Cash Money, District By District
South Carolina will spend an average of $11,242 per child on the nation’s worst system of public education – or nearly $3,000 more per child than North Carolina.
Of course, less than half of that money will actually make it to the classroom.
This grand total of $7.7 billion – that’s right, $7.7 billion – excludes local bond revenues. It also doesn’t factor in the estimated $800 million that South Carolina school districts currently have tucked away in reserve accounts.
Amazing, huh?
These people have more money than God, and yet there’s always some new excuse for why they’re chronically failing our kids.
Anyway, our friends over at The Voice have an excellent post up this week that breaks down South Carolina education funding district-by-district, funding source-by-funding source.
Seriously, it’s the most extensive compilation of current funding data we’ve ever seen.
Check it out, and see how your local district stacks up …
WEB EXTRA
Comments
By Toyota Kawaski on July 10th, 2009 at 8:24 am
Yesah Mr.Rich right away Sir’s
By just another joe on July 10th, 2009 at 9:10 am
My kid goes to Airport High in Lexington SD 2. This year they are charging a $50 enrollment fee. Forgot what the fee is for middle school. For elementary schools in the district the fee is $15 per child. If someone could come up with enrollment numbers by school it would be easy for a person educated out of state to do the math. Anyway the figures given for Lexington SD 2, and any other district that extorts enrollment fees, by “the Voice” should be adjusted upwards.
By fitsnews on July 10th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
TK-
They’re numbers. Numbers, man.
Seriously, give it a rest.
-FITS
By Millage on July 11th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Maybe Kawaski has some stimulus money to go waste somewhere.
I hear SCEA and SCASA will be at that trough.
By BIN News Editorial Staff on July 11th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
T.K. “They are numbers. Numbers man.” Twisted and manipulated numbers from sic(k) willie and the other voucher clown doing Howie’s bidding.
T.K., you and our Funding Editor know perfectly well that sic(k) willie will pimp any information to attack public education. That’s why we always come back to referring to sic(k) willie as the “ignorant slut” that he is. :)
By TBrown on July 11th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
There are too many principals, Assistant principals and administrative Assistants (another title for an assistant principal) One of the elementary schools in Lex 5 has an unmarried pregnant one. I wonder what this example is setting for the students and how their teachers will answer questions about that birth. The super and a principal get fired for having an affair but having kids out side of marriage is just fine for this district. It is very confusing. I think we could save some money and lower class sizes by hiring teachers back if some of these top people were let go.
By BIN News Editorial Staff on July 12th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
TBrown sounds like a very confused voucher clown who can’t decide whether to attack public education in general or just grind a personal axe against one school district.
By Full of It on July 13th, 2009 at 9:10 am
Sic,
I love you site but you are so full of it when it comes to this issue. I am a diehard fiscal conservative but the truth of the matter is, if there is one area (ONE AREA) that must be an arm of the government, it is education. EVERY child deserves the benefit of a publicly funded education that is done right. Do not misunderstand me, we need a major overhaul of the PUBLIC SYSTEM. BUT, we do not need Rich’s voucher BS.
Let me explain my worry. Being a person who survived public education in one of the poorest public school districts in one of the most rural counties in South Carolina, I have a different perspective from those in larger towns and cities where private education would be an option under the voucher system.
We have ONE, ONE “private” school in a thirty mile radius of our county. It is locate in the county and has about 85 pupils in K-12. It is nothing more than an alternative school for those who are “released” from public schools.
What people in larger towns where private schools are a “voucher/tax credit” option is that this will NOT save our small school districts. Imagine this – our one private school option has to ship their children over to the public high school for all the AP, honors, tech prep courses. It is no viable option for the use of “vouchers”.
SO, then who takes advantage of the credits? It is those who are not already sending their children on the 40 minute to an hour journey to private schools in other counties but have a dependable vehicle and a relative who can make sure their child gets there and back each day without taking away from their employment. Who will not be able to take advantage of the vouchers in any meaningful way? Those lower socio-economic (mostly minority) students and their parents who need the most rescueing. They have no dependable transportation or means to pay gas, uniform fees, books fees, etc. to get their children to those private schools that are actually better than the one private school in our county and are 40 minutes to an hour away!
End result: 1) the few middle class parents who are involved in the public schools in my county are pushed over the hump to get their children out. There goes the school volunteers, volunteer coaches, PTA members, Booster Club members, etc. 2) local support for the district schools goes down b/c no ties anymore 3) no means to take advantage of the “free market competition” and new source of revenue to develop a newer alternative to public schools within the county that will be able to offer any of the advantages that our poor high school can manage to offer such as the tech prep (shop, CAD, etc. classes), band, drama, AP course, Honors courses, etc. because of our lower population and zero sources of private backing for a new private school in the county.
4) THOSE WHO ARE ALREADY LEFT THE FURTHEST BEHIND GET LEFT EVEN FURTHER BEHIND AND SUFFER EVEN MORE!
Sic, I’m begging you to tell me where I am wrong and how the proposed Put Parent’s First legislation will save our struggling county and, most importantly, will save those of the lowest socio-economic levels from the education system we currently have in force.
If this is a better alternative, please tell me why and I swear I will become one of the most vocal supporters. After all, a great education is the one thing that we as a society do have a duty to make sure that ALL students receive.
By baker on July 13th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Yes, the numbers in all this can be funny — like the misleading but oft-repeated claim suggesting that less than half of the money spent in our public schools goes to legitimate educational activities.
