000 per student and yet many districts will get $0 per student? Free lunches can be furnished for $1000 per year or less. Where's the rest?

Here's a solution for ESL - sidetrack them for a year of intensive English and then move them back into standard classrooms. The so-called tax effort argument is just window dressing to cover up a money grab that has no elements of fairness in it. By all rights, cities should have natural economic advantages and economies of scale. It has taken several decades to squander those advantages. Now, at the end of their fiscal rope, our cities want us to kick in more so they can postpone addressing their underlying problems for a while longer.

Oh, and I'm sure the tax effort fairness calculation will include extra expenses incurred by us rural dwellers. My effective 'tax rate' to get water from a well system and get rid of it with an ISDS increase my total actual tax by close to 40%. Actually, I'm almost certain it won't include this because it's a money grab and fairness has no part in it.

ChuckR,

It's not just lunches, of course. It's ESL and special ed, which is correlated with poverty. But that's just looking at the cost side. Some communities can raise $xK for education with minimal property tax effort; others must have much higher rates and expend more effort to raise less. The formula requires each community to make the same effort, then fills in the differences with state money. That's where "the rest" is.

Your ESL solution is interesting, but would require another year of schooling that would have to be paid for.

I don't understand your "economies of scale" point. Urban districts around the country have suffered from having to maintain much higher property tax rates than suburbs to achieve the same results. And again, in RI, there are a number of suburban and rural districts that are getting less now than the formula says they should.

I'm sure it looks like a money-grab to some, but you haven't explained why a funding formula is unfair, which I think would also require explaining why 49 states have decided that similar formulas ARE fair. I'd be interested in a principled argument for a different kind of formula, or no formula at all, but I haven't seen it yet. Just because some communities don't want to lose benefits they gained from an older, less fair system, is not an argument for keeping it.

>>but I'd be glad to hear a reasoned argument for an alternative formula.

A flat, per capita amount per child, provided to the parent(s) in the form of a voucher, redeemable at any school, "public" or "private" (in reality all schools are "public" - the terminology should be "government" or "private").

Private schools would spring up to meet the demand, and the kids in Providence could get a superior private education for half (or less) of what we're now paying into the government system. And the kids, freed from the clutches of the teachers unions and education bureaucrats would, for the first time, have a real chance for success in life - the ultimate "civil right."

>> But the district vs. district debate is wrong and divisive.

It is what it is. Each district is pitted against all the other districts, each vying for a bigger piece of the funding pie. There will be winners and losers as even you've stated. Grow up.

>> The idea that we should just continue as we have is not acceptable.

Why not? Can you correlate the lack of a school funding formula with student performance? If so I'd like to see that data. Get rid of the teacher unions if you care about the kids and their education. This is a tax policy issue. You are crazy if you think this is going to improve education in the urban schools. This policy will not replace their parents and it is they who are the main determinants of their children's educational success or failure.
This is nothing but another grand transfer of wealth. Let's subsidize communities by awarding them big education $ for having a low median family income. What a great idea, let's use the children to punish the higher achievers in society. Maybe we could weight the cost per student an extra .50 if they get a free lunch (I'd like to see someone justify THAT ONE - how much can lunch possible cost - certainly not $6,500!). Let's weight the student an extra .25 if they are entitled to reduced free lunch. And let's throw in an extra .20 for anyone needing language instruction. Don't forget the special ed kids and the inconsistent policies and incentives that exist for qualifying them as such. And then lets combine the adjusted ratio benefit for low income communities with the multiplier for the free lunches, language, special ed etc. What do you get? Exponential unfairness! Each district across the state will all be getting differing amounts back from the state for the same students, lunches, language instruction, and special ed needs. There is no fairness in this.

Thomas if you lived in one of the communities on the losing end of this legislation you would never be arguing that this absurd formula is fair. And it has little to do with education.

Frank,

There will be winners and losers as even you've stated. Grow up.

"Grow up"? I'm not sensing a productive conversation looming. For what it's worth, though, I was taught, and still believe, that the ability to reason about fairness in a way that goes beyond one's immediate self-interest was a mark of maturity, not immaturity.

Thomas if you lived in one of the communities on the losing end of this legislation you would never be arguing that this absurd formula is fair

You don't know me at all, so I think you have no basis for saying this. Moreover, I have not always lived in Providence, and I don't know that I always will.

Hear, hear, Tom W. Nothing could be more fair than a direct association of dollars with student and the freedom for those students' parents to choose which school merits the expense. We could even add dollars to children who'll need extras.

The real "funding formula" would be replacing the Soviet-style "public" schools with vouchers which would rise every year with a COLA-and not a dime more. Home schooling will be encouraged.
Oh, and we "have to" give vouchers to little Juan and Pablo? Great-just make sure Mommy comes down to register them.
Bring a toothbrush-LOL.

"I don't understand your "economies of scale" point."

Economies of scale are when, through merger, two organizations become one and eliminate duplicative positions to become more efficient and lower costs. This is trotted out from time to time in proposals to consolidate our three dozen plus school districts into five. This fair tax effort plan, coupled with the poor performance of many larger districts, ie, Providence, is why that sort of proposal is rejected by many. Parents will pay a premium for local control, even if the control is illusory vis a vis the unions.

