Recently the State of Ohio Education Department cut funding to the schools citing lack of funding by the federal government. Now the School District of Cleveland (Cleveland Municipal Schools) are in a $100 Mill debt. They had to lay off a majority of teachers and most extra activities like soccer and football are expected to be cut. The residence of Cleveland Ohio is currently paying more then any school district in the state . Now theyseek to raise the price of taxes for the state on Homeowners again. What should if anything the government do? What should the state do?


http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/...69844170720.xml ©2003 Cleveland.com

http://www.city.cleveland.oh.us/mayor/pres...11_24_2003.html
Here is a link about what our Major plans to do.



My sincerest apologies if this is a duplicate topic i couldnt find it on the search. Ill let mike and jamie or the mods move if necessary.


Edited to emphasize debate questions.

Curmudgeon and I are actually making payments on a home that costs that much. We are considered middle-class, albeit lower middle class. Sooooo--let's see, theoretically of course: If we get $300 for an annual income tax cut and the state charges us an additional $349.13 of our annual property tax because the state government cannot spend more on education without doing so, and the Federal Government's "Leave No Child Behind" Act only pays for standardized testing of students and nothing more--

1) How are we actually getting any extra money by the much-touted Bush tax cut (the point Howard Dean has been trying to make all along) to use as we see fit, and
2) How is the Bush administration actually making an effective contribution to the advancement of education in the light of this sluggish economy where the states cannot make up the budget shortfall?

Now, to your questions:


The Federal Government should invest more in education. That is what the Democrats in Congress have been saying all along. They should spend less on developing nuclear weapons, some for battlefield use. We have enough nukes already. How many millions or billions of dollars is our government paying Lawrence J. Livermore labs that could be directed toward ensuring that our students have the teachers, supplies, and facilities they need to receive an adequate public education? (One caveat here: this probably sounds "socialistic" to some posters.)

I honestly don't know what the state government can do in this case, except cancel road repairs, lay off bureaucrats or cut back wages. If they try passing on the costs to businesses, the businesses move. (Michigan is well-acquainted with that scenario; in fact, it isn't even necessary to raise taxes on businesses in order for them to leave because workers in Mexico work for much lower wages.) Likewise the homeowners will move to where it doesn't cost so much to own a house, and where jobs are more plentiful. One problem feeds into another.

This is why I feel that the federal government should help the states, that it doesn't amount to handouts, and that it is in the best interests of the country. We're going to have to live with those poorly-educated students who will have to somehow enter the workforce.

In the Preamble it states, "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." You will note which portion I emphasized in red, and that it is on equal footing with "provide for the common defense." It was not the intent of the Framers to emphasize defense over promoting the general welfare of our people.

The Soviet Union fell when more and more spending went into "defense" and their economy couldn't sustain it. Our economy, while healthier than theirs was, still isn't on its feet. Developing more weapons of mass destruction will not help us to adequately educate our children.

Well, if I followed your post correctly they have already cut a majority of teachers, but haven't yet cut the extra-curricular activities such as soccer and football. First thing I think they should do is get their priorities straight. My personal opinion, and I know it's unpopular and extremely unlikely to happen is to take away state tax exemptions from parents with children in public school. After all, it is the parents with children in school who are creating the need for the school system, so they should have to pay for the services they are using. For me, that is the correct option to take given the current system, my alternative would be socialism, which has even less of a chance at this point.

I think you misread the article, ChargedDust.

It says that they have already cut 900 (mostly) non-teaching positions, and most of the extra-curricular stuff like music, as well as a lot of the bus service for students. What comes next are about 250 teaching positions. The tax increase they are asking for will maintain what they have, and allow them to add back tutoring programs, some of the bus service already cut, and some of the extra curricular activities, but not all of them.

Also, can you explain your comments about the state tax exemption for parents with kids in public schools? I am not familiar with Ohio state tax regulations. I can assure you though, that in Illinois, we get no exemption in property taxes for having a child in school. The tax rate is what it is, on the appraisal of your property, and that's what you pay. Same here with state income taxes. You get a small break for certain farm businesses, otherwise, there is no exemption for having kids in school (or anything else, for that matter). I can't imagine it being much different anywhere else, seeing as it's mainly property taxes that fund schools on the local/state level.

Yes, it was this sentence

that made me think they hadn't yet cut the extra-curricular stuff. Combined with these from the article


My point being that keeping teachers in the classroom should take priority over sports.

As for the tax exemption, I'm referring to state income tax deductions for children, even city tax deductions if applicable. I'm assuming that Ohio has state tax deductions for children. My fault, I didn't specify as well as I should have.


EDIT:spelling

What should if anything the government do? The federal government shouldn't be involved in the funding of schools. Slashing taxes at the federal level and having the districts take up the slack at the local level is a step in the right direction. The closer the costs come to me, the more control I have in the way my tax dollars are spent, and the more I benefit from it directly. If Cleveland can't pay for it's own highschool football teams, don't expect me to.

What should the state do? That's up to them. If they want to have decent schools, they should fund them properly and guard against waste and abuse. They're in a better position to do that than the federal government.

The problem with this logic is that the poorest states and counties -- like those in Mississippi and Alabama -- will also continue to have the worst educational opportunities for its citizens and those in "rich" states, like New York, Massachusetts, etc., will continue to have better educational opportunities. Using federal dollars balances out the inequities between each region's economy.

I understand your desire for more "local control" over educational funding. But you also need to balance that against the local economy's ability to properly educate their students. And it also provides the federal gov't with a way to ensure a consistent/minimal level of education throughout the country... and a properly educated public is definitely in ALL of our best interests.