joe_momma
23rd July 2010, 12:48 PM
Oakland takes the cake (again) $12,000 per pupil, 35% of which pays teachers. The district has a dropout rate of 50% and (from my experience) most minority graduates cannot read or make change.
I think it was Rush who said that (old) GM was really a pension plan that made cars on the side.
Education in California is a jobs program for bureaucrats with daycare sideline.
http://blogs.investors.com/capitalhill/index.php/home/35-politicsinvesting/1911-calif-school-spending-soared-on-administrators
California School Spending Soared ... On Administrators
By Ed Carson
Thu., July 22, 2010 3:10 PM ET
Tags: Education - Spending - California
California schools, like the rest of state and local government, have pleaded poverty as the recession and housing bust abruptly ended the tax-revenue boom.
But a study of 52 California school districts by Pepperdine University showed that K-12 spending rose 21.9% from fiscal 2003-2004 to 2008-2009, outpacing state income growth and inflation.
On a per-student basis, spending jumped 25.8%, because attendance declined 3.1%. Even as budget woes hit California, per-student spending was flat at $9,875 in the latest year.
Not that all that money actually went to the students: Classroom expenditures as a share of total school spending fell to 57.8% from 59%. Less than half of school spending were for teacher salaries and benefits.
That means the billions of dollars in extra funding helped hire tens of thousands of new administrators to push papers, not grade them.
Certificated supervisors and administrators enjoyed a 28% pay hike per student over the five-year span. Pay for classified supervisors and administrators shot up 44% over that time.
Merely holding total 2007-2008 school spending growth — excluding teacher pay and capital outlays — to per capita income growth would have freed up $1.8 billion to pay for more than 22,000 teachers.
L.A. Unified, the mammoth, much-maligned school district, has the highest per-student spending at $13,732 of the 52 districts covered. But it spends just 41% of those funds on teachers, one of the lowest shares.
Oakland Unified, No. 2 in the study for per-pupil spending at $12,946, allots just 35% on teachers.
Compare that to the Temecula Valley district, in the desert country east of L.A., which spends 62% of its $7,665 per-pupil budget on teachers.
So, despite spending nearly $5,300 more per student, Oakland actually spends less on teachers ($4,531 per pupil) than Temecula ($4,752).
Study after study haves failed to show a correlation between school spending and test scores. The way L.A. and Oakland spend their budgets may offer one reason why.
In any case, the Pepperdine study shows the huge savings possible from paring back on administrators, supervisors and other non-classroom spending, especially for the largest, most expensive and worst-performing districts.
I think it was Rush who said that (old) GM was really a pension plan that made cars on the side.
Education in California is a jobs program for bureaucrats with daycare sideline.
http://blogs.investors.com/capitalhill/index.php/home/35-politicsinvesting/1911-calif-school-spending-soared-on-administrators
California School Spending Soared ... On Administrators
By Ed Carson
Thu., July 22, 2010 3:10 PM ET
Tags: Education - Spending - California
California schools, like the rest of state and local government, have pleaded poverty as the recession and housing bust abruptly ended the tax-revenue boom.
But a study of 52 California school districts by Pepperdine University showed that K-12 spending rose 21.9% from fiscal 2003-2004 to 2008-2009, outpacing state income growth and inflation.
On a per-student basis, spending jumped 25.8%, because attendance declined 3.1%. Even as budget woes hit California, per-student spending was flat at $9,875 in the latest year.
Not that all that money actually went to the students: Classroom expenditures as a share of total school spending fell to 57.8% from 59%. Less than half of school spending were for teacher salaries and benefits.
That means the billions of dollars in extra funding helped hire tens of thousands of new administrators to push papers, not grade them.
Certificated supervisors and administrators enjoyed a 28% pay hike per student over the five-year span. Pay for classified supervisors and administrators shot up 44% over that time.
Merely holding total 2007-2008 school spending growth — excluding teacher pay and capital outlays — to per capita income growth would have freed up $1.8 billion to pay for more than 22,000 teachers.
L.A. Unified, the mammoth, much-maligned school district, has the highest per-student spending at $13,732 of the 52 districts covered. But it spends just 41% of those funds on teachers, one of the lowest shares.
Oakland Unified, No. 2 in the study for per-pupil spending at $12,946, allots just 35% on teachers.
Compare that to the Temecula Valley district, in the desert country east of L.A., which spends 62% of its $7,665 per-pupil budget on teachers.
So, despite spending nearly $5,300 more per student, Oakland actually spends less on teachers ($4,531 per pupil) than Temecula ($4,752).
Study after study haves failed to show a correlation between school spending and test scores. The way L.A. and Oakland spend their budgets may offer one reason why.
In any case, the Pepperdine study shows the huge savings possible from paring back on administrators, supervisors and other non-classroom spending, especially for the largest, most expensive and worst-performing districts.