Other economies of scale occur, or should occur, in municipal services (water, sewerage, fire and police coverage, garbage hauling) but sometimes do not. An example of services economies of scale is in the Bay Commission fees. A typical residential customer using approximately 200 gallons per day of water will pay $400 per year (source:PUC docket 3905). Similarly, the Providence Water Supply cites a typical annual bill of $225 per year. Compare that to my costs of an ISDS. Its a $20-25K capital investment and a typical corresponding mortgage payment is roughly $2200 per year. Now this payment is to a bank, not a government entity, but given that it finances a service that is elsewhere a government service, don't you think it would be fair to include it in calculations of tax effort? Similar arguments can be made for water supply (in my case $4k for a deep well and $2K for a filtration system, mortgage expense $530 per year), garbage hauling (in my case $300 per year). Maintenance and inspection fees of these systems add another $300 per year. So on one hand, water and sewerage costs a typical Providence resident $625 per year, while the same service costs me $3330 per year. I somehow doubt that there will be an offset in the interest of fairness for rural/suburban residents like me. Its not about fairness of any sort. Its about the money.

The above is somewhat tongue in cheek. I made a choice to live where services are expensive; I'll live with it. You made a choice to be a resident of a city that has squandered its advantages over decades. The rest of the state already pays for about 45% of Providence's local school budget. Now you want a 20% increase in that effort to a 50+% payment. I don't see anything fair about that. It merely lets Providence and others postpone some hard decisions longer.

Thomas,

What you’re calling fairness is the continuation of a flawed public education system that will now include a funding formula that officially gives a tax break to the more financially challenged/mismanaged communities. This comes at the expense of a majority of households around the state who would now have to pay even higher property taxes than they do now to fund more of your districts education.

Unlike you I am very concerned - for the majority of residents in this state, those that will come out on the losing end of this ill conceived funding plan and will have a much more difficult time making ends meet thanks to it. I reside in one of the communities that stands to benefit from this proposal yet I still don’t think it’s right, because it’s not. You on the other have the undeniable appearance of selfish interest in advocating a program which will benefit your city more than any other, and at the expense of all the others.

Since you seem familiar with this funding formula and are especially fond of it maybe you can explain a couple of items:

Why do students who qualify for free lunch entitle the district they are in to receive funding for an extra .50 students in this formula? That translates to about $6,500 per year per student, or $36 per lunch. Yet a school lunch costs $1.90. Where is all the extra money going? And the lunch program is partially federally funded, though I don’t know the exact breakdown.

Why will ALL special ed kids be funded as 1.50 students? Special ed needs run the gamut from minimal intervention on up with the varying costs reflected by their needs. Why isn’t the special ed allocation more sensitive so that it comes closer to reflecting the actual needs of the students? There would seem to be ample reason for suspicion when a funding formula generalizes all special ed costs into one figure when the actual extra cost incurred ranges from a few thousand $ to as high as $52,000 per student per year.

Hi ChuckR,

I think I wasn't clear. I didn't mean I don't understand what economies of scale are, I meant I didn't see how they play a significant role here. There are, doubtless, some such economies. For instance, Providence pays one Superintendent for 24K kids, while the average district is just over 4K students. There are probably other examples for district-wide positions and services. But the vast majority of the costs are for teachers, where I doubt such economies are available because teachers-per-student can't vary that much. Prov. has a max. class size of 26, mandated by the contract, less for special ed. I'm going to guess (but would be happy for a correction) that class sizes around the state are not higher, and I don't know anybody who thinks that they should be pushed higher than 26 for efficiency's sake.

Thus, I also can't say that most of those economies have not been achieved already. Providence's per-pupil costs are already right at the average for the state, despite much higher percentages for kids whose education costs more. Independent outside reviewers recently stated that Providences schools were efficiently run. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd be happy to see it.

I can't accept that the fact that I made a choice to live in Providence means that I have to live with legislatively-mandated state funding policies if those policies are unfair. I also deny that my support for the funding formula is motivated by my place of residence. Feel free to doubt that if you like, but until you get to know me I hope you'll refrain from asserting the contrary as Frank did. I'll also say again that this is not just about Providence or even just urban schools. A majority of the state population would benefit from the formula, including those in a number of rural districts.

Finally, saying that departures from the status quo are unfair depends on an assumption that the current system IS fair, or at least more fair than the formula's. For years we've been living with an ad hoc system that has more to do with political pressure than rational policy making. For instance, Newport's aid has gone up considerably, despite a drop in student population of 25-30%. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to speculate on how it worked out that way.

I am not necessarily wedded to every detail of the current formula, nor will I claim to understand every detail. Given my druthers, I'd probably shift the entire thing off of regressive property taxes and on to income taxes. Then we could also stop worrying so much about where people live and drop the whole "your town vs. my town" fight. (And for those who feel the need to question motives, I'll note that I'd probably do worse financially that way). I do however believe that, one way or another, RI should join the other 49 states who have determined that education funding ought to be based on a clearly-stated formula that takes into account both student need and community capacity.

Frank says: "You on the other have the undeniable appearance of selfish interest in advocating a program which will benefit your city more than any other, and at the expense of all the others."

