Real Education Funding in Pa. 1790 to 2010

My Good night piece of trivia for you all to digest: For all those who want to suggest and believe, how much we are currently over paying for Public Education. State Funding began in 1790 and it covered 20% of the costs.in 1940 it reached about 30%. In the 50's when we were scared straight when the Russians launched Sputnik and we had to turn to Public Schools to save our bacon which they  quickly did,  with the help of Dr. Werner Von Braun funding was increased rapidly to 40%.In 1972-73 then things were aslo bleak, we kicked it up to 51% and since that time it has been a steady decline to were it is now 32%. During that decline every Politician{Especially one party in particular} alive kept complaining about how much they were funding Public Ed. So let me get this right with all the unfunded mandates and the States virtual abdication of its responsibilities ; We became the greatest country on the planet at funding levels slightly higher than those of 1790! What am I missing??

Money, Mandates and Education Reform: PA’s Pension Crisis

The pension and retirement law change in 2001 is a classic illustration of what we have all so willing allowed our elected officials to perpetrate upon us and thus we face another fiscal crisis.  A Crisis which is still being ignored by our Legislature in order that they might win favors from their respective Party Leadership.

 Why did the change of 2001 occur?

Primarily the belief that by incentivizing older teachers to retire they could then be replaced with younger, less costly staff. The approach had a twofold problem associated with. It did not fully take into account the substantial increases in salaries those younger teachers would gain over time and it didn’t appreciate how difficult it would be to replace key staff such as science, math and administrative personnel.  Therefore, Districts found themselves in a position of paying top dollar for those key staff in order to attract them.

 Another key factor in this pension crisis is that it was based again on the faulty projection of a never ending investment boom.  We all know how that worked out because we relied on the unfettered free market system and our own collective ambitions.

 Let me be perfectly clear, the Pension Crisis is currently the single most significant issue our legislators face today. They cannot continue to do what they have been doing since the mid 90’s, which is to kick the can down the road to the next group of legislatures, because failure to act now will lead to a major financial disaster in this area and state-wide by 2014!

 In this area alone I would predict that a good number of school districts could find themselves distressed by 2014 without huge tax increases which in themselves may not be able to generate the necessary revenues given the Act 1 limitations and caps.

 We are talking about a statewide calamity because when the state reduced its own required contribution levels, as well as those of school districts contribution levels, at various times by as much as 50-60% below the required amount necessary for the full funding of the Pension System, districts utilized those savings to offset present level expenditures instead of setting the funds aside for the rainy day they knew was coming.  Thus everyone avoided the necessary and dreaded tax increases.

Everyone from the, Governor, Legislature, to the local School Boards at that particular moment in time were roundly applauded for not raising taxes. Well, as we all know now and should have realized then, at some point someone has to pay and now that day that rainy day is here!

The parallels are striking with what is transpiring on the national stage now relative to tax cuts and hopefully we will not allow ourselves to be sold another panacea this time! The Federal tax cuts of the 90’s did not do what they were purported to accomplish in then and there is no assurance that they will now!

 Let me make clear up another myth now: Teachers have always and still do pay their share into the system.  It is the State and Local School Districts that have NOT.   Teachers, on the other hand, never received exemptions.

 I like many others of my former Teacher and Administrator colleagues went into the profession because we loved what we did.  It certainly was not for the pay which at the outset of my career was $3,800.00 annually.  However, with the promise of a guaranteed retirement I could feel somewhat assured in the end. When I entered the profession no one really cared about my retirement plan. The $3,800 annual salary made the vast majority of full-time working teachers and administrators eligible for food stamps although very few ever took advantage of the program. My retirement was seen as an incentive to attract people into a poor paying profession at that time! In fact, some in our society considered it a joke to be a teacher because of the poor financial benefits.

    Personally, I was in favor of many of Legislative acts and changes previously referred to in this and other writings and have contributed greatly to the increase in overall costs because we as a society could not continue to ignore those amongst who were less fortunate and thus not being served.

 I am simply saying that I like many others were constantly permitting ourselves into being hood winked by “The Heartless Lions we elected to office” because we so desperately want to believe that there exists a free ride.  As a nation or state just tell us the facts and the cost of a program you want to implement! Better yet, how about in this information technology and internet age, survey every registered taxpayer on that particular issue by asking the same two questions.

