Georgia Vocational Directors Preserving Quality Education Amidst Troubled Waters (by understanding school finance) February 2011

Georgia

Vocational Directors

Preserving Quality Education

Amidst Troubled Waters

(by understanding school finance)

February 2011

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

Reinhold Niebuhr (1892-1971), American Theologian





If we really do believe in public education, then we have a duty to bring to the public the message that quality education in Georgia is in peril, and along with it the future of our children and grandchildren

“Ask anyone who lobbies for public schools what it takes to improve education in Georgia and the answer is always the same.More Money.”

Representative David Casas (R) from Lilburn

in the Athens Banner-Herald, 3/7/2008

“…the answer isn’t simply more money, it’s more money well spent.”

Maureen Downey, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 9/7/2008











A New Era for School Funding

“Mike Petrilli, vice president at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a Washington think tank that advocates tougher education standards, said districts should focus on eliminating wasteful spending and making targeted cuts.

“His ideas? Beef up class sizes in higher grades, but leave them small during the early years where academic research shows they have the most benefit. Rethink teacher compensation, which pays teachers based on experience and education level, but not necessarily by effectiveness. And look at scaling back pensions and health care plans that were cut long ago in the private sector.

“’The funding cliff is coming – it is going to happen,’ said Petrilli. ‘There is no money left and we’re going to have to learn to live in a new normal.’”

Atlanta Journal Constitution November 11, 2011









A new

normal??

From the AJC

• Senate’s budget writer says state’s hole is deeper than predicted• 8:53 pm December 13, 2010, by Aaron Gould Sheinin

• Senate Appropriations Chairman Jack Hill, R-Reidsville, warned Monday that the state’s budget hole for next fiscal year is closer to $2 billion than to the $1 billion that’s been discussed.

• Hill was in Athens with other lawmakers for a pre-legislative session conference and spoke to WABE’s Denis O’Hayer, the local host of “All Things Considered.” You can hear the entire interview on WABE’s website

• In the the interview, Hill acknowledged that the state’s budget hole for fiscal 2012, which begins July 1, is at about $2 billion and drops to $1.3 billion once you consider the loss of one-time funding or federal cash as well an expected round of cuts to state agencies.

• Despite the positive news that state revenues are growing, Hill said it’s not enough.• “The growth rate that the economists tell us we can expect is not high enough to make up for the tremendous hole

we have,” Hill told O’Hayer.• O’Hayer asked the next logical question: Where does the money come from? Could it be that the special tax council

that has been studying the state’s finances will recommend putting the sales tax back on groceries? Hill said he didn’t know, but A.D. Fraizer, the head of the tax council, will speak to lawmakers in Athens on Tuesday. The council’s report is due to lawmakers no later than Jan. 10, the first day of the next legislative session.

• “I don’t find a whole lot of support for [putting the sales tax on groceries] in walking around the halls,” Hill said, acknowledging that he and others need to “educate members of the House and Senate on how deep the hole is and how big the problem is.”

• It’s not an easy answer, Hill said, but the bottom line is the state needs to raise more money.• “That’s what it boils down to,” he said.

From the AJC

• Senate’s budget writer says state’s hole is deeper than predicted• 8:53 pm December 13, 2010, by Aaron Gould Sheinin

• Senate Appropriations Chairman Jack Hill, R-Reidsville, warned Monday that the state’s budget hole for next fiscal year is closer to $2 billion than to the $1 billion that’s been discussed.

• Hill was in Athens with other lawmakers for a pre-legislative session conference and spoke to WABE’s Denis O’Hayer, the local host of “All Things Considered.” You can hear the entire interview on WABE’s website.

• In the the interview, Hill acknowledged that the state’s budget hole for fiscal 2012, which begins July 1, is at about $2 billion and drops to $1.3 billion once you consider the loss of one-time funding or federal cash as well an expected round of cuts to state agencies.

• Despite the positive news that state revenues are growing, Hill said it’s not enough.• “The growth rate that the economists tell us we can expect is not high enough to make up for the tremendous hole

we have,” Hill told O’Hayer.• O’Hayer asked the next logical question: Where does the money come from? Could it be that the special tax

council that has been studying the state’s finances will recommend putting the sales tax back on groceries? Hill said he didn’t know, but A.D. Fraizer, the head of the tax council, will speak to lawmakers in Athens on Tuesday. The council’s report is due to lawmakers no later than Jan. 10, the first day of the next legislative session.

• “I don’t find a whole lot of support for [putting the sales tax on groceries] in walking around the halls,” Hill said, acknowledging that he and others need to “educate members of the House and Senate on how deep the hole is and how big the problem is.”

• It’s not an easy answer, Hill said, but the bottom line is the state needs to raise more money.• “That’s what it boils down to,” he said.

Board members: “You said that last year and the year before! We always come out okay…”

Superintendents: “Sure, if you say you really need it…”

Budget/Finance Director: “I’ve hidden money in several places in this budget…”

Principals and Directors: “The budget’s not our problem! Just tell us what we have to spend!”

Title I/Title VIB Director: “Here’s where I’m going to spend “my” money next year…”

CTAE Directors: “Vocational programs get higher funding, so I’ll be just fine. Besides, I have all of those state grants






























CTAE Directors: “Vocational programs get higher funding, so I’ll be just fine. Besides, I have all of those state grants”

What a mess! How did we

ever get into this situation?

“The Picture”In the first 15 years following the passage of Quality Basic Education as the law in Georgia, governors and legislators, with minor exceptions, generally provided the funding required by the law

Around 2002, a combination of the short, shallow recession that occurred at that time and what appears to be a coincident change in philosophy in the political leadership in Atlanta resulted in an increasing pullback on funding the mandates of the 1985 law.

Ironically (and fortunately for the children of Georgia), a national housing “boom” emerged at the same time the state funding cuts began to be imposed, and as fast as the state took money from schools, local tax digests replaced that funding…and then some!







…and suddenly the party is over…

In order to answer that question, let’s take some time to review:

“Georgia School Funding 101”

School systems in Georgia receive most or all of their funding from three sources:

1) State

2) Local

3) Federal

State Revenues

Each year, the state provides all school systems with an “allotment sheet” which details about 97% of the state funding provided to those school systems

FY11 Initial Allotment Sheet Funding

State Revenue

• Quality Basic Education funding

• Mid-term adjustment

• Miscellaneous grants

State Revenue




Quality Basic Education (QBE)Funding

Perhaps the least understood and yet the most important part of a school system’s funding

ARTICLE VIII.

EDUCATION

SECTION I.

PUBLIC EDUCATION

Paragraph I. Public education; free public education prior to college or postsecondary level; support by taxation .

The provision of an adequate public education for the citizens shall be a primary obligation of the State of Georgia. Public education for the citizens prior to the college or postsecondary level shall be free and shall be provided for by taxation. The expense of other public education shall be provided for in such manner and in such amount as may be provided by law .

ARTICLE VIII.

EDUCATION

SECTION I.

PUBLIC EDUCATION

Paragraph I. Public education; free public education prior to college or postsecondary level; support by taxation .

The provision of an adequate public education for the citizens shall be a primary obligation of the State of Georgia. Public education for the citizens prior to the college or postsecondary level shall be free and shall be provided for by taxation. The expense of other public education shall be provided for in such manner and in such amount as may be provided by law .

The Quality Basic Education (QBE) Act of 1985 was designed to put in place a funding mechanism whereby every child in Georgia, no matter where he or she lived, had access to an education that received sufficient funding to provide a

Quality (not mediocre)Basic (not a Cadillac, but a

Chevy)Education



Chevy)Education



Chevy)Education



Chevy)Education

The portion of the QBE Act that defines the funding of public schools divides that funding into two main parts:

1) The amount of funding that would be necessary to provide for basic education; and

2) The funding that would allow systems to offer more than basic education

The portion of the QBE Act that defines the funding of public schools divides that funding into two main parts:

1) The amount of funding that would be necessary to provide for basic education; and

2) The funding that would allow systems to offer more than basic education

Funding Public Education in Georgia

QBE Minimum Funding Optionaladditionalfunding

The QBE law specified that the funding of education was a shared responsibility between the state and local communities. Thus, the law specified that local communities would be required to contribute their “local fair share” to the basic educational funding plus optional funding extending education beyond “quality, basic”


QBE Minimum Funding


QBE Minimum Funding

State’s responsibility

Req’dLocalShare


QBE Minimum Funding

State’s responsibilityLocal school system’sresponsibility

Req’dLocalShare

Optionaladditionalfunding

Included on each system’s allotment sheet is significant detail describing the total funding earned under the Quality Basic Education formula

For this initial FTE

For this initial FTE

This is the funding level for a Quality, Basic, Education

This part of QBE is for salaries (about 92%)…

This part of QBE is for salaries (about 92%)…

And this much is for operations (about 8%)

The QBE Act establishes 19 educational programs, and defines (partly in adjusted dollars, but partly in 1985 dollars) what resources, and what accompanying funding, is required to support each of those programs

These programs are listed on in the far left

column of the allotment sheets

19 QBE Education Programs

The QBE Act identifies, for each program, the necessary personnel and non-personnel support resources needed to support that program at the basic level.

Personnel are funded according to a set of ratios. For example, for every 15 kindergarten full-time equivalent students (FTEs), funding for one teacher is included in the formula. The ratios vary by program and for different positions (e.g., teacher, social worker, assistant principal, etc.)

