Skip to main content

School district leaders raise concerns about 'rural inequity' in funding cuts

By Howard B. Owens

Proposed cuts in state aid to school districts will hit rural districts harder, local educators told Sen. Mike Ranzenhofer and Assemblyman Steve Hawley at a well-attended gathering Wednesday night at John Kennedy School.

The hour-long session centered on school district leaders from throughout Genesee County expressing their concern and asking questions about the proposed cuts.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo is proposing a $1.5 billion reduction in state aid to schools. But the funding formula currently in place would make the cuts inequitable, to the detriment of rural school districts, local education leaders say.

Some downstate districts will see funding drop about $700 per student, while rural districts will get $1,200 to $1,700 less.

"Our concern isn’t that we won’t make the cuts," said Mark Johnson (inset, left), a trustee in the Oakfield-Alabama School District. "We’ll do the same with less. The issue is we just want the cuts to be equitable."

Hawley said he will only support a 2-percent property tax cap if there is mandate relief.

"There has to be mandate relief," Hawley said. "These are costly, cumbersome and overburdening mandates by the state of New York on districts that know how to operate a business."

City Schools Superintendent Margaret Puzio said the meeting was fruitful, if for no other reason than to hear Ranzenhofer say there is a conversation going on in Albany about the inequality of the budget proposal.

"Our kids have to compete with kids from rich urban districts," Puzio said. "If they can’t get the same AP course, the same gifted and talented programs, the same chances in athletics, how can that be fair?"

Mary Scoins

I don't get it. The United States wants students to graduate with an educations that competes with other nations, but the federal government and states are cutting education funding to public schools and colleges. Isn't education the most important thing to give to our children?

Feb 24, 2011, 6:08pm Permalink
Dave Meyer

Ya know what I don't get?

Ms. Puzio laments the impending cuts in aid to education but with the other side of her mouth, she proposes a nearly $4 million project to renovate Van Detta stadium.

How do you say "we can't afford it"? Talk about disconnected!! Unbelievable!

Feb 24, 2011, 7:57pm Permalink
Janice Stenman

Another thing I don't get. NYS spends the highest per student rate in the country. Where does the money go?
What do we supply to our students that is absent in the states that spend a lower per student rate?

Feb 24, 2011, 10:50pm Permalink
Mark Laman

A large part of of the figure that contributes to our high cost per student is the special ed services we provide. NYS is known for the differentiation and unique opportunities that are given to our special ed students. The "price per student" is impacted by these costs. Other factors are our large cities and diverse socioeconomic student backgrounds. We also pay our administrators to dang much...

Feb 24, 2011, 11:22pm Permalink
Kyle Couchman

I'd also like to know where the lottery money that supposedly is supposed to go to education......really goes. I might be mistaken but the whole reason we had legal state gambling way back when was because the proceeds were going to education.

Maybe we need to restructure our schools to follow the models that work like Aquinas.... Instead of Middle and High Schools we need to make separations between the disruptive and delinquent and the ones that can and want to learn. I know people will cry foul but what else can be done. Give students a three strike rule.... break the rules consistently and get removed from the mainstream. Then make the non mainstream place where we put the substandard equipment, older books and such. They still have access to education, but we dont waste time and effort and cost catering to them and remove the albatross from around those students that want to learn and excell.

Feb 25, 2011, 5:53am Permalink
Tom Klotzbach

Unfortunately, you don't get a good sense of what specific mandate relief is requested. At the meeting, a Board member from LeRoy mentioned reforming the Triborough Amendment, which deals with expired contracts and most provisions in the expired contract remaining in full force and effect. As noted prior, this tends to de-incentivize some collective bargaining units from seeking a timely contract resolution in the belief that they can simply "out wait" a municipality in a protracted negotiation.

As far as education being a totally local responsibility, that would be more appropriate if there were not so many federal and state laws and regulations pertaining to education. In the case of Special Ed, the state and federal requirements are not well aligned. This tends to lead to services being "over-delivered" by some districts.

Lastly, there is serious disconnect of curriculum alignment between K-12 and higher ed. Talk to colleges and you'll find that upwards of 25% of incoming freshman have to take remedial math and reading. These remedial courses largely do not count towards graduation requirements, so are additional college costs. I can't imagine many parents and students are pleased when they realize this and wonder what happened. This issue is a predominately State issue, and local school districts need to continue to participate in helping to align curriculum. In this case, state mandates are directly impeding student preparedness for higher education, a skilled trade, military service and the like.

Feb 25, 2011, 5:54am Permalink
Doug Yeomans

Posted by Howard Owens on February 24, 2011 - 7:47pm
Why should the federal government or states pay for education? Shouldn't that be a totally local responsibility?

