K-12 spending in RI up 2.7% since ’08 as most other states cut
September 5th, 2012 at 11:09 am by Ted Nesi under Nesi's Notes, On the Main Site
Just 13 states have increased school spending since 2008, a new study shows – and Rhode Island is one of them.
Despite five-and-a-half years of economic malaise, Rhode Island boosted K-12 spending by $137 per student between 2007-08 and 2012-13, according to the study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington. That’s a five-year increase of 2.7% after inflation.
Much of that extra money just arrived.
The study shows Rhode Island hiked per-student education spending by an inflation-adjusted 9.5% this fiscal year, a bigger percentage increase than any other state. Spending is up $452 per student in Rhode Island for the 2012-13 school year.
Rhode Island adopted a new education-funding formula in June 2010 to allocate K-12 money to school districts, ending its run as the only state in the nation without such a formula. The previous formula had been abolished 15 years before.
“Research from all over the country has shown that low incomes tend to be linked to more expensive services in schools,” Senate Education Committee Chairwoman Hanna Gallo said at the time. “This formula recognizes that link and addresses that challenge. This formula ensures that each school district gets the funding it needs to support its students.”
Education Commissioner Deborah Gist, who was appointed by Governor Carcieri and retained by Governor Chafee, was one of the leading advocates for the new formula. This past June, lawmakers agreed to allocate extra money to the education formula as proposed by Chafee and Gist.
• Related: Moody’s praises RI school funding hike, warns on Woonsocket (June 27)
Tags: education, K-12, municipal, state budget
Nesi's Notes covers politics and the economy in and around Rhode Island for WPRI.com. (Twitter: 
Too bad the money will be squandered on the public school teachers compensation instead of being used for the childrens education. Now is the time for school vouchers.
Despite the recent increase, Rhode Island ranks in the bottom third of the country in terms of the state’s contribution to public education, when measured in terms of $1000 of per capita income. This is a good equalizing factor, as it helps to account for regional differences in the cost of living and ability to pay. The most recent data from the U.S. Census Bureau from a volume called “Public School Finances” appears at this link:
http://www2.census.gov/govs/school/10f33pub.pdf
If you look at Table 12, you will find that Rhode Island’s state level funding is at $17.22 per $1,0000 of income in 2009-10, which places us 41st in the country and far below the national average of $21.67. If Rhode Island resolved to bring education aid up to the national average, we would need to increase our state level funding by around 25% (i.e. $21.67/$17.22 = 1.258) or several hundred million dollars. Were Rhode Island to make this commitment, it would be possible to achieve a “grand bargain” combining funding and reforms the way Massachusetts did in its Educational Reform Act of 1993, which led Massachusetts to have the highest performing public school system in the country, as measured by the national NAEP test scores.
Interesting notion by Sam, but I wonder what the ranking would be if local funding (from property taxes) were added to the mix? Well, it’s right there in Table 11, where RI is #11 overall ($15,553/pupil). Why the disparity between state-level funding and this higher overall expenditure ranking? Because the difference is more than made up for at the local level. This confirmed in the same Table 12 Sam references. There you’ll find that RI is ranked #7 overall in funds provided from local sources: $28.28 per $1,000, which is $6.34 above the Nat’l average (and more than the $4.45 disparity Sam notes is the State level funding deficit).
I don’t think you can provide an accurate analysis–nor make policy suggestions–based on a narrow presentation of just state-level funding. You need to include all sources. And “state-level funding” is an abstraction that tends to elide the fact that said funding comes from tax dollars from the localities, the same entities (and taxpayers) who are already being more than generous (and without having their tax dollars filtered through the state house and then back down to the localities again).
There are two reasons why state-level funding is important to view in isolation as it is in Table 12. First, a number of Rhode Island cities are on the verge of bankruptcy in part because the State is not providing its fair share of school funding. We depend too heavily on the local property tax and it is crippling our cities. Second, State funding can be used to reduce inequities in local needs and local ability to pay that affect the ability of children to receive a quality public education. Thus, for example, Jamestown spends thousands of dollars more than the State average per pupil while Pawtucket and Woonsocket each spend thousands of dollars less than the State average (even when including State money) at the same time that the tax burden in Jamestown (relative to the size of its tax base) is less than it is in Pawtucket and Woonsocket. While the overall (state plus local) spending per pupil in Rhode Island is high, this number is inflated by overspending by wealthy communities as well as a few extreme cases (BLock Island is over $30,000 per student because of diseconomies of small scale) at the same time that urban communities with greater needs receive less. These are critical issues of state policy that can be traced back to the State of Rhode Island’s low ranking in Table 12 as noted above.
While you, in Providence, may not think the state is providing “its fair share”, that “share” comes from taking tax dollars from Rhode Islanders in some cities and towns, sending it thru the state bureaucracy which then dispenses it back down to those other cities and towns where politicians see fit. No matter your desire to split off the state from the local aid, the fact remains that for the taxpayer it is still money being taken out of their pockets. This is true for the “overspending…wealthy communities” as well as for the working-class neighborhoods and the ‘burbs.
I agree that we depend too much on local property taxes, but I’ve yet to see a serious effort to reform tax policies, either locally or statewide, by removing that dependency. (And increasing other taxes isn’t the answer–that’s just a shell game). Finally, yes, some cities are on the verge of bankruptcy, but, as you say, it really is only in partly because of the reduction in state aid. They’re mostly on the verge because of their own poor decisions (both the politicians and the voters who elected them). Should the taxpayers from other cities and towns–say Warwick or Coventry or Cumberland–be responsible for the poor decisions made by politicians in Providence and Central Falls? Probably not, but they are already helping to foot the bill with the new school funding formula and the current level of aid to cities and towns. And yet, you want more. It’s never enough.
I do not know if it is too late to comment, but this last post is missing the point. Marc might think that it is wrong for more state money to go to poor urban communities, but he is in the minority when compared to the rest of the country. Massachusetts, for example “takes” income tax revenues from the residents of Weston and Lincoln and “sends” it through the state bureaucracy to Chelsea. While the residents of Weston and Lincoln would prefer to pay lower taxes, they understand that education is a Statewide priority. In return for the State money, the Massachusetts school systems are held accountable to a high standard and so should it be for Rhode Island’s urban districts. When the children in Chelsea get a better education, it brings a benefit to the Westons and the Chelseas as well. We are at our best when we are all in this together.