Saving schools money

[southsider2k5]

WASHINGTON, Nov 01, 2005 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Public schools in the

United States could save an estimated $9 billion a year -- the equivalent of

funding for 900 new schools or more than 150,000 new teachers -- by combining

just a quarter of their non-instructional service costs with other school

districts, according to a study released today by Deloitte Research, the thought

leadership arm of Deloitte, and the Reason Foundation.

 

The report, "Driving More Money into the Classroom: The Promise of Shared

Services," concludes that sharing services is a better option than consolidation

for many school districts because it makes it possible to educate students like

a small district and still have the economies of scale and buying power of a

large district.

 

"Non-instructional services are vital to the success of American schools, but

too often take money away from the ultimate goal - educating children," said

William Eggers, Deloitte Research's Global Director-Public Sector. "Instead of

forcing painful consolidation choices, state leaders should encourage school

districts to work cooperatively to make sure education dollars are being used as

effectively and efficiently as possible."

 

"School funding and per-pupil spending are always hot-button issues," said Lisa

Snell, co-author of the report and director of education at Reason Foundation.

"Sharing services gives schools and districts a great opportunity to send a lot

more money straight to classrooms, where it belongs. With much of the education

world facing tough budget decisions, sharing services is a dramatically

under-used option that can yield significant results."

 

Sharing services -- from billing to janitorial services to benefits

administration -- is a technique that the private sector has used for decades to

reduce costs, and it's becoming increasingly common in the public sector as

well. While some school districts have begun to adopt such arrangements, the

report concluded that "school districts have barely scratched the surface in

terms of tapping into the cost savings potential and other benefits" from shared

service agreements.

 

Currently, at least 40 percent of every dollar spent on education in most states

never makes it to the classroom. Instead, it is spent on business operations --

transportation, human resources, food services, information technology, building

maintenance and administration -- areas where schools could benefit in many ways

by sharing services with each other, including:

 

 

Saving Money. Reduced costs is the first and most obvious benefit of

      shared services, thanks to reduced redundancy, and lower capital,

      personnel administrative and development costs. The Deloitte and Reason

      Foundation report estimates that U.S. public schools would save $9

      billion a year -- including $1 billion in California alone -- if they

      shifted a quarter of their non-instructional costs to shared services.

 

      Attracting More Qualified Staff. The shared services model allows

      districts that are often unable to match the salaries of larger

      districts to pool resources and attract more highly qualified personnel.

      For example, school districts can work cooperatively to share a

      transportation director - resulting in a higher quality director but

      lower costs for both school districts.

 

      Less Political Opposition. For taxpayers, sharing services is a much

      more popular cost-cutting measure than consolidation of school

      districts -- a choice that can take away community identities but is

      often an option politicians turn to in tight budget times. A 2002 survey

      by Michigan State University found that 43 percent of Michigan residents

      favored sharing resources a the best way to reduce school district

      costs, two times more than those who favored consolidation.

 

The study encourages policymakers, educators and parents to look beyond the

traditional consolidation debate that presents a false choice between strong

local control of schools and high per-student costs, or giving up local control

through school district consolidation.

 

"It's possible to educate students in a small school district without having

sky-high per-student costs," Eggers said. "By implementing shared services,

small districts can band together to share everything from purchasing supplies

to gymnasiums."

 

The study also concludes that states should encourage or require the adoption of

shared services because they fund a large percentage of local school district

spending. This could be accomplished by:

 

 

Greater Transparency. States can require education budgets to be divided

      into instructional and non-instructional categories, forcing more

      detailed explanations of how education dollars are spent. The state of

      Idaho, for example, separates its education budget into five categories:

      instruction, support services, non-instructional services, facility

      acquisition services, and other.

 

      Better Management. States can put school management practices under a

      microscope. For example, the Texas School Performance Review has

      conducted 75 audits of Texas school district business practices that

      have identified hundreds of millions of dollars in savings.

 

      Mandatory Minimums. States can require school districts to devote a

      minimum percentage of their spending to the classroom. Legislatures in

      Kansas and Louisiana approved measures encouraging school districts to

      limit non-classroom spending to 35 percent of their total budgets. In

      Texas, Gov. Rick Perry required Texas schools to boost classroom

      spending to 65 percent or face sanctions from the Texas Education

      Agency. According to an education advocacy group, more than 10 states

      may put the 65 percent solution before voters in the 2006 general

      election.

[Texsox]

Texas created Regional resource centers to share high dollar resources. This has been a boom to smaller, poorer school districts. It is also a step towards eliminating the worse aspect of school financing, using property taxes. This assures the poor receive less resources than the rich. Not equal.

[kapkomet]

Yea, Tex, I about pooped my pants when I got the SCHOOL portion of my tax bill.

 

I need to come up with some serious cash before January, or my payments on my house are about to go up 50%.

[Texsox]

Yea, Tex, I about pooped my pants when I got the SCHOOL portion of my tax bill.

 

I need to come up with some serious cash before January, or my payments on my house are about to go up 50%.

