SF Freedom School founder and author Kathy Emery's commentary on the Loeb, Grissom & Strunk study:District Dollars: Painting a Picture of Revenues and Expenditures in California's School Districts By Susanna Loeb, Jason Grissom, Katharine Strunk
This report is part of Getting Down to Facts: A Research Project to Inform Solutions to California’s Education Problems, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The James Irvine Foundation, and The Stuart Foundation.
(Emery's comments [below are within blocks] and CAPITALIZED):
From Conclusion:
We find that, although California has operated under a school finance equalization plan since the early-1970s, there is substantial variation in spending across California school districts. The causes of these spending differences are not readily apparent. [I THINK A GENERAL PROBLEM WITH THIS ANALYSIS IS THAT IT IS TOO MUCH OF A BIRD’S EYE VIEW – DATA NOT DISAGGREGATED ENOUGH. NOT TO MENTION …..]
. . . . there are some concerns about the accuracy of LEA reporting. (p. 5)
FROM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Across all funds, the difference in total expenditures in a district at the 25th percentile of spending . . . the 75th percentile. . . . is more than $3,000 per student.
K-12 salaries constitute . . . 60 percent of student spending.
Urban districts, high school districts and districts with high proportions of black students or students in poverty have higher overall revenues than do other districts. Districts with the highest proportion of black, Hispanic or poor students spend the most on special education overall and the highest percent of special education spending on severely disabled students. [BUT THIS SPENDING IS MOSTLY RESTRICTED WHEREAS RICH DISTRICTS SPEND MORE OVERALL BECAUSE THEY CAN RAISE PRIVATE FUNDING – NOT REALLY CALCULATED BY THIS REPORT--, WHICH THEY CAN THEN CONTROL ON WHAT IT IS SPENT – A DOUBLE WHAMMY IF YOU WILL FOR POOR DISTRICTS]
Ninety-two percent of teachers in California districts are fully credentialed
Controlling for inflation, California school districts are spending approxim ately 40 percent more now than they were ten years ago. This ten-year expenditure gain is especially pronounced for high poverty and small districts.
FROM BODY OF REPORT:
basic aid [RICH PEOPLE’S SUBURBAN] districts spend $14,160 per student on average while non-basic aid districts spend only $10,475, a 35 percent difference. P. 54
spending on capital outlay and facilities and on debt services are the largest non-student spending categories for districts . . . these come mostly from funds other than the general fund. (p. 12)
Accounting for inflation, between 1995 and 2004. … Mean total spending per student increased from a low of $5,329 in 1995 to a high of $7,463 in 2004.. . growth occurred relatively uniformly among the poverty groups . . . . growth in capital outlay expenditures comprised a significant portion of total expenditure growth over this time period. . . . for some groups capital growth has offset declines in operational spending in the most recent years.
Mean current district spending on retiree benefits is small, at only $86 per ADA, though
there are a few large outliers. However, . . . Many California school districts have contractually promised their teachers generous health and welfare benefits upon retirement,. .. . . Many districts have not put sufficient funds away to cover these future expenses. (p. 12)
With an average of $1,409 per ADA, employee benefits cost districts, almost 30% of the cost of K- 12 salaries. (p. 16)
[there is greater variation per district in non-student spending than in student spending]
Average total expenditures per pupil is $10,586 when including spending from all funds and $7,380 using spending from the general fund only as CDE does in its reports on school spending.
Interestingly, districts, on average, spend about two-thirds of their total expenditures on “services and operating expenditures” on professional consulting and other operating expenditures, . . . there is likely a wide variation (8-9 percent of ADA spending) in spending on this category (p. 17)
there is substantial variation in spending on regular K-12 education. . . .
Districts spend, on average, $10/ADA on vocational ed. California spends, on average, $64/ADA on bilingual ed. . . . substantial variation in spending on bilingual students.
On students with exceptional needs who are assigned IEPs. California spends, on average, $1,035/ADA . . . fairly substantial variation in this category. (p. 21)
most districts don’t spend money on child care (p. 21)
This report is part of Getting Down to Facts: A Research Project to Inform Solutions to California’s Education Problems, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The James Irvine Foundation, and The Stuart Foundation.
(Emery's comments [below are within blocks] and CAPITALIZED):
From Conclusion:
We find that, although California has operated under a school finance equalization plan since the early-1970s, there is substantial variation in spending across California school districts. The causes of these spending differences are not readily apparent. [I THINK A GENERAL PROBLEM WITH THIS ANALYSIS IS THAT IT IS TOO MUCH OF A BIRD’S EYE VIEW – DATA NOT DISAGGREGATED ENOUGH. NOT TO MENTION …..]
. . . . there are some concerns about the accuracy of LEA reporting. (p. 5)
FROM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Across all funds, the difference in total expenditures in a district at the 25th percentile of spending . . . the 75th percentile. . . . is more than $3,000 per student.
K-12 salaries constitute . . . 60 percent of student spending.
