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.

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.

>>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.”

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.

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.

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… Read more »

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.

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… Read more »

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.

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… Read more »

Thomas, pull your head out of the sand. You are looking at effective tax rates! You need to scroll down a little further and look at the tax burdens. Every time the Journal does a story on property taxes it’s the tax burden they discuss, not even mentioning the effective rate. You have to take account for the valuation of the properties.
According to RIPEC the Tax Burdens are: #1 Coventry, #2 East Greenwich, #3 Cranston, #4 Hopkington, #5 Glocestor … Providence #17.
I have 4 bed/2bath 2500 sq. ft. colonial in Coventry. My property taxes will be about $8,100 next year. I just searched RI Living for every Providence colonial for sale between 2500 and 3000 sq. ft., with anything close to 4 bed/2 baths. The current property taxes claimed by the handful I found range between $2300 and $3000.
Facts indeed my friend.

Andrew says, 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”? I made no such claim about my ideology. I simply said that I don’t think that having the meta-discussion about ideology, rather than discussing the issue at hand, is likely to be helpful. I am happy to say that a) no, I don’t think “the state owns everything” and b) I support redistributive tax policies, within limits, in a variety of cases. I would have thought that was already obvious. I support such policies especially in education, because I think a commitment to equality of opportunity (not of result) requires it. (NB I do understand that some folks, and possibly some folks on AR, think that support for progressive income taxation is equivalent to communism. I have no more interest in debating that than I have in talking to the real communists.) 2. So everybody from everywhere pay up and shut up. Please, Andrew. I have never said this or anything close to it. You have your chance to convince your fellow citizens and the legislature to vote against this. If your side succeeds (as it has for a number of years) or if it doesn’t, well, that’s democracy. I think it’s all about using facts and principles to mount arguments, which I take it is what each of us is doing here. 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… Read more »

You’re right Chuck. And I do have a well and septic and I also have to pay $300+ a year for trash pick up. But hey if we are looking for fairness we’ll just have to look elsewhere right?

Frank and Chuck,
I strongly recommend that you write to the sponsors of the bill, urging that some consideration be made in the formula for communities that have septic systems rather than sewers or have additional costs such as per/pound trash costs. Document the additional burden that you suffer and ask that it be included as part of the formula.Sign up to testify at hearings.
I believe that your concerns are legitimate. I will be happy to write a letter in support of your proposal or even testify personally. My address is easy to find, so please let me know what I can do to help.
-Thomas

Thomas The reason its easy to focus on Providence is because the city will get the greatest amount of money from the rest of us. You have pointed out that Providence’s per pupil spending isn’t out of line. True enough, but around 45% of it already comes from the rest of the state’s taxpayers. (That’s as of a few years ago.) IIRC, Providence has around 14% of the state population and its 25000 students represent around 15% of its population. This is not a unusually young population (RI averages 22% population under the age of 18 per US census stats) and Providence is not educating a disproportionate percentage of children. The whole tax effort argument means you need to look at all of Providence’s budget, not just the school budget. Providence comes to us like a shambling alcoholic – and all we offer is an assured supply of Sneaky Pete. Like the state, the city needs a twelve step program and many of the steps have been discussed at this blog. Here are a few: 1) The work week is 40 hours, not 35. Average savings, assuming 100% OH rate, is (40-35)/35/2 or 7%. 2) All contracts being renegotiated are to stipulate that pensions are collected at Social Security retirement age. No more collecting for an extra 10-15 years – its not sustainable. 3) No show workers can continue to be no-shows. They just can’t get paid for it. Where, oh, where is our AG? 4) Anybody with the words communications, deputy or assistant in the job title needs to find a job – and not a different one in government, either. Communications? What are newspapers and blogs for? 5) A real Big Audit with real consequences for other supernumeraries must be implemented. Business does this all the time; government… Read more »