 

Property taxes are the cruelest tax. With income tax, when you make more, you pay more. Property taxes are tied to your home value. So being property rich and income poor becomes a disastrous combination.

[kapkomet]

Property taxes are the cruelest tax. With income tax, when you make more, you pay more. Property taxes are tied to your home value. So being property rich and income poor becomes a disastrous combination.

Yea, don't I know that now.

 

And by the way home owners with escrow accounts, don't count on the mortgage company to do it right, either. Because THEY DON'T.

 

Wankers.

 

[Steff]

Yea, don't I know that now.

 

And by the way home owners with escrow accounts, don't count on the mortgage company to do it right, either.  Because THEY DON'T.

 

Wankers.

 

 

 

 

Just figure 3% of your current home value + .05, escrow that and you should be fine.

[Texsox]

Just figure 3% of your current home value + .05, escrow that and you should be fine.

 

A little higher in Texas. We have no state income tax, so our property taxes are slightly higher than some other states.

[Steff]

A little higher in Texas. We have no state income tax, so our property taxes are slightly higher than some other states.

 

 

 

What is the average rate down there? Florida also doesn't have state ic, their pt rate averages just above 4% on new construction.

[Texsox]

What is the average rate down there? Florida also doesn't have state ic, their pt rate averages just above 4% on new construction.

 

It depends on the local stuff, but last time I knew, it was around 4% with I believe a few places approaching 5%.

[Steff]

It depends on the local stuff, but last time I knew, it was around 4% with I believe a few places approaching 5%.

 

 

We bought a place near Kississimee and it's just at 4.2%, closer to Poinsiana (sp?) which is closer to Disney and prime property was right at 4.7%, so it sounds like Texas is like that also.

[mreye]

Property taxes are the cruelest tax. With income tax, when you make more, you pay more. Property taxes are tied to your home value. So being property rich and income poor becomes a disastrous combination.

Which is stupid. There's no incentive to have a nice home. If I add a bathroom. my value goes up. That's great if I plan to sell, but not if I want to keep my taxes down.

 

 

 

Mike, do you have a link to this article? I'd like to pass it along. Really cool stuff.

[southsider2k5]

Which is stupid. There's no incentive to have a nice home. If I add a bathroom. my value goes up. That's great if I plan to sell, but not if I want to keep my taxes down.

Mike, do you have a link to this article? I'd like to pass it along. Really cool stuff.

 

There is no link. I have access to a cool newswire system here down on the floor, and it is from that.

[Steff]

Which is stupid. There's no incentive to have a nice home. If I add a bathroom. my value goes up. That's great if I plan to sell, but not if I want to keep my taxes down.

Mike, do you have a link to this article? I'd like to pass it along. Really cool stuff.

 

 

In Illinois there are homestead exemptions you can apply for if you make "necessary" improvements that will freeze your PT's. I didn't know about them until I did some research. The criteria is pretty wide open. If you're serious about adding a bathroom you might take a look to see if Indiana has something along the same lines.

[mreye]

In Illinois there are homestead exemptions you can apply for if you make "necessary" improvements that will freeze your PT's. I didn't know about them until I did some research. The criteria is pretty wide open. If you're serious about adding a bathroom you might take a look to see if Indiana has something along the same lines.

Yes, we have homestead exemptions. I don't know how an added bathroom applies. I just threw that in as an example of the BS. I could have said paved my gravel driveway, etc. I just don't like the system. I think there should be a land tax where the amount you pay is based on the amount of land you own, not the value. In Indiana the assesments are totally messed up. There's all kinds of lawsuits going on in Lake and Porter counties.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Isn't this basically what Philly did when it contracted a private firm to oversee most of the city's public schools? I think this is the inevitable future but with it unions will pay a price. Likewise teaching. We are beginning to see the emergence of corporate teacher institutions for tutoring & secondary schools.

It's just a matter of years before that makes it's way into classrooms.

 

This is one of the centrally decisive issues between Dems & GOPers. GOPers want to open the flood gates & treat education like a marketable industry. Dems want to keep it a close-fisted institution controlled by the unions. There is not much room for compromise there & already the GOPers are winning the battle with vouchers & the inclusion of private & parochial schools. The bottomline is money. If they can do a better job at a lower cost all the power to them. Americans for separation of Church & State be damned.

[kapkomet]

Isn't this basically what Philly did when it contracted a private firm to oversee most of the city's public schools?  I think this is the inevitable future but with it unions will pay a price.  Likewise teaching.  We are beginning to see the emergence of corporate teacher institutions for tutoring & secondary schools.

It's just a matter of years before that makes it's way into classrooms.

 

This is one of the centrally decisive issues between Dems & GOPers.  GOPers want to open the flood gates & treat education like a marketable industry.  Dems want to keep it a close-fisted institution controlled by the unions.  There is not much room for compromise there & already the GOPers are winning the battle with vouchers & the inclusion of private & parochial schools.  The bottomline is money.  If they can do a better job at a lower cost all the power to them.  Americans for separation of Church & State be damned.

That's a very good take on it.

 

I agree with Juggs?