Minnesota school superintendents say funding system broken

NO!! the schools need to manage what money they have!

Don't come wanting MORE MORE when in my district the $800,000 for new computers every 2 years FAILED because the voters know there is NO NEED for new computers every 2 years.

My district also replaced bleachers with aluminum and spent millions on the Ice arena, electronic message boards all over the campus etc etc...

And yet they cannot teach the basics!!

Darn sad in my mind!

Teach wrote:

MAybe your school wouldn't need a referendum if the schools shared tax revenue throughout the state so that every school had the same amount of money per student.

so im sorry i didnt realize the per pupil expense was so low in mpls/st paul, it isnt. just their test scores.

Teach wrote:

<quoted text>
That is fairly apparent but I learned in college that in order to teach children you must repeat something at leat 8 times. I'm not sure what the counts at but I'll continue to post the same thing, maybe someone will acutally get it.

For adults, I think it's 10. For conservatives, at least 15. ; )

Bob wrote:

NO!! the schools need to manage what money they have!
Don't come wanting MORE MORE when in my district the $800,000 for new computers every 2 years FAILED because the voters know there is NO NEED for new computers every 2 years.
My district also replaced bleachers with aluminum and spent millions on the Ice arena, electronic message boards all over the campus etc etc...
And yet they cannot teach the basics!!
Darn sad in my mind!
<quoted text>

Same question to you, Bob, the one everyone else refuses to answer. Imagine your child in a classroom in Mpls or St. Paul. Here you are, talking about all the things you need to cut. Suddenly, it's your child's class. Do class sizes of 35+ still sound good? Old computers? Lack of books? Cuts in extracurriculars or libraries?

I don't have kids. But I'm willing to pay for schools because I know that if we don't educate kids to compete, and work to keep them in school, we'll pay even more in the long run - higher unemployment, less ability to compete, more crime, etc. We should do what we can to help them succeed, not see how much we can cut the budget down to the bare bones. Is that what you'd want for your kid, or just for other people's kids?

Bob wrote:

NO!! the schools need to manage what money they have!
Don't come wanting MORE MORE when in my district the $800,000 for new computers every 2 years FAILED because the voters know there is NO NEED for new computers every 2 years.
My district also replaced bleachers with aluminum and spent millions on the Ice arena, electronic message boards all over the campus etc etc...
And yet they cannot teach the basics!!
Darn sad in my mind!
<quoted text>

NO!! I didn't say anything about raising taxes or revenues!!! LISTEN. Schools currently do not share their tax revenue. I am saying that it is likely your district would have better funding if revenue was shared throughout all schools in the state. If they had better funding there wouldn't be referendums. Don't use me as a qoute if you haven't bothered to read what I wrote or what the actual article is about.

Officials released new information Monday in the shooting death of a Minneapolis woman.

The Hennepin County Medical Examiner identified the victim as 40-year-old Johanna Hollis.

A federal investigation was already underway, looking into the possible illegal activity going on inside the home located on the 2800 block of 17th Ave. S.

For months, neighbors have complained about the activity in the home.

I will say it one more time. The article and the survey stated that Superintendents think that the system for funding schools is broken. IT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT RAISING TAXES OR REVENUE!

Many people do not know that schools are largely funded through local tazes. This means that they do not all have the same amount of funding. The rich districts have plenty of money the poor do not. A district without many businesses also struggles greatly because that is a large source of revenue for schools.

The system is broken because there is such a large disparity between per pupil dollars between different districts.

YES, that is exactly what my senators argument was. Referendums don't pass because people see the money isn't needed like new computers every 2 years.

So the voters failed the referendum as they SHOULD HAVE.

My senator cited that failure of the computer referendum as the reason there is a need for a different source of revenue!!

WRONG! THERE IS NO NEED FOR MORE MONEY FOR OUR SCHOOLS THE MONEY IS THERE IT NEEDS TO BE SPEND ON NEEDED STUFF!!!!

