School Funding Facts

Below is an assortment of school funding facts that caught my attention:

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:

Comments

Anonymous said…
A question, if for example we have received money every year from I-728 to reduce class size, and for this school year have received $18.4 million, how much is needed exactly to reduce class size to what other urban districts enjoy?
Anonymous said…
Another thought- since we have received I-728 money since the initiative was passed 6 yrs ago?

Is the money going to where it is needed?
What was our class size then and what is it now?
Anonymous said…
These facts are terrible. Thank you for letting us be reminded of what we who believe in public schools are up against. "It is the funding at the State level, Stupid." To borrow a quote from the Bill Clinton campaign.
CS-Whittier Parent
Anonymous said…
I worry that providing numbers in isolation (e.g., $3000 at Rainier View vs $70-200K at other schools) can lead to conclusions that stigmatize PTAs and deepen the suspicion and resentment directed at the perceived "haves".

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 -
Beth Bakeman said…
Yes, let's ask Cathy Thompson and other principals what they need and want for their schools, and then let's follow through and deliver it.

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.
Beth Bakeman said…
Anonymous said: "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."

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.
Anonymous said…
Beth, I agree - we should talk about money and equity and parental involvement and academic achievement for all students - and changes to the status quo.

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?
Beth Bakeman said…
Thank you for your thoughtful response, Anonymous. It sounds like we are completely in agreement.

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?
Anonymous said…
Beth touched on an important point. The larger society may have different reasons to want to educate children. From a business perspective (and Bill Gates says this a lot), they need an educated populace to keep our economy going. But is it an education or training that they seek? It is useful to business to have well-trained employees but it is more useful to society to go beyond a specific training to a well-rounded citizen who can contribute beyond our economy to being a citizen who votes (and seeks to understand what is being voted on), who supports (and possibly contributes) to the arts, the environment, libraries; in short, all that make life livable beyond a paycheck.

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.
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said…
I recently read an article that showed that the "struggling" schools actually recieve more $$$ than do the wealthy schools. They recieve it via the Weighted student formula, compensatory education funding (LAP, Title 1), free/reduced rate lunch compensation, student achievement fund, grants etc. The article that I read compared two schools, one "struggling" school that recieved the extra SPS dollars but had no fundraising, and one wealthy school that recieved no extra dollars from SPS but had a large amount of fundraising ($200,000). When all of the funding was tallied up, the "struggling" school actually came out ahead, financially! If this is the case, then I understand why principals from the "struggling" schools are saying that they do not want $$$$.
Anonymous said…
As Beth notes, it takes more financial resources to enable academic achievement for some children, so it's no doubt appropriate for the struggling schools to have more money in total.

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).
Anonymous said…
I absolutely agree that it takes more financial resources to enable academic achievement for some children. The question is, if the schools that these children attend are recieving more money from the district than the wealthier schools recieve from both the district and fundraising combined, then is it appropriate to ask the wealthier schools to share their fundraising dollars?? I think that money helps, but I think the underachievement is also societal. Think about what the children from the middle class and wealthier communities recieve....excellent nutrition, exposure to culture&the arts, tutoring, summer programs and summer school, all types of extracurricular activity, a parent that sits down and does homework with them, parents that take time to find the "right" school for their child, etc etc etc etc. I am not convinced that any amount of money will change these circumstances. Will money help?? Of course. But it is only part of the big picture, that unfortunately, public schools can not and should not be expected to fix.
Anonymous said…
Please please please stop the myth that the weighted student formula works the way it was intended to add dollars to kids in need.

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?
Beth Bakeman said…
Here's the link Dorothy mentioned again, with a hyperlink to the page:

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.
Beth Bakeman said…
The first Anonymous asked some good questions about what has happened with the I-728 money.

Anyone know (or are able to find) the answers?
Anonymous said…
Thank you Beth for going back to this important issue. How can we find out where and how the I-728 money is being spent?? My 3rd grader is at Bryant, and he has 30 students in his class this year (they had 27 last year). His teacher tells me it is the largest class she has ever had! They are so cramped in the room that an adult has to walk sideways. Where is that money??? Frankie

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

Why the Majority of the Board Needs to be Filled with New Faces

First Candidates for Seattle School Board Elections 2023