Andrew, Of course Frank is “allowed” to say what he wants, and I’m sure he will continue to do so, but his saying that the formula “is an official property tax break for the city of Providence, nothing more”, is NOT a reasonable point; it’s a false statement, and Frank knows full well that the proposal benefits a broad group of districts that appear to include the majority of the population of the state. It benefits far more people outside of Providence than within, and less than half of the proposed increase in state funding goes to Providence. Yes, that’s a big chunk, and yes Providence gets the lion’s share (which is because Providence is big and has been among the most under-funded). Yes, I understand that, as ChuckR says, this makes a focus on Providence understandable, and I have been willing to respond to reasonable points about Providence and will continue to do so. So, I clearly didn’t say “shut up and pay up”, I said, more or less, “if you’re going to dissemble, I won’t feel compelled to address your points”. I’m sure you see the difference. Perhaps not, though, since you yourself insist on peppering your comments with phrases like “Providence’s insatiable appetite for other communities’ money”. As to your substantive points, I can’t get the link you provided to work at all, but it’s the same RIDE data I pointed to, right? I believe that’s the most current data on expenditures. Since you’ve counted from some categories and not others, instead of making me do the math, I’d be grateful if you just post the numbers that add up to $1,200. Perhaps you’re right that, given the $ amounts involved “minutia” was the wrong word. Let me try, “missing the forest for the trees”. The claim… Read more »

Thomas
I’m puzzled about the assertion that Providence has a young population. RI has an older population overall and I did some checking on Providence. Here’s what I found:
1)Providence Schools – 26229 students – school department numbers
2)Providence population – 175000 (2006 est) but the Providenceri.com city gov’t website estimates 160000. Other estimates range to 180000. I guess it depends what you intend to do with the number as to which you select. They are rather fungible….
3) Providence persons between the ages of 5 and 18 – based on 1) and 2) above – 14.9% assuming population of 175000 or 16.3% assuming 160000
4)RI population 2006 est 1068000 Census Bureau quick facts
5) RI Persons between the ages of 5 and 18 – 16.4% Census Bureau quick facts
Does Providence have a serious truancy problem? Otherwise I’m not seeing the figures to back an assertion that Providence educates a disproportionate number of children.
On your point about the school budget being apart from the rest of nunicipalities’ budgets, you can’t subdivide the overall tax costs until you find a set where your tax effort is disproportionate, whatever that means. Have they not considered returning the tax effort to proportionality through economizing? Furthermore, if the rest of the state pays 45% +/- of the Providence local school budget, isn’t that a a substantial reduction in their tax effort? I would prefer to keep this on a year to year basis until they demonstrate that they will not fall off the wagon on spending elsewhere.

ChuckR, I’m not quite sure what to make of the reliability of the census estimates, and the census is famous for undercounting certain populations. However, you may well be right that the proportion of school aged children in Providence is not different from the rest of the state. If I claimed otherwise, I should not have, and should have limited my statement to the percentage of public school children. Using the 2006-2007 RIDE figure for Providence, public school attendance of 26,531(which is different from your figure by only about 300) and using the RIDE figure for public school students statewide of 152,904, we find that Providence has 17.4% of the public school population. That, I believe, is larger than Providence’s share of the general population, which means that Providence has more public school children per resident than the average district. If we want to talk about what counts as “adequate funding”, I believe that number is more significant than the proportions in the general population, because it counts the actual number of children the district must educate. As to your second point, you are right to question what “disproportionate tax burden” means. “returning the tax effort to proportionality” is exactly what the funding formula is meant to do. It’s based on the premise that those cities and towns that benefit from the formula are already exerting a disproportionately high effort. I expect that justifying that means addressing Frank’s question after all. I’ll try to do that this evening if I can find time. You might find some comfort for your concerns, however, in the formula itself. It requires each district/municipality to exert a certain effort to raise school funds before state aid is allocated. That means that a district can’t say “we need more non-school aid because we are spending… Read more »

Andrew says, 1. you don’t get to unilaterally declare that because someone disagrees with your ideology, they are dissembling. 1. That’s no problem for me, since that’s not what I said. 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. So tell us, under the Providence-first funding formula that you are advocating for, what community is going to be in position for the biggest property tax break? In total dollars, it’s Providence of course, because it’s so large. That ought to be obvious. If you mean per capita or per student, I actually haven’t done the math. I won’t be surprised if it’s still Providence, though, since the formula is based partly on tax effort, and Providence’s is currently highest in the state. I’ve been quite forthright in stating that I agree that Providence, as the largest beneficiary, should have it’s finance scrutinized. I’ve said that I’m sure that defects can be found, but I’m equally confident that those defects (except insofar as size magnifies them) are no worse than other districts. You have not yet proven the latter statement to be incorrect. There’s nothing beyond-the-pale about Frank pointing out what the answer to this question is. One more time…..That’s not what Frank said at all, he said the formula was ALL about… Read more »

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.… Read more »

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… Read more »

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… Read more »

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 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!