Mis-Education
How the lottery would hurt our schools
The premise that a lottery will help education is flawed. The lottery will actually hurt North Carolina's education system. So-called "education lotteries" in other states have resulted in a weaker state education budget. If the only reason supporters give for wanting to start a lottery is that it provides more money for education, they have been misled by the gambling industry. If we really care about educating our children we won't ask our schools to bet their future on a proven loser. The best way to use the lottery to improve education in our public schools would be to use it as an example for math classes of bad odds.
A Money magazine study shows that as lottery sales increase, states begin to earmark less of the general fund for education. A St. Mary's College (Notre Dame University) study confirmed the fact that "states are likely to decrease their rate of spending for education upon operating lotteries designated for that purpose." In fact, Money said that states without lotteries actually spend a greater percentage of their budget on education than lottery states. For example, when Florida adopted the lottery, the state spent 60% of its budget on education; 5 years later it dropped to 51%. Before the lottery, voters approved 21 of 22 bond issues; after the lottery, they passed 3 of 15 bond issues and sales tax increases for education.
Since North Carolina has taken on the job of providing character education through our public schools, it simply does not make sense for the state to teach responsibility, perseverance, and good-judgment on one hand, while on the other hand to pick the pockets of the poor, threaten our family values, and endanger small businesses.
Education dollars drop with lottery
In Florida, before the lottery, the state spent 60% of its total budget on education. After the lottery, Florida spent 51% of its total budget on education. When Governing magazine evaluated the lottery they said, "...the state is merely playing a shell game, using lottery money to supplant general revenue funds for education, while the legislature reassigns those dollars to Medicaid, corrections, and social services."
Governing Magazine, January 1998
Even So-called "Model" Lotteries Fail to Deliver
"Under Georgia law, the lottery must pay the state 35 percent of sales revenues for education programs. However, for the past two years, the Georgia Lottery has been unable to meet the 35 percent requirement and has been forced to dip into reserve funds and also transfer funds from its unclaimed prizes account to make the mandatory payment to the state."
Peter Mantius, "Cash 3: Bad Bet for Georgia Lottery, For Second Year in a Row, Big Payouts to Winners of Popular Game Bring Shortfall for Education," The Atlanta Constitution-Journal, April 28, 1999, p. A1
Lotteries that Don't Deliver Create Political Dilemmas
New Mexico began a program of college scholarships through its state lottery. The AP reported that the scholarship program is costing more than the income that the lottery produces. Now there is pressure to raise taxes so that the state can continue to fund the scholarship program. The problem is that tuition is going up, and lottery income is flat with projected declines. The only other proposal is to reduce the amount of scholarship awards to a specific dollar amount or to a percent (as low as 25%) of tuition.
The Associated Press, December 1999.
Lottery Funds are Not Protected
"When expenditures on the earmarked purpose far exceed the revenues available from the lottery, as is the case with the general education budget, there is no practical way of preventing a legislature from allocating general revenues away from earmarked uses, thus blunting the purpose of the earmarking."
Clotfelter, Charles T., Philip J. Cook, Julie A. Edell, and Marian Moore, "State Lotteries at the turn of the century: Report to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission," Duke University, April 23, 1999, Page 21.
Lotteries Work Against State Character Education Initiatives
A Harvard University professor writes: "With states hooked on (lottery) money, they have no choice but to continue to bombard their citizens, especially the most vulnerable ones, with a message at odds with the ethic of work, sacrifice, and moral responsibility that sustains democratic life."
Michael Sandel, "The Hard Questions: Bad Bet," New Republic, March 10, 1997, p.27.
States with Lotteries Decrease Education Funding
"Lotteries are false promises for education. In fact, states are likely to decrease their rate of spending for education upon operating lotteries designed for that purpose...Regardless of when and where the lottery operated, education spending declined once the state put a lottery into effect...(our) study indicates that states without lotteries actually maintained and increased their education spending more so than states with lotteries."
Donald Miller & Patrick Pierce, "Lotteries for Education: Windfall or Hoax?" State and Local Government Review, Winter 1997, p. 40-41. (St. Mary's College, Notre Dame University)
Lotteries Make it Difficult for Schools to Raise More Money
Ohio State Representative Marc Guthrie said that having a lottery "creates the perception in the eyes of the public that the lottery provides a lot more for education than it does...it causes citizens to respond negatively to local efforts to raise revenue."
Laurel Walters, "Taking a Chance on Education," Christian Science Monitor, August 16, 1993, p. 9.
Before the lottery was instituted in Florida, voters approved 21 of 22 bond issues; after the lottery, they only approved 3 of 15 bond issues and tax increases for education.
Governing Magazine, January 1998
Lotteries Threaten Economic Growth
"It is probably not an exaggeration to say that the message of lottery advertising is a subversive one — that success lies in picking the right number. This perverse 'education' initiative being promulgated by the lottery agencies may have the ironic effect of reducing government revenues over the long run, by reducing economic growth."
Clotfelter, Charles T., Philip J. Cook, Julie A. Edell, and Marian Moore, "State Lotteries at the turn of the century: Report to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission," Duke University,April 23, 1999, Page 21.