Frank,

I would like to have a substantive discussion, but find it difficult when you keep calling my motives into question. What argument could I make that you would not attribute to a bad-faith desire to gain for my community at another's expense? It does not seem worthwhile to me.

Let me ask this. You say YOUR position on the formula is not dictated by the relative benefit your district will receive, but is based on your assessment of fairness. Yet you assume the opposite of me. Unless you're asserting that you're a morally superior being (which would be foolish since you don't know me) why should this be so?

If your'e interested in discussing the issue rather than my motives, I'm ready.

PS. I believe you are incorrect that a majority of RI residents would do worse under the formula. In fact, it's the opposite.

Okay Thomas let's move past motives. I will not question them.

I have already thrown out a couple of items worthy of discussion. Tom W., as usual, has made an excellent suggestion which you haven’t responded to.

Here’s another try. You keep stating that most Rhode Islanders will benefit under this plan. I honestly have no idea what you mean when you make this claim. The fact is that most RI households do not have a child in the public school system, only about 25% of them do. So even if this were education reform, which it is not, most Rhode Islanders would see no benefit. Also most will surely see their property taxes rise by the maximum allowed with this formula in place, even those in communities that are treated favorably by the new formula. So what exactly are you getting at with this comment?

Let’s get the discussion started!

1. The major problem, a recurring one for modern liberalism, is that funding formula advocates define "fair" against a background of a static world that never changes and never evolves in the absence of government intervention.

Imagine parents living in community with high-cost government but low performing schools. The make a decision that they want something better for their child. They research which communities have better school systems. They work extra hours and save the money they need to eventually to move to a new place.

For their careful saving, hard work and planning ahead, the government now tells them that their child is only worth 0.8 of what he or she would have been had they just stayed where they were and not worked to improve their economic situation, and that they will now be double taxed, once to pay for their current school system, and once to pay for the community they decided to leave. And then the government calls this self-evidently "fair".

But it's only "fair" in the sense that it puts government into the role of enforcing equality-of-result, retarding any family's ability to assess their own situation and try to get ahead.

2. Opponents of the "funding formula" are frequently admonished for "pitting one community against another". Then, contradictorily, they are told that children in some communities will have to suffer, so others may improve, as if that's not the actual reasoning doin' the pittin'.

But if education is so terrible in this state now that lifeboat-ethics decision-making is necessary, then – and I'm not advocating this, just pointing out the inconsistency – why shouldn't it also be being practiced within communities? If it is acceptable to shift resources inter-community, why shouldn't a multi-school district also shift is resources intra-community, if that could improve the situation of 60% of the students within its school system?

Frank,

I have not responded to TomW's comment because the original post and my response were about the funding formula, and he wrote about vouchers. Not that it's not an important issue, but I simply don't have the time or the inclination at this point, so I'll stick to the formula issue.

Regarding the "benefit to the majority" issue, perhaps I was imprecise. If you believe that only people with children in the public schools benefit from public education funding, then it's possible that NO public education funding will benefit a majority of citizens (though I'd like to know where that 25% figure comes from). However, the more state funding there is available to reach a certain spending level, the less reliance needs to be placed on property taxes, so I think increased state aid for a district benefits all the property tax-payers in that district (and vice-versa).

To answer your question, then, what I should have said was that the funding formula improves the position of a majority of the state's public school children because it improves the situation of districts which contain a majority of the state's population. One way to see that is to note that 41 of 75 members of the House of Representatives represent districts that will gain state funds. For those districts, which again contain a majority of the state's citizens, increased state funding will take pressure off of property taxes.

Property tax rises are being driven by a lot of factors independent of education these days, including both increased fuel costs and state cuts to cities and towns generally, so I won't say that anyone's property taxes are going down anytime soon. Again, I'd rather see RI move its ed. funding off of property taxes generally. If we didn't rely on them for +/-63% of ed costs as we do, they could be lower everywhere, though income taxes would of course rise correspondingly.

I appreciate your willingness to stick to the issues. I'll go back and look at your earlier comment.

Valid points Andrew. I’m just not getting past the fact that this isn’t education reform at all. It’s a wealth redistribution program. The sole purpose of this is to give financial assistance to cities and towns that have mismanaged themselves into a fiscal abyss (as Providence has) by bleeding resources from the rest of the state.

We’ve been throwing more money at education for 30 years now with no improvement. So now we throw even more money at the urban schools and a few other communities by taking funds away from the rest and what do we expect will happen as a result? We still haven’t reformed education at all. The teacher union still has the entire system within it’s clutches. The union’s sole accomplishment is a well paid and well pensioned teaching profession. All this formula does is place a greater tax burden on all the communities who have the misfortune of being in better fiscal shape than the others.

Here’s a prediction. If this funding formula ever does pass, in the absence of any true education reform, there will be an undetectable change in student outcomes in this state. The only result of this education funding formula will be that we will be paying a lot more on education in the future than we are now. And we already have that.

Thomas. RI has 405,000 households, 150,000 public school children. I speculated that there may 1.5 children per household in the school system, a figure I felt was safe but cannot support in any way. I would welcome any info that demonstrates the true figure. Anyway that’s 25%. Most households clearly don’t have children in the public school system.