Funding elements for vocational program

Te

Teacher funding 20-1

Counselor funding 400-1Tech specialist funding 1100-1

Psychologist funding 2475-1Social worker funding 2475-1

Asst Principal funding 435-1Secretary funding 435-1

Librarian funding 970-1

CTAE Personnel Funding Ratios

Funding certified salaries and paraprofessionals

Funding detail for salary elements in QBE funding

formula

In order to ensure that a system’s QBE funding reflects the extra costs of teachers with experience and advanced degrees, the state adjusts all parts of the QBE formula that reflect costs of certified personnel.

That adjustment uses something called the “Training and Experience (T&E) Modifier”

In order to ensure that a system’s QBE funding reflects the extra costs of teachers with experience and advanced degrees, the state adjusts all parts of the QBE formula that reflect costs of certified personnel.

That adjustment uses something called the “Training and Experience (T&E) Modifier”

The T&E Modifier is calculated from the additional salary and benefit costs over the state base amount and, essentially, adds that amount to the QBE base earnings in an effort to fund teachers’ full salaries and state benefits.

While a system’s T&E calculations are more complicated than the following illustration, it nevertheless is an approximation of how a new employee’s salary impacts T&E

The T&E Modifier is calculated from the additional salary and benefit costs over the state base amount and, essentially, adds that amount to the QBE base earnings in an effort to fund teachers’ full salaries and state benefits.

While a system’s T&E calculations are more complicated than the following illustration, it nevertheless is an approximation of how a new employee’s salary impacts T&E

Assume you earn 5 teachers and hire 5 teachers

Teacher Cert/Exp State PayTeacher 1 T4,10 $42,113Teacher 2 T4, Entry $33,424Teacher 3 T5,12 $49,881Teacher 4 T6,19 $63,440Teacher 5 T7,16 $66,375Teacher 6 T5,8 $47,017Teacher 7 T7,16 $66,375 Total of 5 teachers $255,233(Cost with state benefits) $339,776 T&E 52.5469 State Earnings (5X$44,547 x1.525445) $339,776


Teacher Cert/Exp State PayTeacher 1 T4,10 $42,113Teacher 2 T4, Entry $33,424Teacher 3 T5,12 $49,881Teacher 4 T6,19 $63,440Teacher 5 T7,16 $66,375Teacher 6 T5,8 $47,017Teacher 7 T7,16 $66,375 Total of 6 teachers $302,250(Cost with state benefits) $402,379 T&E 60.6531 State Earnings (5X$44,547 x1.606531) $357,832Net costs after state increase $44,547


Teacher Cert/Exp State PayTeacher 1 T4,10 $42,113Teacher 2 T4, Entry $33,424Teacher 3 T5,12 $49,881Teacher 4 T6,19 $63,440Teacher 5 T7,16 $66,375Teacher 6 T5,8 $47,017Teacher 7 T7,16 $66,375 Total of 6 teachers $321,608(Cost with state benefits) $428,092 T&E 72.1974 State Earnings (5X$44,547 x1.721974) $383,545Net costs after state increase $44,547

Implications for T&E

Base Salary ($44,547/position)for “earned” positions

Number of positions



Number of positions

Extra salary earned from experience and advanced degrees



Number of positions


Base salaryfor positions

beyond thoseearned



Number of positions



beyond thoseearned

Additional excesssalaries



Number of positions



beyond thoseearned

Additional excesssalaries

Amount of payroll included in QBE funding

In summary…

• Because the state funds “more expensive” teachers at a higher funding rate, the cost difference to a system between hiring “expensive” teachers and “inexpensive” teachers is much less than their actual salaries

• Conclusion: Systems should hire teachers based upon their expertise and the system’s needs, not based upon their pay grade

In summary…

• Because the state funds “more expensive” teachers at a higher funding rate, the cost difference to a system between hiring “expensive” teachers and “inexpensive” teachers is much less than their actual salaries

• Conclusion: Systems should hire teachers based upon their expertise and the system’s needs, not based upon their pay grade

Sample Systems’ FY11 T&E Modifiers

System FY11 T&E Modifier

Greene 55.4904Pelham City 56.6133

Dade 50.6686Rabun 65.9401

Seminole 57.4799Charlton 62.4769

Bibb 45.4219Gwinnett 46.2921

Fulton 41.8189Cobb 45.4607

Webster 48.5802Quitman 59.7641

Baker 59.1503Atlanta City 51.7905




Dade 50.6686Rabun 65.9401



Fulton 41.8189Cobb 45.4607






Dade 50.6686Rabun 65.9401



Fulton 41.8189Cobb 45.4607






Dade 50.6686Rabun 65.9401



Fulton 41.8189Cobb 45.4607



One Georgia system has an FY11 T&E multiplier of

51.1776

This figure comes from a calculation that in the 2009-10 school year, the system’s certified personnel earned 51.18% more in salary and state benefits than if they were all beginning teachers

Thus, in this system, each earned position is funded: State base: $44,547.10 T&E (51.1776% more): $22,798.14

Total Per Position Funding: $67,345.24

Each certified position’s QBE funding is adjusted to reflect the average salary in each individual school system

.

Certified positions

Non-certified positions are funded at a flat, pre-determined rate that is the same for every system in the entire state

.Non-certified positions

Finally, operational expenses are funded at a flat, pre-determined rate that is also the same for every system in Georgia

.Operations

Funding Administrative Functions

under QBE

Funding for central office operations

School administrative funding for K through

5th grade

School administrative funding for middle school, special education, gifted, remedial

and ESOL

School administrative funding for high school regular

ed and vocational ed

The Impact of Inflation in the Classroom

• In 2002, vocational education classroom operations (non-personnel) were funded at the rate of $327.96 per FTE.

• Inflated to 2010 dollars, it would take 22.8% more, or $403.73 per FTE to buy the same amount of goods and services as the $327.96 could buy 8 years earlier

• Instead, the funding actually decreased to $312.81, effectively resulting in a “shortfall” of $402.73 minus $312.81 or just under $90 per student.

• If the average vocational teacher taught an average of 20 students per period, that would mean he/she would see a “shortage” of classroom supply funding of about $1,800 per teacher

• Contrast that to the $100 gift cards the state legislature gave to teachers last year and the year before!

























Because each system has different average teacher salaries, each system receives different funding for each of the 19 QBE programs.

A sample FY11 program funding is as follows:

System: Sample

QBE Per-FTE Program Earnings

Basic Levels vs. Actual FY11 Levels

T&E Modifier----------------------------------> 51.1776

Equalization Earnings per FTE-----:----------> $264Program Base Funding Actual Funding

Gr K $4,604 $6,303EIP K $5,692 $7,943Gr 1-3 $3,565 $5,151EIP 1-3 $5,005 $7,322Gr 4-5 $2,860 $4,097EIP 4-5 $4,989 $7,307

MG* $2,927 $4,199MS* $3,220 $4,640

Gr 9-12* $2,880 $4,104Vocational* $3,388 $4,760

SpEd I $6,645 $9,720SpEd II $7,822 $11,555SpEd III $9,966 $14,752SpEd IV $16,169 $23,994SpEd V $6,819 $9,894Gifted $4,627 $6,752

Remedial $3,642 $5,289ESOL $7,031 $10,400

* includes 2.5% allotment for alternative education

TCE Reg EdSystem T&E Funding HS

Bleckley 60.4354 $4,871 $4,204

Oglethorpe 55.3372 $4,818 $4,156Sav-Chatham 51.3847 $4,714 $4,063

Echols 44.1603 $4,522 $3,892

The only QBE funding not earned by the FTE count is funding for:

1 superintendent

2, 4 or 6 assistant superintendents

1 principal for each school

1 central office secretary

1 central office account/bookkeeper

In other words, the FTE count accounts for about 96% of most

systems’ QBE funding

In other words, the FTE count accounts for about 96% of most

systems’ QBE fundingCOUNT CAREFULLY !!

State Revenue




Initially, the state uses a formula to estimate the number of students that will populate a school system at the beginning of any given year. This “initial FTE count” determines the initial QBE funding

Once the October FTE count is completed and officially transmitted, the state uses that count plus the previous two counts (October and March last school year) to develop the FTE count that is used to adjust funding for the current year in an effort to adequately fund any growth above original enrollment estimates.

If the new FTE calculations indicate that a system has earned funding above the system’s initial funding, the system is given a “mid-term adjustment” equal to the increased funding.

If a lower level of funding results from the new numbers, the state does not take that away from a system, but starts the next school year at the lower level



If a lower level of funding results from the new numbers, the state does not take that away from a system, but starts the next school year at the lower level



If a lower level of funding results from the new numbers, the state does not take that away from a system (the system is considered “held harmless”, but starts the next school year at the lower level



If a lower level of funding results from the new numbers, the state does not take that away from a system (the system is considered “held harmless”, but starts the next school year at the lower level

This example system was initially funded for 1,492 FTE’s plus 16 alternative school FTE’s (1,508 total FTE’s) for the 2010-11 school year

At mid-term, as a result of decreased enrollment, the system’s funded FTE decreased to 1,462 FTE’s plus 16 alternative school FTE’s (1,478 total FTE’s) for a loss of 30 FTE’s

The loss in students (and changes in program FTE’s) equate to a funding decrease for the County of about $215,000

Initial FTE

MidTerm Initial Calculations

Initial Midterm Per FTE ProgramFTE FTE Difference Earnings Earnings

Gr K 114 107 -7x $6,167= -$43,166EIP K 5 8 3x $7,766= $23,299Gr 1-3 343 333 -10x $5,034= -$50,336EIP 1-3 18 22 4x $7,151= $28,604Gr 4-5 212 220 8x $4,005= $32,043EIP 4-5 21 17 -4x $7,136= -$28,542

