Elementary School Funding Basics

[Piscivore]

Can someone outline for me a nuts-and-bolts flowchart of how money gets from the taxpayer's pocket to a kid's lunchtray, so I can explain it to a sixth grader?

Also, if someone wanted to make a bequest to a specific school for a specific reason, say to make sure that the kids always had fresh, high-quality, made from scratch spaghetti once a week, would that fly?

Thanks in advance.

[drkitten]

Can someone outline for me a nuts-and-bolts flowchart of how money gets from the taxpayer's pocket to a kid's lunchtray, so I can explain it to a sixth grader?

Not really, since it varies from state to state. Lunches in particular are problematic since they are often federally subsidized.

One common model is probably : state assesses property; state collects property tax and puts it into general fund coffers, state legislature passes budget providing money for state education department; state education department gives money to individual school district; school comptroller writes check.

Another common model is : city or county assesses property; city or county collects property tax and puts it into education-specific fund; school comptroller writes check.



Also, if someone wanted to make a bequest to a specific school for a specific reason, say to make sure that the kids always had fresh, high-quality, made from scratch spaghetti once a week, would that fly?

Depends on the board. In many cases, it would be easier to donate the spaghetti.

[Spindrift]

Also, if someone wanted to make a bequest to a specific school for a specific reason, say to make sure that the kids always had fresh, high-quality, made from scratch spaghetti once a week, would that fly?
.

Depends on the specific request. In a lot of schools the food service is contracted out so I doubt that something like your example would fly.

Plus do you mean a single school within a school district? If so, unlikely. I could hear the parents complaining: "How come Pine Street Elmentary gets fresh spaghetti when Maple Avenue doesn't? That's not fair."

[madurobob]

One common model is probably : state assesses property; state collects property tax and puts it into general fund coffers, state legislature passes budget providing money for state education department; state education department gives money to individual school district; school comptroller writes check.

Another common model is : city or county assesses property; city or county collects property tax and puts it into education-specific fund; school comptroller writes check.
Actually a combination of both where I live. Plus a special $1500 education levee on all house sales within city limits. Plus, the State now has that lottery thing to help them in their shell game with the money.



Plus do you mean a single school within a school district? If so, unlikely. I could hear the parents complaining: "How come Pine Street Elmentary gets fresh spaghetti when Maple Avenue doesn't? That's not fair.".
In my town people can link their grocery store discount cards to a specific school and each year that school gets a check based on receipts linked to the school. So, its certainly possible to fund one specific school in a district. But, I think you're right about school lunches being problematic due to outsourcing. As drkitten said, it would probably be easier to donate the food rather than funding for the food.

[Meadmaker]

Actually a combination of both where I live. Plus a special $1500 education levee on all house sales within city limits. Plus, the State now has that lottery thing to help them in their shell game with the money.

It's amazing how well that shell game works, too.[stupid voter mode] Uh..sure..lottery. It goes for education, so I guess it's ok. I'm for anything that means more money for schools.[/stupid voter mode]

And the best irony of it all is that education ends up being funded by the people who obviously didn't learn anything, especially math.

[Complexity]

Let's see...

They take money from many people under threat of force, taking particular pleasure in taking it from people who don't have children.

Then many layers of people, most of whom aren't needed, skim off 'their' portion. Kids eat whatever what is left will buy.

Any additional money stolen from the taxpayers will be absorbed before it actually reaches services for the kids.

[drkitten]

Let's see...

They take money from many people under threat of force, taking particular pleasure in taking it from people who don't have children.

Then many layers of people, most of whom aren't needed, skim off 'their' portion. Kids eat whatever what is left will buy.

Any additional money stolen from the taxpayers will be absorbed before it actually reaches services for the kids.

Three statements, three fabrications. Normally you need to be DOC to get consistency levels like that.

[Complexity]

Three statements, three fabrications. Normally you need to be DOC to get consistency levels like that.


I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.

I believe that taxation is theft under the threat of force.

I don't believe in publically funded education.

I know you're looking at this issue from a different perspective and think that I'm barking mad.

So it goes.

[drkitten]

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Quite possibly. But that doesn't mean that your statement bears much relationship to reality. Note the highlighted sections below.


They take money from many people under threat of force, taking particular pleasure in taking it from people who don't have children.

Then many layers of people, most of whom aren't needed, skim off 'their' portion. Kids eat whatever what is left will buy.

Any additional money stolen from the taxpayers will be absorbed before it actually reaches services for the kids.


You're not describing a badly-administered program here, but an actively-malicious scam. That's entirely incorrect and way out of line.