>> To answer your question, then, what I should have said was that the funding formula improves the position of a majority of the state's public school children because it improves the situation of districts which contain a majority of the state's population.

Can you define what an “improved position of a school child” is and what an "improved situation of a school district" is? Again I'm just not sure what you are referring to here. Thanks.

Andrew,

1) I'll pass by your meta-comments on "modern liberalism" because I think that discussions of "how liberals/conservatives think" are unproductive and unrewarding (except for certain politicians, talk-show hosts and ideologues). I'd rather stick to the issue at hand.

While I'm a big fan of hard work and self-improvement, I'm afraid I can't drum up much sympathy for the hypothetical "hard-working parents" in your morality tale. Their dreams of escaping to "low tax suburb" were frustrated because RI finally figured out it should no longer be the only state in the nation without a fair and predictable funding formula (don't underestimate the harm that the unpredictability of the current system does to EVERY district) , and "low tax suburb" was only such because of an unfair allocation of state funds. They may be deserving of sympathy for their miscalculation, but they don't deserve the advantage they sought.

I am sure you disagree, but the point is that it all turns on your ability to justify the current funding situation as fair, or at least more fair than the prposed formula alternative. I look forward to your efforts. The current order is not "natural", and it's not obviously just. It's the product of years of political wrangling. A principled approach that creates a predictable and rational allocation should replace it.

2. Opponents of the "funding formula" are frequently admonished for "pitting one community against another". Then, contradictorily, they are told that children in some communities will have to suffer, so others may improve, as if that's not the actual reasoning doin' the pittin'.

In a word, I think not. I wonder if you know how the formula works? I confess I'm unclear about a few details, but the outlines seem clear. Some districts will get less state aid than they did, but no children will "suffer" under the proposed formula. A base-line property tax rate is set, and all cities/districts have to raise that much. If that's enough to provide the formula baseline (plus the add=ons for costly students) they get no state aid. If it's more than enough, they don't have to transfer any money to any other community. If it's less than enough, the difference is made up by the state. Some communities will have to raise property taxes to a level closer to the leve that other communities are already assessing, but bo student "suffers" at all.

why shouldn't it also be being practiced within communities? If it is acceptable to shift resources inter-community, why shouldn't a multi-school district also shift is resources intra-community, if that could improve the situation of 60% of the students within its school system?

Good Point!! In fact, I've heard that there's a movement to use intra-district funding formulas (schools with high-cost students get more than other schools). I support that, and am glad you agree.

Thomas,

Let’s stick with some facts please. The highest property tax burdens in RI are in the suburban/rural ring. Check out the RIPEC studies.

If a low/middle income family in, say, Richmond, sees a meteoric rise in their property taxes due to this funding formula, do the children in that family suffer? Just wondering.

1. The state of Rhode Island collected about $3 billion in general-revenue-minus-gambling last year. As a first approximation, let's apportion it per-capita, which given the progressive nature of the income tax, will understate the contribution of the 'burbs. E. Greenwich (1.3% of the population, $2.2 million in state aid) received about 6 cents in education-aid back for every dollar paid in taxes. Providence (16.5% of the population, $189 million in state aid) received about 38 cents in education aid for every dollar paid in taxes.

How exactly, without invoking any redistributive or the-state-owns-everything ideologies that you claim play no role in your thinking, does this represent an "unfair allocation of state funds"?

2. A more telling example may be to compare Providence to the Kingstown duo. Providence, North Kingstown and South Kingstown all spend roughly the same amount on salaries per education dept. employee, and on education dept. salaries per town population. "Funding formula" advocates look at this data and immediately conclude that the difference in educational performance between the communities can only be explained by Providence having more students that are "harder to educate". Providence needs more money because it's a city, and cities need more money. So everybody from everywhere pay up and shut up.

But if you look at the spending numbers in more detail, something else leaps out. Providence spends big on two categories that aren't really relevant to "harder to educate" students, substitute teachers and instructional support (defined as "curriculum development, professional development, and sabbaticals"). Providence spends about $1,200 per-pupil on these two categories combined, North Kingstown only $470, and South Kingstown about $310.

Tell State Senators Hanna Gallo and Rhoda Perry that they could take $800 per-pupil away from South Kingstown's budget and give it to Providence, and their answer is "gimme gimme gimme". Tell them that much more money for actual instruction can be found by bringing Providence's basic instructional expenditures into line with the rest of the state (after all, there are many more pupils in Providence), and the answer is "yeah, whatever; we'd have the rest of the state pay for Providence's bloated and inefficient spending".

Alas, there's no place in funding formula ideology for the recognition that politicians can make bad spending decision, and, as you point out, never any sympathy for people who could do better but are retarded by those bad decisions. Governments are simply entitled to a certain percentage of everyone's income, to be determined by experts, no well how wisely or poorly they spend it.

This is one of the most rigidly ideological positions in the educational debate.

3. If you want to bring "funding formula" logic intra-district, the place you'll want to start is at Hope Information Academy. Tell them they're getting too much money because they have the gall to be spending $13,303 per-pupil when only 48% of their students are eligible for reduced-price lunch, while Central High spends $11,067 (still above state average, by the way) for a population that's 69% eligible; those numbers clearly fail to reflect the proper ratio of full students to 0.8 students written into the "funding formula".