MG* 0 0 0x $4,105= $0MS* 283 268 -15x $4,535= -$68,030

Gr 9-12* 273 300 27x $4,014= $108,371Vocational* 96 78 -18x $4,659= -$83,857

SpEd I 9 2 -7x $9,493= -$66,451SpEd II 31 27 -4x $11,279= -$45,116SpEd III 38 33 -5x $14,398= -$71,988SpEd IV 5 7 2x $23,415= $46,830SpEd V 1 5 4x $9,666= $38,666Gifted 11 15 4x $6,595= $26,380

Remedial 27 15 -12x $5,167= -$62,003ESOL 5 5 0x $10,151= $50,755Total 1492 1462 -30 -$164,541




FTE Calculations – Midterm FY11 and Initial FY12

Program Oct10 Mar10 Oct09MidTerm/

FY11 Count Count Count Funding K 105 117 111 107EIP-K 9 5 5 8Gr 1-3 334 336 342 333EIP 1-3 23 17 17 22Gr 4-5 222 213 215 220EIP 4-5 16 21 22 17MG 0 0 0 0MS 266 283 287 268HS 310 256 274 300Voc 74 101 95 78SpI 2 4 6 2Sp II 26 32 31 27Sp III 32 36 38 33Sp IV 7 6 5 7Sp V 6 3 1 5Gifted 14 23 12 15Remedial 13 27 27 15Alt Sch 16 16 16 16ESOL 5 5 5 5

Total 1480 1501 1509 1478

The October count has twice the weight of the other two counts


Initial Midterm Per FTE ProgramFTE FTE Difference Earnings Earnings


MG* 0 0 0x $4,105= $0MS* 283 268 -15x $4,535= -$68,030

Gr 9-12* 273 300 27x $4,014= $108,371Vocational* 96 78 -18x $4,659= -$83,857


Remedial 27 15 -12x $5,167= -$62,003ESOL 5 5 0x $10,151= $50,755Total 1492 1462 -30 -$164,541





Initial Midterm Per FTE Program

FTE FTE Difference Earnings Earnings


MG* 0 0 0x $4,105= $0MS* 283 268 -15x $4,535= -$68,030

Gr 9-12* 273 300 27x $4,014= $108,371Vocational* 96 78 -18x $4,659= -$83,857


Remedial 27 15 -12x $5,167= -$62,003ESOL 5 5 0x $10,151= $0Total 1492 1462 -30 -$215,296

The system will be held harmless for FY11, meaning that they will be allowed to keep the excess funding.

In FY12, they will begin the school year with the decreased funding, with the exact amount depending on any changes the state makes in the QBE formula next year

A quick note on inflation and QBE funding

Except for politically popular teacher pay raises, the state hasn’t increased most of QBE funding for inflation.

Additionally, the state has for the past 8 years routinely balanced the budget by taking “austerity cuts” from the state’s public schools.

If systems are to maintain the original intent of Quality, Basic Education, they need to make up this neglected funding with local tax dollars.

Hill…





…









Consider following scenario…


QBE Minimum Funding


Req’dLocalShare



QBE Minimum Funding


Req’dLocalShare


Increased cost of quality, basic education due to inflation


QBE Minimum Funding


Req’dLocalShare




QBE Minimum Funding


Req’dLocalShare



State austerity cuts


QBE Minimum Funding


Req’dLocalShare



State austerity cuts

What if….

…the state had indexed funding for operations to inflation from 2002 (the last recession) to the current year?

…the state had indexed transportation to inflation for the same time period?

…the state eliminated austerity cuts made to QBE funding?

What if….




What if….




What if….




Statewide Inflationary and Austerity Impact

"What if"

FY02 FY11 FY11 "What if"

Funding Funding Funding Increase

FTE 1,447,332 1,643,202

Operations Funding $622,383,491 $697,712,715 $867,719,229 $170,006,514

Per FTE $430 $425 $528

Transp. Funding $177,551,705 $136,758,992 $247,540,352 $110,781,360

Per FTE $123 $83 $151

Austerity $0 -$1,082,853,841 $0 $1,082,853,841

Federal Stimulus $0 $126,169,757 $0 -$126,169,757

Increased FY11 funding if above adjustments were made $1,237,471,958

Actual Statewide Initial Allotment for FY11 $6,875,049,714

Percentage that QBE is underfunded by state's actions and inactions 18%


"What if"



FTE 1,447,332 1,643,202


Per FTE $430 $425 $528

Transp. Funding $177,551,705 $136,758,992 $247,540,352 $110,781,360

Per FTE $123 $83 $151

Austerity $0 -$1,082,853,841 $0 $1,082,853,841






"What if"



FTE 1,447,332 1,643,202


Per FTE $430 $425 $528

Transp. Funding $177,551,705 $136,758,992 $247,540,352 $110,781,360

Per FTE $123 $83 $151

Austerity $0 -$1,082,853,841 $0 $1,082,853,841






"What if"



FTE 1,447,332 1,643,202


Per FTE $430 $425 $528

Transp. Funding $177,551,705 $136,758,992 $247,540,352 $110,781,360

Per FTE $123 $83 $151

Austerity $0 -$1,082,853,841 $0 $1,082,853,841






"What if"



FTE 1,447,332 1,643,202


Per FTE $430 $425 $528

Transp. Funding $177,551,705 $136,758,992 $247,540,352 $110,781,360

Per FTE $123 $83 $151

Austerity $0 -$1,082,853,841 $0 $1,082,853,841






"What if"



FTE 1,447,332 1,643,202


Per FTE $430 $425 $528

Transp. Funding $177,551,705 $136,758,992 $247,540,352 $110,781,360

Per FTE $123 $83 $151

Austerity $0 -$1,082,853,841 $0 $1,082,853,841






"What if"



FTE 1,447,332 1,643,202


Per FTE $430 $425 $528

Transp. Funding $177,551,705 $136,758,992 $247,540,352 $110,781,360

Per FTE $123 $83 $151

Austerity $0 -$1,082,853,841 $0 $1,082,853,841






"What if"



FTE 1,447,332 1,643,202


Per FTE $430 $425 $528

Transp. Funding $177,551,705 $136,758,992 $247,540,352 $110,781,360

Per FTE $123 $83 $151

Austerity $0 -$1,082,853,841 $0 $1,082,853,841





The impact on poor-wealth systems is significantly more than on systems benefitting from greater property wealth

Sample systems – Impact of Austerityand Inflation on Local Taxpayers

FY11 Wealth Funding Equivalent

System Rank Shortfall Mills

Burke 19 $3,247,179 1.99

Clayton 83 $35,721,625 4.43

Cook 155 $2,534,191 7.35

Dougherty 123 $12,331,771 5.57

Emanuel 168 $3,693,067 8.49

Haralson 113 $3,174,712 5.57

Jenkins 106 $1,190,626 5.82

Meriwether 93 $2,470,106 4.55

Oglethorpe 91 $2,139,989 5.08

Polk 152 $6,202,583 6.53

Richmond 103 $24,442,643 5.75

Sav-Chatham 10 $21,865,531 1.80

Sample systems – Impact of Austerityand Inflation on Local Taxpayers

FY11 Wealth Funding EquivalentSystem Rank Shortfall Mills

Sav-Chatham 10 $21,865,531 1.80Burke 19 $3,247,179 1.99

Clayton 83 $35,721,625 4.43Oglethorpe 91 $2,139,989 5.08Meriwether 93 $2,470,106 4.55Richmond 103 $24,442,643 5.75

Jenkins 106 $1,190,626 5.82Haralson 113 $3,174,712 5.57

Dougherty 123 $12,331,771 5.57Polk 152 $6,202,583 6.53Cook 155 $2,534,191 7.35

Emanuel 168 $3,693,067 8.49

The amount of funding earned according to the QBE formula is subject to several adjustments. Those adjustments include:

1) Local Fair Share (subtracted from the

formula earnings

2) A transportation grant (added)

3) A sparcity grant (added to help small

systems establish alternative schools)

4) An equalization grant (added); and

5) A nursing grant (added)


formula earnings


3) A sparcity grant (added to help small




The QBE law specified that the funding of education was a shared responsibility between the state and local communities. Thus, after the QBE basic earnings are calculated, the state subtracts (or withholds) an amount equal to what five mills would generate in property taxes in each school system if property were accurately assessed at 40% of market value.

Note that counties with greater property tax wealth have larger Local Fair Share deductions than do counties with smaller tax bases





QBE Minimum Funding


5 mills

Communities who elected to provide more than a “quality basic” education for their children were allowed to contribute local revenues in excess of the five mills minimum requirement, up to a maximum of 20 mills of property tax.

QBE Minimum Funding


5 mills Optional additional local funding, up to 20 mills

Optional enhancedfunding

Systems with greater property wealth generally pay a greater percentage of the QBE formula funding out of local tax revenues.

How is this “fair”? The fairness comes from the fact that LFS essentially requires every property taxpayer to contribute five mills towards quality, basic education, whether the taxpayer is from a high wealth or a low wealth county.

