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.
More tax payers for less administrative(and perhaps other) personnel is the point.
Again, consolidation is a matter of at what level and how you do it. Why would busing have to change, if you can keep the same situation in that regard, even with consolidation?
I could see some of the things like weather considerations, but to not at least study potential changes doesn't make sense.
The numbers you are trying to rebut where made up just to illustrate a point. As for Syracuse, they would certainly have an administrative staff necessary for 20,000, no matter the title.
Yes, if you consolidate, you will need less administrators but the reduction is not as great as you think, and the tax savings is trivial. I don't see why you need to go back and forth on this point.
Your busing point proves my point. If you are not changing things like busing, how are you getting any significant savings. Please think about it for a second - if busing stays the same, then it must mean that the schools will stay the same (same kids getting bused to the same schools). Where, then, are you achieving savings? If its the same kids going to the same schools with the same teachers with the same sports and activities than THE COSTS WILL BE THE SAME. Why is this not obvious??? Yes, it you consolidate districts, you will be able to shorten your superintendent bench, but that gets you to just a minor, and I mean minor, tax savings.
The numbers you are trying to rebut where made up just to illustrate a point. As for Syracuse, they would certainly have an administrative staff necessary for 20,000, no matter the title.
Yes, if you consolidate, you will need less administrators but the reduction is not as great as you think, and the tax savings is trivial. I don't see why you need to go back and forth on this point.
Your busing point proves my point. If you are not changing things like busing, how are you getting any significant savings. Please think about it for a second - if busing stays the same, then it must mean that the schools will stay the same (same kids getting bused to the same schools). Where, then, are you achieving savings? If its the same kids going to the same schools with the same teachers with the same sports and activities than THE COSTS WILL BE THE SAME. Why is this not obvious??? Yes, it you consolidate districts, you will be able to shorten your superintendent bench, but that gets you to just a minor, and I mean minor, tax savings.
There would be some flexibility in regards to this. With activities, as in many cases, some schools will have activities that others don't, like select sports or a marching band for examples and some districts are already consolidating in that regard. So, you can share costs for some activities and even facilities.
With busing, I was under the impression that you were referring to sending kids all over the place. You can adjust busing in relation to distance by say having children within a certain distance walk or if you have something implemented like a MN/WI open enrollment aspect, they would use their own mode of transportation.
I forgot to mention that this would be tough in regards to the Big 5 school districts(NYC, Buffalo, Rochester, Yonkers and Syracuse) consolidating into the county school districts, as a the state constitution would have to be amended to allow this to happen. http://gs4a.org/a-consolidated-count...-in-the-cards/
Just to touch on OyCrumbler's post, you could do some of these things with schools along with other things like consolidation of say law enforcement agencies, which has occurred to some degree and other services.
Last edited by ckhthankgod; 11-02-2020 at 09:47 AM..
There would be some flexibility in regards to this. With activities, as in many cases, some schools will have activities that others don't, like select sports or a marching band for examples and some districts are already consolidating in that regard. So, you can share costs for some activities and even facilities.
With busing, I was under the impression that you were referring to sending kids all over the place. You can adjust busing in relation to distance by say having children within a certain distance walk or if you have something implemented like a MN/WI open enrollment aspect, they would use their own mode of transportation.
I forgot to mention that this would be tough in regards to the Big 5 school districts(NYC, Buffalo, Rochester, Yonkers and Syracuse) consolidating into the county school districts, as a the state constitution would have to be amended to allow this to happen. A consolidated county school district is not in the cards.
Just to touch on OyCrumbler's post, you could do some of these things with schools along with other things like consolidation of say law enforcement agencies, which has occurred to some degree and other services.
Nothing in this post, or in any of your other posts, is a cogent argument in favor of consolidating school districts.
As you have said, some districts are already sharing costs for certain finite activities. Hockey is an example of this. But if you can already cherry pick some very small areas where sharing costs with a neighboring district makes sense, then why the need to abolish your district in favor of a new consolidated one? All you are doing is presenting points that cut against consolidation.
As for having kids walk to school when they live proximate to the school, what does this have to do with consolidation? You can do that right now. You don't need consolidation. In fact, I think many school districts already do this.
In NYS, outside of the big cities, school districts are separate from county/city/town/village governments. You can't consolidate schools with law enforcement, for instance. But in any event, even if such were suddenly to be permitted, how are you going to achieve change? If you have the same students going to the same schools with the same busing and the same sports and the same activities with the same teachers and the same teacher contracts, then exactly how are you going to reduce costs. Consolidating with law enforcement doesn't change any of this.
Which means we are back to where we started. If you want significant tax savings, you need to have significant costs savings. You don't need to consolidate to do this. Moreover, consolidating alone does not achieve it.
Nothing in this post, or in any of your other posts, is a cogent argument in favor of consolidating school districts.
As you have said, some districts are already sharing costs for certain finite activities. Hockey is an example of this. But if you can already cherry pick some very small areas where sharing costs with a neighboring district makes sense, then why the need to abolish your district in favor of a new consolidated one? All you are doing is presenting points that cut against consolidation.
