S.C. Superintendent of Education Jim Rex and his army of educrats have been bemoaning so-called “budget cuts” for years, but raw fiscal data released this week by the S.C. Budget and Control Board shows that South Carolina’s public schools are (once again) getting more money than ever before.
In fact, according to a report released by the Board’s Office of Research and Statistics, public schools received a total of $8.8 billion dollars in 2009 – a $400 million increase in funding from the previous year. That works out to a record $12,268 per pupil – and that figure doesn’t even include funding obtained through bond referendums or cash stored away in reserve accounts.
All told, S.C. taxpayers spent 4.7 percent more on public education in 2009 than they did in 2008. Last year’s increase – which also took place during one of the worst economic years on record – was 4.5 percent.
To view the data for yourself click here.
As was the case a year ago, increases in non-classroom expenditures are once again eating up the vast majority of the new money. In fact, the percentage of total education funding devoted to the classroom slipped from 44.3 to 43.8 percent – even as classrooms received $105 million in new money.
Now … what have Palmetto taxpayers received for this massive investment (most of which went to fund new layers of bureaucracy)?
Well, South Carolina’s public education system has continued to produce nothing but incremental gains among white students while relegating another generation of black students to second-class status – even as black “leaders” continue embracing the failed status quo.
South Carolina’s overall graduation rate remains among the worst in the nation – which is consistent with our state’s declining SAT and stagnating ACT scores. Also, South Carolina’s rural graduation rate ranks dead last in the country. Meanwhile, our overall graduation rate has improved by a meager 1.5 percent over the last decade – one of the worst percentage improvements in the entire country.
In an effort to hide these miserable outcomes from parents, Rex and his fellow educrats (along with House Speaker Bobby Harrell and “Republican” lobbyist J. Warren Tompkins) have been working hard to dumb down the state’s costly and inefficient academic assessments. Also, South Carolina remains the only state in America that does not release graduation rates for minority students – yet another effort to conceal the generational failure of our current system.
Worse still? Neither GOP gubernatorial nominee Nikki Haley nor Democratic gubernatorial nominee Vincent Sheheen are committed to the reforms necessary to turn things around. In fact, both have released education “reform” plans that largely tinker around the edges of these chronic problems (for more on those proposals, click here and here).
WEB EXTRA
District-By-District Breakdown
***
By Travis October 12, 2010 at 4:52 pm
Sen Sheheen wants to give them more money and Rep Haley wants to change the way part of their check gets cut.
Neither the democrat nor the republican candidate is talking seriously about the real issue of translating the money in to student outcomes – not once will either mention classroom achievement in their stump speech or on tv.
By eggaday October 12, 2010 at 5:03 pm
just keep pumping money in it… that oughta work.
YEAH RIGHT
By Alphonse October 12, 2010 at 5:45 pm
I eagerly anticipate the rising test scores.
By baker October 12, 2010 at 6:54 pm
Well, I haven’t gone through the entire Budget and Control Board report. But a quick look indicates that STATE funding for education was, in fact, down last year.
It would appear that federal stimulus money propped up education funding.
Moreover, Will claims the numbers do not include revenues from bond revenues, but I’m not so sure. In Anderson County, for example, there was a tremendous increase in revenue on that line. The B&CB reported that money as part of Anderson’s school funding, if I’m not mistaken.
Did Will actually go through the entire report and subtract out — county by county — bond money?? Or is a correction of the facts in order?
By Lewis October 12, 2010 at 8:07 pm
It’s been proven over and over in SC, the system is top heavy. Wander into the guidance department of the esteemed AC Flora High School and find me one person that knows anything about education, colleges, students or committment to improving the plight of SC’s students’ educations.
By BIN News Editorial Staff October 13, 2010 at 1:47 am
To(xic) willie, you “ignorant slut.” You are noting but a voucher pimp. Bought and paid for by voucher clowns.
You know that brazillions of teachers in SC have been laid off due to the sour economy and the bone headed tax swap that took away public education’s more stable funding system.
Yet you still regurgitate voucher scam rhetoric widout any care in the world for the real issues facing public education.
You know about the real funding problems and the real poverty issues and the brazillions of social issues that go along.
You know that Howie’s voucher scam would only leave those who need help the more even further behind.