The “fairness” of this obligation stems from the fact act though “wealthier” systems pay a larger percent, the commitment on a per-taxpayer basis is 5 mills regardless of the land wealth

QBE Minimum Funding

State’s responsibilityWealthier system’sresponsibility



QBE Minimum Funding

State’s responsibilityPoorer system’sresponsibility



Adjusting the Digest

The state adjusts the digest before the state takes “its” five-mills share

1) each system’s digest is adjusted up to an equivalent 40% assessed digest; and

2) exemptions are adjusted to include only state-allowed exemptions

The Time Lag

There is a 2-year lag between a digest and its impact on a system’s state funding

One system’s Local Fair Share and it’s associated

Property Tax Digests

Formula vs. Actual Local Fair Share

Calendar Fiscal Value of Value of Budget Pct Sales

Year Year One Mill 5 mills Year LFS Adjusted Ratio

2006 FY07 $328,885x5= $1,644,425 FY09 $1,775,706 7.98% 36.48%

2007 FY08 $348,561x5= $1,742,805 FY10 Formula $1,990,942 14.24% 33.71%

FY10 Adjusted $1,811,242

2008 FY09 $359,175x5= $1,795,875 FY11 Formula $2,223,868 23.83% 30.82%


2009 FY10 $392,209x5= $1,961,045 FY12 Formula $2,011,138 2.55% 38.69%

2009 FY12 Estimate $1,830,136




2006 FY07 $328,885x5= $1,644,425 FY09 $1,775,706 7.98% 36.48%

2007 FY08 $348,561x5= $1,742,805 FY10 Formula $1,990,942 14.24% 33.71%


2008 FY09 $359,175x5= $1,795,875 FY11 Formula $2,223,868 23.83% 30.82%


2009 FY10 $392,209x5= $1,961,045 FY12 Formula $2,011,138 2.55% 38.69%

2009 FY12 Estimate $1,830,136




2006 FY07 $328,885x5= $1,644,425 FY09 $1,775,706 7.98% 36.48%

2007 FY08 $348,561x5= $1,742,805 FY10 Formula $1,990,942 14.24% 33.71%


2008 FY09 $359,175x5= $1,795,875 FY11 Formula $2,223,868 23.83% 30.82%


2009 FY10 $392,209x5= $1,961,045 FY12 Formula $2,011,138 2.55% 38.69%

2009 FY12 Estimate $1,830,136

State law limits total statewide local fair share to no more than 20% of total statewide QBE earnings

In FY10, local fair shares were 22% of QBE, so each system saved 2/22 or 9% on their local fair share assessments.

This saved the county nearly $180,000 !!!




2006 FY07 $328,885x5= $1,644,425 FY09 $1,775,706 7.98% 36.48%

2007 FY08 $348,561x5= $1,742,805 FY10 Formula $1,990,942 14.24% 33.71%


2008 FY09 $359,175x5= $1,795,875 FY11 Formula $2,223,868 23.83% 30.82%


2009 FY10 $392,209x5= $1,961,045 FY12 Formula $2,011,138 2.55% 38.69%

2009 FY12 Estimate $1,830,136




2006 FY07 $328,885x5= $1,644,425 FY09 $1,775,706 7.98% 36.48%

2007 FY08 $348,561x5= $1,742,805 FY10 Formula $1,990,942 14.24% 33.71%


2008 FY09 $359,175x5= $1,795,875 FY11 Formula $2,223,868 23.83% 30.82%


2009 FY10 $392,209x5= $1,961,045 FY12 Formula $2,011,138 2.55% 38.69%

2009 FY12 Estimate $1,830,136




2006 FY07 $328,885x5= $1,644,425 FY09 $1,775,706 7.98% 36.48%

2007 FY08 $348,561x5= $1,742,805 FY10 Formula $1,990,942 14.24% 33.71%


2008 FY09 $359,175x5= $1,795,875 FY11 Formula $2,223,868 23.83% 30.82%


2009 FY10 $392,209x5= $1,961,045 FY12 Formula $2,011,138 2.55% 38.69%

2009 FY12 Estimate $1,830,136

State law limits total statewide local fair share to no more than 20% of total statewide QBE earnings

In FY11, local fair shares were 23% of QBE, so each system saved 3/23 or 15% on their local fair share assessments.

This saved the county nearly $335,000!!!




2006 FY07 $328,885x5= $1,644,425 FY09 $1,775,706 7.98% 36.48%

2007 FY08 $348,561x5= $1,742,805 FY10 Formula $1,990,942 14.24% 33.71%


2008 FY09 $359,175x5= $1,795,875 FY11 Formula $2,223,868 23.83% 30.82%


2009 FY10 $392,209x5= $1,961,045 FY12 Formula $2,011,138 2.55% 38.69%

2009 FY12 Estimate $1,830,136

Adjusted LFS

And next year? (FY12)




2006 FY07 $328,885x5= $1,644,425 FY09 $1,775,706 7.98% 36.48%

2007 FY08 $348,561x5= $1,742,805 FY10 Formula $1,990,942 14.24% 33.71%


2008 FY09 $359,175x5= $1,795,875 FY11 Formula $2,223,868 23.83% 30.82%


2009 FY10 $392,209x5= $1,961,045 FY12 Formula $2,011,138 2.55% 38.69%

2009 FY12 Estimate $1,830,136




2006 FY07 $328,885x5= $1,644,425 FY09 $1,775,706 7.98% 36.48%

2007 FY08 $348,561x5= $1,742,805 FY10 Formula $1,990,942 14.24% 33.71%


2008 FY09 $359,175x5= $1,795,875 FY11 Formula $2,223,868 23.83% 30.82%


2009 FY10 $392,209x5= $1,961,045 FY12 Formula $2,011,138 2.55% 38.69%

2009 FY12 Estimate $1,830,136

The FY12 budget will use the 2009 digests to determine local fair shares. With digests decreasing and QBE increasing (increased enrollment, increased benefit costs), it appears that Local Fair Shares in FY12 will be about 22% of QBE, meaning system will again pay about 4.55 mills towards local fair share

The impact of this is that many systems, even with decreasing digests, will see their local fair share increase and systems with increasing digests will see significant increases in local fair share.




2006 FY07 $328,885x5= $1,644,425 FY09 $1,775,706 7.98% 36.48%

2007 FY08 $348,561x5= $1,742,805 FY10 Formula $1,990,942 14.24% 33.71%


2008 FY09 $359,175x5= $1,795,875 FY11 Formula $2,223,868 23.83% 30.82%


2009 FY10 $392,209x5= $1,961,045 FY12 Formula $2,011,138 2.55% 38.69%

2009 FY12 Estimate $1,830,136

2008 to 2009 Digest Changes

Adjust Digest Adjusted Digest Percent

System 2008 2009 Change

Burke $4,099,307,503 $4,164,970,303 1.60%

Clayton $24,829,359,724 $22,907,714,043 -7.74%

Cook $1,067,124,419 $1,028,077,865 -3.66%

Dougherty $6,456,665,033 $6,321,951,076 -2.09%

Emanuel $1,228,083,239 $1,181,811,733 -3.77%

Haralson $1,731,957,223 $1,529,224,390 -11.71%

Jenkins $659,687,364 $586,210,367 -11.14%

Meriwether $1,633,550,162 $1,603,392,895 -1.85%

Oglethorpe $1,207,136,773 $1,240,827,390 2.79%

Polk $2,734,976,260 $2,779,090,156 1.61%

Richmond $13,914,154,101 $13,713,749,796 -1.44%

Sav-Chatham $37,017,837,522 $37,992,916,941 2.63%


formula earnings


3) A sparsity grant (added to help small




The state has been aggressively cutting transportation grants to balance the state budget.

In FY11, the state eliminated individual systems’ bus replacement funding and replaced it with a system of applying to the state for new bus funds when needed

Transportation grant

Bus replacement funding has been eliminated


formula earnings






Small systems and systems with small schools (“sparse populations”) used to receive small sparsity grants as a form of “rounding up” funding to adequately pay for some services such as alternative education and transportation.

Grants were cut by about a third last year and were completely eliminated in FY11

Sparsity grants


formula earnings


3) A sparsity grant is (added to help small




Equalization grants are intended to allow counties with lower property tax bases to fund education more comparably to “wealthier” counties.

This has nothing to do with the wealth of citizens in the county, but rather the value of all property in the county and the number of students attending public schools

“Wealth Rankings” ofWealthiest Georgia SchoolSystems in 2010-11

6th ($399)


5th ($447)

6th


5th

6th

4th Atlanta ($449)


5th

6th

4th Atlanta

3rd

($588)


5th

6th

4th Atlanta

3rd

2nd ($601)


5th

6th

4th Atlanta

3rd

2nd

1st ($666)

Top 25% ofGeorgia school districts In per-pupil local wealth

Bottom 25% ofGeorgia school districtsIn per-pupil local wealth

Systems under

12.5 mills in 2009

For each school system, the state calculates what one mill raises in property tax per student.

For each of the systems below that average, the state calculates the difference between that system and the average and give them that difference for every weighted FTE for every effective mill above the first five.