Urban districts, high school districts and districts with high proportions of black students or students in poverty have higher overall revenues than do other districts. Districts with the highest proportion of black, Hispanic or poor students spend the most on special education overall and the highest percent of special education spending on severely disabled students. [BUT THIS SPENDING IS MOSTLY RESTRICTED WHEREAS RICH DISTRICTS SPEND MORE OVERALL BECAUSE THEY CAN RAISE PRIVATE FUNDING – NOT REALLY CALCULATED BY THIS REPORT--, WHICH THEY CAN THEN CONTROL ON WHAT IT IS SPENT – A DOUBLE WHAMMY IF YOU WILL FOR POOR DISTRICTS]
Ninety-two percent of teachers in California districts are fully credentialed
Controlling for inflation, California school districts are spending approxim ately 40 percent more now than they were ten years ago. This ten-year expenditure gain is especially pronounced for high poverty and small districts.
FROM BODY OF REPORT:
basic aid [RICH PEOPLE’S SUBURBAN] districts spend $14,160 per student on average while non-basic aid districts spend only $10,475, a 35 percent difference. P. 54
spending on capital outlay and facilities and on debt services are the largest non-student spending categories for districts . . . these come mostly from funds other than the general fund. (p. 12)
Accounting for inflation, between 1995 and 2004. … Mean total spending per student increased from a low of $5,329 in 1995 to a high of $7,463 in 2004.. . growth occurred relatively uniformly among the poverty groups . . . . growth in capital outlay expenditures comprised a significant portion of total expenditure growth over this time period. . . . for some groups capital growth has offset declines in operational spending in the most recent years.
Mean current district spending on retiree benefits is small, at only $86 per ADA, though
there are a few large outliers. However, . . . Many California school districts have contractually promised their teachers generous health and welfare benefits upon retirement,. .. . . Many districts have not put sufficient funds away to cover these future expenses. (p. 12)
With an average of $1,409 per ADA, employee benefits cost districts, almost 30% of the cost of K- 12 salaries. (p. 16)
[there is greater variation per district in non-student spending than in student spending]
Average total expenditures per pupil is $10,586 when including spending from all funds and $7,380 using spending from the general fund only as CDE does in its reports on school spending.
Interestingly, districts, on average, spend about two-thirds of their total expenditures on “services and operating expenditures” on professional consulting and other operating expenditures, . . . there is likely a wide variation (8-9 percent of ADA spending) in spending on this category (p. 17)
there is substantial variation in spending on regular K-12 education. . . .
Districts spend, on average, $10/ADA on vocational ed. California spends, on average, $64/ADA on bilingual ed. . . . substantial variation in spending on bilingual students.
On students with exceptional needs who are assigned IEPs. California spends, on average, $1,035/ADA . . . fairly substantial variation in this category. (p. 21)
most districts don’t spend money on child care (p. 21)
p. 25 revenues.
Unrestricted resources make up approximately 65 percent of all district resources, with a per pupil average of $6,786 [with ABOUT A $2K VARIATION BETWEEN BOTTOM AND TOP QUARTILE]
No Child Left Behind Act Monies – per pupil -- Mean $432; bottom 25% $ 202; Median $390; top quartile $677
Districts with 250 students or more receive, on average, $300 per ADA for child nutrition $24 per ADA in staff development funds.
Urban districts receive significantly more NCLB funds than do other districts . . . Districts with the highest proportion of students enrolled in the free/ reduced price lunch program receive over five times the amount of NCLB revenues as do districts with the lowest proportions of free/ reduced price lunch students;
Restricted Resources make up the other approximately 35 percent of all district resources.
Districts receive, on average, $3,666 per student, with a large inter-quartile range between $2,463 and $7,361. . . . Of these restricted resources, the state supplies the most, with the local government providing less than half of what the state provides.
Federal restricted resources . . . an average of $1,017 per student. . . . The State . . . restricted resources. . with an average of $1,754 per student.
In addition to the local resources described above, many districts receive Contributions
. .. from parents and foundations. . . . It constitutes an average of $181 per student …[$78 --- $212 ]. . .While contributions to schools get substantial attention and are large in a small number of schools, ------- on average they only account for less than two percent of funds to schools percent of funds for operating expenditures.
$2,154 per pupil, or 21% of total resources in Local Taxes. . . There is substantial variation in local taxes, with one quarter of students in districts that receive less than $1,166 per student and another quarter in districts that receive more than $2,747 per pupil. Parcel Taxes are the main tax available at the district level for generating supplemental funds. . . . .no group of districts raises a high quantity of funds through the parcel tax. There are a few districts in the state that do, but these do not lead to large differences between groups.
