School Funding Facts
Below is an assortment of school funding facts that caught my attention:
In Washington state:
In Washington state:
- $548 less is spent per student in public schools now than in 1992.
- 46th in the nation in class size
- 42nd in the nation in spending per student
In the US:
- The highest-poverty school districts receive an average of $825 less each year per student in state and local funding than the wealthiest districts.
And in Seattle:
- PTSA auctions at some schools raise $70,000 to $200,000. The Rainier View Elementary PTSA raises about $3,000 a year. And some schools Seattle schools don't have a PTSA at all.
If you can find the time, here are some interesting articles about school funding to read:
- Washington State School Finances: Does Every Child Count? by Washington State PTSA
- High standards 'meaningless' without adequate state funding by Washington Education Association
- Ample School Funding Project by Washington Association of School Administrators
- Time is now for new K-12 funding formula by Washington State School Directors' Association
- Take the Lead Washington, Washington Education Association
- Program Widens School Funding Gap, Report Says, Washington Post
- PTA plugs budget holes -- unevenly, Seattle PI
- Beyond Bake Sales, Edutopia magazine
Comments
Is the money going to where it is needed?
What was our class size then and what is it now?
CS-Whittier Parent
Someone from CACIEE asked Cathy Thompson (principal) at Rainier View if more money was what she needed, and her answer was no. I'm sure she wouldn't turn it away, but what she would probably take is the heightened parent involvement that is highly correlated with student achievement and with a large and active PTA, which in turn is highly correlated with higher fund-raising - and money alone can't replace that.
What we're talking about then are societal equity and poverty issues that are generations old and that Seattle Public Schools can't be expected to solve. There is the danger that we become, as a previous commenter said, like crabs in a bucket - please let's don't.
And let's ask Cathy Thompson, and other principals whether at schools in affluent neighborhoods or ones less so, what they need -
In fact, at the non-profit web site, School Kids Comes First, you can actually see what Cathy at Rainier View and other principals at other schools are asking for money for and donate money directly. The site charges a 15% "fulfillment" fee, so, if you object to that, you can always write your check to the school and send it in the old-fashioned way with no fee.
Go to Rainier View Elementary requests to see the list of items for which that school is looking for money.
Or go to All School Requests to see the list of funding requests for all schools.
I agree that Seattle Public Schools can't be expected to solve societal equity and poverty issues. But here's the question I would ask you and others:
- Should Seattle Public Schools try to be part of the solution of increasing equity and decreasing poverty?
If you answer "yes", then we need to talk about the possible policies and programs that could contribute to that positive change.
The other option is to say the problems are too big for schools to solve, so we shouldn't bother trying.
This touches a fundamental issue for me about the purpose of education. Do the people of Seattle believe in education as a tool for social change? Or in education to maintain the status quo and protect existing power and wealth?
If, as I suspect, most of us in Seattle want education to contribute to increasing equity and decreasing poverty, then what should we do?
If you don't believe in sharing some of PTSA fundraising across all schools, what do you believe would be effective in increasing equity?
It sounds like you believe Rainier View Elementary could benefit from additional volunteer hours. So what about sharing PTSA parents' time around the district, instead of their money?
Or, if you believe it is parental involvement, not just any adult involvement that makes a difference for a school, then we should consider income-based tie-breakers for enrollment to decrease the concentration of families living in poverty at a single school. When a school has a high number of parents who are working multiple jobs and many single-parent families, significant parental involvement at the school during the day is virtually impossible.
You suggest that we shouldn't talk about the differences in money and time that schools receive so that we don't "stigmatize PTAs and deepend the suspicion and resentment of the perceived 'haves'."
I strongly disagree. We need to face the inequities in our school district, discussing them frequently and loudly with accurate supporting data, so that we can begin to identify the changes we need to make to raise the achivement levels of all children.
Beth said: "You suggest that we shouldn't talk about the differences in money and time that schools receive so that we don't 'stigmatize PTAs and deepen the suspicion and resentment of the perceived 'haves'."
I would never say we shouldn't talk about the time, and I didn't say we shouldn't talk about the money, I said let's don't talk about PTA money in isolation - e.g., from district per student funding, from Powerful Schools, from grants, etc.
Perhaps I'm reading into your response an assumption that I'm against any kind of PTA-sharing - I'm not - of time or of money.
We should talk about it all - possibilities for sharing, the distribution of money, parent involvement, other adult involvement, the teacher seniority/experience inequity. board policies, state funding advocacy - everything.
Let's get it all out there - I just don't want to do it with the suggestion that the PTAs are the problem, or even part of the problem. These are hundreds and thousands of hard-working, well-meaning people (not always parents) who are doing work for thousands of children other than their own; who donate time and money to the Alliance, United Way, Powerful Schools, Schools First, and myriad non-profits that benefit children; who lobby legislators for funding reform; and who want to solve these problems as much as you do.
How does Pathfinder PTA handle all of this?
And, for the record, I think active PTSAs are a wonderful thing in any school district. But I am tired of hearing many, many parents say we shouldn't even discuss the idea of PTSA shared fundraising, which is what I perceived, incorrectly, in your message.
As a new parent at Pathfinder and one who lives pretty far from the school, I am not very active in the PTSA there yet. I do know that Pathfinder PTSA works hard to raise money for items the teachers and principals have identified. I don't know if they partner or share with other West Seattle PTSAs.
Any Pathfinder PTSA people reading the blog want to say more?
When I had been on the CAC, I had asked at each school I visited what would be the single thing that would help the school. I found that more of the struggling schools said more students (to bring up their numbers and bring in money) or more volunteers or a better building while the schools that were succeeding said money. I found that I wanted to get back to being in an elementary school helping kids and e-mailed a principal at a struggling school that I had visited who specifically said he could use more volunteers- twice - and asked if I could come and volunteer and I never received an answer. It's puzzling.
What would be interesting is to see someone's benchmarks of "what it takes" - for children living in poverty; English language learners; mildly or profoundly learning- or physically- disabled; typically-developing, etc - extend that out for every school based on its population, and compare to its current funding (including PTA and other private sources).
Please read the discussion in the comments on the Dec 26th 2006 post on Schools And PTA Fundraising.
Please read the article on the complexities of funding here:
http://www.schoolcommunities.org/Archive/portfolio/sbb.html
To the Anon commenter who just read an article comparing the $$$ at a struggling school vs a wealthy school. What article? Did it take into account actual salaries at each school or just the district average salaries? For the two schools, what is the average seniority of the teachers? How does it match the district average for teacher seniority?
First Steps to a Level Playing Field:
An Introduction to Student-Based Budgeting by School Communities that Work, a project of the Annenberg Institute of School Reform.
Anyone know (or are able to find) the answers?