Really? Last time we checked info obtained directly from agencies through FOIA requests was usually pretty solid.

-FITS

Is that as specific as you can get for the source of your included pdf? Talk about crappy journalism…

Workingmom — Sounds like Georgetown is a decent school district. Do they have a board policy that specifies how large they will allow their surplus to become and have a policy on how they will spent it? Maybe other districts can learn from yours!

I appreciate the source of the data, as I spend way too much time in the mires of state education and higher education data. It’s what I do for a living. And I promise that no teacher or principal would ever want me on their board. God knows my experience has me agreeing with other comments about how many administrators in Rutledge tower (and Richland 1) we could easily dismiss and never, ever miss.

My comments are more about lumping all districts together into one large mess. Most of the establishment is so afraid of calling out districts that don’t work that it’s easy to lump all 86 districts into either a complete fraudulent system or, to hear others talk, models of progress. Have you checked? There’s no education research at any level (except the rare project) and no – ZERO – accountability at any K-16 level.

My parents were and are teachers. Most days I’m surprised they still speak to me because the WALL of teacher protection is deeper and stronger than anything the police force could conjure. NO teacher will ever call another teacher bad — not a one. So yes, we need transparency. Yes, we need better data (and I’m working on that). Yes, we need to fire people.

Let’s propose some solutions instead of simply complaining — real solutions. All I’m sayin’ is that perhaps our time has come to get something accomplished for real.

To stop carrying forward budget surpluses is a very bad idea. It promotes spending for spending’s sake. And that is not responsible. Just like we carry forward money in our checking accounts, so should they. But they should be tranparent and communicate their reasoning. IT FOSTERS MISTRUST TO NOT COMMUNICATE.

I support the GCSD’s surplus because the reasoning for carrying it is sound. The economy is tourist based and surplus was built intentiionally to carry forward through lean years. Just a couple months ago, there was a long cover story in the local news about the district plans to use to the surplus to keep from raising taxes, or making cuts, in the wake of funding cuts. They also are implementing energy reduction plans and other means to cut expenses without affecting the students. This is responible and reasonable.

1. In order to have an increased balance in your district’s operating account after all bills have been paid they have either been under-valuing the mil when preparing their budgets so that when the tax monies come in, based on the mil’s actual value, the district collects more money than is needed and ends up with surplus cash; or the district over-states expenses in their budget so when the actual expenses are less… they reap another surplus; or they just plain mis-calculated; or maybe they really were frugal. (I’ll give any district credit for being frugal but not for the objective of creating a slush fund year after year without the taxpayers knowledge.) Like Sic said, this slush fund increased by 75% to almost three- quarter billion dollars in the matter of just a few years. That’s a whole lot more than just being frugal and it sure would be a heck of a lot of “mis-calculations”. We’ve basically been over-taxed millions and millions to create this slush fund.

2. According to Sic’s report, our district carries a huge fund balance, yet they still scream that there isn’t enough money to buy paper. Ha! What are they saving for – a new school?? If they’re saving for a new school, shouldn’t the public be told that that is why we’re being over-taxed??

Catherine, I don’t think people would be opposed to a small fund balance but once that amount is reached, anything collected over and above that should be applied towards the next year as revenue — or give it back to the taxpayers. $700,000 million is ridiculous!

And BIN, yes it may legal to have a reasonable fund balance, but not all laws are good or are carried out as they were intended. This one needs to shored up since they are allowed to “squirrel” our money away but not required to spend it. And when they want to spend it, they can spend it on anything. I don’t know why they bother to go through the effort of having budget hearings for the public but fail to tell the whole story — especially the part about the their plans for the “unbudgeted” millions.

The source for this data is the S.C. Department of Education and our state’s 85 school districts.

-FITS