Sunday, March 17, 2019

Back to the Education Funding Formula


MN School Finance A Guide for Legislators

This is somewhat of a vicious cycle...

  • Districts / schools lower their behavior and academic standards.
  • This ensures the unlucky kids feel welcome and don't fail.
  • The academically focused more well to do families move to a different district / school.
  • The property values and tax revenues fall.
  • The Districts /Schools are short revenue with a more challenging student body.
  • They go to the State begging for more funding.
Now I do agree that the "special education" costs should be fully funded by the Feds / State since they are the ones mandating some of that high cost / low benefit care.

As for the "we need more money" because we contributed to scaring away our best and brightest families. I am unsure if that makes sense??? 

From an earlier post...
"In my district (where I live) they decided this year to get rid of honors classes at the middle school and mix students together for all classes (not sure about math)
When my kids went there they had almost all honors classes, but I think the staff found teaching the non-honors classes quite difficult. Anyway, my neighbor whose youngest child is in 6th grade, open enrolled him to another district and now drives him and 2 other students to a middle school about 10 miles away. The other district is less diverse and much less low income than the district in which I live. Not sure if they have honors type classes or just classes with less misbehavior due to their demographics." Laurie 
"Yes, that is what I fear will happen at RDale now that they are eliminating seperation between focused students with good grades and the others. The hallways of the schools held there own challenges, but we knew the classrooms were more stable. Now folks like me will be even more concerned about keeping our kids in the district. And if they leave and take with them their child’s funding, their financial and time donations, and the stabilizing influence their focused kids provide... The whole school, district and community will suffer.
The same thing that happened to most challenged schools. Those who can run do so, and leave the trouble makers behind.  Which I guess is what a good parent who wants the best for their child would do." G2A / John

18 comments:

jerrye92002 said...

At least two obvious problems here: First is the notion that demographics create behavior problems (ref. St Paul policy). Second is that mixing students of different abilities makes things worse, not better. Third is that more money doesn't fix problems; you fix the problems and if that takes more money you should get it. Fourth is that it is an affront to fundamental fairness that the poor kids who need it most are denied the choices that rich kids have for seeking and receiving a better education. Fifth is that lowering standards lowers achievement by lowering expectations; successful schools raise standards. Sixth, property taxes are based on total valuation, residential and commercial, an arbitrary number almost always higher in urban than suburban/rural districts.

John said...

Did you read the article?

John said...

Obvious Problems by Jerry:
1. demographics create behavior problems

2. mixing students of different abilities makes things worse, not better.

3. more money doesn't fix problems; you fix the problems and if that takes more money you should get it.

4. it is an affront to fundamental fairness that the poor kids who need it most are denied the choices that rich kids have for seeking and receiving a better education.

5. that lowering standards lowers achievement by lowering expectations; successful schools raise standards.

6.property taxes are based on total valuation, residential and commercial, an arbitrary number almost always higher in urban than suburban/rural districts.

John said...

G2A Thoughts...

1. "Demographic: the statistical characteristics of human populations." They may not create behavioral problems, but they can define and predict where it happens, who is involved, which communities will be safer, etc.

2. Agreed to some level. Unfortunately it also leads to the lucky smart kids way outpacing the unlucky not so smart kids.

3. One can not get paid with should. :-)

4.Yes it is too bad they don't have better Parent(s)

5. Agreed.

6. Unfortunately poor areas exist in the cities and country.

jerrye92002 said...

1. Demographics seem to predict behavior problems, that is true. School discipline policies decide whether those problems get discouraged or encouraged. Ref. St. P.

2. Here's what happens when you mix abilities: lucky smart kids get bored and disrupt the class, and unlucky not so smart kids get discouraged and fall further behind. The opposite is to let all the kids progress at their own pace, with more attention focussed on the slowest so that, while they may never catch up, they progress much faster, usually to "within reach."

3. Tell me what your program is for improvement, explain to me why it requires more money than you already get, and promise results. Don't deliver, you don't get the money next time around. Of course, you could do it the other way, which would be to agree on a target for improvement and then reward those schools that achieve it.

4. It is not unfortunate. It is deliberately and grossly unfair, discriminatory, and a setback for society as a whole.

5. Too bad many public schools go the other way. Part of the behavior problem is that too many go unchallenged.

6. Crazy thing is that places with low incomes tend to have high property values, especially commercial/industrial property. And property valuations are independent, more or less, of household income. That is why we have an "equalization formula" in the first place.

John said...

1. Unfortunately disciplining trouble makers is being discouraged in our politically correct society. As is holding ineffectual parent(s) accountable. Too bad for the unlucky kids.

2. Makes sense.

3. Unless we go after ineffectual parent(s) and early childhood education, I hold little hope for closing the gap.
- 157,680 hours in 18 years...
- Schools only get 15,834 hours...
- Parent(s) / community get 141,846 hours,
- including the most important first 43,800 hours...
- when the brain develops and habits are formed.

4. I agree. Parent(s) should have to earn the right to have kids.

5. See #1 comments

6. Again. Did you actually read the article? Or are you just blowing smoke out your posterior again?



jerrye92002 said...

1. Again you want to make kids responsible for the lack of an effective discipline policy by the SCHOOL. Political correctness run amok is a reason; it is not an excuse.

3. Study after study says that two good teachers in a row overcomes most educational disadvantages. Also, that 6-1/2 hours per day of effective instruction outweighs all other influences.