The formula:

Equalization Grant =

Weighted FTE x

Wealth Difference x

Effective Millage Rate -5


QBE Minimum Funding


Req’dLocalShare



QBE Minimum Funding


Req’dLocalShare


Equalization is supposed to allow for this portion ofeducation funding to be a minimum of the statewide averagefor this “additional” funding

How does equalization equalize?• Assume two school systems, each with 1000 students and identical in FTE and T&E

demographics, but one being the guaranteed system (75%ile) and the other a poorer system.• Since their FTE is identical, their QBE earnings should be the same, let’s say $5,000,000• Assume the guaranteed system has a digest of $180 million ($180,000 per mill) and the poorer

system has a digest of $100 million ($100,000 per mill), and each assesses 15 mills• In guaranteed system the LFS will be 5 mills x $180,000 or $900,000 and in the poorer system it

will be $500,000• Guaranteed system gets no equalization grant, and the poorer system gets $80 x 1000 students

x 10 mills = $800,000• Guaranteed system gets, in local taxes, 15 mills x $180,000 ,000 = $2,700,000 and poorer

system gets 15 x $100,000 = $1,500,000

• Thus, total revenues =

Guaranteed system Poorer systemQBE $5,000,000 $5,000,000

Less LFS - 900,000 - 500,000 Subtotal $4,100,000 $4,500,000






system gets 15 x $100,000 = $1,500,000









system gets 15 x $100,000 = $1,500,000









system gets 15 x $100,000 = $1,500,000









system gets 15 x $100,000 = $1,500,000







will be $500,000• Guaranteed system gets, in local taxes, 15 mills x $180,000 ,000 = $2,700,000 and poorer

system gets 15 x $100,000 = $1,500,000• Guaranteed system gets no equalization grant, and the poorer system gets $80 x 1000 students

x 10 mills = $800,000



Less LFS - 900,000 - 500,000 Subtotal $4,100,000 $4,500,000 Local taxes 2,700,000 1,500,000 Subtotal $6,800,000 $6,000,000






x 10 mills = $800,000









x 10 mills = $800,000




Equalization 0 800,000 Total funding $6,800,000 $6,800,000

The following table lists the calculated equalization grants for sample Georgia school systems

Calculated vs. Funded Equalization

FY11 Wealth Calculated Initial FY11 EqualizationSystem Rank Equalization Equalization Loss

Sav-Chatham 10 $0 $0 $0Burke 19 $0 $0 $0

Clayton 83 $27,253,573 $17,960,563 -$9,293,010Oglethorpe 91 $1,725,114 $1,136,879 -$588,235Meriwether 93 $1,698,140 $1,119,103 -$579,037Richmond 103 $23,533,940 $15,509,262 -$8,024,678

Jenkins 106 $714,264 $470,712 -$243,552Haralson 113 $2,841,412 $1,872,538 -$968,874

Dougherty 123 $14,504,374 $9,558,626 -$4,945,748Polk 152 $7,650,526 $5,041,825 -$2,608,701Cook 155 $3,404,125 $2,243,375 -$1,160,750

Emanuel 168 $4,761,812 $3,138,114 -$1,623,698

As one of the budget cutting moves in FY10, and again this year, the governor and legislature chose to reduce the amount of equalization grants to the 133 systems receiving those grants.

This budget cutting move, which took money only from the poorest school systems in the state, recovered $225 million for the state coffers.

Calculated vs. Funded Equalization

FY11 Wealth Calculated Initial FY11 EqualizationSystem Rank Equalization Equalization Loss

Sav-Chatham 10 $0 $0 $0Burke 19 $0 $0 $0

Clayton 83 $27,253,573 $17,960,563 -$9,293,010Oglethorpe 91 $1,725,114 $1,136,879 -$588,235Meriwether 93 $1,698,140 $1,119,103 -$579,037Richmond 103 $23,533,940 $15,509,262 -$8,024,678

Jenkins 106 $714,264 $470,712 -$243,552Haralson 113 $2,841,412 $1,872,538 -$968,874

Dougherty 123 $14,504,374 $9,558,626 -$4,945,748Polk 152 $7,650,526 $5,041,825 -$2,608,701Cook 155 $3,404,125 $2,243,375 -$1,160,750

Emanuel 168 $4,761,812 $3,138,114 -$1,623,698

Note that in FY11, all systems gained funds from the state’s local fair share adjustment (20% cap).

Since wealthy systems pay more in LFS than poorer systems, the adjustment benefited them disproportionately

Only the poor systems lost from the equalization adjustment, poorer systems losing disproportionately more funding







The wealthiest system (1st) in the state saved $1,350,000 in LFS and lost no equalization (net gain = 0.75 mills)

The middle (80th) system saved $99,000 in LFS and lost $91,500 in equalization (net gain = .06 mills)

A poorer system (148th in wealth) saved $345,000 in Local Fair Share (the 20% cap) but lost $1,090,000 in equalization funds (net loss = $745,000 or 1.97 mills)

The poorest county system (178th) saved $47,800 in LFS but lost $700,000 in equalization (net loss = 10.6 mills)













Equalization grant


formula earnings






Leading up to the FY10 budget, the governor proposed that nursing grants for schools be eliminated. This having touched a sensitive nerve in various groups across the state (mostly parents and nurses), that recommendation was quickly withdrawn.

Nursing grants are still in the budget, though at about 90% of their original amount

Nursing grant

Finally, no discussion of state funding would be complete without considering the impact of the governor’s austerity cuts.

Following the tragedies of September 11, 2001 and the stock market downturn, the national economy went into a recession and, with state revenues declining, the state began to withhold funds from school systems. In FY03, about 2% of QBE was withheld; in FY04, that increased to 4% and in FY05 and FY06 it was about 4.5%.

Statewide – History of Austerity Cuts

Fiscal Austerity Federal Net Austerity

Year Cut Stimulus Cut

FY02 $0 $0 $0

FY03 $133,933,642 $0 $133,933,642

FY04 $283,478,659 $0 $283,478,659

FY05 $332,838,099 $0 $332,838,099

FY06 $332,835,092 $0 $332,835,092

FY07 $169,745,895 $0 $169,745,895

FY08 $142,959,810 $0 $142,959,810

FY09 $495,723,830 $157,931,185 $337,792,645

FY10 $1,355,168,599 $629,602,362 $725,566,237

FY11 $1,082,853,841 $126,169,757 $956,684,084

Total $4,329,537,467 $913,703,304 $3,415,834,163

As the national and state economies improved and state revenues returned to high levels, the austerity cuts became smaller, but the governor nevertheless continued to withhold funds from schools.

In FY07 and FY08, state revenues were at record levels, so high that the legislature approved millions of dollars for a fishing program in the state, $50 million for tax credits for private school donations, and millions more for special interest corporate tax breaks. Yet, the state continued to withhold funds from schools




FY02 $0 $0 $0

FY03 $133,933,642 $0 $133,933,642

FY04 $283,478,659 $0 $283,478,659

FY05 $332,838,099 $0 $332,838,099

FY06 $332,835,092 $0 $332,835,092

FY07 $169,745,895 $0 $169,745,895

FY08 $142,959,810 $0 $142,959,810

FY09 $495,723,830 $157,931,185 $337,792,645

FY10 $1,355,168,599 $629,602,362 $725,566,237

FY11 $1,082,853,841 $126,169,757 $956,684,084

Total $4,329,537,467 $913,703,304 $3,415,834,163

Record revenue years

With the economy now in another tailspin, the governor has added yet more austerity cuts to those still in place from before. In FY09, for example, public schoolchildren lost almost $338 million to these austerity cuts (after adjusting for federal stimulus funds); in FY10 that figure topped $725 million and in FY11, so far, it is more than $950 million




FY02 $0 $0 $0

FY03 $133,933,642 $0 $133,933,642

FY04 $283,478,659 $0 $283,478,659

FY05 $332,838,099 $0 $332,838,099

FY06 $332,835,092 $0 $332,835,092

FY07 $169,745,895 $0 $169,745,895

FY08 $142,959,810 $0 $142,959,810

FY09 $495,723,830 $157,931,185 $337,792,645

FY10 $1,355,168,599 $629,602,362 $725,566,237

FY11 $1,082,853,841 $126,169,757 $956,684,084

Total $4,329,537,467 $913,703,304 $3,415,834,163




FY02 $0 $0 $0

FY03 $133,933,642 $0 $133,933,642

FY04 $283,478,659 $0 $283,478,659

FY05 $332,838,099 $0 $332,838,099

FY06 $332,835,092 $0 $332,835,092

FY07 $169,745,895 $0 $169,745,895

FY08 $142,959,810 $0 $142,959,810

FY09 $495,723,830 $157,931,185 $337,792,645

FY10 $1,355,168,599 $629,602,362 $725,566,237

FY11 $1,082,853,841 $126,169,757 $956,684,084

Total $4,329,537,467 $913,703,304 $3,415,834,163

If the state has not been indexing much of educational funding to inflation and if the state has been, for nine years, withholding so much of QBE-earned money via austerity cuts, how have school systems survived financially over the past seven years?

The answer lies in the generation of local tax revenues

Sam ple School System Current 2010 Digest and Five Year History

County School 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Real and Personal 722,027,113 782,621,220 878,418,205 1,109,744,617 1,191,891,779 1,244,625,440 1,261,082,821

Motor Vehicles 64,667,000 63,404,330 62,574,810 69,819,200 72,908,050 72,965,780 62,398,910

Moblie Homes 2,155,208 1,979,235 2,002,445 1,924,833 1,801,576 1,784,154 1,702,245

Timber 100% 41,795 32,393 49,115 71,892 39,520 0 33,063

Heavy Duty Equipment 77,375 164,929 1,290,665 2,809,248 1,095,052 38,488 0

State Forest Assistance Grant

Gross Digest 788,968,491 848,202,107 944,335,240 1,184,369,790 1,267,735,977 1,319,413,862 1,325,217,039

Less M&O Exceptions 95,711,876 101,884,933 106,991,591 169,218,474 178,099,201 187,873,212 196,500,747

Net M&O Digest 693,256,615 746,317,174 837,343,649 1,015,151,316 1,089,636,776 1,131,540,650 1,128,716,292

Gross M&O Millage 13.95 13.95 13.95 11.95 12.90 12.90 12.90

Less Rollback 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Net M&O Millage 13.95 13.95 13.95 11.95 12.90 12.90 12.90

Net Taxes Levied 9,670,930 10,411,125 11,680,944 12,131,058 14,056,314 14,596,874 14,560,440

Net Taxes $ Increase/(Decrease) 1,416,313 740,195 1,269,819 450,114 1,925,256 540,560 -36,434

Net Taxes % Increase/(Decrease) 17.16% 7.65% 12.20% 3.85% 15.87% 3.85% -0.25%

Sample School System Current 2010 Digest and Five Year History

County School 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010


Motor Vehicles 64,667,000 63,404,330 62,574,810 69,819,200 72,908,050 72,965,780 62,398,910

