The content of this article really bothers me. In “Some Rich Districts Get Richer as Aid is Rushed to Schools” in the New York Times, reporter Sam Dillon says,
But under the Obama administration’s education stimulus package, Mr. Lamborn, who needs every penny he can get, will receive hundreds of dollars less per student than will Dr. Bailey, who says he does not need the extra money.
“For us, this is just a windfall,” Dr. Bailey said.
In pouring rivers of cash into states and school districts, Washington is using a tangle of well-worn federal formulas, some of which benefit states that spend more per pupil, while others help states with large concentrations of poor students or simply channel money based on population. Combined, the formulas seem to take little account of who needs the money most.
Do we ever think things through before we throw money at problems? I will not pretend to be an economist or to know our country’s way out of this mess, but what I do know is that we all need to be prudent and conservative in our fiscal management, at home and in the public and private sectors. At RCS, we are preparing a budget with a zero percent (0%) increase to the tax levy as a way to help our voters and to be responsible stewards of our resources. Can we plan on multiple years of a 0% increase? Probably not. But in this year when things are tough for everyone, we’re taking steps to cut back wherever we can.
I would like to see the federal stimulus dollars come our way as much as the next superintendent, but I do not want to see the government throw dollars at districts indiscriminately. We’re trying to put together a solid budget, with no clear idea of how or when this money is coming to us. We will be responsible in its use but I’m taking an ‘I’ll believe it when I see it’ approach to the revenue stream.
And where is all of this federal money continuing to come from? I don’t want our children saddled with this debt because of our irresponsibility as a generation of spenders. This money is solving today’s problems at tomorrow’s expense. I would prefer a measured approach now and in the next few years to catastrophe planning in five.