Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I work in a public school that is close to 100% minority and our test scores are higher than many all white schools in NYC. They are also higher than schools with minorities in Westchester and Ct. Why? We pay more money per pupil than the other schools in NYC. We have 17 kids in a class and many extra programs that are funded by philanthropists such as instruments, etc. In wealthier areas of Manhattan, there a so many schools that are very diverse that have great test scores because the parents pay salaries of extra teachers to reduce class size. Being a minority does not mean that you can't learn.
In Larchmont, the public school kids get no school bussing but many people put their kids in $30,000 a year private schools and get a free bus. There are many unfunded mandates that need to be abolished before the schools that I pay for should increase class sizes and lose teachers. If the high taxes bringing property taxes down, class sizes of 25 and lower test scores will do the same. I think taxes need to be cut but class sizes should be the last to go.
jjinla, in the 10 years I've lived here my taxes have increased by $4,000. If you adjust for inflation, they are now only 2K over what they were in 2001. That's not bad. In that same time, the town services have actually improved (new town parks, new trail systems, renovated pool, new sidewalks and bike paths, more protected open space, etc) and the school system has remained excellent. My school district (Yorktown Central) developed a bad rep in the 80's and early 90's for having high tax rates, but in the last 15 years the administration has been completely overhauled and spending--and our taxes--has gone up at a much slower rate than most area districts, so that our town tax rate is now on the low side for the area. I do look at the school budget very closely and I know where that money is going. As long as the school district continues to propose lean, intelligent budgets, I will continue to vote for them.
Controlling spending and reducing taxes for the middle and lower class should certainly be a priority for local, state, and federal government--but it is less critical than improving the quality of our public school system.
And if you think increasing local taxes will drive down real estate values, just imagine what decreasing school quality would do!
As it happens to be, there are public blue ribbon schools in the NYC metro suburbs that spend 25% less per student than Chappaqua and 17% less than Yorktown. And what many Westchester schools spend per student is twice as much as what is spent by even Chaminade! That's clear evidence of overspending. Obviously you can cut spending and taxes by a lot and still keep excellent quality.
As it happens to be, there are public blue ribbon schools in the NYC metro suburbs that spend 25% less per student than Chappaqua and 17% less than Yorktown. And what many Westchester schools spend per student is twice as much as what is spent by even Chaminade! That's clear evidence of overspending. Obviously you can cut spending and taxes by a lot and still keep excellent quality.
Every time I hear somebody complain about school costs/taxes, it seems those complaints seem to be vague, blanket statements. Simply floating numbers and saying that is 'clear evidence of overspending' doesn't seem too clear to me. Where is the clarity? It seems to me to be a fairly general statement. Obviously we can cut taxes and still have quality? What is obvious?
Yes, it's obvious that some districts spend more. But they are spending what they spend based on their collective priorities. Bronxville spends a fortune...more than my tastes, but folks have voted their priorities there, as is their right. When selecting a district I didn't choose their district because I did my homework and found it wasn't right for my family. The district I selected may spend more than what some folks think is right - and it is their right to choose elsewhere. Just because district x spends more than district y doesn't mean they are 'overspending'.
Whether it be on a federal, state or local level, folks love complaining about taxes. This past election cycle a boatload of people who have little empathy for the middle class were voted in to office based on similar vague complaints about taxes, and sadly the only solutions they have is to keep giving millionaires tax relief while cutting programs for the middle class and the poor.
If you feel spending is too high, give details. Look at your particular budget, and make suggestions for cuts. If the majority feels the way you do, it will be included in your school district's budget and that budget will pass. This is one of the benefits of having small school districts...the budget process is open and discussions make differences. But to point fingers at other districts and announce they are overspending?
I personally have tax fatigue...not from the taxes I am paying...but from hearing folks complain about them without giving workable solutions. As noted on the previous pages, it appears the folks who have taken the time to look at their specific school budgets line by line have concluded their taxes are fair.
If you have specific examples of what blue ribbon schools are doing to keep costs down, by all means, share. I would love to see taxes go down; I'm sure none of us like parting with our hard earned money.
Just compare Westchester with Fairfax county in Virginia. Both counties have roughly the same size of population, both are the most affluent suburb of a big city, and both have good public schools. But the property tax at Fairfax is only 1% of property value. See more analysis at the link below.
As it happens to be, there are public blue ribbon schools in the NYC metro suburbs that spend 25% less per student than Chappaqua and 17% less than Yorktown. And what many Westchester schools spend per student is twice as much as what is spent by even Chaminade! That's clear evidence of overspending. Obviously you can cut spending and taxes by a lot and still keep excellent quality.
The majority of Blue Ribbon schools are required to have a minimum of 40% population of "disadvantaged students" and the schools' sole distinction is improvement in test scores. Schools with a large population of disadvantaged students and/or ELA students will be eligible for a huge host of special funding sources and programs that won't be counted in the schools' cost-per-pupil figures. For many of these schools the unfunded mandates are actually funded by special government and nongovernment programs. (There are blue ribbon schools in poorer districts in which every student has an ipad--free of cost to the school.)
The rest of the blue ribbon schools are those in which students simply score well on standardized tests, and we all know that that is hardly a sign of academic excellence.
As I said, I've looked through my districts' budgets and the only fat I see is the unfunded mandates. You could certainly cut the art and music programs without negatively impacting the standardized test scores. And you could eliminate the science research program and the Intel Discovery program and the after schools programs and the sports programs--all without damaging the test scores. If you consider everything that doesn't directly impact students' performance on ELA and Math tests to be unnecessary, then you could probably find a lot to cut. But those programs are really what makes a school excellent.