Teach you must be a teacher and cannot understand anything but GIVE US MORE MONEY!!!!

GO JUMP IN THE LAKE!!!!

Teach wrote:

I will say it one more time. The article and the survey stated that Superintendents think that the system for funding schools is broken. IT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT RAISING TAXES OR REVENUE!
Many people do not know that schools are largely funded through local tazes. This means that they do not all have the same amount of funding. The rich districts have plenty of money the poor do not. A district without many businesses also struggles greatly because that is a large source of revenue for schools.
The system is broken because there is such a large disparity between per pupil dollars between different districts.

When I went to HS we had split shifts and the teachers basically taught twice the kids they normally would. Doing that the class size was cut in half. It was not fun to get up so early but there was no alternative.

In my mind there is NO NEED for computers in school. And I have worked in software for a long time, since 1966. My kids got very little training on the computers they had in school. I had to educate them on Windows for crying out loud.

Knowing a teacher in the St. Paul system I hear the war stories but she loves the environment and gave up an opportunity to go to Stillwater, she is a GOOD TEACHER. Ya know the old kind of teacher who does it for the reward of making a difference, NOT FOR THE MONEY or and EASY JOB.

My district keeps whining for more money even thou enrollment is declining. Then they went after new computers every 2 years. People know about computers now and that referendum was just stupid and failed because it should have.

Public schools seem to always be going after more and more money when people in my area are TAXED to the hilt! There is no more money left!

StPaulite wrote:

<quoted text>
Same question to you, Bob, the one everyone else refuses to answer. Imagine your child in a classroom in Mpls or St. Paul. Here you are, talking about all the things you need to cut. Suddenly, it's your child's class. Do class sizes of 35+ still sound good? Old computers? Lack of books? Cuts in extracurriculars or libraries?
I don't have kids. But I'm willing to pay for schools because I know that if we don't educate kids to compete, and work to keep them in school, we'll pay even more in the long run - higher unemployment, less ability to compete, more crime, etc. We should do what we can to help them succeed, not see how much we can cut the budget down to the bare bones. Is that what you'd want for your kid, or just for other people's kids?

It isn't so much an article as it is propaganda. Is anyone suprised that the fox is complaining about how many hens are in the hen house?

How many supers said, we could spend our money in a more efficiently?

How many of those schools in Rural MN said, maybe it is time we think of folding this school and bussing the kids to the next district?

They are setting the stage for a funding request from the state. And why not? Everyone else is getting a raise this year, why not you too.

I am very pleased that so much of the funding comes from local bonding though. If you aren't getting what you'd expect from your bonding measure, don't vote for the next one.

Teach wrote:

People, read the stinking article it doesn't say that they want more money!!! They aren't asking for more money they are saying that the system is broken. The system currently funds schools mostly based upon their local tax base. This is houses and businesses. Rural schools and schools with lower incomes have more difficulties raising money for strudents. These schools are stuck trying to provide for their students with significantly less dollar amounts. This is what the superintendents were talking about. You guys are totally missreading the article!!

Teach wrote:

<quoted text>...If they had better funding there wouldn't be referendums...

I think after all these years, we can confidently say that no matter how much money is spent on education, the quality of education received by the students will not increase, and at the same time, the education system will claim they are underfunded and need more money "or the quality of education will decline."

The minnesota k-12 is mismanaged and over-funded. Billions go in and we have no idea where they go or why more is always needed. We need transparency on the expenses.

We need to be told teacher pay per hour worked rather than pay per year, which does not account for the summer vacation and several weeks vacation during the year. We need to be told teacher pay after they get some seniority, not just entering salary which is lower. We need to see how their benefits compare to average private sector.

We need to know staffing of non-teaching positions and what they are doing. We need to know why superintendents are needed, and why they seem to get paid so much.

We need to know how effective different teaching techniques are and why our schools are not using effective ones.