Moblie Homes 2,155,208 1,979,235 2,002,445 1,924,833 1,801,576 1,784,154 1,702,245

Timber 100% 41,795 32,393 49,115 71,892 39,520 0 33,063



Gross Digest 788,968,491 848,202,107 944,335,240 1,184,369,790 1,267,735,977 1,319,413,862 1,325,217,039


Net M&O Digest 693,256,615 746,317,174 837,343,649 1,015,151,316 1,089,636,776 1,131,540,650 1,128,716,292

Gross M&O Millage 13.95 13.95 13.95 11.95 12.90 12.90 12.90


Net M&O Millage 13.95 13.95 13.95 11.95 12.90 12.90 12.90

Net Taxes Levied 9,670,930 10,411,125 11,680,944 12,131,058 14,056,314 14,596,874 14,560,440



d

Assessed (40%) value of real estate and personal property


County School 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010


Motor Vehicles 64,667,000 63,404,330 62,574,810 69,819,200 72,908,050 72,965,780 62,398,910

Moblie Homes 2,155,208 1,979,235 2,002,445 1,924,833 1,801,576 1,784,154 1,702,245

Timber 100% 41,795 32,393 49,115 71,892 39,520 0 33,063



Gross Digest 788,968,491 848,202,107 944,335,240 1,184,369,790 1,267,735,977 1,319,413,862 1,325,217,039


Net M&O Digest 693,256,615 746,317,174 837,343,649 1,015,151,316 1,089,636,776 1,131,540,650 1,128,716,292

Gross M&O Millage 13.95 13.95 13.95 11.95 12.90 12.90 12.90


Net M&O Millage 13.95 13.95 13.95 11.95 12.90 12.90 12.90

Net Taxes Levied 9,670,930 10,411,125 11,680,944 12,131,058 14,056,314 14,596,874 14,560,440



d

Assessed (40%) value of real estate and personal propertyAssessed value of all licensed motor vehicles


County School 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010


Motor Vehicles 64,667,000 63,404,330 62,574,810 69,819,200 72,908,050 72,965,780 62,398,910

Moblie Homes 2,155,208 1,979,235 2,002,445 1,924,833 1,801,576 1,784,154 1,702,245

Timber 100% 41,795 32,393 49,115 71,892 39,520 0 33,063



Gross Digest 788,968,491 848,202,107 944,335,240 1,184,369,790 1,267,735,977 1,319,413,862 1,325,217,039


Net M&O Digest 693,256,615 746,317,174 837,343,649 1,015,151,316 1,089,636,776 1,131,540,650 1,128,716,292

Gross M&O Millage 13.95 13.95 13.95 11.95 12.90 12.90 12.90


Net M&O Millage 13.95 13.95 13.95 11.95 12.90 12.90 12.90

Net Taxes Levied 9,670,930 10,411,125 11,680,944 12,131,058 14,056,314 14,596,874 14,560,440



d

Assessed (40%) value of real estate and personal propertyAssessed value of all licensed motor vehiclesAssessed value of all mobile homes


County School 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010


Motor Vehicles 64,667,000 63,404,330 62,574,810 69,819,200 72,908,050 72,965,780 62,398,910

Moblie Homes 2,155,208 1,979,235 2,002,445 1,924,833 1,801,576 1,784,154 1,702,245

Timber 100% 41,795 32,393 49,115 71,892 39,520 0 33,063



Gross Digest 788,968,491 848,202,107 944,335,240 1,184,369,790 1,267,735,977 1,319,413,862 1,325,217,039


Net M&O Digest 693,256,615 746,317,174 837,343,649 1,015,151,316 1,089,636,776 1,131,540,650 1,128,716,292

Gross M&O Millage 13.95 13.95 13.95 11.95 12.90 12.90 12.90


Net M&O Millage 13.95 13.95 13.95 11.95 12.90 12.90 12.90

Net Taxes Levied 9,670,930 10,411,125 11,680,944 12,131,058 14,056,314 14,596,874 14,560,440



d

Assessed (40%) value of real estate and personal propertyAssessed value of all licensed motor vehiclesAssessed value of all mobile homes100% value of all timber harvested


County School 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010


Motor Vehicles 64,667,000 63,404,330 62,574,810 69,819,200 72,908,050 72,965,780 62,398,910

Moblie Homes 2,155,208 1,979,235 2,002,445 1,924,833 1,801,576 1,784,154 1,702,245

Timber 100% 41,795 32,393 49,115 71,892 39,520 0 33,063



Gross Digest 788,968,491 848,202,107 944,335,240 1,184,369,790 1,267,735,977 1,319,413,862 1,325,217,039


Net M&O Digest 693,256,615 746,317,174 837,343,649 1,015,151,316 1,089,636,776 1,131,540,650 1,128,716,292

Gross M&O Millage 13.95 13.95 13.95 11.95 12.90 12.90 12.90


Net M&O Millage 13.95 13.95 13.95 11.95 12.90 12.90 12.90

Net Taxes Levied 9,670,930 10,411,125 11,680,944 12,131,058 14,056,314 14,596,874 14,560,440



d

Assessed (40%) value of real estate and personal propertyAssessed value of all licensed motor vehiclesAssessed value of all mobile homes100% value of all timber harvestedValue of all unlicensed, mostly construction equipment


County School 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010


Motor Vehicles 64,667,000 63,404,330 62,574,810 69,819,200 72,908,050 72,965,780 62,398,910

Moblie Homes 2,155,208 1,979,235 2,002,445 1,924,833 1,801,576 1,784,154 1,702,245

Timber 100% 41,795 32,393 49,115 71,892 39,520 0 33,063



Gross Digest 788,968,491 848,202,107 944,335,240 1,184,369,790 1,267,735,977 1,319,413,862 1,325,217,039


Net M&O Digest 693,256,615 746,317,174 837,343,649 1,015,151,316 1,089,636,776 1,131,540,650 1,128,716,292

Gross M&O Millage 13.95 13.95 13.95 11.95 12.90 12.90 12.90


Net M&O Millage 13.95 13.95 13.95 11.95 12.90 12.90 12.90

Net Taxes Levied 9,670,930 10,411,125 11,680,944 12,131,058 14,056,314 14,596,874 14,560,440



d


Total assessed value of all property


County School 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010


Motor Vehicles 64,667,000 63,404,330 62,574,810 69,819,200 72,908,050 72,965,780 62,398,910

Moblie Homes 2,155,208 1,979,235 2,002,445 1,924,833 1,801,576 1,784,154 1,702,245

Timber 100% 41,795 32,393 49,115 71,892 39,520 0 33,063



Gross Digest 788,968,491 848,202,107 944,335,240 1,184,369,790 1,267,735,977 1,319,413,862 1,325,217,039


Net M&O Digest 693,256,615 746,317,174 837,343,649 1,015,151,316 1,089,636,776 1,131,540,650 1,128,716,292

Gross M&O Millage 13.95 13.95 13.95 11.95 12.90 12.90 12.90


Net M&O Millage 13.95 13.95 13.95 11.95 12.90 12.90 12.90

Net Taxes Levied 9,670,930 10,411,125 11,680,944 12,131,058 14,056,314 14,596,874 14,560,440



d


Total assessed value of all propertyValue of all exemptions (subtractions) from property digest


County School 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010


Motor Vehicles 64,667,000 63,404,330 62,574,810 69,819,200 72,908,050 72,965,780 62,398,910

Moblie Homes 2,155,208 1,979,235 2,002,445 1,924,833 1,801,576 1,784,154 1,702,245

Timber 100% 41,795 32,393 49,115 71,892 39,520 0 33,063



Gross Digest 788,968,491 848,202,107 944,335,240 1,184,369,790 1,267,735,977 1,319,413,862 1,325,217,039


Net M&O Digest 693,256,615 746,317,174 837,343,649 1,015,151,316 1,089,636,776 1,131,540,650 1,128,716,292

Gross M&O Millage 13.95 13.95 13.95 11.95 12.90 12.90 12.90


Net M&O Millage 13.95 13.95 13.95 11.95 12.90 12.90 12.90

Net Taxes Levied 9,670,930 10,411,125 11,680,944 12,131,058 14,056,314 14,596,874 14,560,440



d


Total assessed value of all propertyValue of all exemptions (subtractions) from property digestNet value of taxable digest


County School 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010


Motor Vehicles 64,667,000 63,404,330 62,574,810 69,819,200 72,908,050 72,965,780 62,398,910

Moblie Homes 2,155,208 1,979,235 2,002,445 1,924,833 1,801,576 1,784,154 1,702,245

Timber 100% 41,795 32,393 49,115 71,892 39,520 0 33,063



Gross Digest 788,968,491 848,202,107 944,335,240 1,184,369,790 1,267,735,977 1,319,413,862 1,325,217,039


Net M&O Digest 693,256,615 746,317,174 837,343,649 1,015,151,316 1,089,636,776 1,131,540,650 1,128,716,292

Gross M&O Millage 13.95 13.95 13.95 11.95 12.90 12.90 12.90


Net M&O Millage 13.95 13.95 13.95 11.95 12.90 12.90 12.90

Net Taxes Levied 9,670,930 10,411,125 11,680,944 12,131,058 14,056,314 14,596,874 14,560,440



d


Total assessed value of all propertyValue of all exemptions (subtractions) from property digestNet value of taxable digestOne mill generates 1/1000th of this amount


County School 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010


Motor Vehicles 64,667,000 63,404,330 62,574,810 69,819,200 72,908,050 72,965,780 62,398,910

Moblie Homes 2,155,208 1,979,235 2,002,445 1,924,833 1,801,576 1,784,154 1,702,245