1. Do you really want or need this?

 2. Do you want or need it bad enough to be willing to pay for it?

 Unfortunately most Elected Officials and Pollsters today simply ask the first question and not the second. You get an entirely different set of responses when you ask both questions.

So again, who has to picks up the cost? Local taxpayers who were never really fully informed of the potential costs! Then those State-level elected officials go to Washington and repeat their voodoo programs at that level.

How much has the cost of Public Education gone up?

 Well, it depends on how you look at the numbers! If you look at the cost of Regular Education alone the Sandia Labs study indicates the cost has risen pretty much in line with COLA rates. If, however, you look at the cost of Public Education from the perspective of mandated special programs the increase reaches over 330%.

Please understand clearly that I am not saying we should not be offering these types of programs. I am, however, saying we need to better understand, what the costs are up front and why the costs may greatly increase over time! As some districts have found, the per pupil expenditure cost of just one student with special needs can exceed millions of dollars. 

I do, however, also believe that we must re-construct and pay entirely and pay for those programs : such as Vocational Education, Special Education, Bi-lingual Education, Transportation, Compulsory Education/ Attendance, Discipline and Alternative Education , Merit Pay, School Choice , Professional Development , School Calendar/Day and perhaps most importantly the tremendous cost burden litigation places on Schools today. We must simply keep in mind our responsibility: caveat emptor!

Money, Mandates, and Reform in Education: The Current McCarthyism

In last week’s article we said we would separate the facts from the myths as they pertain to public schools in our state and nation. We propose to break those realities into three perspectives on current Education reform; Financial, Assessment / International Comparisons and School choice or Charter schools initiatives. In this article, we center on the real financial costs of Public Education because one of the most frequently expressed concerns by taxpayers is the cost. Is it expensive? Absolutely!  If it’s the priority that everyone in this country says it is, perhaps that is as it should be.

 Let’s examine the real dollars and cents of this issue from a very local perspective.

If you took the average per pupil expenditure for a student in one of Somerset Counties’ School Districts your average cost would be roughly $12,500 per student. If that family had 3 children the mean cost to that district would be $37,500 to educate, transport and provide co-curricular programs for those three children.  Assume now that family pays roughly $2,000 in school district property taxes and if they rent they pay nothing. They are essentially receiving $37,500 in education while paying $2,000 dollars or nothing in out of pocket expenses. Obviously they may also be paying state and federal taxes; some of which are returned to each school district in programs and services.

That, however, creates another issue; funding inequity. Several districts in the county appear to be wealthy because of valuable real estate held by large corporate entities in their respective boundaries. However, when you look at those districts in terms of their residents’ ability to pay property taxes, their income levels indicate some of the lowest per capita incomes in this state!  The State’s response to those districts is either you increase local taxes to higher levels or your funding formula from us will still be kept to minimal levels. Well, as you imagine, those districts are faced with the reality of raising taxes on individual property owners who rank amongst some of the poorest in the state based on per capita income data. If they raise taxes on those corporate entities and businesses they run the risk of losing either some jobs or, in other cases, the entire business itself.

The Somerset County district which had the highest per pupil expenditure in 2008-2009 was the Shanksville – Stonycreek School System which had a reported per pupil cost of $14,113 and an MP/PI aid ratio of 0.24 {most Local districts contribute 76% of every dollar spent} and an average teacher salary of $45,167. The three districts with lowest local taxing efforts are Shade:  0.74, average salary $48,557, Windber: 0.70, average salary $56,585 and Meyersdale: at 0.68, average salary $58,195. Two of those districts {Meyersdale-$58, 195 and Windber-$56,585} have average teacher salaries above the state average which is $56,091.

The problem here is districts such as Meyersdale and Windber with some of the lowest local taxing capability and effort can afford to spend more on salaries and student programs because they stand to receive .70 cents or.68 cents return for every dollar they spend. Districts like Shanksville 0.24, Rockwood 0.36 {average salary $51,732}, and Somerset 0.46 {average salary$54,663} are required to support their cost for education to a large extent from local taxes, while others can rely on State funds to a greater extent.

 This situation is compounded in the districts with the higher local taxing effort in that when it comes to competitive grant programs those districts which have high local effort are usually ruled out totally or partially because they are perceived to be wealthy.

We must all understand this is in no way anyone in particulars fault, but rather a systemic problem due to the archaic funding system our state Legislature and both political parties choose to utilize and lack the courage to alter!