The premise that a lottery will help education is flawed. The lottery will actually hurt North Carolina's education system. So-called "education lotteries" in other states have resulted in a weaker state education budget. If the only reason supporters give for wanting to start a lottery is that it provides more money for education, they have been misled by the gambling industry. If we really care about educating our children we won't ask our schools to bet their future on a proven loser. The best way to use the lottery to improve education in our public schools would be to use it as an example for math classes of bad odds.
A Money magazine study shows that as lottery sales increase, states begin to earmark less of the general fund for education. A St. Mary's College (Notre Dame University) study confirmed the fact that "states are likely to decrease their rate of spending for education upon operating lotteries designated for that purpose." In fact, Money said that states without lotteries actually spend a greater percentage of their budget on education than lottery states. For example, when Florida adopted the lottery, the state spent 60% of its budget on education; 5 years later it dropped to 51%. Before the lottery, voters approved 21 of 22 bond issues; after the lottery, they passed 3 of 15 bond issues and sales tax increases for education.
Since North Carolina has taken on the job of providing character education through our public schools, it simply does not make sense for the state to teach responsibility, perseverance, and good-judgment on one hand, while on the other hand to pick the pockets of the poor, threaten our family values, and endanger small businesses.
Education dollars drop with lottery
In Florida, before the lottery, the state spent 60% of its total budget on education. After the lottery, Florida spent 51% of its total budget on education. When Governing magazine evaluated the lottery they said, "...the state is merely playing a shell game, using lottery money to supplant general revenue funds for education, while the legislature reassigns those dollars to Medicaid, corrections, and social services."
Governing Magazine, January 1998
Even So-called "Model" Lotteries Fail to Deliver
"Under Georgia law, the lottery must pay the state 35 percent of sales revenues for education programs. However, for the past two years, the Georgia Lottery has been unable to meet the 35 percent requirement and has been forced to dip into reserve funds and also transfer funds from its unclaimed prizes account to make the mandatory payment to the state."
Peter Mantius, "Cash 3: Bad Bet for Georgia Lottery, For Second Year in a Row, Big Payouts to Winners of Popular Game Bring Shortfall for Education," The Atlanta Constitution-Journal, April 28, 1999, p. A1
Lotteries that Don't Deliver Create Political Dilemmas
New Mexico began a program of college scholarships through its state lottery. The AP reported that the scholarship program is costing more than the income that the lottery produces. Now there is pressure to raise taxes so that the state can continue to fund the scholarship program. The problem is that tuition is going up, and lottery income is flat with projected declines. The only other proposal is to reduce the amount of scholarship awards to a specific dollar amount or to a percent (as low as 25%) of tuition.
The Associated Press, December 1999.
Lottery Funds are Not Protected
"When expenditures on the earmarked purpose far exceed the revenues available from the lottery, as is the case with the general education budget, there is no practical way of preventing a legislature from allocating general revenues away from earmarked uses, thus blunting the purpose of the earmarking."
Clotfelter, Charles T., Philip J. Cook, Julie A. Edell, and Marian Moore, "State Lotteries at the turn of the century: Report to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission," Duke University, April 23, 1999, Page 21.
Lotteries Work Against State Character Education Initiatives
A Harvard University professor writes: "With states hooked on (lottery) money, they have no choice but to continue to bombard their citizens, especially the most vulnerable ones, with a message at odds with the ethic of work, sacrifice, and moral responsibility that sustains democratic life."
Michael Sandel, "The Hard Questions: Bad Bet," New Republic, March 10, 1997, p.27.
States with Lotteries Decrease Education Funding
"Lotteries are false promises for education. In fact, states are likely to decrease their rate of spending for education upon operating lotteries designed for that purpose...Regardless of when and where the lottery operated, education spending declined once the state put a lottery into effect...(our) study indicates that states without lotteries actually maintained and increased their education spending more so than states with lotteries."
Donald Miller & Patrick Pierce, "Lotteries for Education: Windfall or Hoax?" State and Local Government Review, Winter 1997, p. 40-41. (St. Mary's College, Notre Dame University)
Lotteries Make it Difficult for Schools to Raise More Money
Ohio State Representative Marc Guthrie said that having a lottery "creates the perception in the eyes of the public that the lottery provides a lot more for education than it does...it causes citizens to respond negatively to local efforts to raise revenue."
Laurel Walters, "Taking a Chance on Education," Christian Science Monitor, August 16, 1993, p. 9.
Before the lottery was instituted in Florida, voters approved 21 of 22 bond issues; after the lottery, they only approved 3 of 15 bond issues and tax increases for education.
Governing Magazine, January 1998
Lotteries Threaten Economic Growth
"It is probably not an exaggeration to say that the message of lottery advertising is a subversive one — that success lies in picking the right number. This perverse 'education' initiative being promulgated by the lottery agencies may have the ironic effect of reducing government revenues over the long run, by reducing economic growth."
Clotfelter, Charles T., Philip J. Cook, Julie A. Edell, and Marian Moore, "State Lotteries at the turn of the century: Report to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission," Duke University,April 23, 1999, Page 21.