While it's certainly true that there are probably people in any organisation who aren't "needed" -- and the school system is no different -- the idea that enriching the organization is the primary goal and that educating the kids is secondary is flatly ludicrous. The idea that no money actually reaches "services for the kids" is demonstrably wrong, and you have no possible way to support the statement that the tax service takes "particular pleasure in taking it from people who don't have children."

I don't mind that you don't believe in publically funded education -- you're right, I do think you're barking mad. But just because you don't believe in something doesn't licence you to tell lies about it. If you can justify any of the highlighted sections above, please do so.

[drkitten]

It's amazing how well that shell game works, too.[stupid voter mode] Uh..sure..lottery. It goes for education, so I guess it's ok. I'm for anything that means more money for schools.[/stupid voter mode]

You know, I have never really understood how this objection is supposed to work. Given the fact that education costs money, it's one of those fairly unavoidable facts of nature that the government will need to find education money somewhere.

Would you prefer that the the state didn't run the lottery (which is voluntary) and instead raised money via some unavoidable across-the-board tax like property tax or income tax?

Would you prefer that the state run the lottery, but designate lottery revenues for a different state program like highways or medical care -- instead paying for education from the general fund?

Would you prefer that the state ban the lottery along with other forms of gambling so that we can enrich the Mafia numbers games -- and still have to raise money for education elsewhere?

Are you suggesting that poor children -- or children of poor parents -- shouldn't learn to read?

Or are you simply complaining that the state doesn't have a magic wand that it can wave to change human nature and make people not want to play the lottery?

[madurobob]

You know, I have never really understood how this objection is supposed to work. Given the fact that education costs money, it's one of those fairly unavoidable facts of nature that the government will need to find education money somewhere.

Would you prefer that the the state didn't run the lottery (which is voluntary) and instead raised money via some unavoidable across-the-board tax like property tax or income tax?

Would you prefer that the state run the lottery, but designate lottery revenues for a different state program like highways or medical care -- instead paying for education from the general fund?

Would you prefer that the state ban the lottery along with other forms of gambling so that we can enrich the Mafia numbers games -- and still have to raise money for education elsewhere?

Are you suggesting that poor children -- or children of poor parents -- shouldn't learn to read?

Or are you simply complaining that the state doesn't have a magic wand that it can wave to change human nature and make people not want to play the lottery?

My use of the term "shell game" is based on th fact that the State (all of them with a lottery) earmarks all of the profits for "education" and sells the lottery to the voters based on this idea. Many voters then believe there will really be incremental revenue poured into education in future years. Sadly, that is not usually the fact. In reality the lottery funds flowing to education allow the state to remove other funding sources so the net impact of education funding is near $0. So, the real affect of the lottery is to allow the state to increase funding to other programs. Those programs may be necessary and may may urgently need additional funding, but its not what the voters were/are told.

To my knowledge, no state has taken the incremental lottery revenue and dumped it fully into education with the net incremental funding to education YtY equalling the amount of the lottery revenue.

I'm not necessarily against the lotteries, just against the dishonesty of the shell game.

[Complexity]

Quite possibly. But that doesn't mean that your statement bears much relationship to reality. Note the highlighted sections below.

They take money from many people under threat of force, taking particular pleasure in taking it from people who don't have children.

Then many layers of people, most of whom aren't needed, skim off 'their' portion. Kids eat whatever what is left will buy.

Any additional money stolen from the taxpayers will be absorbed before it actually reaches services for the kids.

You're not describing a badly-administered program here, but an actively-malicious scam. That's entirely incorrect and way out of line.

While it's certainly true that there are probably people in any organisation who aren't "needed" -- and the school system is no different -- the idea that enriching the organization is the primary goal and that educating the kids is secondary is flatly ludicrous. The idea that no money actually reaches "services for the kids" is demonstrably wrong, and you have no possible way to support the statement that the tax service takes "particular pleasure in taking it from people who don't have children."

I don't mind that you don't believe in publically funded education -- you're right, I do think you're barking mad. But just because you don't believe in something doesn't licence you to tell lies about it. If you can justify any of the highlighted sections above, please do so.


I've been involved in several discussions / arguments with proponents of increasing taxes for public schools. Most times, once it became obvious no one was going to be persuaded, I had my nose pushed into "majority wins" and occasionally was reminded with I had no choice about paying for the schools for their kids.

Many schools have been happy to make money at the expense of the health of their students by installing soda and other snack machines. Many schools have sold access to their student population to television and other advertisers.

Good nutrition is paid a lot of lip-service, but it isn't sexy, it doesn't excite alumni, it doesn't sell tickets, and it doesn't add much to the employee base.