As for having kids walk to school when they live proximate to the school, what does this have to do with consolidation? You can do that right now. You don't need consolidation. In fact, I think many school districts already do this.
In NYS, outside of the big cities, school districts are separate from county/city/town/village governments. You can't consolidate schools with law enforcement, for instance. But in any event, even if such were suddenly to be permitted, how are you going to achieve change? If you have the same students going to the same schools with the same busing and the same sports and the same activities with the same teachers and the same teacher contracts, then exactly how are you going to reduce costs. Consolidating with law enforcement doesn't change any of this.
Which means we are back to where we started. If you want significant tax savings, you need to have significant costs savings. You don't need to consolidate to do this. Moreover, consolidating alone does not achieve it.
I think you are mixing some things that I am saying. Law enforcement was a reference to consolidation of agencies, which has happened. In context, I said that it is another way of consolidating to reducing duplication and costs. Agencies such as East Syracuse and Clay have gone away due to consolidation with the Town of DeWitt PD and Onondaga County Sheriff's, respectively.
I mentioned kids walking as an aspect of reducing busing.
I get that this steps on people's identity in terms of school districts, but you can still consolidate without necessarily getting rid of that "identity". I've gone over this, but I will let it go.
If you have any other alternatives, I'm all ears and I think others are as well.
Maybe consolidation of police departments leads to significant tax savings. Maybe it doesn't. I haven't thought about it much. But if it does lead to significant tax savings, it does not follow that consolidating school districts leads to significant tax savings. Consolidating school districts, in and of itself, does not lead to significant tax savings.
Kids walking will reduce busing costs. You can have kids walk and reduce busing costs without consolidating.
You can't consolidate without giving up, or significantly impacting, local control.
As for other alternatives, I don't know what you mean by that. If you mean other alternatives to achieve signifiant tax savings, I will offer the following:
Significantly lower the costs associated with educating our children ------ Pay the teachers significantly less. Given them significantly less benefits. Get the schools out of sports (if you want your kids to play sports, reach into your own pock and pay a club team for the experience). Decrease or eliminate other activities. Significantly reduce infrastructure costs.
Keep in mind I don't want any of these things. But if you want to significantly reduce school district property taxes, this is what you will need to do. And again, for the 1000th time, you don't need to consolidate to do any of this. If you want taxes to go down, spending has to go down. It doesn't matter if the entire state is merged into one school district, or if it is divided up into hundreds of school districts.
Maybe consolidation of police departments leads to significant tax savings. Maybe it doesn't. I haven't thought about it much. But if it does lead to significant tax savings, it does not follow that consolidating school districts leads to significant tax savings. Consolidating school districts, in and of itself, does not lead to significant tax savings.
Kids walking will reduce busing costs. You can have kids walk and reduce busing costs without consolidating.
You can't consolidate without giving up, or significantly impacting, local control.
As for other alternatives, I don't know what you mean by that. If you mean other alternatives to achieve signifiant tax savings, I will offer the following:
Significantly lower the costs associated with educating our children ------ Pay the teachers significantly less. Given them significantly less benefits. Get the schools out of sports (if you want your kids to play sports, reach into your own pock and pay a club team for the experience). Decrease or eliminate other activities. Significantly reduce infrastructure costs.
Keep in mind I don't want any of these things. But if you want to significantly reduce school district property taxes, this is what you will need to do. And again, for the 1000th time, you don't need to consolidate to do any of this. If you want taxes to go down, spending has to go down. It doesn't matter if the entire state is merged into one school district, or if it is divided up into hundreds of school districts.
I get what you are saying, but does it have to go to that extreme as well? I ask that because other states do not do all of that to have reduced costs. Some have a budget that they stay within, but they seem to find a way to offer plenty of activities.
It may have to come down to lowering pay a bit or share activities.
In terms of local control, perhaps things can be administered similar to the structure of county government.
To bring it back to the original topic, if there were to be a split, these are some things that would likely have to be considered.
Last edited by ckhthankgod; 11-02-2020 at 02:04 PM..
This...It isn't as simple as unions, as many teachers do have a Master's Degree, which in turn also plays a part in teacher within the state.
I think the budget increases are due to things like teacher/administrator pay, but also to try and give school districts some "advantage" of sorts to attract families to their school district. So, that is why you get these upgrades in facilities, whether it is for the buildings or athletic related.
Yeah, nothing makes you want to move to a new school district because they replaced the roof or boilers. I don't think so. It's about academics. And it's a good chance that the SD that get's economics right, get's the facilities and sports right too. Compare that to the RCSD with a billion dollars of new and renovated buildings.
Speaking of bussing, some school districts have not just one, but 2 monitors on a bus. When I was a kid, we all gathered at the street corner, and if we weren't there, we missed the bus. Now you wait in the house for the bus to show up. On the home run, they wait until they see an adult or they get in the house. that's got to add greatly to the budget.
Yeah, nothing makes you want to move to a new school district because they replaced the roof or boilers. I don't think so. It's about academics. And it's a good chance that the SD that get's economics right, get's the facilities and sports right too. Compare that to the RCSD with a billion dollars of new and renovated buildings.
That is my point in that a lot of suburban SD’s upgrade stadiums, gyms, music departments, etc.
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.
