Showing posts with label funding. Show all posts
Showing posts with label funding. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

School Funding in Maine

Below is a resolution being passed by a number of Maine SAUs. (Thanks to Melissa Prescott for bringing it to my attention).

RESOLUTION SEEKING FAIR, EQUITABLE, AND TRANSPARENT FUNDING OF EDUCATION IN MAINE

WHEREAS, the voters of Maine approved a citizen-initiated referendum in 2004 calling on the state to fund “55 percent of the cost of public education;” and

WHEREAS, in 2005, the Legislature enacted LD 1, which put a process in place whereby the state would “ramp up” to a 55 percent state share by steadily increasing state funding for schools, K-12, over four years; and

WHEREAS, postponements of increased funding under the LD1 ramp-up were since enacted, and the Governor has ordered additional cutbacks in general purpose aid to education as part of the supplemental budget and through additional curtailments; and

WHEREAS, contrary to the intent of the voters of Maine, these actions have resulted in a 15 percent reduction in state funding of the costs of public education; and

WHEREAS, local school boards and administrators are being forced to make local budget cuts in the midst of the school year, and on an emergency basis, to make up for reduced state contributions to the costs of local education; and

WHEREAS, Maine Department of Education officials have not provided clear answers to local schools concerning future levels of state funding of local education, and have sometimes provided information that differs from day-to-day depending upon which local official is seeking the information or which state official is providing it; and

WHEREAS, local school boards are now in the midst of preparing local school budgets for the next fiscal year without secure knowledge concerning the level of state funding on which they can reasonably rely; and

WHEREAS, the state currently relies upon a system of funding for so-called “Essential Programs and Services” for education that is so out of touch with the reality of required educational expenditures that more than 60 percent of Maine communities this year are obligated to provide local funding exceeding what is deemed “essential” under the model; and

WHEREAS, the state cutbacks and curtailments are forcing increases in local funding for education through the property tax to meet the financial needs of Maine schools; and

WHEREAS, the actions of the Governor and Legislature have caused a massive shift of the burden of funding of education from the progressive income tax, levied based upon ability to pay, to the regressive property tax, which does not account for a property owner's ability to pay, particularly if they are on a fixed income; and

WHEREAS, the undersigned school boards adopting this resolution represent at least 20 percent of the students currently enrolled in Maine's public schools;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

The Governor and Legislature must adopt a fair, equitable and transparent model for the funding of public education in Maine which:

1. Meets the voters' expressed desire to fund 55 percent of the cost of public education, K-12, in Maine;

2. Relies more upon revenues generated by the progressive income tax and less upon those raised through the local property tax;

3. More clearly addresses, at a realistic level, what is “essential” for educational expenditures in our communities; and

4. Provides both the public and local education officials with reliable information concerning the state's contribution to local educational expenditures, thus avoiding the disruption and devastation of mid-year cutbacks and curtailments.

See also MDI: Maine's Essential Progam & Services Funding Model

Saturday, September 26, 2009

Why Ending Effective Educational Programs Makes Terrible Economic Sense

by Nicole Ouellette


Recently, a local school district has closed off a computer technology program open to high school students. Their reasons cited were low enrollment. My old boss Chris wrote an excellent letter about his experience with the program in the local paper. It got me thinking, beyond the impact of one individual student, how do these programs effect the world beyond the classroom?

Schools exist to make productive members of society. And when you look into the data, a lot of these technical programs end up being pretty effective. They increase graduation rates and beyond that, students who go through these programs earn more money, have lower unemployment, and lower rates of substance abuse.

So subjectively, these programs are fantastic. But what is their actual return on investment, beyond preventing bad things from happening to teenagers?

Let's take my old boss Chris, a former student in a technological program. Chris is the IT Manager of a company that employs 60 people. Let's say he makes $50,000 a year (I have no idea if this is the case but it's a nice round number to work with.)

Money Invested In Chris:
Computer, used over 4 years: $2000
Misc. tech equiptment in addition to computer: $2000
Additional supplies (books, etc.): $1000
Teacher, 4 years salary: $160,000 (assuming $40,000/year)
Computer Tech Support (additional instructor, part time, four years salary): $60,000 (assuming $15,000/year)
Administrative costs (part time, four years salary): $60,000
Total Cost: $285,000 , Cost per Year: $71,250 (After four years, investment is zero)

Money Returned From Chris:
Taxes to Chris' salary (assuming $50,000 salary): $12,500/year
Money spent by Chris of his salary (assuming 25% of his salary goes into savings, 25% to taxes): $25,000/year
Volunteer hours (including Rotary, assuming 2 hours/week at value of $25/hour): $2,600
Total Money Back Into Economy Each Year: $40,100
Years To Pay Off Education Costs (Breaking Even): 7.09 years


So the technical program has not only paid himself off but made a 'profit' in eight years. Also, I assumed that Chris was using resources (including his teacher) exclusively when in actuality, costs would be shared by several students. I also assumed in my calculations a relatively high salary for teachers and a relatively low salary for Chris. I am also not counting how much it costs to treat some of the problems that are created when people do not have access to educational opportunities.

To be fair, maybe not all of Chris' classmates are equally productive. That said, looking at the graph, after an additional 7 years, Chris has put enough resources back into the economy for two people.

The point is technical education programs, from a purely objective standpoint, contribute to our economy, in addition to improving the lives of individual students.

So if your school is considering cutting back programs to save costs, I encourage you to fight it, especially if you are out of the educational community. Because as you can see, the cost of putting a productive member into society is relatively little compared to what society will get back.

Nicole, formerly in education, runs her own technology-related business and writes her blog at www.breakingeveninc.com/blog.