 My purpose in this report has nothing to do with finding fault with the 501 school districts in this state, but rather to acquaint the public with the real problem and that is the archaic system they are forced to operate in! Hopefully the public will stay informed and district leaders will more systematically educate and inform their respective communities, not just during periods of labor strife or turmoil.

 District leaders in this information age should better utilize their information technology tools to more frequently survey their communities and inform them of the thankless struggles they face daily. If a student can text a survey or inform a group of students about the comings and goings of their social group; how difficult can it be for a school district with all its technological resources to conduct serious civic engagement questionnaires in order to achieve real community feedback on the issues rather than accepting simplistic statements like, “My Constituents want.” when deciding a course of action for their respective communities. It can and must be done in this day and age when we are allegedly basing our decision making on another of our educational clichés, “Data Driven Decision Making”.

The cost of Public Education is high but compared to what? Research has shown us that Public Schools overall are a bargain when compared to private schools and certainly less than charter schools, in particular Cyber Charter Schools when you factor out the cost of mandates and bricks and mortars issues faced by Public Schools.

 In later articles we address the assessment data question.  We can and will demonstrate clearly that there are many misconceptions about Public, Charter, and Cyber-Charter School performance.

After all many of the same people complaining about the cost of educating a child think nothing of spending hundreds, even thousands of dollars on sporting events or paying professional athletes millions of dollars in salaries to entertain themselves. Is it any coincidence that teams with the highest payrolls like the Yankees, Red Sox, Lakers, and Celtics consistently win championships while teams with the lowest payrolls like the Pirates, Brewers, Bucks, and Clippers regularly finish at the bottom?

Is it just about more money?  Absolutely not!   As I have often stated unequivocally.  Can it assist in the furtherance of great ideas? A resounding YES! Our problem in Education has been we have been doing the reverse; putting more money first and then hope we come up with a great idea! 

My point here is very simply this.  No matter what our political parties’ leaders attempt to convince us of on a regular basis?  Quality Education in an extremely divergent society with increasingly dysfunctional families is EXPENSIVE!!

Money, Mandates, and Reform in Education: The Current McCarthyism

In last week’s article we said we would separate the facts from the myths as they pertain to public schools in our state and nation. We propose to break those realities into three perspectives on current Education reform; Financial, Assessment / International Comparisons and School choice or Charter schools initiatives. In this article, we center on the real financial costs of Public Education because one of the most frequently expressed concerns by taxpayers is the cost. Is it expensive? Absolutely!  If it’s the priority that everyone in this country says it is, perhaps that is as it should be.

 Let’s examine the real dollars and cents of this issue from a very local perspective.

If you took the average per pupil expenditure for a student in one of Somerset Counties’ School Districts your average cost would be roughly $12,500 per student. If that family had 3 children the mean cost to that district would be $37,500 to educate, transport and provide co-curricular programs for those three children.  Assume now that family pays roughly $2,000 in school district property taxes and if they rent they pay nothing. They are essentially receiving $37,500 in education while paying $2,000 dollars or nothing in out of pocket expenses. Obviously they may also be paying state and federal taxes; some of which are returned to each school district in programs and services.

That, however, creates another issue; funding inequity. Several districts in the county appear to be wealthy because of valuable real estate held by large corporate entities in their respective boundaries. However, when you look at those districts in terms of their residents’ ability to pay property taxes, their income levels indicate some of the lowest per capita incomes in this state!  The State’s response to those districts is either you increase local taxes to higher levels or your funding formula from us will still be kept to minimal levels. Well, as you imagine, those districts are faced with the reality of raising taxes on individual property owners who rank amongst some of the poorest in the state based on per capita income data. If they raise taxes on those corporate entities and businesses they run the risk of losing either some jobs or, in other cases, the entire business itself.

The Somerset County district which had the highest per pupil expenditure in 2008-2009 was the Shanksville – Stonycreek School System which had a reported per pupil cost of $14,113 and an MP/PI aid ratio of 0.24 {most Local districts contribute 76% of every dollar spent} and an average teacher salary of $45,167. The three districts with lowest local taxing efforts are Shade:  0.74, average salary $48,557, Windber: 0.70, average salary $56,585 and Meyersdale: at 0.68, average salary $58,195. Two of those districts {Meyersdale-$58, 195 and Windber-$56,585} have average teacher salaries above the state average which is $56,091.

