In a message dated Sat, 23 Mar 2002 7:40:21 PM Eastern Standard Time, "Audrey
Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[Trainor]
> > I'm sorry, but I don't follow the logic here.
> > If the per-student Title I allocation is $565, and
> > the
> > money is allocated on a per-student basis, then why
> > on earth would you want to cap the amoputn at $480?
> > What are you proposing to do with the other $85 per
> > student? Is the amount of money fixed so that you
> > can't cover all Title I students adequately because
> > of the increased cap?
>
> If we have to spend more per student, then fewer
> schools will get TITLE 1 money because the entire
> amount is used up faster.
If the money is supposed to be spent on individual
students, then what difference does it make if more or
fewer schools get the money? The money should be
following the students, from the way you descibe the
program.
> We got about $15 million
> in 2001. We start with the highest poverty schools
> and for each child eligible the school received
> $480. The amount of money ran out when we got
> to 50% poverty in the school.
Once again you seem to be serving up a non
sequitur here. If the money is being allocated on a
per-student basis then whether the school is at 40%,
50%, or 60% poverty --by this I assume you mean the
percentage of students defined as living in poverty--
is totally irrelevant.
> We will receive slightly more for the next
> year, about $18 million. We are required to pay out
> a huge sum to one high school and because of the high
> number of kids in that particular school, the pay out
> is much larger than any other school.
This makes perfect sense to me. If school A has
250 Title I kids and school B has 750 Title I kids,
then of course school B is going to get more Title I
money.
> We are also required to pay out 20% on supplemental
> programs for after school and transportation to and
> from those programs in our schools. Therefore, the
> amount of money runs out and fewer schools will be
> able to receive money. When it's gone it's gone.
Here we are with the schools again. Look, I asked
a fairly simple question. Are you receiving a lump sum
of money that has to be split up among these children,
or are you receiving a per capita payment? If the
former is true, then I can understand your argument,
but you repeatedly refer to the $565 per student rate
which seems to indicate that the latter is true - and
at that point your srgument becomes incomprehensible to
me.
> If we receive slightly more but are more limited in
> how we allocate that money, we have, as a district,
> less control over where those dollars go. So
> in effect, the state and federal governments,
> remote from Minneapolis, are actually deciding
> through their micro management of school money,
> exactly where it goes.
No offense, but you don't have to live in
Minneapolis or even in Minnesota to understand that
MPS students as a whole have disastrous graduation
rates and do poorly on standardized tests in the
lower grades. You also don't have to be a city/
state resident to notice that the scores are worst
in the same groups of students that Title I funds are
intended to help. It seems clear to me that something
is wrong and perhaps tighter controls are needed on
how the funds are spent, and apparently the same is
true of the folks at the state DCFL and the federal
Department of Education.
> When we have schools that are starved for funds due
> to dropping enrollment and a lower amount of kids who
> are eligible, there is little the district can do to
> send additional dollars to that school.
Perhaps my memory is at fault, but aren't we
currently spending ~$6500 per student in Minneapolis
exclusive of Title I? That's $3.25 million for a
school of 500 students. Where is all the money going?
Is it all being micromanaged by the Feds and the state?
Is a large part of it tied up in grants with specific
requirements for how the money has to be spent?
> Education finance is complex. That is why it is so
> very important to have legislators who comprehend the
> system, both state and federal, and understand the
> relationship of the state department of CFL and how
> it's management and rule making, which implements the
> state and federal regulations, interacts with the
> school districts.
As an accountant, I severely doubt that education
financing is as complicated as the general ledger of a
medium-sized business, much less a Fortune 500 company.
Money comes into the system from Federal, state, and
local sources as well as grants from various agencies.
You have properties that must be maintained, to say
nothing of providing heating and electrical power. You
have personnel expenses and supply costs.
Nobody expects the public schools to turn a
profit, but they are expected to produce literate
adults who can at the very least perform simple
arithmetic and write their names legibly. I realize
that this is oversimplifying the task enormously and
that there are other requirements for students who want
to graduate with a high school diploma, but if 90% of
our Minneapolis seniors could read, write and do math
at a 12th grade level I don't think so many of us would
be desperately trying to find some school, any school
other than the Minneapolis Public Schools in which our
children could learn.
Cordially,
Kevin Trainor
GOP Candidate for State House, District 61A
East Phillips
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