I think I went too far in the third statement that I made. Here's how I'd rephrase it:

Most additional money stolen from the taxpayers will be absorbed before it actually reaches services that will benefit the kids.

I think that many schools, especially universities have, as their primary goal, enriching the institution. Educating their students is, for them, a means to an end.

I taught in such a place. The experience helped me decide to leave education.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Or are you simply complaining that the state doesn't have a magic wand that it can wave to change human nature and make people not want to play the lottery?
People are playing, I bet more money than necessary is being used to run it? I don't think anyone can support getting a salary of $100,000 for doing anything connected with it.

[drkitten]

I bet more money than necessary is being used to run it? I don't think anyone can support getting a salary of $100,000 for doing anything connected with it.

Yes, and once again LOL's ignorance of the field somehow turns into a problem of the field itself....

Just a quick question -- how large a budget does the director of the lottery manage? Can you find any other examples of someone in government or industry managing a budget that large, to any purpose, for less than $100,000 a year?

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Yes, and once again LOL's ignorance of the field somehow turns into a problem of the field itself....

Just a quick question -- how large a budget does the director of the lottery manage? Can you find any other examples of someone in government or industry managing a budget that large, to any purpose, for less than $100,000 a year?
So we have to pay them a "cost of keeping up" with their peers wage? I am seeing example of $400,000 plus benefits.

[drkitten]

So we have to pay them a "cost of keeping up" with their peers wage?

No, we have to pay enough to hire competent people. When you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.

Imagine the plight of a mid-level manager who gets cut from his job as Division Manager of Amalgamated Widgets. So he's reading the trade rags and comes across the following ads:

"Wanted: Director of Massachusetts Lottery. Must oversee 1 Billion dollar budget."

"Wanted: Director of Western Massachusetts Aviation Authority. Must oversee 1 Billion dollar budget."

"Wanted: Fiscal Supervisor, Second National Mortgage Corp. Must oversee 1 Billion dollar budget."

Can you see any reason why the first job should pay substantially less than the second two? Can you see any reason why anyone competent would apply for the first if it did?

[fuelair]

Can someone outline for me a nuts-and-bolts flowchart of how money gets from the taxpayer's pocket to a kid's lunchtray, so I can explain it to a sixth grader?

Also, if someone wanted to make a bequest to a specific school for a specific reason, say to make sure that the kids always had fresh, high-quality, made from scratch spaghetti once a week, would that fly?

Thanks in advance.I can pretty much guarantee that you won't be able to do it - and not exactly for funding/monetary reasons. In all school systems I am aware of, food purchases must be made from companies that A)meet certain standards (fed/state/local) and B)have entered bids to provide material. If a company's bid included spaghetti or the ingredients for same that is who the schools must get it from by contract - and if a school accepted your kind offer, they would be violating district/board procedures as well as thecontract.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

No, we have to pay enough to hire competent people. When you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.
No, you get one of the competent people left out of the job market. There are no shoes too big that they can not be filled. With some of those salaries, they could hire two people, and get twice the impact.


Imagine the plight of a mid-level manager who gets cut from his job as Division Manager of Amalgamated Widgets. So he's reading the trade rags and comes across the following ads:

"Wanted: Director of Massachusetts Lottery. Must oversee 1 Billion dollar budget."

"Wanted: Director of Western Massachusetts Aviation Authority. Must oversee 1 Billion dollar budget."

"Wanted: Fiscal Supervisor, Second National Mortgage Corp. Must oversee 1 Billion dollar budget."

Can you see any reason why the first job should pay substantially less than the second two? Can you see any reason why anyone competent would apply for the first if it did?
It may not be, but running the lottery looks pretty easy. Not much to develop, collect the money, spin the balls. And remember, the lottery money is to go to the school, the others don't have a moral obligation.

[drkitten]

No, you get one of the competent people left out of the job market. There are no shoes too big that they can not be filled. With some of those salaries, they could hire two people, and get twice the impact.

Yeah, Ben and Jerry's thought that, too. Then they tried to hire someone on the cheap to run the company for the founders.... and found that hiring someone competent at less-than-market-price simply doesn't work.

The number of people competent to manage a billion-dollar budget that have been somehow "left out of the job market" is remarkably small.

[Tokenconservative]

It's amazing how well that shell game works, too.[stupid voter mode] Uh..sure..lottery. It goes for education, so I guess it's ok. I'm for anything that means more money for schools.[/stupid voter mode]

And the best irony of it all is that education ends up being funded by the people who obviously didn't learn anything, especially math.


