Jackson Free Press

House Bill 215 passed Wednesday in the House to make changes to the MAEP formula. I voted against this bill. The formula is the most complicated thing I have ever seen in my life, so I won't even try to explain it. All I can tell you is that now, if you live in a school district losing students, prepare for your taxes to increase.

The new formula will reward districts with more supplemental funds from the state who gain new students (high-growth districts), and take more money away from districts losing students. Since this is a supplement, logic would dictate that if a school district is losing students, then they are losing their tax base and would need the additional funds. Instead it is the other way around. That would mean that those left behind in those decreasing districts will see their car tags and property taxes go up to make up the shortfall, especially our beloved Jackson Public School District.

Another point of contention is that the funding for at-risk students is going to decrease with this bill. For those of you who may be wondering, at-risk students are those that get free lunches in school (I can't make this stuff up, honestly). Right now, funding is at five percent. The Education Committee voted to raise it by 114 percent, under advisement by some well-paid consultants, but then decided to take it out once the bill got on the floor. These at-risk students have the highest percentages of dropouts in the state, so the move to increase the funding could have helped decrease the number of dropouts in the state. But, it would have raised, according to the chair of the committee, Rep. Cecil Brown (D-Jackson), the $2.1 billion education budget by a billion dollars, something we cannot afford right now. Nevertheless, it is bad to leave it at five percent.

My Dad had a piece of advice for me about infidelity, that somehow seems appropriate here. He said: "If it ain't better than what you have, it ain't worth it." That is how I feel about the new MAEP formula that is heading over to the Senate.

Previous Comments

ID

170049

Comment

The new formula will reward districts with more supplemental funds from the state who gain new students (high-growth districts), and take more money away from districts losing students. Since this is a supplement, logic would dictate that if a school district is losing students, then they are losing their tax base and would need the additional funds. Instead it is the other way around. There is NOTHING about this that makes sense. But it is similar logic to the federal No Child Left Behind Act, which rewards the districts/schools that need the help the lease. It's as if funding should be some sort of prize for doing well (or being a well-to-do area, or so on) -- when it should be used to improve where improvement is needed. And, yes, lawmakers hide behind the "complicated" nature of education bills -- assuming few people will try to understand them. And they're right. Otherwise, how in hell would NCLB have gotten through in the first place with its booby traps that "fail" schools that improve, if they don't improve in every single aggregated area (like special ed, by race, and so on). It is designed to fail the public schools, and I hope that's not what we're seeing in the state Legislature. Unfortunately, we've had less time/resources to spend up there so far in the session. (You can thank Mr. Melton in part for that.) So please keep us posted on these issues.

Author

ladd

Date

2006-02-02T10:28:09-06:00

ID

170050

Comment

That would mean that those left behind in those decreasing districts will see their car tags and property taxes go up to make up the shortfall, especially our beloved Jackson Public School District. It ain't fair, I tell ya. My nephew had already spent his first year in middle school sharing textbooks, so he couldn't even take any home to do his assignments until they discovered he has ADHD. Jackson is already struggling with higher taxes - we don't need this extra burden. Can someone do something abou this? I have nothing against picket signs - I've used one before.

Author

L.W.

Date

2006-02-07T00:35:47-06:00