Rhode Island Statewide Education Aid, By Community, Per-Pupil
Providence Mayor David Cicilline says the only way to fix Providence’s failing schools is for the rest of Rhode Island to give more money to the Providence school system. However, combining the Governor�s 2007 budget with the student population data from the Rhode Island Information Works website (results below) shows that Rhode Island is already very generous towards the state’s capitol core. While accounting for only about 26% of RI students, Providence, Pawtucket, and Central Falls already receive about 44% of the total education aid given directly to cities and towns.
Since there is not much money in the form of state aid left to be taken from non-urban communities to fund urban school boards (some communities receive less than $1,000 per pupil compared to Providence’s $6,772 per-pupil), Mayor Cicilline and “education adequacy” advocates are looking for new methods for raiding the non-urban tax base. Given the existing funding situation, “education adequacy” means using mostly statewide taxation to pay for urban core education while using a mixture of property taxes and state aid to pay for urban ring and suburban education. People in the urban areas will only be required to pay once — for their school system, through statewide taxation. People not in urban areas will be required to pay twice — for both their own community’s schools and for urban schools.
School District | State Aid | Students | Aid-per-Student |
Central Falls | $41,335,813 | 3734 | $11,070 |
Providence | $188,940,591 | 27900 | $6,772 |
Pawtucket | $64,874,304 | 9654 | $6,720 |
Woonsocket | $45,937,020 | 6928 | $6,631 |
Bristol/Warren | $20,024,144 | 3688 | $5,430 |
Burrillville | $13,540,919 | 2590 | $5,228 |
WestWarwick | $19,972,977 | 3838 | $5,204 |
East Providence | $26,284,707 | 6386 | $4,116 |
Newport | $11,581,802 | 2826 | $4,098 |
Glocester | $3,159,848 | 793 | $3,985 |
Chariho | $14,667,680 | 3863 | $3,797 |
North Providence | $13,091,637 | 3473 | $3,770 |
Middletown | $10,423,773 | 2769 | $3,764 |
Foster | $1,378,500 | 369 | $3,736 |
Exeter/W Greenwich | $7,511,299 | 2204 | $3,408 |
Coventry | $19,903,170 | 5862 | $3,395 |
Foster/Glocester | $5,641,416 | 1693 | $3,332 |
Johnston | $10,903,894 | 3285 | $3,319 |
Cranston | $35,253,290 | 11222 | $3,141 |
Warwick | $37,365,858 | 11993 | $3,116 |
Tiverton | $5,896,220 | 2224 | $2,651 |
North Kingstown | $12,008,646 | 4626 | $2,596 |
South Kingstown | $10,516,526 | 4174 | $2,520 |
Cumberland | $13,206,064 | 5349 | $2,469 |
North Smithfield | $4,806,225 | 2006 | $2,396 |
Portsmouth | $6,574,703 | 3066 | $2,144 |
Smithfield | $5,802,003 | 2710 | $2,141 |
Lincoln | $7,545,267 | 3649 | $2,068 |
Scituate | $3,474,634 | 1817 | $1,912 |
Westerly | $7,060,711 | 3710 | $1,903 |
Narragansett | $2,091,859 | 1673 | $1,250 |
Little Compton | $396,888 | 327 | $1,214 |
Jamestown | $587,030 | 545 | $1,077 |
New Shoreham | $135,660 | 151 | $898 |
East Greenwich | $2,178,616 | 2466 | $883 |
Barrington | $2,906,626 | 3434 | $846 |
These are fascinating numbers. If you subtract a town’s share of state students from its share of state aid, you can create nice ranking of net taxpayers (for which the number is negative)and net tax eaters (for which it is neutral, or, most often, positive). The top ten taxpayers include Portsmouth, South Kingstown, North Kingstown, Lincoln, East Greenwich, Westerly, Cumberland, Barrington, Cranston and Warwick. The top ten tax eaters include Providence, Central Falls, Pawtucket, Woonsocket, Bristol/Warren, West Warwick, Burrillville, Foster, Glocester, and New Shoreham.
Now, tell me, Andrew, how many votes are there in the top ten list? How many have Democratic Reps and Senators who have, year after year, voted for all that state aid to the tax eaters? Oh, yes, while also voting to double our spending on social welfare (and no prizes for guessing the cities and towns where most of that goes).
The battle lines for the 2006 election are getting clearer all the time, aren’t they?
Very nice work, Mr. Morse. It is quite insightful.
Interestingly, at the current overall level of state support for education, an equitable distribution formula would provide even less for the communities at the bottom of the list. More, not less, of total education spending must be provided from the state to reduce the overreliance on property taxes to fund education.
Very nice research, Andrew. What I find interesting is that the tuition I am paying for my son to attend Bishop Hendricken High School is LESS than the aid the state gives per capita in Central Falls, and is approaching that of the aid per capita to Providence students. And that doesn’t count what the cities, themselves, add to this. And for what?
I get a very sick feeling as I look upon this data. It seems to be calling out for a reconsideration of a voucher plan.
Tom,
The facts are straightforward, no “spin” is needed – Rhode Island ranks at the bottom of the list in providing state aid to education (about 43rd in the country, about 37% of overall education expenditures versus the national average of 50%). Andrew did a great job of showing the distribution in “per student” terms, which underscores the poverty impact on educational performance (turning the list upside down gives a pretty good ranking of educational performance by community). Gary Sasse will tell you that a state that generates the same amount of tax revenue from the property tax as it does from a combination of income AND sales tax ($1.8 Billion in each case) is out of balance.
Despite the expectations of some who post here, in the short term, the overall tax burden is not going to decline in this state without a dramatic impact on services, so ensuring that the tax burden is fairly distributed is crucial. In the long term, the only way to grow the tax base is to attract more business, and to solve the wage gap issue by increasing compensation of lower paid employees, which is an area that lags in Rhode Island. Universal health care would help a lot as well, but that is a topic for another day.
Bob
Bob Walsh lacks the courage to come out and say what “ensuring that the tax burden is fairly distributed” really means. As he said on talk radio, he wants to substantially raise taxes on the affluent and on businesses, while raising (not cutting) state spending in spite of a $300 million (and growing) budget deficit (with more to come in future years, according to RIPEC).
And that will, by causing even more taxpayers and businesses to flee the state, only make things worse.
Basically, Bob can’t handle the truth: cuts in Rhode Island’s grossly ineffective and inefficient social welfare programs, as well as public sector pensions and post retirement health care programs, are inevitable.
The only question is whether they will be made volutarily by the General Assembly or by the Federal Bankruptcy Court.
Clearly, my willingness to use my own name on these posts should answer the “courage” question. And while they are two separate issues, I do not rule out cutting corporate tax loopholes (which would increase taxes on businesses taking advantage of them) or even raising taxes if necessary to balance the budget. However, what I was discussing was the distribution of the tax burden, and even if the budget was balanced, I believe (as does RIPEC) that we over rely on the property tax to fund education specifically and government generally. Most Rhode Islanders would be better off paying more in income taxes and less in property taxes. Since many will not trust my math, please do your own and report back if you take this topic as seriously as I do. Or, you can continue to take anonymous shots at the messenger, which requires a lot less work.
Bob Walsh is the face of disaster in the state of Rhode Island. He is the single reason that our elderly are suffering. He is the major deterrent for good growing companies to move to RI. Great Posting Mr. Morce.