By Sharon October 13, 2010 at 6:36 am
we are top heavy with administrators and district administrators and area advisory boards.We have middle school administrators at the disctrict level. area administrators, assistant administrators. the money needs to be attached to the CHILD. to be utilized either in public school or to pay for private school. If they(SC) are spending $12,000 per pupil then why are students forced to fund raise to pay for a CLASS such as Band? You don’t see gym students rasing money to pay for basketballs or gym floors yet our students are forced to pay for a class becasue it does not invlove a ball. Students and parents are forced to supply paper towels and toilet paper. while ourschool baords are giving prinicipals private facilites installed for their personal use. We need teachers,classrooms supplies better facilities in some cases. Not private bathrooms and 3 middle school adminstrators of curriculum on the district level.We do NOT need more administrators or standardized tests. We need discipline in the schools not credit recovery programs.Bring back vocational training for the special needs kids or kids in alternative school so they can learn a trade( such as masonry or furniture refinishing) No we would rather they disrupt class and refuse to do any work because they have “right” to be in that classroom.Why should we help them by teaching them something useful?Coloring in a book is much better than teaching them a trade they can become productive members of society. We need a serious reorganization of our school system.Starting at the TOP. We have AD’s making over 100,000 a year and we cant buy 20,000 worth of musical instrumetns for our kids? We need to require school uniforms for ALL SCHOOLS. Studies show it helps prevent bullying and creates a better stmospher for learning. Europe is kicking our tails in math and science. Why? because they introduce algebra and advanced math at a earlier grade level. They aslo introduce music,not a lady going room to room with a harpsicord but students playing an instrument suchas violin. How many studies do we need to show that music improves math and science scores?yet we fund 5 gym teachers to one band teacher and no instrument funding at all. We teach the SAME math for 8 years. WHY? after all, they way we are doing things now seems to be working so well for our state It is time we had a complete overhaul of our educational system, everything from the adminsitrators to curiculum needs to be changed, until that occurs we will continue to rank dead last.
By FunkyChicken October 13, 2010 at 7:53 am
Slick Willie’s kid must need a new pair of shoes. Howie Rich send that man another check, so Willie can keep the lies coming.
By Sports Fan October 13, 2010 at 8:42 am
The sad thing is that there are private schools out there that would result in ten times a better education for children and the costs would be half as much. Typical government twice the cost and half the results.
By baker October 13, 2010 at 9:22 am
OK, Sports Fan, I hope you will talk with the folks at Hammond Academy about taking some of Columbia’s most struggling students.
By fitsnews October 13, 2010 at 9:24 am
Yes, yes … a state agency releases data, we publish that data and somehow Howie Rich is to blame.
Makes perfect sense.
-FITS
P.S. – We hear that Sic’s little girl does have a bit of a shoe fetish, though.
By baker October 13, 2010 at 9:45 am
Will, speaking of the state agency, any word on the bond revenues in this piece? I think they are pretty clearly part of the Budget and Control Board report.
Also, again, state funding was down in just about every district. Stimulus federal money appears to be holding things together.
By FunkyChicken October 13, 2010 at 11:27 am
Slick Willie,
Do you accept money from Howard Rich, SCRG, or the many companies he has created to skirt South Carolina law? I look forward to your answer.
By baker October 13, 2010 at 2:21 pm
I’ve been looking back at some of the numbers again.
As I suspected, Will’s reporting appears to be full of mistakes and misleading data. Did Randy Page supply this “analysis”? Seems like he usually does — and that his work contains errors or efforts to misrepresent the facts.
A couple of examples:
1. Anderson County — Will links to a district-by-district breakdown (it’s actually each county, not necessarily each district) that claims Anderson County schools spent only 49% of their money last year on “instruction”…..only about $153 million out of a total of $312 million.
But on the non-instruction side, Will has included $60 million on debt service, purchase of land, and construction — even though his blog post claims that bond referendums are taken out of the funding side of the equation. This is clearly misleading. Moreover, costs such as construction are not year-by-year recurring costs; nor are they “administrative” in nature. (Not to mention, by the way, that if these were monies approved through referendum, then the voters gave their explicit approval.)
2. Calhoun County — Will’s link cites a shameful 23% of its expenditures going to construction. The “educrats” must be out of control in Calhoun County, right?!?!
Well, according to the Budget and Control Board, that district actually spent about $1 million more on instruction than administration ($10.8 to 9.4 million). Both of those categories, in case Will or anyone is interested, were down from the previous year.
The kicker comes in purchase of land and facility construction — some $20.7 million. Once again, this is money Will’s original post suggests isn’t part of the story.
I did a little research and learned that Calhoun County recently closed 2 K-8 schools and are combining them into one. A new building was built because both the old ones were in terrible shape. It may have cost more to renovate the old one. Additionally, going to just one school should probably cut overhead costs, saving the district additional money.
So, maybe the folks in Calhoun aren’t so irresponsible after all.
Perhaps Will should review his facts and assertions and see if he can come up with something a little closer to the truth.
By FunkyChicken October 13, 2010 at 3:31 pm
He has done this before as well Baker. Character and integrity are not Folks’ strong suit.