Let us know what the reaction is.

Frank says: …this isn’t education reform at all. It’s a wealth redistribution program.

Those two things aren't mutually exclusive. Secondly, ALL uses of tax money (whether state or local) to fund education, public or private, are "wealth redistribution" programs. That includes TomW's voucher system. Unless you reject all such "redistribution" (in which case, I think we don't have anything to talk about) the question becomes whether a particular system is good or bad. That involves balancing a number of different (and contested) principles such as fairness, equality, justice, need, and capacity with policy goals, such as creating a well-educated workforce that will attract business and keep people off public assistance.

The sole purpose of this is to give financial assistance to cities and towns that have mismanaged themselves into a fiscal abyss (as Providence has) by bleeding resources from the rest of the state.

The cities and towns that benefit are a mix. There are eight school districts (and more towns since some districts include more than one town) that do better under the formula. Again, these contain a majority of the state's population. Are you claiming that they are all mismanaged? Are you claiming that the others are well-managed? If so, could you please provide evidence? Regarding Providence specifically it has a per-pupil cost that's right at state average, despite disproportionate numbers of students with special needs. Its teacher salaries are 2.5% higher than the state average, but many of its administrative costs are lower.

Can you define what an “improved position of a school child” is and what an "improved situation of a school district" is? Again I'm just not sure what you are referring to here. Thanks.

I appear to have been somewhat careless on this point. I'd say a child's position improves if his/her district spends closer to the amount per student that is needed to educate him or her. (I'd say "spends more money on him/her", but I want to make sure you understand that I'm not arguing that absolute increases in dollars don't have diminishing returns or result in trade-offs with other values.) When I said that no child suffers under the formula, I mean that the formula assigns the same funding value to each child, weighted by student need, in the state. (and do recall that if a town has the desire and tax base to do so, it can continue to increase its school funding beyond the formula level, and no locally-raised funds are sent to other districts).

As you note below, a child's position improves if his/her parents pay lower property taxes than they did, though the amount spent on his/her education remains constant and equal with others. I suppose it is then fair to say that the child "suffers" if her parents' property taxes go up. However, that's only part of the question. If the original tax rate was artificially low because the community has managed, politically, to gain more state aid than is fair, the child's family is worse-off than they were, but they are not being treated unfairly.

Which brings us back to the question of what is "fair", which I think this discussion has almost entirely avoided. The formula says that state aid should not be based, as it is currently, on increments from the previous year's allocation, which are determined through political wrangling, It should be based on a rational, predictable formula that takes into account both student need and community tax capacity. It's what 48 or 49 other states do, and we should do it too. The details of any particular formula might be questioned, but I'm confident that the principle is correct.

Frank says, Let’s stick with some facts please.

3. I have a hard time taking on faith that the fact the Providence's "professional development" costs -- which are about three times higher, per-pupil, than most other Rhode Island communities -- represent optimal education spending.

I wouldn't ask you to take it on faith. Likewise, I don't see why the onus on me to demonstrate that it's justifiable, rather than on you to show that it's not. Also, to repeat myself yet again, even if you could demonstrate that half of it is unnecessary spending (mind you, the fact that others don't spend as much doesn't automatically make it unnecessary) I'll still say that finding 2% misspent in a budget doesn't establish much that affects the funding argument. I'll bet I can find a 2% "misallocation" in a lot of the districts. Why do many suburbs spend $400/per student more than average on psychologists than Providence does???

Despite your making the claim of misallocation without evidence to support it, I went ahead and called up people who I thought would know the answer. I learned that a large percentage of PD costs in Providence are a result of a mandate by RIDE to increase PD! So, whether or not it's a good idea to spend the funds in this way (and you still have not demonstrated that it's not) , you can't lay it to Providence's choice, as they had no choice in the matter. I know you've expressed contempt for "experts", but I'd really like some good reason to think that your judgments about education policy are superior to Peter McWalters'.

The argument that Providence (or West Warwick, for that matter) deserves more in every category of education spending is not really supported by any results-based evidence.

Well, first, thanks for finally recognizing that it's not all about Providence. Again, however, your argument seems to be that it doesn't matter if the forest is well-managed, you want to insist that every particular tree is. I think that's unreasonable, as I can find categories for which any particular district's spending is out-of-line (and remember, all them receive state aid). However, if you think the funding formula ought to do a line-item by line-item analysis of every district's budget, I encourage you to ask the GA and RIDE to do that. I'd actually support the inquiry, but I suspect the answer is that neither thinks that detailed level of oversight is helpful or efficient, as each districts' needs vary. Also, once again, I don't think you know what the right amounts for each line-item are , and it seems to me that you are grasping at straws.

4. Your per-pupil numbers don't include debt service and retirement costs, where Providence ranks 4th highest in the state (behind Newport, Bristol-Warren, and Exeter-WGreenwich).

Actually, this is a great question. I'll note first that Newport and BW are two of the districts that take the biggest hit in the formula. You might do well to spend some time looking into their finances. Anyway, I'll be happy to spend some time looking into this to see if you've got a valid point or not.