Timber 100% 41,795 32,393 49,115 71,892 39,520 0 33,063



Gross Digest 788,968,491 848,202,107 944,335,240 1,184,369,790 1,267,735,977 1,319,413,862 1,325,217,039


Net M&O Digest 693,256,615 746,317,174 837,343,649 1,015,151,316 1,089,636,776 1,131,540,650 1,128,716,292

Gross M&O Millage 13.95 13.95 13.95 11.95 12.90 12.90 12.90


Net M&O Millage 13.95 13.95 13.95 11.95 12.90 12.90 12.90

Net Taxes Levied 9,670,930 10,411,125 11,680,944 12,131,058 14,056,314 14,596,874 14,560,440



d


Total assessed value of all propertyValue of all exemptions (subtractions) from property digestNet value of taxable digestOne mill generates 1/1000th of this amount


County School 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010


Motor Vehicles 64,667,000 63,404,330 62,574,810 69,819,200 72,908,050 72,965,780 62,398,910

Moblie Homes 2,155,208 1,979,235 2,002,445 1,924,833 1,801,576 1,784,154 1,702,245

Timber 100% 41,795 32,393 49,115 71,892 39,520 0 33,063



Gross Digest 788,968,491 848,202,107 944,335,240 1,184,369,790 1,267,735,977 1,319,413,862 1,325,217,039


Net M&O Digest 693,256,615 746,317,174 837,343,649 1,015,151,316 1,089,636,776 1,131,540,650 1,128,716,292

Gross M&O Millage 13.95 13.95 13.95 11.95 12.90 12.90 12.90


Net M&O Millage 13.95 13.95 13.95 11.95 12.90 12.90 12.90

Net Taxes Levied 9,670,930 10,411,125 11,680,944 12,131,058 14,056,314 14,596,874 14,560,440



d



Millage rate assessed by the BOE


County School 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010


Motor Vehicles 64,667,000 63,404,330 62,574,810 69,819,200 72,908,050 72,965,780 62,398,910

Moblie Homes 2,155,208 1,979,235 2,002,445 1,924,833 1,801,576 1,784,154 1,702,245

Timber 100% 41,795 32,393 49,115 71,892 39,520 0 33,063



Gross Digest 788,968,491 848,202,107 944,335,240 1,184,369,790 1,267,735,977 1,319,413,862 1,325,217,039


Net M&O Digest 693,256,615 746,317,174 837,343,649 1,015,151,316 1,089,636,776 1,131,540,650 1,128,716,292

Gross M&O Millage 13.95 13.95 13.95 11.95 12.90 12.90 12.90


Net M&O Millage 13.95 13.95 13.95 11.95 12.90 12.90 12.90

Net Taxes Levied 9,670,930 10,411,125 11,680,944 12,131,058 14,056,314 14,596,874 14,560,440



d



Millage rate assessed by the BOETotal local property taxes levied


County School 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010


Motor Vehicles 64,667,000 63,404,330 62,574,810 69,819,200 72,908,050 72,965,780 62,398,910

Moblie Homes 2,155,208 1,979,235 2,002,445 1,924,833 1,801,576 1,784,154 1,702,245

Timber 100% 41,795 32,393 49,115 71,892 39,520 0 33,063



Gross Digest 788,968,491 848,202,107 944,335,240 1,184,369,790 1,267,735,977 1,319,413,862 1,325,217,039


Net M&O Digest 693,256,615 746,317,174 837,343,649 1,015,151,316 1,089,636,776 1,131,540,650 1,128,716,292

Gross M&O Millage 13.95 13.95 13.95 11.95 12.90 12.90 12.90


Net M&O Millage 13.95 13.95 13.95 11.95 12.90 12.90 12.90

Net Taxes Levied 9,670,930 10,411,125 11,680,944 12,131,058 14,056,314 14,596,874 14,560,440



d



Millage rate assessed by the BOETotal local property taxes levied

Changes from previous year

During the short economic recession which began in 2002, the federal reserve bank dropped interest rates precipitously. This drop led to a nationwide rush to buy housing (both to live in and for investment and speculation) which, in turn, led to a rapid increase in real estate values

That increase in property values increased the digests of virtually every school system in the state of Georgia just at the time that the state became more aggressive in cutting public school funding. Thus, systems were able to balance their budgets because of the increase in locally generated property tax revenues

In essence, the state has been transferring more and more responsibility for public school funding from the state to local governments.

TAX 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Real & Personal 2,721,949,571 2,932,228,461 3,408,081,667 3,821,013,058 4,361,404,541 4,587,766,682 4,558,271,406 3,880,139,370

Motor Vehicles 259,880,460 261,590,540 259,762,850 255,953,120 280,208,040 297,451,900 313,853,320 270,103,530

Mobile Homes 7,831,940 9,192,411 8,428,833 10,394,034 9,631,529 9,127,783 8,809,824 7,601,654

Timber - 100% 216,807 283,994 98,921 223,521 339,233 527,287 143,420 339,100Heavy Duty Equipment 75,345 345,712 331,322 508,638 428,972 55,969 285,289 46,586

Gross Digest 2,989,954,123 3,203,641,118 3,676,703,593 4,088,092,371 4,652,012,315 4,894,929,621 4,881,363,259 4,158,230,240Less M& O Exemptions 333,397,514 352,012,515 447,841,621 536,862,578 639,950,918 701,915,351 738,025,071 657,092,549

Net M & O Digest 2,656,556,609 2,851,628,603 3,228,861,972 3,551,229,793 4,012,061,397 4,193,014,270 4,143,338,188 3,501,137,691

Gross M&O Millage 19.767 19.767 19.484 19.400 19.400 18.700 18.350 20.000

Less Rollbacks 0.000 0.283 1.084 0.000 0.700 0.350 0.000 0.000

Net M&O Millage 19.767 19.484 18.400 19.400 18.700 18.350 18.350 20.000

Total School Taxes Levied $52,512,154 $55,561,132 $59,411,060 $68,893,858 $75,025,548 $76,941,812 $76,030,256 $70,022,754

Net Taxes $ Increase $3,048,977 $3,849,929 $9,482,798 $6,131,690 $1,916,264 -$911,556 -$6,007,502

Net Taxes % Increase 5.81% 6.93% 15.96% 8.90% 2.55% -1.18% -7.90%

.

Property +68.5%

TAX 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Real & Personal 2,721,949,571 2,932,228,461 3,408,081,667 3,821,013,058 4,361,404,541 4,587,766,682 4,558,271,406 3,880,139,370

Motor Vehicles 259,880,460 261,590,540 259,762,850 255,953,120 280,208,040 297,451,900 313,853,320 270,103,530

Mobile Homes 7,831,940 9,192,411 8,428,833 10,394,034 9,631,529 9,127,783 8,809,824 7,601,654



Net M & O Digest 2,656,556,609 2,851,628,603 3,228,861,972 3,551,229,793 4,012,061,397 4,193,014,270 4,143,338,188 3,501,137,691

Gross M&O Millage 19.767 19.767 19.484 19.400 19.400 18.700 18.350 20.000

Less Rollbacks 0.000 0.283 1.084 0.000 0.700 0.350 0.000 0.000

Net M&O Millage 19.767 19.484 18.400 19.400 18.700 18.350 18.350 20.000




.

Property +68.5%

Net Digest +58%

TAX 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Real & Personal 2,721,949,571 2,932,228,461 3,408,081,667 3,821,013,058 4,361,404,541 4,587,766,682 4,558,271,406 3,880,139,370

Motor Vehicles 259,880,460 261,590,540 259,762,850 255,953,120 280,208,040 297,451,900 313,853,320 270,103,530

Mobile Homes 7,831,940 9,192,411 8,428,833 10,394,034 9,631,529 9,127,783 8,809,824 7,601,654



Net M & O Digest 2,656,556,609 2,851,628,603 3,228,861,972 3,551,229,793 4,012,061,397 4,193,014,270 4,143,338,188 3,501,137,691

Gross M&O Millage 19.767 19.767 19.484 19.400 19.400 18.700 18.350 20.000

Less Rollbacks 0.000 0.283 1.084 0.000 0.700 0.350 0.000 0.000

Net M&O Millage 19.767 19.484 18.400 19.400 18.700 18.350 18.350 20.000




.

Property +68.5%

Net Digest +58%

Even with a 1.4 mill decrease….

TAX 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Real & Personal 2,721,949,571 2,932,228,461 3,408,081,667 3,821,013,058 4,361,404,541 4,587,766,682 4,558,271,406 3,880,139,370

Motor Vehicles 259,880,460 261,590,540 259,762,850 255,953,120 280,208,040 297,451,900 313,853,320 270,103,530

Mobile Homes 7,831,940 9,192,411 8,428,833 10,394,034 9,631,529 9,127,783 8,809,824 7,601,654



Net M & O Digest 2,656,556,609 2,851,628,603 3,228,861,972 3,551,229,793 4,012,061,397 4,193,014,270 4,143,338,188 3,501,137,691

Gross M&O Millage 19.767 19.767 19.484 19.400 19.400 18.700 18.350 20.000

Less Rollbacks 0.000 0.283 1.084 0.000 0.700 0.350 0.000 0.000

Net M&O Millage 19.767 19.484 18.400 19.400 18.700 18.350 18.350 20.000




.

Property +68.5%

Net Digest +58%

Even with a 1.4 mill decrease….