Full of It — You pointed out quite a few of the practical concerns to making private school choice a viable, realistic help for SC’s poorest students. But for these hardliners, I don’t think practical and realistic hurdles mean much. The ideology or the rose-colored glasses or whatever is too strong. Case in point: Mark Sanford comparing the reality of things in Milwaukee to rural SC — very different situations.
By Ron on July 13th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
WASHINGTON, DC – The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the nation’s largest bipartisan membership association of state legislators, issued its fifth Report Card on American Education: A State-by-State Analysis on Jan. 26. The study includes data from 1976 through 1998, and grades each state based on over 100 measures of educational resources and achievement.
Data from the most recent school year studied (1996-97) show no statistically evident correlation between educational performance and per-pupil expenditures or teacher salaries. While spending for education increased 51% between 1976-1998, academic performance declined or stagnated. ALEC uses as an example the fact that SAT scores rose only 1.6% during this period, and points to the “tremendous” growth of charter schools, with their typically higher-than-average scores, to indicate that “improving student achievement is not based on dollars spent, schools constructed, or even the number of teachers hired.”
By Ron on July 13th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
THE REAL COST OF PUBLIC EDUCATION
by Andrew Coulson
We’re often told that public schools are underfunded. In the District of Columbia, the spending figure cited most commonly is $8,322 per child, but total spending is close to $25,000 per child — on a par with tuition at Sidwell Friends, the private school Chelsea Clinton attended in the 1990s.
What accounts for the nearly threefold difference in these numbers? The commonly cited figure counts only part of the local operating budget. To calculate total spending, we have to add up all sources of funding for education from kindergarten through 12th grade, excluding spending on charter schools and higher education. For the current school year, the local operating budget is $831 million, including relevant expenses such as the teacher retirement fund. The capital budget is $218 million. The District receives about $85.5 million in federal funding. And the D.C. Council contributes an extra $81 million. Divide all that by the 49,422 students enrolled (for the 2007-08 year) and you end up with about $24,600 per child.
For comparison, total per pupil spending at D.C. area private schools — among the most upscale in the nation — averages about $10,000 less. For most private schools, the difference is even greater.
By Ron on July 13th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Supremacist Judges Are Running Our Schools
by Phyllis Schlafly Jan. 26, 2005
Traditionally Republican Kansas, of all places, is the latest battleground in the judges’ grab for supremacy over the other branches of government. The Kansas judges are unmoved by the fact that Kansans voted for President Bush who campaigned against activist judges.
On the first court day of the New Year, the Kansas Supreme Court ordered the Kansas legislature to appropriate more money for the public schools. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, Kansas spends $8,206 per pupil per year, but the judges said the state must spend much more to give schoolchildren the “suitable” education which the state constitution guarantees.
The Montoy v. Kansas decision implied that the state must spend an additional $850 million or more annually on public schools. The court then suspended its final order to goad the legislature to raise taxes by a court-imposed deadline of April 12.
Since when do judges tell legislatures what laws to pass and what taxes to levy? If any governmental function is (or should be) a legislative function, it is imposing taxes and spending the citizens’ money.
The Kansas judges cowardly issued their decision unsigned so the voters cannot hold any particular one politically accountable. Kansas citizens should vote them all out of office the first time they get the opportunity.
Without any national media coverage, litigating lawyers and supremacist judges have been using the judiciary to take control of the public schools. In the last 18 months, more spending has been ordered by state supreme courts in Kansas, New York, North Carolina and Montana, and by trial judges in Massachusetts and Texas.
Public schools in 24 states are facing lawsuits from special-interest groups trying to get activist judges to order the taxpayers to spend more money on schools, which can come only from higher taxes. Courts are micromanaging schools, telling them how much money to spend and on what, right down to making decisions about computers and textbooks.
By baker on July 13th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
Interesting stuff, Ron. Thanks for sharing all that.
Regarding the first post, I do not doubt that more spending doesn’t necessarily correlate with higher test scores, etc. But this is a complex issue. For one thing, how about an apples-to-apples comparison? Does this study by “ALEC” compare inner city districts with each other? Or poor rural districts with each other? It certainly does not cost as much to educate kids who show up to school prepared to learn and who have ample enrichment from home. A suburban district could probably spend much less than an urban district and show better “results” most every time.
Secondly, the study cites charter schools, not private school choice. In any case, there is a wide range of possible reform and innovation in the public system that doesn’t involve more spending.
Regarding the Andrew Coulson column, I honestly do not trust his numbers. We’ve seen how Cato Institute imitators in South Carolina have distorted numbers….
Coulson does a fine job of pointing out that public school spending involves costs such as capital projects and retirement benefits. But don’t private schools have similar costs? His “10,000 dollars” figure, I would guess, refers to tuition paid by parents. But what about fundraising efforts? What about endowments that fund teacher benefits or building plans? I’m not convinced that Coulson is putting private school spending through the same depth of analysis as he is public schools.
One might say, “Well, endowments and fundraising come from discretionary gifts — not tuition, and not taxes. With public school funding, we’re looking at FORCED payments from taxpayers.” True enough. But if it’s a fact that full funding for private schools goes well beyond tuition, then I would say this assumes that if vouchers or tax credits lead to the creation of new private schools, similar levels of private charitable funding are going to occur in order to make those new schools (for the poor) actually viable.
Further, Coulson points to capital spending — Does he assess all the various ways in which the public uses school facilities? He counts that money toward per pupil spending, but does he acknowledge that public school facilities are often used by communities for meetings, voting, recreation, etc.?