The problem here is districts such as Meyersdale and Windber with some of the lowest local taxing capability and effort can afford to spend more on salaries and student programs because they stand to receive .70 cents or.68 cents return for every dollar they spend. Districts like Shanksville 0.24, Rockwood 0.36 {average salary $51,732}, and Somerset 0.46 {average salary$54,663} are required to support their cost for education to a large extent from local taxes, while others can rely on State funds to a greater extent.

 This situation is compounded in the districts with the higher local taxing effort in that when it comes to competitive grant programs those districts which have high local effort are usually ruled out totally or partially because they are perceived to be wealthy.

We must all understand this is in no way anyone in particulars fault, but rather a systemic problem due to the archaic funding system our state Legislature and both political parties choose to utilize and lack the courage to alter!

 My purpose in this report has nothing to do with finding fault with the 501 school districts in this state, but rather to acquaint the public with the real problem and that is the archaic system they are forced to operate in! Hopefully the public will stay informed and district leaders will more systematically educate and inform their respective communities, not just during periods of labor strife or turmoil.

 District leaders in this information age should better utilize their information technology tools to more frequently survey their communities and inform them of the thankless struggles they face daily. If a student can text a survey or inform a group of students about the comings and goings of their social group; how difficult can it be for a school district with all its technological resources to conduct serious civic engagement questionnaires in order to achieve real community feedback on the issues rather than accepting simplistic statements like, “My Constituents want.” when deciding a course of action for their respective communities. It can and must be done in this day and age when we are allegedly basing our decision making on another of our educational clichés, “Data Driven Decision Making”.

The cost of Public Education is high but compared to what? Research has shown us that Public Schools overall are a bargain when compared to private schools and certainly less than charter schools, in particular Cyber Charter Schools when you factor out the cost of mandates and bricks and mortars issues faced by Public Schools.

 In later articles we address the assessment data question.  We can and will demonstrate clearly that there are many misconceptions about Public, Charter, and Cyber-Charter School performance.

After all many of the same people complaining about the cost of educating a child think nothing of spending hundreds, even thousands of dollars on sporting events or paying professional athletes millions of dollars in salaries to entertain themselves. Is it any coincidence that teams with the highest payrolls like the Yankees, Red Sox, Lakers, and Celtics consistently win championships while teams with the lowest payrolls like the Pirates, Brewers, Bucks, and Clippers regularly finish at the bottom?

Is it just about more money?  Absolutely not!   As I have often stated unequivocally.  Can it assist in the furtherance of great ideas? A resounding YES! Our problem in Education has been we have been doing the reverse; putting more money first and then hope we come up with a great idea! 

My point here is very simply this.  No matter what our political parties’ leaders attempt to convince us of on a regular basis?  Quality Education in an extremely divergent society with increasingly dysfunctional families is EXPENSIVE!!

Money, Mandates, and Education Reform: Charter Schools - Fact and Fiction

 How much and why has the cost of Education increased in light of the state and federal governments unwillingness to live up to its promises and  former constitutional requirements?  In Many instances on the national and state level we have and continue to witness an extraordinary shell game. Governors and Legislators get elected on a fiscal restraint agenda and enact what appear to be cost cutting measures. It is only later that we find out they simply passed the cost of those services on to local governmental agencies.

We have a classic example of that from the mid 90’s to 2003. The State obligation for Education is a 50% share of the cost. The last time this Commonwealth lived up to that responsibility was in the 1972 – 73 fiscal year when it paid 50.96% of its share of the cost.  Since then it has been a steady decline to 2007-2008 level when the state’s share was 32.99%. This is why our state receives a C or D grade from the “Leaders and Laggards” report card on educational innovation.

 What does that mean to you at the local level? It means local school Boards must raise local taxes to make up the difference in state and federally mandated programs that carry little or no financial support with them. The highly touted NCLB legislation is a classic example of federal legislation, which on its surface, sounded like a marvelous idea, but carried with it little if any federal funds.

 In Pa. we have a timeline replete with costly legislative changes beginning in 1970 with the passage of Act 95{collective bargaining} and the creation of IU’s to replace the county wide system, which is still a better idea. It would save a great deal of money by eliminating administrative positions without forgoing individual districts identity and simply consolidating programs and services.

In 1972-73 mandated transportation of non-public students { which has increased from a per pupil cost of $77 in 1971 to $779 in 2007}.

 1975 brought the IDEA which was rapidly followed by the revisions in ‘83,’86,’90,’97 and 2004.

 1990 brought us gifted education.  

1991 brought us PSSA’s.

 1992 gave us Act 88.  

