No, it is not true that the Legislature sets budgets for school districts. I really don't know where anyone would get the impression that the state creates a pool from which all districts must divine their share.
The state school aid formula is one source of money and districts receive their share based on per-student enrollment figures (that the state should take responsibility for all the money, paid for by a progressive tax system is another discussion). But the other major source of funding for schools comes from each district's direct property taxation power - with ceilings imposed by the Legislature. Additional revenues are raised by referenda - ballot questions where the voters decide whether to give their particular district the power to collect an additional property tax - and the only barrier to how much is the wisdom of the voters, not the state. Those are the main sources of school funding - and it's pretty much a mess, since far too many people who believe - wrongly - that they either no longer have a direct stake in the school system or they never did. Chief among these people are seniors, parents whose children have grown out of the system, and people who send their children to private schools. And, of course, businesses, especially whose owners and executives live outside the district. I've always been amazed at the gall of the St. Paul Chamber of Commerce, the majority of whose all-too-powerful membership live outside the district boundaries, pay only for the schools in their home districts, and thus have no personal stake in the operation - or the products - of the St. Paul Schools. But still this outfit manages to exercise undue influence on the St. Paul district's ability to raise the revenues necessary to assure that the "products" � the district's children � emerge from the system prepared to serve as knowledgeable, well-balanced and productive citizens, parents, workers and leaders. And still the Chamber is forever stepping in to give its blessing or condemnation to any St. Paul Schools referendum as if the additional tax dollars might break the bank of the corporations who receive the services of all St. Paul public entities. The labyrinthine funding of public schools - especially the idiotic system of basing the financing of our children's education in major part on fluctuating property values � and not the intrinsic stability of a progressive tax - has left the children - not the system - without the resources necessary to better assure success in adulthood and citizenship. This is criminal. Just as it has been seen as unfair that urban districts with higher populations of households without children should have to grovel for more money through periodic referendums than wealthier suburbs with kids can, the whole idea that equal access to adequate funding based on need and not property values, on need and not religious tenets, and on need and not curriculum should be our first reform priority. And funding is merely the beginning. Andy Driscoll Crocus Hill/Ward 2 ------ From: M Charles Swope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- Tim Erickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "Keep in the mind, the budget is set by the legislature - the school board is simply stuck with the frustrating job of dividing up what they get." Is this true? While a goodly portion of the district's budget may come from the state, I was under the impression that the school district also imposed property taxes on residents of the district. Charlie Swope Ward 1 _____________________________________________ To Join: St. Paul Issues Forum Rules Discussion Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ____________________________________________ NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul Archive Address: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