But the schools I'm comparing to do not have a 40% population of "disadvantaged students". Take a look at Stewart Manor or Franklin Square. Those aren't 40% disadvantaged schools nor do they get any special external funding.
In terms of excellence in science/academics, Stuyvesant's spending is around 15% less than Yorktown HS (and much lower compared to Chappaqua). Same with Bronx Science and Townsend Harris.
Yes, you can have excellence in science and academics without spending as much.
Every time I hear somebody complain about school costs/taxes, it seems those complaints seem to be vague, blanket statements. Simply floating numbers and saying that is 'clear evidence of overspending' doesn't seem too clear to me. Where is the clarity? It seems to me to be a fairly general statement. Obviously we can cut taxes and still have quality? What is obvious?
Yes, it's obvious that some districts spend more. But they are spending what they spend based on their collective priorities. Bronxville spends a fortune...more than my tastes, but folks have voted their priorities there, as is their right. When selecting a district I didn't choose their district because I did my homework and found it wasn't right for my family. The district I selected may spend more than what some folks think is right - and it is their right to choose elsewhere. Just because district x spends more than district y doesn't mean they are 'overspending'.
Check my post. Someone commented that school quality would go down if spending were cut by so much. I'm assuming what was meant by that was quality of academics. I'm just saying that such a notion is not true. You can preserve excellent quality and still cut costs (and taxes). The numbers prove it. The comparisons prove it.
Now if there are other collective priorities besides academics/teaching, then that is a different matter altogether.
Last edited by Forest_Hills_Daddy; 04-04-2011 at 11:42 AM..
But the schools I'm comparing to do not have a 40% population of "disadvantaged students". Take a look at Stewart Manor or Franklin Square. Those aren't 40% disadvantaged schools nor do they get any special external funding.
In terms of excellence in science/academics, Stuyvesant's spending is around 15% less than Yorktown HS (and much lower compared to Chappaqua). Same with Bronx Science and Townsend Harris.
Yes, you can have excellence in science and academics without spending as much.
As I said above, those blue ribbon schools that aren't 40% disadvantaged are simply schools with high test scores, which is not an indication of "excellence in science and academics." And Bronx Science certainly does have a large ELA and disadvantaged population and it is eligible for funding streams that Westchester schools don't get.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dctonyc
Just compare Westchester with Fairfax county in Virginia. Both counties have roughly the same size of population, both are the most affluent suburb of a big city, and both have good public schools. But the property tax at Fairfax is only 1% of property value. See more analysis at the link below.
Not a fair comparison. I just did a cost of living comparison and it is 28% cheaper in Fairfax than in Westchester. Salaries, supplies, maintenance, construction, food--everything is a lot cheaper there so schools can do a lot more with less. The cost of basic things like building upkeep will be dramatically more expensive in Westchester.
I'm sure there are schools out there (in NYC metro and elsewhere) that manage to do more with less. And I'm sure that your local school district would love to hear their secrets. What annoys me about this whole conversation is the implication that schools could easily cut spending if they just wanted to. Do you really think that your superintendent is sitting on ways to slash spending without impacting education but he has decided to keep them to himself? It seems clear to me that every superintendent and school board is wracking their brains for ways to cut spending and reduce taxes. So, if you have some great cost-cutting ideas, by all means go to your board meetings and share.
As I said above, those blue ribbon schools that aren't 40% disadvantaged are simply schools with high test scores, which is not an indication of "excellence in science and academics." And Bronx Science certainly does have a large ELA and disadvantaged population and it is eligible for funding streams that Westchester schools don't get.
There are blue ribbon schools in poorer districts in which every student has an ipad--free of cost to the school.
But the regular suburban public schools follow the same required curriculum as the Westchester schools do. Carey High School in Franklin Square offers band, orchestra (even this I think they can cut), science research and all the AP courses to one's desire. It is not true that Carey is somehow - academics-wise - disadvantaged compared with Yorktown or Greeley.
As for Brox Sci, Stuy and Townsend, whatever costs they report accurately reflect how much the school spends on academic instruction - be it teachers' salaries, librarians, classrooms maintenance, etc. At the end of the day, they spend less than Westchester schools and yet produce great academic results.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dma1250
What annoys me about this whole conversation is the implication that schools could easily cut spending if they just wanted to. Do you really think that your superintendent is sitting on ways to slash spending without impacting education but he has decided to keep them to himself? It seems clear to me that every superintendent and school board is wracking their brains for ways to cut spending and reduce taxes. So, if you have some great cost-cutting ideas, by all means go to your board meetings and share.
Who said cutting costs was an easy job? It is never easy in both the public and private sector to do this. But it can be done. Here's an anecdotal example of why it can be hard. Take Garden City, for one. When district officials realized they can presereve their excellent academic programs (including reasonable class sizes, science research, math olympiad, etc.) with cost reductions by making big cuts with their sports programs, a bunch of parents raised a noisy howl of protest. Apparently too many GC residents were attached to their sports teams that they couldn't let go of no matter what. So the district had no choice but to make "win-win" decisions that resulted in lower quality in academics such as increasing class sizes and reducing gifted and talented offerings, among others. But that goes down the line with what tammy42 was saying about "collective priorities". My only point is that it's not true that you would have to sacrifice academics by cutting costs.
Last edited by Forest_Hills_Daddy; 04-04-2011 at 12:30 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