1994-1995 brought an end to ESBE funding and excess costs for special education services. This meant the state would no longer pay districts what it actually cost them to implement all those IDEA requirements but based some imaginary mathematical formula allowed those real costs to be shifted to the local school district.

 1996 brought Charter Schools {which were to improve quality of education and save taxpayers money by being more efficient}.

Here are two examples of how that has worked out.

 Rockwood School District paid $228,311 in 2009-10 and got reimbursed $60,256 by the state.  Somerset paid out $432,621 and got reimbursed $114,176. Countywide districts paid $1,581,040 and got back $417,260.

So again local taxpayers picked up the cost difference for a program where half the students are cyber schooled and receive a family computer and paid internet services.  Local school districts would gladly provide all their students these things but cannot afford to.

 2001 gave us the major change in our pension and retirement laws. The Pension and Retirement Law change in 2001 is a classic illustration of what we have all so willingly allowed our elected officials to perpetrate on us and now we face another fiscal crisis, which is still being ignored by our Legislature so that they can win points with their respective party leadership.

 Why did the change of 2001 occur?  Primarily the belief that by incentivizing older teachers to retire they could then be replaced with younger less costly staff. The approach had a twofold problem in that it did not fully take into account the substantial increases in salaries those younger teachers would accrue over time and it didn’t understand how difficult it would be to replace key staff such as science, math and administrative personnel.  Therefore Districts found themselves needing to pay top dollar for those key staff in order to attract them.

 Another key factor in this pension crisis is that it was based again on faulty projections of the booming investment upswing of the 90’s. We all assumed the incredible upward swing would always continue.  We all know how that worked out because we relied on the unfettered free market system and our own collective greed.

Another of the prevalent myths today is based on the 1996 creation of Charter schools which were created in order to improve the quality of student performance and were to be more cost effective than their Public School counterparts. Nothing could be further from the truth.  Future articles will examine the performance and assessment data for Charter Schools, which will hopefully challenge your current views on their real academic prowess.

This week we will concentrate on the financial impact they have on our state and national expenditures.  In Pa between the 2006 and 2008 school districts have paid over $315 million dollars to Cyber Charter Schools alone.  Of that amount the State only reimburses the districts at a rate of somewhere between 26% to 36% or $94.5 million level.

 That means another mandate that our elected officials impose on local districts and then leave them to pay for!  Here are three case studies of how this legislation has worked out locally:

 Rockwood School District paid out $228,311 in 2009-10 and got reimbursed $60,256 by the state. Somerset paid out $432,621 and got reimbursed $114,176. Countywide districts paid out over $1,581,040 and got back $417,260. So again local taxpayers picked up the cost difference for a program where half the students are cyber schooled and receive a family computer and paid internet services which local school districts would gladly provide all their students but cannot afford to. The Philadelphia City School District paid out $313,790,529 and was reimbursed $115,830,766 with local taxpayers again being asked to make up the difference.

In 2007-2008 four of the state’s 11 cyber charter schools had fund balances of over 25%.  Local districts can legally only carry 8 to 12% if they are fortunate enough to be able to do so!  We are paying for programs for 4 year olds to attend charter schools while in our regular schools we cannot get funding to provide the same level of service.

Why did we need to create another entire bureaucracy when all we needed to do here was allow public schools the same discretion they now give Charter schools?

 Think of the duplication of hierarchy we could have prevented.

 What if we had allowed regular public school administrators to discipline students in the manner that is often permitted to Charters?

 What if we had allowed public schools the same opportunity to assign class credit, eliminate unnecessary seat time/ artificial instructional hour provisions that we grant charters?

What if we had reduced the professional development requirements for Public Schools?

 What if we had eliminated the artificially contrived certification requirements for teachers and administrators of Public Schools?

 What if we had allowed Public Schools to offer early start programs with reimbursement for four year olds as we do for Charters?

What if we allowed public schools the same loose attendance checks on students as we do for charters?

 I could continue on and on but the obvious reality is that had we done some of the aforementioned changes we would not have needed to create another elaborate bureaucratic structure and thus prevented the current politicization of our Educational Reform initiatives. Nor would we have turned over one of our Nation’s nonprofit institutions to the robber barons of our Capitalist System!

Does anyone really want their children’s education turned over to a for- profit enterprise in which their education is turned over to an administrator who is more motivated by his or her performance pay which is based on the ledger bottom line and not your children’s academic well being?   I don’t!