2nd in state aid per-pupil. 1st in pay to substitute teachers per-pupil. 6th in per-pupil curriculum development costs. 1st in per-pupil professional development costs.

And, yet, just about average in per-pupil expenditure, despite having much higher levels of expensive-to-educate students. Isn't that amazing? Providence must be enormously efficient in all the rest of the categories!

At some point, Providence has to take some responsibility for the shape of its public education system, and stop blaming the rest of Rhode Island

Nobody, I mean NOBODY, is "blaming the rest of Rhode Island" for anything. If you want a meaningful discussion, you must stop trying to put words into my mouth.

Thomas,

>> Frank stated that the formula was a benefit for Providence AND NOTHING MORE. That's simply a false statement of fact, and one which I think Frank knew was not true. Once again, the formula benefits a number of urban, suburban and rural communities outside of Providence, and a majority of the new funds go to communities outside of Providence. Therefore, Frank's claim is a false statement of fact, the evaluation of which has nothing whatsoever to do with ideology. I've said that several times, and I will say the same thing the next time as well.

Well maybe I wasn’t clear enough. What I meant to say is that it was the INTENT of the formula to grant an official tax break to the city of Providence. I will not deny that there may be necessary secondary effects or even the occaisional unintended effect to this formula. Do not forget that the effort to pass this formula will depend in large part on deceiving the public and on keeping it’s real intent hidden or nobody would go for it. Heck if it’s too obvious even “the people” might catch on. That’s why the proponents can’t call it the Providence Tax Subsidy Formula and instead have given it the misleading title of Fair Share Education Funding Formula.

Don’t you think it’s just a little bit disingenuous on your part to keep claiming that some towns besides Providence will benefit from this formula when your reference point from which you describe their "benefit” is the current flawed, unequal method of distributing state aid back to the towns? Sure some will improve their position but let’s be honest for a moment and admit that (ignoring Central Falls for a moment) ALL of the other towns would be benefiting EVEN MORE if Providence wasn’t getting the mother load of education aid right now.

Even though I don’t see anyone here ready to concede their positions at least we can appreciate the amount of learning that has gone on just on this comment section. You have learned that 1) most households in RI do not have children in the public school system, 2) the RI suburbs are not “low tax”, 3) many of the suburban/rural households bear the extra burden of wells and septic systems with their hidden, tax-like costs, not to mention lack of basic services such as trash pick-up, 4) Providence does not seem to clearly have a greater percentage of school children in the school system than the rest of the state. That’s pretty good for one thread, don’t you think?

Frank,

I appreciate the clarification, which I take to mean that you now accept that , not only does ALL the benefit not go to Providence, but more than half of the increases in the formula go to cities and towns outside of Providence.

However, if you're now saying that, regardless of the actual effects, the SOLE intent behind the bill is to benefit Providence, I don't think that's any more convincing. It requires that we believe that the Cranston and E. Providence co-sponsors, as well as the bill's supporters in every city and town, either have a "hidden" agenda to benefit Providence alone or else are deluded.

In short, you're not only arguing about motives again, but you're attributing some pretty bizarre ones, and dismissing everyone who disagrees with you as either liars or fools. There are simpler explanations.



Don’t you think it’s just a little bit disingenuous on your part to keep claiming that some towns besides Providence will benefit from this formula when your reference point from which you describe their "benefit” is the current flawed, unequal method of distributing state aid back to the towns?

Not at all. In fact you've given a perfectly accurate statement of my position, except that state aid doesn't come from towns, it comes from people irrespective of place of residence

Sure some will improve their position but let’s be honest for a moment and admit that (ignoring Central Falls for a moment) ALL of the other towns would be benefiting EVEN MORE if Providence wasn’t getting the mother load of education aid right now.

Yes, that's certainly true. In fact, every district could get more if some other district got less. I'm not sure what that has to do with the fairness of the current situation or the formula.

Oh. Wait. You think the current system is flawed because Providence is already getting too much money? Are there any other cities or towns on your list? I have noticed that you have not put forward any suggestion as to how you think state education aid should be distributed, or whether it should exist at all. I'm curious to know.

Even though I don’t see anyone here ready to concede their positions at least we can appreciate the amount of learning that has gone on just on this comment section. You have learned that

It's kind of you to point out what you think I've learned. I wish I could return the favor. However,

1) most households in RI do not have children in the public school system,

I know you speculated about this. It would not surprise me if you were right, given households without children, those with grown children, and those with children in private schools. However, this has no relevance whatsoever to the question of how we should be paying for the children that actually are in public school, which is the question at hand.

2) the RI suburbs are not “low tax”,

I ignored your earlier comment on this question simply because it began with an initiation for me to "get my head out of the sand".

I did not say "suburbs are low tax". I did say that the current property tax burden, relative to the tax base, is higher in some areas than others. It's worst in Providence, but other places (including some suburban and rural areas) are also higher. (You may have gotten past thinking that the formula benefits only providence, but you do still seem to want to ignore that rural and suburban communities benefit, including your own Coventry)

You claimed that the Coventry tax burden is higher than Providence's. Since both places benefit under the proposed formula, I'm not sure that's the comparison you want, but I'll post a comment in response as soon as I am able.