As most Americans have discovered "anything that gets the schools more money" rarely (if ever) means better education. Typically it means better football equipment and higher administrator pay. I always have a hard time figuring out how those things translate into "better education."

Where I live, for the past 16 years, we've had a strong R governor and strong R legislature and so much was accomplished in public education K-12 and higher ed, toward actually getting something for our money.

Backlash from the failed policies of the man currently in the White House washed in a new D governor and gave power to the Ds in the statehouse, and they have been busily unwinding all of these advances since they got the keys.

Oh, and raising taxes while doing so.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Yeah, Ben and Jerry's thought that, too. Then they tried to hire someone on the cheap to run the company for the founders.... and found that hiring someone competent at less-than-market-price simply doesn't work.

The number of people competent to manage a billion-dollar budget that have been somehow "left out of the job market" is remarkably small.

Indeed. You get what you pay for. Look at Tyco.

I'm told--time and time again in here--that those working in the public schools do so out of love for teaching and kids.

Why then can't we then find ubber-competent administrators who only want to "do the right thing" for kids and education?

Well, could be because despite all the claims to the contrary, you don't get to be the super of a large pub. school district without a nod from the teachers unions.

Tokie

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

They take money from many people under threat of force, taking particular pleasure in taking it from people who don't have children.

Then many layers of people, most of whom aren't needed, skim off 'their' portion. Kids eat whatever what is left will buy.

Any additional money stolen from the taxpayers will be absorbed before it actually reaches services for the kids.
Doesn't work that way in my town. No layers to skim anything off. It all goes to the school.


I believe that taxation is theft under the threat of force.
Yes indeed, except that we've agreed to it.


I don't believe in publically funded education.
Then you better be an even bigger believer in publicly funded welfare. Because for many people, if their education ain't publicly funded, there ain't gonna be no education at all.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

As most Americans have discovered "anything that gets the schools more money" rarely (if ever) means better education. Typically it means better football equipment and higher administrator pay. I always have a hard time figuring out how those things translate into "better education."
I wonder if it's possible that more money simply doesn't buy better education, not matter how it's spent. Don't know, just wondering.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

It may not be, but running the lottery looks pretty easy. Not much to develop, collect the money, spin the balls.
Uh, no.

~~ Paul

[JoeEllison]

I believe that taxation is theft under the threat of force.So, when are you going to stop using the roads, and the Internet?

[Tokenconservative]

I wonder if it's possible that more money simply doesn't buy better education, not matter how it's spent. Don't know, just wondering.

~~ Paul

Well, I've been around long enough to see that it doesn't work that way.

Where I live, the largest, richest school district is up to something like $8500/head (what they are "paid" by various sources, primarily local taxes) to "educate" each high school student. There was a huge drive 2 yrs. ago to "get out the vote!" for school funding there (I don't live there, but the same thing happened here, recently...and our schools are only marginally better). It passed and taxes went up to "fund schools!"

Two years on, they have closed one high school (a couple of middles and a few elementaries, too) and have had to close/re-open another (there are only maybe 6 in the city--this is not LA or NY) because they simply do not educate their customers (students).

In fact, Americans spend the most per-student in Washington, D.C. And these schools, it's unanimously believed, are the worst in the nation by far.

That said, there are some very tony locales where per-student cost tops $10 k because these areas have a much wealthier tax base to draw from, and these are, from all reports, very good schools. One reason for that is because when you have millionaires sending their kids to your schools, they have the time/money to also send along their lawyers, if they think they are not getting their money's worth.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

So, when are you going to stop using the roads, and the Internet?

LOL. I love Libertarians. Or is he an "anarchist"? I get them confused these days.

Of course SOME taxation is necessary. And the more complex our society becomes, the more we will have to pay.

It's pretty simple stuff to understand: if you want roads and airports and ports and schools and parks and "free" Internet....you have to pay taxes to support this infrastructure.

If you want to live in a place like Somalia, where warlords control the building/maintenance of "public" places...go! I hear they have very liberal immigration policies that boil down to: if you can get here and stay alive, welcome!

Tokie

[LordoftheLeftHand]

No, we have to pay enough to hire competent people. When you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.

I thought if you paid peanuts you got elephants, and if you wanted monkeys you had to pay bandannas.:D Ok I'll crawl back under my rock now.

LLH

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Well, I've been around long enough to see that it doesn't work that way.
Uh, what? :D I said:

I wonder if it's possible that more money simply doesn't buy better education, not matter how it's spent. Don't know, just wondering.
which has enough double negatives to render your response confusing.