Staff Development. . .. .approximately $24 per student in revenues.
urban and unified districts and districts with high percentages of black and Hispanic students and of students enrolled in the free or reduced price lunch program spend substantially more on consulting and operating expenditures than do other districts.
urban districts and districts with a high proportion of students in poverty. . . receive substantially more restricted revenues. . . than their counterparts. . . .. federal government ... contributes … approximately 25 percent of restricted funds and ten percent of total revenues.
p. 54
[Basic Aid districts exceed the pre-defined per-student revenue limit for each school district that specifies the maximum amount of base funding it receives. Basic aid districts are 10% of all districts] – they have a higher income population ($75,090 vs. $47,841 median household income), who are more highly educated (49.4 vs 23.1 percent college graduates).
basic aid districts spend $14,160 per student on average while non-basic aid districts spend only $10,475, a 35 percent difference.
Basic aid districts spend 107 percent more on capital outlay on average than do non-basic aid districts ($3,330 per student vs. $1,607 per student).
Accounting for inflation, between 1995 and 2004. … Mean total spending per student increased from a low of $5,329 in 1995 to a high of $7,463 in 2004.. . growth occurred relatively uniformly among the poverty groups . . . . growth in capital outlay expenditures comprised a significant portion of total expenditure growth over this time period. . . . for some groups capital growth has offset declines in operational spending in the most recent years.
With adjustments, Texas spends 12 percent more than California; Florida, 18 percent; New York, 75 percent, and the rest of the country, 30 percent.
California spends less on salaries than other states and this is driven by lower adult to student ratios.
One manifestation of lower spending in California is substantially fewer adults in the public education system in California than in other states. There are fewer teachers per student, fewer school administrators per student and fewer district administrators per school administrator.
Unrestricted resources make up approximately 65 percent of all district resources, with a per pupil average of $6,786 [with ABOUT A $2K VARIATION BETWEEN BOTTOM AND TOP QUARTILE]
No Child Left Behind Act Monies – per pupil -- Mean $432; bottom 25% $ 202; Median $390; top quartile $677
Districts with 250 students or more receive, on average, $300 per ADA for child nutrition $24 per ADA in staff development funds.
Urban districts receive significantly more NCLB funds than do other districts . . . Districts with the highest proportion of students enrolled in the free/ reduced price lunch program receive over five times the amount of NCLB revenues as do districts with the lowest proportions of free/ reduced price lunch students;
Restricted Resources make up the other approximately 35 percent of all district resources.
Districts receive, on average, $3,666 per student, with a large inter-quartile range between $2,463 and $7,361. . . . Of these restricted resources, the state supplies the most, with the local government providing less than half of what the state provides.
Federal restricted resources . . . an average of $1,017 per student. . . . The State . . . restricted resources. . with an average of $1,754 per student.
In addition to the local resources described above, many districts receive Contributions
. .. from parents and foundations. . . . It constitutes an average of $181 per student …[$78 --- $212 ]. . .While contributions to schools get substantial attention and are large in a small number of schools, ------- on average they only account for less than two percent of funds to schools percent of funds for operating expenditures.
$2,154 per pupil, or 21% of total resources in Local Taxes. . . There is substantial variation in local taxes, with one quarter of students in districts that receive less than $1,166 per student and another quarter in districts that receive more than $2,747 per pupil. Parcel Taxes are the main tax available at the district level for generating supplemental funds. . . . .no group of districts raises a high quantity of funds through the parcel tax. There are a few districts in the state that do, but these do not lead to large differences between groups.
Staff Development. . .. .approximately $24 per student in revenues.
urban and unified districts and districts with high percentages of black and Hispanic students and of students enrolled in the free or reduced price lunch program spend substantially more on consulting and operating expenditures than do other districts.
urban districts and districts with a high proportion of students in poverty. . . receive substantially more restricted revenues. . . than their counterparts. . . .. federal government ... contributes … approximately 25 percent of restricted funds and ten percent of total revenues.
p. 54
[Basic Aid districts exceed the pre-defined per-student revenue limit for each school district that specifies the maximum amount of base funding it receives. Basic aid districts are 10% of all districts] – they have a higher income population ($75,090 vs. $47,841 median household income), who are more highly educated (49.4 vs 23.1 percent college graduates).
basic aid districts spend $14,160 per student on average while non-basic aid districts spend only $10,475, a 35 percent difference.
Basic aid districts spend 107 percent more on capital outlay on average than do non-basic aid districts ($3,330 per student vs. $1,607 per student).
Accounting for inflation, between 1995 and 2004. … Mean total spending per student increased from a low of $5,329 in 1995 to a high of $7,463 in 2004.. . growth occurred relatively uniformly among the poverty groups . . . . growth in capital outlay expenditures comprised a significant portion of total expenditure growth over this time period. . . . for some groups capital growth has offset declines in operational spending in the most recent years.
With adjustments, Texas spends 12 percent more than California; Florida, 18 percent; New York, 75 percent, and the rest of the country, 30 percent.
California spends less on salaries than other states and this is driven by lower adult to student ratios.
One manifestation of lower spending in California is substantially fewer adults in the public education system in California than in other states. There are fewer teachers per student, fewer school administrators per student and fewer district administrators per school administrator.
For more on Emery's reseach - see her Education and Democracy website
No comments:
Post a Comment