3) many of the suburban/rural households bear the extra burden of wells and septic systems with their hidden, tax-like costs, not to mention lack of basic services such as trash pick-up,

I've lived past where the sidewalk ends, so it's not something I learned here. However, I think you might have a good point about what it means for fairness. If residents of a community pay out-of-pocket for a service that is paid for in other communities through taxes AND the cost of those services is higher than if they were provided by the town, perhaps some consideration should be given to that. On the other hand, if they could be done cheaper by the town, why isn't that being done?

I'm sure that the cost of many services varies from place to place based on density and other factors. However, the formula does not look at current tax rates or city services at all. It requires a town to set a minimum property tax, relative to the tax base, with that money to be used for education in that town. It also sets a need, based on the number of students and the various multipliers, and makes up the difference with state aid not derived from local taxes.

Maybe you've found a reason to tweak the formula, but certainly not a reason to abandon it.

4) Providence does not seem to clearly have a greater percentage of school children in the school system than the rest of the state.

I don't think this has been established at all. ChuckR (who I commend for both his civilized tone, and willingness to have a constructive dialog based on facts) has estimated the 2006 population of Providence to be between 15% and 16.9% of the state population. Providence has 17.4% of the state public school children. As ChuckR candidly admits, the estimates are estimates, but they certainly don't contradict the claim that Providence has at least a slightly higher proportion of public school children. If you split the difference and call it 16%, then Providence has 1.4% of the students over what it's population suggests, which is 2,140 students. At the current per-student statewide spending, that comes to just over $29M. Of course, if you just focus on per-pupil spending, this becomes a non-issue.

Thomas -

Although I mentioned the range of estimates of Providence population as a percentage of RI population, I also made it pretty clear I didn't believe the exceptionally low "official" estimate - said low estimate perversely doesn't help this part of their argument. But let's use your excess of 2100 students. That's less than $30 million to cover them 100%. Where's the justification for the other anticipated $210 million? Incidentally, Providence is the largest consumer of taxes; thats why its an easy target, not that we have anything special against the city - as opposed to a smoking crater like Central Falls. Part of the tax effort argument rests on property tax base and that in turn is tied directly the city management of all its other functions. Screw it up badly and do so for a long enough period of time and you will drive the overall valuation down. People like me will finally get a clue after 14 years as a resident and taxpayer and leave. The real estate will become less desirable and the market will bid it down. Then, the rest of us get to reward mismanagement and, yes, criminal behavior - because the city voters do and have rewarded them for a long time. I have no problem objecting to that. With good government, would Providence property be worth more? Would more people want to live there; would more businesses want to locate there for the real benefits a city can provide? Of course.

Thomas says

>> However, if you're now saying that, regardless of the actual effects, the SOLE intent behind the bill is to benefit Providence, I don't think that's any more convincing. It requires that we believe that the Cranston and E. Providence co-sponsors, as well as the bill's supporters in every city and town, either have a "hidden" agenda to benefit Providence alone or else are deluded.

The sponsors of the bills are from towns that will stand to benefit from the formula. Duh! Their towns are suffering under the current unfair system thanks to Providence and they can improve their lot with this formula, at the expense of some of the other towns it should be noted. Nothing is hidden. If the sponsors COULD get rid of the current system’s favoritism towards the capitol city altogether I’m sure they would. All this formula demonstrates is that some of the legislators out there don’t believe they have the ability to decrease Providence’s disproportional piece of the pie so they retooled it with a little extra in it for themselves.

>> In short, you're not only arguing about motives again, but you're attributing some pretty bizarre ones, and dismissing everyone who disagrees with you as either liars or fools.

You are the only one disagreeing. Good descriptors though.

>> … except that state aid doesn't come from towns, it comes from people irrespective of place of residence.

It comes from people who live in separate, distinct towns. And since their money comes back to them disproportionately by town, their place of residence certainly does matter.

>> Oh. Wait. You think the current system is flawed because Providence is already getting too much money?

You are catching on.

>> I know you speculated (that most households in RI do not have children in the public school system). It would not surprise me if you were right, …

It has already been noted that there are 150,000 public school children in RI and there are slightly more than 400,000 households and you wouldn’t be surprised if most households don’t have children in the school system? Wouldn’t be surprised?!! What kind of math are you using?

>> I did not say "suburbs are low tax".

Well Thomas to quote you from an earlier comment: “Urban districts around the country have suffered from having to maintain much higher property tax rates than suburbs to achieve the same results.” And in your response to Andrew’s first comment you coined the phrase “low tax suburb” more than once.

>> I don't think (Providence not having a greater percentage of school children in the school system than the rest of the state) has been established at all. ChuckR (who I commend for both his civilized tone, and willingness to have a constructive dialog based on facts) has estimated the 2006 population of Providence to be between 15% and 16.9% of the state population. Providence has 17.4% of the state public school children. As ChuckR candidly admits, the estimates are estimates, but they certainly don't contradict the claim that Providence has at least a slightly higher proportion of public school children. If you split the difference and call it 16%, then Providence has 1.4% of the students over what it's population suggests, which is 2,140 students. At the current per-student statewide spending, that comes to just over $29M. Of course, if you just focus on per-pupil spending, this becomes a non-issue.

