Under my proposal, the school district would be able to create the fund using revenue generated from federal reimbursements. Quincy’s schools already earn well over $1 million a year in federal Medicaid reimbursements for services provided to eligible students. Currently, the reimbursements are deposited in the City’s general fund, and the schools do not have access to it. The key point is that schools are generating revenue for the city, but not seeing a return.
Our city posted substantial surpluses in recent years, some of which far exceeded the amount I?m talking about here. Therefore, the creation of such of fund would not harm the city?s financial well-being, nor would it impact other city services. Since the funding is already included in the overall financial picture, there is no additional cost to the taxpayers.
There are a number of programs within the school system that have proven very successful, but have often struggled to raise the funds needed to operate. Many of these programs have high student demand. In addition, computers and internet access within the schools are substantially lacking in quality and reliability. The creation of a quality fund would allow schools to address these problems outside of usual budget constraints.
I believe that it?s time to broaden the dialogue, and start talking about how we can improve quality in every classroom across the city. In the world today, children need 21st century skills. We need to take innovative steps to help ensure their success.
For more information on the School $ense program and other issues surrounding Quincy?s schools, visit my website at www.nickpuleo.com.
You use the phrase “in the classroom” a great deal. What about resources outside the classroom, such as extra-curriculars, library, technology education, nurses, infrastructure, etc.?
<
p>
When discussing education, “in the classroom” has a different meaning than “in the schools” for many interested parties.
Hi sabutai,
<
p>
The goal of the program is to help provide funding for those programs which you mention: extra-curriculars, library, technology education, nurses, infrastructure, etc. These are often the first programs to be targeted for cuts when there are budget constraints. It is my position that these programs are essential to have ?in our schools.?
<
p>
I do use ?in the classroom? a number of times in my post, and I do so intentionally. Having the programs you mention in our schools directly increases the quality experience that students have in the classroom. For instance, the US Department of Education found that students involved in music during middle and high school perform significantly better in math by the 12th grade [www.supportmusic.com].
<
p>
In addition, these activities and programs help give kids a stronger connection to their school, teachers, and classmates. In the end, I feel that building up the sense of community within schools will help kids have better experiences within classrooms.
<
p>
I would just make you aware of a new dodge called the “sixty-five percent solution” (here is an advocacy group) that is seeking to pass laws that mandate sixty-five percent of funding be directed toward expenditures “in the classroom”. This includes salaries and supplies, and leave out the list I mentioned in my comment. Because of this movement, most people involved with education associate that phrase with those restricted activities. From your response, I gather that you’re using “in the classroom” in a more general sense…just alerting you that there’s another usage that has a different meaning, and wide currency.
i like the idea of schools having some small funds, like the one you proposed, which are exclusively for non-core spending.
<
p>
i’m less convinced that it has no cost to taxpayers. the city will have $1 million less, bottom line. they can either reduce their surplus, or they cut $1 million of city programs, but beware the “free lunch” frame, appealing as it is to some.
<
p>
good luck in your campaign.
Let’s remember what this is. It is a Medicaid reimbursement for the medical costs incurred by a school system for its special needs children.
<
p>
Hello? This isn’t found money, and it doesn’t belong to the city. The money should go back to the school department to offset the mandated special needs medical costs.
I agree, Pablo. I wonder if this ammendment made it through.
<
p>
Delivering medical services should not be considered an enterprise operation. I find it quite unsettling that these funds are considered unrestricted for the municipality. It encourages fraud.
<
p>
I would proceed cautiously about funding programs via this reimbursement. The most ethical decision, it seems to me, would be to put these fund back into the special education line item from which the expenses were paid.
Well, as was said in the original post, the money goes into the Quincy general fund, instead of the school fund, which is where it belongs.
<
p>
Then, it’s a simple budget two-step. You put the Medicaid money into the nursing/med supplies area, and take the money already in that area out, and put it somewhere else.
i agree the money should go to the school. move it to the correct account.
<
p>
i disagree with his premise that he has discovered a free money tree which will magically pay for $1 million in new programs. if the school will get $1 million in new, the city needs to cut $1 million elsewhere.
Hi Everyone,
<
p>
I just wanted to respond to a few of the points made:
<
p>
1)Many cities and towns deposit federal reimbursements (both Medicaid and others) into the general municipal fund. Generally, the argument in favor of this is that cities provided the school systems with additional funding for federally mandated special education services, and, therefore, it is the city that is owed the reimbursement. This is something that the law and regulations allow, but I think we could do better. Should school programs struggle to keep their heads above water every year when the city has continuous surpluses? Personally, I don?t think so. This is money that is tied to the schools and I think it should stay with the schools.
<
p>
2)The school system should already be providing all mandated services to special education students, whatever their particular situation might be. The school committee should accurately project special education caseloads for the next year when constructing the school budget. If this is not done, services could be delayed while the schools wait for reimbursements or other funds to come in.
<
p>
These are mandated services, and if the caseload rises then that funding needs to be taken out of somewhere else in the budget. We need to do a better job at projecting caseload so as to fund every program at the level it needs to be successful. From a budget perspective, it is very risky to anticipate paying for mandatory services with funding that can be variable from year-to-year.
<
p>
With that said, I don?t think setting aside the reimbursements in a quality fund would impact that quality or amount of special education services. Currently, the schools do not receive this funding at all, but instead pay for special education services off the bottom line. Conceivably, we could use the $1 million for special education services, and free up funds in the general school budget for the quality expenditures I was talking about. The problem is that at that point we just start playing a shell game.
<
p>
The main point I am trying to make is that we need more funding for extra-curricular activities and enrichment programs. I want to put more funding into our schools in a fiscally responsible manner. The $1 million was one chunk of money that could be easily identified and tied to the schools. This is money that ends up in the city surplus every year. Could we say that $1 million of the city surplus every year (not tied to Medicaid) be used to increase enrichment programs every year? Absolutely, but then we start playing the shell game again.
<
p>
3)The plan wouldn?t require any cuts to services in the city. Quincy has had surpluses for a number of years. Taking $1 million for a multi-million dollar surplus only reduces the amount of money deposited into the city?s rainy day fund. From a fiscal perspective, a reduction of this size would not harm the long-term financial outlook of the city.
<
p>
My goal is to try to find new ways to fund programs within our school district within the city?s current financial outlook.