We need to know the political/ideological/anti-chr istian content of the cirriculum and how much time is spent on teaching knowledge rather than teaching attitudes.

We need to know how much is spent on special education, and how effective it is. This is one of the most closely guarded secrets in minnesota, and I keep hearing that it is the reason k-12 expenses skyrocket without any commensurate benefit to the average student.

We do know that the teachers union, along with realtors, are the largest donors to state politicians. Absent citizen activism, the legislature will simply do as the teacher's union asks.

As long as voters give the blank check, none of this will happen. But if people started attaching strings to their tax dollars, the results would be commensurate.

This survey is asinine, of course. Were someone to ask any of us if we ought to be paid more, who among us would say no. Its just an excuse for the paper to keep people primed to believe hard-luck stories from school systems and say yes to future referendums.

There is already a substantial amount of revenue sharing among districts. Were the school systems properly managed--including dealing with the union control over everything, the poorest district in the state would be able to deliver a first class education to its students.

While I don't live in a rich district with really good schools, like I assume Edina and the like have, I think it is a reasonable exercise of individual freedom that those with more money can choose spend more on property taxes to give their children a better education.

Teach wrote:

I will say it one more time. The article and the survey stated that Superintendents think that the system for funding schools is broken. IT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT RAISING TAXES OR REVENUE!
Many people do not know that schools are largely funded through local taxes. This means that they do not all have the same amount of funding. The rich districts have plenty of money the poor do not. A district without many businesses also struggles greatly because that is a large source of revenue for schools.
The system is broken because there is such a large disparity between per pupil dollars between different districts.

I agree. The disproportionate funding of districts is the major problem. This is also the reason why many inner-city and rural schools in low socioeconomic areas (which often have the highest-need students) are struggling, while many schools in wealthy suburbs are flourishing.

The typical student needs to encounter a concept approximately 7-8 times to understand and learn it. Delayed learners, however, need to hear the same information repeated 40 or more times to comprehend it. I think you may be dealing with some slower individuals.

Diane1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Peter, we get it, you don't like immigration. Let's stay on topic. Why don't you answer the earlier question about whether your responses would be the same if we were talking about your child, vs "children" and "education" in the abstract. How much would you want funding & teaching staff cut at YOUR child's school? What if he/she had special needs - how low would be low enough then?

I want very well funded schools. You blow off the impact of bringing poor people into the system. Getting very well funded schools depends on having people capable of paying taxes. Ramp up the poor population and you'll pressure the schools. Seems obvious, but I guess you'd say it isn't.

Bob wrote:

YES, that is exactly what my senators argument was. Referendums don't pass because people see the money isn't needed like new computers every 2 years.
So the voters failed the referendum as they SHOULD HAVE.
My senator cited that failure of the computer referendum as the reason there is a need for a different source of revenue!!
WRONG! THERE IS NO NEED FOR MORE MONEY FOR OUR SCHOOLS THE MONEY IS THERE IT NEEDS TO BE SPEND ON NEEDED STUFF!!!!
Teach you must be a teacher and cannot understand anything but GIVE US MORE MONEY!!!!
GO JUMP IN THE LAKE!!!!
<quoted text>

Bob,

Listen. I am not saying that the schools should get more money. I am saying that the funding should be spread out evenly amoungst school districts. Currently it is not. Do you understand that? Is this some kind of joke?

Maybe you should jump in a lake it may clean out your vision and clear your head.

Brutis wrote:

There is already a substantial amount of revenue sharing among districts. Were the school systems properly managed--including dealing with the union control over everything, the poorest district in the state would be able to deliver a first class education to its students.
While I don't live in a rich district with really good schools, like I assume Edina and the like have, I think it is a reasonable exercise of individual freedom that those with more money can choose spend more on property taxes to give their children a better education.

