Most Screwed Local Public School Districts Update 2009-2011

9 thoughts on “Most Screwed Local Public School Districts Update 2009-2011”

1. Would you please create a table that has the percentage of districts/schools/kids that are screwed in each state relative to the sample of districts/schools/kids in your analysis? The you could rank states based on screwing over the highest percentage of districts/schools/kids.

   1. hope to get to it sometime.

2. May 24, 2013

   Bruce, your list of districts only uses measures of poverty and state/.local revenue. Your measures do not account for property wealth. Let’s take William-Floyd UFSD which is on the frontier of the Hamptons. The property values in this community are quite high. And I suspect that there have been some immigration of high need families and groups on the south-shore of Long-Island that has raised the actual poverty measure of some communities (Copiague, Brentwood, etc). But one must also account for property wealth. And Long-Island property is taxed out of sight at the local level. So, these communities are property-rich and enjoy less money from the state despite the fact that higher pockets of poverty might prevail. This is true in NY’s foundation program and when it had a percentage-equalizing formula from the 1960s to the Pataki administration.

   Another factor that you do not consider is mis-management. William-Floyd was one of the districts in 2009 were massive mis-management occurred and spurred on the state to hire over eighty accounts to conduct audits, even external audits — which are now standard operating procedures throughout New York.

   And the sole district that you mentioned in Kentucky — Dayton Independent Schools — has undergone a significant state audit. I will send you the state audit report. It is absolute amazing about the mismanagement in this district, where the former superintendent has been found to steel district funds ($223,000.00) in 2012 or 2013 — which was I believe was the exact amount or close that the former Roslyn UFSD superintendent — along with William Floyd and Three Rivers Village — was to have stolen — but we know in Roslyn’s case that this was much more. What am I saying about Dayton — the local community has probably been reluctant to raise substantial revenue due to school district mismanagement despite the fact that school districts in Kentucky get matching funds for operating aid and school construction. And Kentucky’s General Assembly probably has been reluctant fund Dayton at its fullest capacity due its debilitating MIS-MANAGEMENT and unethical stewardship practices.

   Simply stated, if property values and mismanagement are factored in, then these might explain why there are disparate measures of poverty and state share in some of the school districts that you listed.. In other words, measures of pupil’s poverty count and state share may not explain the entire fiscal profile of a district. In remembrance of Paul Harvey, I have tried to give “the rest of the story” regarding a couple of school districts on your list.

   All in all, you continue to spur intriguing dialogue in school-finance policy.

   Tyrone Bynoe

   1. Okay… completely intentional omissions. Here’s why…

      1. Property wealth relates to local fiscal capacity to raise revenues. It may be the case that some relatively high wealth districts that now have high needs have chosen not to raise local effort to generate sufficient revenue. IN which case, the local district is partly to blame for the inadequacy. But, the state is ultimately responsible, even if that means requiring a higher local effort. IN NY state, in general, the districts with greater needs and less total state and local revenue already levy higher local effort. There are clearly exceptions.

      2. Regarding mismanagement… That any one of these districts might be mismanaging whatever they have does not excuse the fact that they have higher needs and fewer total resources than their neighbors. Indeed, it only makes a bad situation worse. But ultimately, where a state constitutional obligation exists, ensuring accountability to guard against such mismanagement becomes a state responsibility. But it cannot be an excuse for failing to provide adequate resources.

3. Interesting… I worked in one of those districts for three years. In fact, many of us did, some even made it to that 4th year after which the district would be required to follow contract due process procedures. It’s much easier to just fire your teachers before they get “expensive.” I really felt sorry for the young teachers who had wasted four years there. Not being given “tenure” after your fourth year can be a bit of a red flag to other districts if they are unfamiliar with how the system works. I got two years of excellent evaluations followed by satisfactory in my third when they were trying to justify not rehiring me. I don’t know why they bother; they don’t have to have a reason, and at my age, it has become pretty clear that I will not be rehired.

4. Pingback: Hack Education Weekly News: Chicago Closes 49 Public Schools and edX Expands to 15 New Ones

5. Sadly, I’m from Pennsylvania and I live in CT, so I only get to see the most screwed. I’m curious – which states are doing the best jobs of adequately and equitably funding their schools? It would be good to see how a well functioning model works.

   1. A fine point. I need to be less negative and highlight the good… or at least less bad stuff. New Jersey has done relatively well but has slipped in the past 3 years quite substantially. Massachusetts also does well, and Ohio has generally done well. Pennsylvania and Illinois are certainly among the worst. Connecticut is selectively & irregularly bad. New Britain, Bridgeport and Waterbury get screwed. Hartford and New Haven somewhat less so… but much of their additional funding is tied up in the magnet programs.

6. Very sad situation and it effects both finance and education system.

Comments are closed.