|
Go Figure -
Two Sides To Education Numbers Game
MIRS, September 1, 2005
For more articles like this
visit
http://www.bridges4kids.org.
The old saying,
"there's two sides to every coin" appears to be holding true in
the numbers debate over the K-16 guaranteed school funding
debate.
A memo put out this week by the Anderson Economic Group suggests
that schools, through a combination of local revenue growth, and
state funding increases, have already seen the type of annual
funding increases they're asking for in the K-16 proposal.
"The big picture is that schools have been well-funded since
Proposal A passed in 1994," said Scott Watkins, with the
Anderson Economic Group. "That includes both the operating side
and the debt side."
According to the study Watkins completed, recently released
school finance data shows that from 2003 to 2004, average school
revenues and expenditures in Michigan increased at rates above
inflation and consumer prices.
>From both state and local sources, between 2003 and 2004, per
pupil resources increased by 4.4 percent while inflation only
increased 2.6 percent. Recall that the K-16 coalition's
guaranteed funding initiative calls for yearly funding increases
of 5 percent, or the rate of inflation, whichever is less. While
the K-16 coalition argues that state funding needs to climb at
that rate, Watkins argues that over the past 10 years, schools
have done pretty well.
"I think there's a lot of misunderstanding of the amount of
funding that schools are getting," Watkins said. "There's a lot
of misinformation being put out there by the school lobbying
groups."
He goes on to point out that: "If you look at the operating
revenue and compare that to inflation the per pupil, operating
revenues are up 55 percent and inflation has only been 21
percent during that period. That excludes the 217 percent
explosion in property tax revenue for debt sinking funds and
millages."
Tom White, with the Michigan School Business Officials, said
that while Watkins numbers appear "factual" to him, there are
always different ways to look at numbers.
"There are so many different ways to look at the numbers," he
said. "I looked at January 1995, at what the low end (minimum
foundation allowance) was and what it was in January 2005. In
Jan. 1995, it was $5,000. In 2005 January, it was $6,700. That
was an increase of 34 percent."
White then went on to point out that if you look at the maximum
foundation allowance for the same period, it went from $6,500 in
January 1995 to $8,000, an increase of 23 percent. After you
consider inflation, he argues, schools relying on the minimum
foundation grant saw revenue climb by 0.72 percent per year. On
the maximum side, funding actually fell by 0.37 percent after
inflation.
"696,000 students are in districts that haven't received
inflationary increases over those years," said White.
He argues that if Watkins' argument is that if schools have been
receiving more than the rate of inflation per year, what's the
problem?
"How can we be greedy if what we're asking for is less than what
we've gotten the last 10 years?" he asks.
back to the top ~
back to Breaking News
~ back to
What's New
|
