Despite past issues with funding and lack of support from the city’s mayor, in this article it is clear that many other city officials are still invested in improving the condition of Richmond Public Schools. Specifically, Richmond’s City Council President, William Pantel has declared that the city is in need of new schools and will get them. But, again city officials are not getting complete support from Mayor Wilder. The mayor recently revised The City of the Future plan, which allotted public schools 180 million dollars. Wilder’s new plan only gives schools 169 million dollars. Despite members of the city council, who have urged Mayor Wilder to stick to his original plan, the Mayor has decided to stick by his decision. The council will still vote on plans for funding new constructions of Richmond public schools and hopes to begin making improvements as soon as possible. While School Board members are excited about the new possibilities for Richmond public schools, some do not feel its smart to build new schools with many current schools in need of renovations.
Its good to hear that there are some working plans and some hope for the schools of Richmond, but another step in improving the schools are having all elected officials on one accord. It seems people are beating to their own drum and only have one thing in common. That one commonality is that all officials see a need for change and improvement in Richmond public schools, but have varying ways for achieving such change. It is my hope that Richmond city officials will acquire a team spirit in improving Richmond’s schools for the sake of the children in Richmond and the future of the city.
May 6, 2007 at 3:17 am
If it seems “people are beating to their own drum” in Richmond city government, it certainly doesn’t help that each group of people has its own drum in the first place. I’m referring to the fact that Richmond now has an independent(ly) elected mayor, a city council, and an elected school board. The problem is that the school board has control only over policy and not funding; instead, it relies on the allocation of funds from the mayor and Council.
Hasn’t Richmond learned from its experience with the previous council-manager form of government that separating policy and administration is not realistic? That’s one of the main reasons we switched to the current strong mayor system in the first place!
I’m not sure what the solution is, whether modifying how school board members are selected (election, appointment, or both) or granting the board some fiscal power, but getting our city government to come together and accomplish something productive requires establishing a system that promotes mission, collaboration, efficiency, and effectiveness. Sound familiar?
May 8, 2007 at 11:06 am
Virginia needs to study fiscal autonomy for its schools.
Every year school boards are faced with asking their governing bodies for revenue they need to continue the services they provide and every year they are short changed. By giving school boards taxing authority, school boards would have the authority to decide what is going to happen in their schools and to generate the revenue necessary to make that happen. Revenue for K-12 public schools comes primarily from state governments, local school districts and the federal government. In the aggregate, the states provide 48% of all revenue, school districts provide 45%, and the federal government provides 7% of all revenue.1 The majority of state level education funding is appropriated from state general funds, with other funding from earmarked taxes such as income and sales taxes. State funding levels, established in state policy, can create incentives or disincentives for districts to provide full-day kindergarten. When states provide funding for full-day kindergarten that is equal to or greater than state funding provided for 1st grade, districts have an incentive to offer full-day kindergarten. To date, only eight states provide school districts with funding for full-day kindergarten that is equal to or greater than that provided for 1st grade.2 In contrast, when states provide funding for full-day kindergarten that is less than funding provided for 1st grade, local revenue sources must make up the difference. Funding for local school districts comes primarily from property taxes. In some states, other sources of revenue provide funding streams, such as local sales taxes and local income taxes. To that end, local district taxation, as well as state limits on spending, play a critical role in whether or not local school districts have the ability to support programs such as full-day kindergarten. Local Control Over School Budgets and Taxes School district budget and tax rate procedures vary among the states. Often, local school boards have authority for both developing budgets and levying taxes to support district budgets. If school districts can levy taxes to support public education, they are considered fiscally independent. The nature of this taxing authority varies from state to state. For example, school boards in some states may need voter approval for any tax increase, while others may need only voter approval after a specified tax rate is surpassed. In some instances, school boards do not have independent tax authority, so another governmental entity typically a municipal or county governing body approves the budget and levies taxes. If a school district cannot levy its own taxes, it is considered fiscally dependent. Follow the links below for more information on fiscal autonomy (independence) for schools. http://www.vsba.org/taxingauthority/Taxingautharticles1.pdf http://www.vsba.org/taxingauthority/Taxingautharticles2.pdf http://www.vsba.org/taxingauthority/Taxingautharticles3.pdf http://www.vsba.org/Taxingauthority/taxingreport.pdf