Yes Thomas and you have failed to consider that Providence has the greatest percentage of property coming from commercial/industrial in RI, nearly 25%. Which makes it even more difficult, if not impossible, to make a case for Providence having a higher than average percentage of school children for the size of the community, which is the category that we are discussing here. You have only been comparing the number of public school children per capita. You have ignored the fact that Providence is below the state average for percentage of residential property in the state.

The sponsors of the bills are from towns that will stand to benefit from the formula. Duh!

Your claim was that the real motive of even those not from Providence was to benefit Providence, rather their own communities, which I continue to find incredible. However, I'm just going to skip over this stuff about motives from now on, as it has nothing at all to do with whether the proposal is right or wrong, and leads nowhere.

It has already been noted that there are 150,000 public school children in RI and there are slightly more than 400,000 households and you wouldn’t be surprised if most households don’t have children in the school system? Wouldn’t be surprised?!! What kind of math are you using?

Sigh. I didn't use any math. I hadn't noticed that you posted the number of households, so I was just guessing (correctly, as it turns out). You said this was something I "learned", but I had no reason to think otherwise, nor did I state otherwise.

Nor can I see why it matters. The districts that will see an increase in state funding contain a majority of the state's public school children. Those cities and towns, which will get some property tax relief from the formula, contain a majority of the state's total population, according to the 2006 census estimates.

Please note that this is not the justification for the formula; it is simply the answer to your persistant claim that it's all about Providence.

>> I did not say "suburbs are low tax". <>

I think you can only coin a phrase once ☺
I used the phrase "low tax suburb" (quotes in the original) to describe the destination of Andrew's hypothetical family fleeing a hypothetical city's "high cost government". It did not reflect a belief on my part that all suburbs are low-tax. I'm happy to be clear that I believe the following:

1. Urban districts in the US generally have lower-property-value to-student ratios than suburbs, and thus must make a greater tax effort, resulting in higher property tax burdens than suburbs. This, in part was what lead every state but RI and PA to adopt a formula. PA is likely to adopt one this years.. (I'd be happy to email you links to studies or the studies themselves if you like). Note that I am not saying the suburbs are "low tax", or that urban areas are always "higher taxed".

2. Not all urban districts in RI have higher tax burdens than all suburban districts. In RI Providence has the highest tax burden. (I know you disagree and I intend to respond to your original comment on this, if I can ever get past responding to all this other stuff.) On the other hand, Cranston (it's a city of course, but in most places would be considered a suburb, especially given that more Cranston residents work in Providence than anywhere else including Cranston itself) has the second highest. The City of Newport is far down the list, after many suburbs and rural towns.

Yes Thomas and you have failed to consider that Providence has the greatest percentage of property coming from commercial/industrial in RI, nearly 25%. Which makes it even more difficult, if not impossible, to make a case for Providence having a higher than average percentage of school children for the size of the community,

There is no logical relation whatsoever between the percentage of a town's property that is commercial and the ratio of its school children to its population. However, the numbers we have seen support that Providence has a higher than average percentage of public school children for the size of the community, if only slightly. Again, this as a non-issue, since the formula allocates funds per-pupil, rather than a lump sum that is politically bargained each year.

Hi ChuckR,

I'm sorry I didn't respond earlier, but I was not sure how to answer your question, because I couldn't figure out where the $210M figure you mentioned comes from. If you'll tell me that, I'll be happy to answer as best I can.

When you say that your doubts come from the fact that Providence is the largest consumer of taxes and you have no particular antipathy toward the City, I believe you, because your comments to date suggest a reasonable, if skeptical, attitude. I regret that not everyone evidences such reasonableness.

I'll also mention that I've argued here before that, based on the number of jobs it provides to citizens of the state, Providence is most likely a net benefit to the state financially, rather than a drain.

However, as I've said previously in this thread, I think it's reasonable to say that , because of it's size, Providence, more than any city or town, needs to be able to show that it's state aid is being well-spent. I'm satisfied that my discussion with Andrew has shown that Providence's school budget is not out of line. I haven't tried to speak to the city budget as a whole, but for now I'd say that a) the current administration is much more committed to fiscal responsibility and avoiding corruption than the previous one was, and b) the burden of proof is on critics to show fault.

Further, even if Providence is understandably held to a high standard, every city and town receives state aid, and I think it's wrong that some people think Providence alone is required to prove its efficiency and integrity. In particular, I am at a complete loss to understand how those purportedly interested in efficient use of tax dollars do not question Newport's increasing education funding, in the light of a decline in student population of roughly 25%.

I have been looking at your site whenever I obtain a possibility...and I just wanted to tell you how much I enjoy it! Thank you for your familiarity to this matter!

I have been looking at your blogging site each time I get a possibility...and I just wanted to tell you how much I enjoy it! I have gratitude for your know-how to this subject matter!

I have been browsing your website whenever I get a chance...and I just wanted to tell you how much I enjoy it! Thank you for your know-how to this field!

I have been looking at your blog whenever I receive a opportunity...and I just wanted to tell you how much I enjoy it! I have appreciation for your experience to this field!

I have been browsing your blog each time I receive a possibility...and I just wanted to tell you how much I enjoy it! I have gratitude for your know-how to this topic!