That said, there are some very tony locales where per-student cost tops $10 k because these areas have a much wealthier tax base to draw from, and these are, from all reports, very good schools. One reason for that is because when you have millionaires sending their kids to your schools, they have the time/money to also send along their lawyers, if they think they are not getting their money's worth.
We have one of the best school systems in Massachusetts, but I've never heard of anyone suing to improve it.

~~ Paul

[Tokenconservative]

Uh, what? :D I said:

which has enough double negatives to render your response confusing.


We have one of the best school systems in Massachusetts, but I've never heard of anyone suing to improve it.

~~ Paul

Yes, your statement was indeed as twisted as a snake choking on a golf ball, but I followed it. Clearly, your hope was to make it confusing enough to render ANY answer confusing. This is an old trick, and one that suggests a bit of ....inexpertise in debating on the part of the one employing it and can be quite nicely summed in this way: If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle 'em with BS!

I suggest you look at schools in Silicon Valley. And in Conecticut. In suburban St. Louis. In Phoenix. And in Summit County, CO. This is a big country. I find that in discussing the issue of education in here many have a very....provincial view: well, if'n it din't happen whare I live, it jest musta not happent anywhares!

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

I thought if you paid peanuts you got elephants, and if you wanted monkeys you had to pay bandannas.:D Ok I'll crawl back under my rock now.

LLH

LOL.

In all seriousness, it's quite the dichotomy for rabid supporters of the public schools, like "Dr" Kitten. Out of one side of their mouths they needs must make the claim that those in teaching are the best and the brightest, there because of their love of teaching. Out of the other side they say that because teachers are paid so little (a lie) that the best and brightest are not attracted to the profession.

Which is it?

The fact of the matter is that for their level of education, expertise and ability, most teachers (thanks to their powerful union) are overpaid. If I had an employee who consistently failed to produce a quality product, I'd fire him. In the schools, when you consistently fail to produce quality, you are lauded and given a raise.

Where I live, the avg. teacher salary is $50,000/year, whereas the avg. salary in the general population (I believe this actually factors in teachers) is just under $30k/year.

Hmmm....if my public school math does not fail me (as it so often does) $50,000 is considerably MORE than $30,000.

Tokie

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Yes, your statement was indeed as twisted as a snake choking on a golf ball, but I followed it. Clearly, your hope was to make it confusing enough to render ANY answer confusing. This is an old trick, and one that suggests a bit of ....inexpertise in debating on the part of the one employing it and can be quite nicely summed in this way: If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle 'em with BS!
Well, if you followed it, then your response was indeed confusing. What is the antecedent of it in your response "Well, I've been around long enough to see that it doesn't work that way"?

So you're suggesting that I made my response confusing on purpose? You attribute a political motive to me, and then suggest that I'm not particularly good at political debate. Apparently it did not occur to you that I simply asked a straightforward question.


I suggest you look at schools in Silicon Valley. And in Conecticut. In suburban St. Louis. In Phoenix. And in Summit County, CO. This is a big country. I find that in discussing the issue of education in here many have a very....provincial view: well, if'n it din't happen whare I live, it jest musta not happent anywhares!
Wow, do you always stuff such a box of frogs down the throat of the people with whom you are conversing? I asked a simple question:

I wonder if it's possible that more money simply doesn't buy better education, not matter how it's spent. Don't know, just wondering.
and I get a big fat lecture about baffling with BS in return.

~~ Paul

[FenrisWolf]

The fact of the matter is that for their level of education, expertise and ability, most teachers (thanks to their powerful union) are overpaid.

[...]

Where I live, the avg. teacher salary is $50,000/year, whereas the avg. salary in the general population (I believe this actually factors in teachers) is just under $30k/year.



That's because you're erroneously factoring in minimum wage dishwashers and burger flippers.

All teachers must have bachelor's degrees or higher. So:

http://www.bls.gov/emp/emptab7.htm

Average salary, nationwide, for people with a bachelor's degree:

52*962 = $ 50,024

Hey look! Teachers in your area are exactly $24 off of the national average. Wow, what a huge difference! Let's try my area, Los Angeles:

(Warning: .pdf)
http://www.teachinla.com/Research/documents/salarytables/ttableannual.pdf

The maximum pay for a teacher in Los Angeles is for those with a doctorate and 14 or more years of experience: $ 80,074

Going back to that first link, we see the national average for people with doctorate degrees is 52*1,441 = $ 74,932

Wow! A whole $5,142 above average! Care to guess whether the cost of living in LA is enough higher than the national average to eat up that difference? Go on, guess.

So you're unequivocally and demonstrably wrong. Would you like a side of potatoes with that crow?