By baker October 13, 2010 at 6:08 pm
Greenwood County is another great example:
Will points his readers to a chart saying they only spent about 30% — pretty dismal, right?
But, then, the actual numbers show that Greenwood is spending about $10 million more on the instructional side than in administration. As in Calhoun, the big non-instructional issue is money going to debt service and construction. Turns out that there is a new Ninety-Six High School and something-or-other middle school under construction currently.
Is Will saying that new buildings shouldn’t be built? I guess districts may leave perfectly decent buildings behind in some cases — in others, I’m guessing they’re moving out of truly dates buildings. And if it was actually a referendum, is Will saying the people of a community shouldn’t get together and vote on a new building?
Well, either way, any suggestion that Greenwood “educrats” are hogging 70% of the dollars for their own purposes is way way off base.
But, you know, every couple months or so, Will posts one of these “reports” or an SCRG “analysis” or whatever. And I and others come along and correct blatant errors and falsehoods or generally put things in their proper perspective.
By baker October 13, 2010 at 7:55 pm
FunkyChicken — I will agree that Will is VERY squirrelly about this school district stuff.
But, to his credit, at least he allows opposing viewpoints (and facts that are obviously not in his favor). I think it’s actually pretty commendable.
Not as commendable as telling a more factual, truthful story to start with — but I’m impressed that he will let folks like us come here and give it right back to him.
By Magic Marker October 14, 2010 at 12:57 am
What is really amazing about the educrat commenters: they act as if the purchase of land or issuing bonds isn’t taxpayer money. As a home owner, you can bet your bottom dollar I take into account my mortgage every month and plan for it every year. The same is true for schools, county government or any government: you plan to pay the interest on your debts. Bond money should absolutely be included because it is not free money; the taxpayers (including home owners because bond money is still allowed on owner-occupied homes) will have to pay it back. It’s still school spending, any way you look at it. From some of the buildings that are being built, some contractors and architects are making a pretty penny off the taxpayers.
What’s more troubling about the data is look at FY 04 through FY 07: school districts collected more in revenue then they spent. The last two years they have spent more than they collected in revenue, but not anywhere near enough to exhaust the surpluses they accumulated during FY 04-07.
Where did all that money go?????? It sure as hell didn’t make it to the classroom and to teachers, but it did end up in the pockets of various district superintendents and assistant superintendents in the form of bonuses. If that isn’t a slap in the face to every teacher I don’t know what is. Bonuses for administrators while teachers are laid off! It’s criminal!
By Hmmmm October 14, 2010 at 8:11 am
At some point when do they say “enough is enough” do what you expect the rest of the citizens of SC to do. That is – do more with less money. Fix the problems and THEN we will give you an increase. Fix the SAT scores then you get “X” million more in next years budget. When you fix a problem you get more – rewarding performance.
I’ve worked in several state agencies including education. And when you get to the end of the fiscal year and you have money left over they go crazy with the spending, trips, new PCs, etc. They dont want to have money left over because if they do then the perception is they didnt need as much as they got the previous year.
So here is the idea – no more budget increases, no raises, and administrators take salary cuts, no trips to “a to de ta” conferences, until the problems with the education system is fixed. Want more money? Save what you have or earn it – like the rest of the people in SC. SC education system hasnt earned what they were given 10 years ago.
By baker October 14, 2010 at 8:45 am
I’m pretty sure surplus revenue doesn’t go to “bonuses” for superintendents. School districts have reserve funds — I would think that’s where leftover money goes, when they have it. Some think the reserve accounts are too large in some cases — others would argue that they amount simply to safe fiscal practices. Either way, it’s different from superintendents pocketing cash.
Two other points:
Yes, bond money and construction spending and like — it is real money. No one is saying it’s not. But the suggestion of Will’s post is that districts are getting more money — and then mis-spending it — through their regular budgets.
In many cases, construction money may be something districts began planning for 5-10 years ago. That would have been well before the current recession. And it’s a totally different stream of income from other money — from the state, feds, and local taxpayers — that can be used for standard, year-by-year, budgeting for instructional expenses.
This whole thing also skews the comparison between private school and public school spending. When Will says public schools are spending X Amount per student, that often gets to compared to the tuition fees at private school — maybe $7,000/year or $9,000/year or whatever. But on the public school side, these people are including construction and other capital expenses. On the private school side, they’re only including tuition dollars that go to instruction and administration.
So, of course the dollar figures assigned to private schools are less. But, they, too, have capital expenses. And that costs money — just like the public schools. But it comes out of endowments or fundraising campaigns, generally……not out of tuition, just like public school construction projects are not funded by instructional and administrative revenues.
It gets a little complicated, I know, but the deal is that people are often comparing apples to oranges when they look private school and public school spending.