That may be true as far as people having that choice (property taxes). But that doesn't account for businesses that also provide income into the schools. A rural school is going to struggle because they don't have that kind of tax base and it is going to cause and increase in tax for property owners. I see this with my property taxes for my cabin. Interestingly enough Minneapolis actually spends a very large amount per pupil in many schools because they do have that business tax base. THis isn't neccessarily a take from the rich give to the poor scheme because there are many affluent neighborhoods that struggle because a lack of businesses. If those suburban neighborhoods happen to be fully developed and lacking businesses then they cannot fund schools properly. Because the system relys mostly upon local taxes then they are forced to ask their constituents to pass referendums. Sometimes this may be for frivilous things like new computers every two years (I don't know where Bob lives). But it might be in or to keep their athleitc programs, or music programs, or to keep classes sizes below 40 kids.

The system is broken and it could use some fixing.

Brutis wrote:

<quoted text>
I think after all these years, we can confidently say that .. the quality of education received by the students will .. increase, and at the same time, the education system will claim they are underfunded and need more money "or the quality of education will decline."
The minnesota k-12 is mismanaged and over-funded. Billions go in and we have no idea where they go or why more is always needed. We need transparency on the expenses.
We need to be told teacher pay per hour worked rather than pay per year, which does not account for the summer vacation and several weeks vacation during the year. We need to be told teacher pay after they get some seniority, not just entering salary which is lower. We need to see how their benefits compare to average private sector.
We need to know staffing of non-teaching positions and what they are doing. We need to know why superintendents are needed, and why they seem to get paid so much.
We need to know how effective different teaching techniques are and why our schools are not using effective ones.
We need to know the political/ideological/anti-chr istian content of the cirriculum and how much time is spent on teaching knowledge rather than teaching attitudes.
We need to know how much is spent on special education, and how effective it is. This is one of the most closely guarded secrets in minnesota, and I keep hearing that it is the reason k-12 expenses skyrocket without any commensurate benefit to the average student.
We do know that the teachers union, along with realtors, are the largest donors to state politicians. Absent citizen activism, the legislature will simply do as the teacher's union asks.
As long as voters give the blank check, none of this will happen. But if people started attaching strings to their tax dollars, the results would be commensurate.
This survey is asinine, of course. Were someone to ask any of us if we ought to be paid more, who among us would say no. Its just an excuse for the paper to keep people primed to believe hard-luck stories from school systems and say yes to future referendums.

Brutis you ask some excellent questions and they are relevant. This survey however is not asinine. First off you are taking a small portion of my statement in order to construe it into seeming as though I want there to be more funding. I do not want more money put into education. As you read earlyier in my posts I was there to be a shift in funding so that schools throughout the state can have a more equally funded educaiton for their students. I don't see why a child in a district that has more business shouls have a a more fully funded eduation than someone growing up in a rural area. This isn't to say that all of the revenue should be shared but it could be more equal. This also could be realted to property taxes and perhaps provide some kind of property tax relief for owners.

Average teacher begins their career making 30,000 per year. The average working school year for teachers in MN is about 185 days. With an 8 hour work day that works out to about $20 per hour.(The summer break and others are considered unpaid days)I'm not sure if people think this is fair or not? I'm curious to know. I do know that if you break down a regular work year for someone in the private sector a teacher works about 2/3 of the working year. So if they worked an entire year at their salary they would start out making about $45,000 per year. I thin that is a pretty darn good deal.

I also believe that people who teach and whine about the pay are being ridiculous. This does not account for the fact that many teachers must do a large amount of work at home but so do other people in their jobs.

Career in MN maxes out around $50,000 if the teacher does not go on to get any further education. In order to get to the top of the pay scale you must get a Masters plus about 45-60 credits, a significant amount of schooling and tuition money. top of the pay scale is around 65,000

So at the top of the scale with no further education the pay is about $33 per hour

Oh one more relevant point to make is that it takes roughly 20 years to make it to the top of the pay scale.