4. Parents DO have the right to have kids. They also have the right to a "free" and "equal" education. Yet you would deny both on the basis of economic status and skin color.

5. One reason I like CAI is that every student progresses at exactly their own pace, so they are constantly challenged. I've seen classes of 40 where the only sound was clacking of keys, and classes of 20, using OBE, where maybe 6 were learning, and the rest were either bored or lost. By the time the last two were up to speed, All 18 of the rest were bored.

6. I read the article. It didn't tell me why the current formula is wrong, or how the intent of the program could be better achieved. I know it is a big "unfair" factor in our local school finance.

John said...

1. No the kids are not responsible. Our society is...

3. Sources?

4. Nope. I don't care about income or skin color. Only if they ensure their child is ready for kindergarten, fed, washed, given appropriate supervision, in a stable home, raised believing in the power of learning, the power of themselves, etc. You know all those normal things the "privileged lucky kids" like mine have.

5. CAI does have it's place in K-12 for many students.

6. Well we will need to see what is proposed, but the why seemed pretty clearly explained. Some districts like Wayzata have a massive tax base. (ie west Plymouth, Wayzata, Medina, etc) And they are full of lucky kids with wealthy educated and stable parent(s). Some districts have a poor tax base and are full of unlucky kids with poor, uneducated and unstable parent(s). It is quite the puzzle.

jerrye92002 said...

1. Our society is at fault for allowing political correctness to run amok. When that harms society, society ought to change. A little gumption in school districts would be a good start.

3 www.google.com And if you are unwilling to accept that, then there is simply no point in spending any money on these kids. You insist that demography is destiny and I refuse to accept that.

4. Except that income and skin color are the predominant "markers" for all the disadvantages you describe.

5. Of course fought tooth and nail by the unions.

6. The problem started when greedy districts started using referenda to fund ordinary operating expenses, not the "luxuries" envisioned by the "free and equal" funding guaranteed by the State constitution. Instead of only property-rich districts getting the extras, more and more districts were paying more for the basics, and disparities arose. One solution might be to go back to state aid based on "a kid is a kid" for funding purposes, and then require districts who claim to need more because of student mix JUSTIFY additional funding in exchange for programs promising to improve achievement.

John said...

1. Why would or should our public schools risk law suits and settlements. Remember what Robbinsdale got for their gumption

3. Of course I don't believe you. And we can overcome all causal issues, if we choose to not ignore the kay one.

4. I think you have correlation and causation confused again... Are you becoming "politically correct"?

5. I doubt that as long as a Teacher still gets paid...

6. Maybe.

jerrye92002 said...

1. We SHOULD because it is the right thing to do. And cowards let evil win.

3. Ah, but where is your proof? Even accepting your irrational premise-- that schools are not responsible (or only 30% responsible) for educating children-- we still have to start with fixing that 30% before trying unproven and unlikely fixes that would let schools off the hook.

4. Are you saying that people of color are NOT over-represented among the poor, and in failing schools (that you blame on the parents)? Helpful hint: If the parents are poor and black, the kids are, too.

5. Ah, but CAI would mean FEWER teachers and better results.

John said...

1. I'll let your district waste my tax dollars on lawsuits and settlements.

3. No. We can walk and chew gum at the same time.

4. It is unfortunate that the family structure also varies by race.

5. Maybe / maybe not.

jerrye92002 said...

1. While yours wastes tax dollars on turning out defective "product" unnecessarily.

3. Well, we've been chewing gum for 50 years, but we haven't walked a half block yet. And maybe not even in the right direction.

4. Yes, and that is my point. We can recognize the correlation between race and family structure, and we can recognize the correlation between family structure and academic preparedness. We could, if we chose, test for academic preparedness and "track" students based on that so that all could advance faster. Unfortunately, some PC busybody would observe what appeared to be discrimination based on race, and throw the whole system back into chaos.

5. No "not" about it. I've seen it and it's only logical.

John said...

1. There are trade offs... No doubt.

3. Yeah. Maybe someday we will demand more from parent(s).

4. Agreed.

5. I disagree.

jerrye92002 said...

1. To have trade-offs, there must be something to trade. Will we trade product quality for cost? Maybe, but what is the lifetime cost of a social and economic misfit, vs the 12-year extra cost of educating them better?

3. We are not even helping these parents, yet, so how well is it going to work to demand of them something they cannot do?

5. You disagree I have seen it? Or that it is simple logic that, if one has an individual tutor, I don't need another, shared one?

John said...

1. I happy to trade of parental "rights" to help the unlucky kids.

3. You are the one against increasing the funding for ECFE, Headstart, Social Services, etc. Not me...

5. Sorry. Computers are a tool, not a teacher replacement.

jerrye92002 said...

1. How about we trade YOUR parental rights to help the unlucky kids? Let's bus them into Minneapolis.

3. You keep insisting that I oppose ECFE, Headstart, etc. and I keep telling you that I only oppose INEFFECTIVE and INEFFICIENT government programs. We already know that more spending does not equate to better results, so why is that even a part of the equation? The best way to raise academic achievement is to do things that directly raise academic achievement.

5. Sorry, Computers are 1:1 teachers and work for essentially no pay. Even small classrooms of 15:1 costs $4000/student. Do the math. CAI classes are typically 30-45 students, making two of those 3 teachers unnecessary.

John said...

1. Too late... My youngest is graduating!!! :-)

3. Make up your mind... "We are not even helping these parents"

5. I disagree...