Taxes were up over 46%

As fast as the state leadership took money away from schools, the local taxpayer filled in the “hole”…. and in most systems, even enlarged the total pot

And suddenly the party ended…

As fast as the state leadership took money away from schools, the local taxpayer filled in the “hole”…. and in most systems, even enlarged the total pot

And suddenly the party ended…

TAX 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Real & Personal 2,721,949,571 2,932,228,461 3,408,081,667 3,821,013,058 4,361,404,541 4,587,766,682 4,558,271,406 3,880,139,370

Motor Vehicles 259,880,460 261,590,540 259,762,850 255,953,120 280,208,040 297,451,900 313,853,320 270,103,530

Mobile Homes 7,831,940 9,192,411 8,428,833 10,394,034 9,631,529 9,127,783 8,809,824 7,601,654



Net M & O Digest 2,656,556,609 2,851,628,603 3,228,861,972 3,551,229,793 4,012,061,397 4,193,014,270 4,143,338,188 3,501,137,691

Gross M&O Millage 19.767 19.767 19.484 19.400 19.400 18.700 18.350 20.000

Less Rollbacks 0.000 0.283 1.084 0.000 0.700 0.350 0.000 0.000

Net M&O Millage 19.767 19.484 18.400 19.400 18.700 18.350 18.350 20.000




.

Property down 15%

TAX 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Real & Personal 2,721,949,571 2,932,228,461 3,408,081,667 3,821,013,058 4,361,404,541 4,587,766,682 4,558,271,406 3,880,139,370

Motor Vehicles 259,880,460 261,590,540 259,762,850 255,953,120 280,208,040 297,451,900 313,853,320 270,103,530

Mobile Homes 7,831,940 9,192,411 8,428,833 10,394,034 9,631,529 9,127,783 8,809,824 7,601,654



Net M & O Digest 2,656,556,609 2,851,628,603 3,228,861,972 3,551,229,793 4,012,061,397 4,193,014,270 4,143,338,188 3,501,137,691

Gross M&O Millage 19.767 19.767 19.484 19.400 19.400 18.700 18.350 20.000

Less Rollbacks 0.000 0.283 1.084 0.000 0.700 0.350 0.000 0.000

Net M&O Millage 19.767 19.484 18.400 19.400 18.700 18.350 18.350 20.000




.

Property down 15%

Net digest down 16.5%

TAX 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Real & Personal 2,721,949,571 2,932,228,461 3,408,081,667 3,821,013,058 4,361,404,541 4,587,766,682 4,558,271,406 3,880,139,370

Motor Vehicles 259,880,460 261,590,540 259,762,850 255,953,120 280,208,040 297,451,900 313,853,320 270,103,530

Mobile Homes 7,831,940 9,192,411 8,428,833 10,394,034 9,631,529 9,127,783 8,809,824 7,601,654



Net M & O Digest 2,656,556,609 2,851,628,603 3,228,861,972 3,551,229,793 4,012,061,397 4,193,014,270 4,143,338,188 3,501,137,691

Gross M&O Millage 19.767 19.767 19.484 19.400 19.400 18.700 18.350 20.000

Less Rollbacks 0.000 0.283 1.084 0.000 0.700 0.350 0.000 0.000

Net M&O Millage 19.767 19.484 18.400 19.400 18.700 18.350 18.350 20.000




.

Property down 15%


Even with the millage rate maxed at 20 mills

TAX 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Real & Personal 2,721,949,571 2,932,228,461 3,408,081,667 3,821,013,058 4,361,404,541 4,587,766,682 4,558,271,406 3,880,139,370

Motor Vehicles 259,880,460 261,590,540 259,762,850 255,953,120 280,208,040 297,451,900 313,853,320 270,103,530

Mobile Homes 7,831,940 9,192,411 8,428,833 10,394,034 9,631,529 9,127,783 8,809,824 7,601,654



Net M & O Digest 2,656,556,609 2,851,628,603 3,228,861,972 3,551,229,793 4,012,061,397 4,193,014,270 4,143,338,188 3,501,137,691

Gross M&O Millage 19.767 19.767 19.484 19.400 19.400 18.700 18.350 20.000

Less Rollbacks 0.000 0.283 1.084 0.000 0.700 0.350 0.000 0.000

Net M&O Millage 19.767 19.484 18.400 19.400 18.700 18.350 18.350 20.000




.

Property down 15%


Even with the millage rate maxed at 20 mills

Local tax revenues are down 9%

History of Sources of Funding

Local State Federal Total

FTEPer

Student PctPer

Student PctPer

Student PctPer

Student

FY02 State 1,447,332 $2,752 38.4% $4,010 56.0% $404 5.6% $7,165

FY09 State 1,625,405 $3,884 43.7% $4,318 48.6% $686 7.7% $8,888

And the other sources of local income?

A small amount of local funding also comes from

Real Estate Transfer Taxes

Recording Intangibles

Interest on “Investments”

Miscellaneous Sources


Real Estate Transfer Taxes (decreasing)

Recording Intangibles





Recording Intangibles (decreasing)






Interest on “Investments” (decreasing)





Interest on “Investments” (decreasing)

Miscellaneous Sources (decreasing)

As a result of the severe state budget cuts, most systems in the state faced two unpleasant alternatives coming into the 2010-11 school year, and will likely face the same in FY12

1) Alternative 1 is to raise millage rates, which is particularly difficult during a time when families are struggling with their own finances; and

2) Alternative 2 is to further cut personnel and programs so as to decrease the expenditure side of the ledger, which is equally as unpleasant since many systems have already suffered drastic personnel and program cutbacks

1) Alternative 1 is to raise millage rates, which is particularly difficult during a time when families are struggling with their own finances; and

2) Alternative 2 is to further cut personnel and programs so as to decrease the expenditure side of the ledger, which is equally as unpleasant since many systems have already suffered drastic personnel and program cutbacks

But a third alternative, which has the potential to decrease the size of the first two alternatives, is to work diligently in an attempt to make the very best use of the decreasing resources available in coming years.

At the risk of being presumptuous, it would be my recommendation that school systems

1) re-examine their budget processes currently in place to determine if they make the most instructionally effective use of diminished and diminishing resources; and

2) at the same time, encourage all school administrators – both centrally based and school based - to talk to legislators, citizens, teachers, and parents on the causes and nature of the problems facing your systems and public education across the state of Georgia.

At the risk of being presumptuous, it would be my recommendation that school systems

1) re-examine their budget processes currently in place to determine if they make the most instructionally effective use of diminished and diminishing resources; and

2) at the same time, encourage all school administrators – both centrally based and school based - to talk to legislators, citizens, teachers, and parents on the causes and nature of the problems facing your systems and public education across the state of Georgia.

Political/Financial Implications(in no particular order)

• Federal funding will disappear in FY12, though some systems will have “residuals” from the latest jobs bill funding

• Legislators have expressed their desire to make replenishing the state operating reserve one of their top priorities when revenues increase

• With the governor having depleted the health care operating reserve in order to balance the budget in FY10 (and in FY11), that avenue is no longer available as a financial “tool” to avoid further cutting expenditures

• The budget is based upon FY11 state taxes and fees increasing by 4.2% over FY10 amended budget figures

















• Although a recent poll indicated that approximately 60% of Georgia taxpayers are willing to pay higher taxes in order to maintain quality education, state leadership has not indicated any willingness to address education shortfalls via taxation and the poll results seem to contradict the general sentiment (evidenced by anti-tax sentiment) to cut taxes, not raise taxes

• The housing market does not seem to be rebounding yet and, in fact, foreclosures are continuing to increase meaning that digests are not likely to increase in the near future and may well decrease some more


• Although a recent poll indicated that approximately 60% of Georgia taxpayers are willing to pay higher taxes in order to maintain quality education, state leadership has not indicated any willingness to address education shortfalls via taxation and the poll results seem to contradict the general sentiment (evidenced by anti-tax sentiment) to cut taxes, not raise taxes

• The housing market does not seem to be rebounding yet and, in fact, foreclosures are continuing to increase meaning that digests are not likely to increase in the near future and may well decrease some more


• With a new governor taking over in January, the educational funding “unknown” is significant

• If digests continue to decrease and QBE earnings increase due to benefit increases and population increase, systems’ adjustments to their local fair share are likely to continue to shrink. High wealth systems will see a greater negative impact form this effect.


• With a new governor taking over in January, the educational funding “unknown” is significant

• If digests continue to decrease and QBE earnings increase due to benefit increases and population increase, systems’ adjustments to their local fair share are likely to continue to shrink. High wealth systems will see a greater negative impact form this effect.

If we really do believe in public education, then we have a duty to bring to the public the message that quality education in Georgia is in peril, and along with it the future of our children and grandchildren

Promote public education tirelessly and unapologetically. If you value your freedoms, just remember that America must remain the Land of

Opportunity…for ALL people

“Only the educated are free.” Epictetus, 2nd century Greek philosopher

And repeating the words of the AJC editor…


Maureen Downey, Atlanta Journal-Constitution,

9/7/2008

Don’t say “We can’t do it that way” unless you know, for a fact, that you can’t

“Whenever you are asked if you can do a job, tell ’em, ‘Certainly I can!’ Then get busy and find out how to do it.”

Theodore Roosevelt, Statesman, 1858-1919

Be open to new ways of doing things. You can count on having to do more with less in the future, and finding ways to increase your productivity will

help make “more with less” possible

“If we don’t change, we don’t grow. If we don’t grow, we aren’t really living.”

Gail Sheehy, Author, 1937-

“By nature man hates change; seldom will he quit his old home till it has actually fallen around his ears.”

Thomas Carlyle, essayist and historian, 1795-1881

Comments/Questions

Contact Information

• Doug Eza

• 1231 Beechnut Ln

• Watkinsville, GA 30677

• [email protected]

• 706 769-8230

mailto:[email protected]

Documents

Georgia Vocational Directors Preserving Quality Education Amidst Troubled Waters (by understanding school finance) February 2011