--------

Another question I have is why should I be required to pay school taxes on both pieces of property that I own? It's a double hit as far as I see it. Hell, I've never even had any kids so why is my school tax burden a "forever" thing for me? If people want to have children, shouldn't they shoulder the cost of education more than someone who hasn't ever put a kid through the school system?

Feb 25, 2011, 6:54am Permalink
Doug Yeomans

Howard, another point to consider: What if an area is impoverished but 50 miles down the road is the 90210 zip code (just an example) and they can afford the very best public and private schools? How is the impoverished area supposed to support a school?

One of the biggest problems I see with schools is that there's one on every corner. That's got to cost far more than having a larger, centralized school.

Feb 25, 2011, 7:08am Permalink
Thomas Schneider

The Lottery money does go to education, its just that the other money the state was spending on education, before the lottery, is now being spent elsewhere. Probably into somebody's pocket of course.

Feb 25, 2011, 7:24am Permalink
Peter O'Brien

Doug,
While that is true of the funds for schools in impovrished neighborhoods, large area schools reduce the ability of the local people from affecting their school district. I chose power over government to large budgets.

What really needs to happen to improve the schools - get rid of those who don't want to learn. Don't teach those who don't want it. Have a system in place that will notify parents of what is happening (including face to face meetings) and if there is no change, boot the kid so the others can do better. We need janitors as much as rocket scientists.

See Joe Clark.

Feb 25, 2011, 8:45am Permalink
Doug Yeomans

Peter, I agree that problem kids are a distraction to the kids that do want to learn but what should we do with them? If we boot them out, what will they do? They'll be out on the street slashing tires at Batavia Downs! It's a real dilemma.

Feb 25, 2011, 10:06am Permalink
Peter O'Brien

Doug,
It comes down to responsible parenting, hold parents responsible for the actions of their children and many issues with the youth in society will disappear. This includes a parent who has visitation rights but not custody. They are still responsible for how the child turns out.

I understand that a single parent doesn't necessarily have the time to track their children 24/7, and children get into trouble. (I certainly did, though not to the extent my parents did, oh the stories they tell...) But its not the responsibility of the school to teach morals and babysit. Families (beyond the Nuclear Family) have to take care of their own. If need be, foster care is an option. A kid I grew up with was a determinant to his mom, 2 brothers and twin sister. The mom made a decision that she needed help. She sent him to St. Joseph's Villa. It helped tremendously. Mom was better able to handle the other three, and the boy got through it and was better off because of it.

Decisions like that are going to be tough. But they are not government's to make. Nor is it government's job to teach children how to behave. It is a parents. We have lost site of that in our society.

If the kids still turn out to be criminals, treat them as such. You are never going to fix everyone, but a strong family unit can deal with many things before they get to be too hard to handle.

Feb 25, 2011, 10:49am Permalink
Doug Yeomans

Peter, I agree pretty much with what you're saying. Strong family units are a huge factor on the stability of an individual and on society as a whole. The disintegration of the family unit has had a detrimental effect in so many ways.

Parents are responsible for the actions of their children but we also know that some kids are beyond control. I'm familiar with the PINS process (if that's what it's still called). Parents have to sleep sometime and they can't chain their problem child to a tie-down ring in the floor, unfortunately.

Single mothers have to deal with out of control teens in some manner and that often means they have to put their kids where that can happen 24/7/365. (I just realized that those numbers are 2 3 4 5 6 7..hmmm)

I'm 48 and I can remember when a teacher or principal could jack a kid up against the wall without too much worry that the school would be sued into bankruptcy. It didn't happen often but when it did, it was warranted. Parents would usually ask the kid why the teacher needed to do that and expect an answer. Now the parents want to know why the teacher thought it was okay to discipline the kid regardless of what the kid had done.

If my kid came home and told me that a teacher needed to put him/her up against the wall, I'd more than likely be on the side of the teacher.

When I lived in Rochester I caught the neighbor's boy throwing rocks at my dogs. I grabbed him by the scruff of the neck when he tried to run past me and goose stepped him (kicking, screaming and motherf***ing me all the way) to his front door. I knocked on the door and his father answered. His father was not worried about what his kid was doing and offered no apologies. He just wanted me to get my hand off of his kid or there would be trouble.

It's unfortunate that he reacted that way because the next time it happened I had no recourse other than to call the police. If the tables had been turned, my boy would've been shoveling dog poop for a month and he would've had to apologize plus ask if there were any other chores that were needed to be done.

The world has changed and I feel more and more alienated by it every day.

Feb 25, 2011, 11:43am Permalink

Authentically Local