Money Matters

The cancelled Work Session on the 2017-2018 budget is scheduled for tomorrow, Monday, April 3rd from 5:30-7:00 pm at JSCEE. 

(Immediately preceding it is the Curriculum & Instruction Policy committee meeting from 4:00-5:30 pm.  Agenda.)


Remember that Crosscut article that pointed out that the Senate GOP numbers were off?  The News Tribune finds another issue:
What has now become clear is that the education plan introduced by Senate Republicans doesn’t put as much new money into schools as GOP leaders would like people to believe.

Senate leaders have said their budget would put about $1.8 billion in new state money into K-12 schools in the next two years — a number that, on its surface, comes close to matching the $1.9 billion investment promised in a competing plan from House Democrats

But that Senate estimate of $1.8 billion doesn’t reflect the actual amount of new funding that would go to school districts under the GOP proposal.

Senate leaders now acknowledge that — after factoring in how their plan would reduce local dollars for schools — their approach would add significantly less than $1.8 billion to the state’s K-12 system in the next two years.
Two policy wonks, Barbara Billinghurst and Nancy Chamberlain, at the Washington's Paramount Duty Facebook page have really done yeoman's work on this issue.  Thank you! 

First up, Barbara Billinghurst (she has four valuable posts).

#1 Equity Results
Next, for each proposal and for each year, I cranked out how much funding went to a particular purpose, such as students in poverty, being careful to use the particular proposal’s formula rules and eligibility assumptions.

I calculated five such per pupil figures: guaranteed entitlement per pupil, per pupil funding for students in poverty, per pupil funding for students learning to speak English, per pupil funding for students needing special education services, and per pupil funding for highly capable students.

To do this I combined all the funding from one proposal that served the same purpose into one lump sum. Regardless of how a particular proposal determined student eligibility in generating this lump sum, I used the same number of eligible students in calculating each proposal’s per pupil funding for a particular purpose.

This procedure produced four comparable per pupil figures for each of the five student categories.
Here are the charts below.

Although there's much to say about these equity results, for now I'll focus on the per pupil funding for students in poverty.

Both the House and the Senate's proposals generate alarmingly low per pupil funding for students in poverty.

As a minimum, experts say we should at least target an additional 20% of the guaranteed amount to students in poverty. Some studies show a much larger weight should be given to students in poverty.
Here we find that the House's per pupil funding for students in poverty rises from $571 to $1,815 over the six year time span. This represents an increase in the student weight for poverty from 6.1% to 11.8%, still less than 20%.

The Senate's per pupil funding for students in poverty fares worse. It does increase from $741 per pupil to $854 per pupil over the six year time span. But the weight given to students in poverty falls off, going from 8.1% to 6.3%.

#2 Here are answers to some questions: 

1. Regarding per pupil calculations:
The funds for students in the categorical or targeted groups are not included in the guaranteed entitlement funding. The students in the guaranteed entitlement group represent the entire enrollment, all the students in K-6 elementary grades. Some of these students are in one or more of the targeted groups.

It works like this: This is an example, not real data.

Suppose all 100 students (S) in a district each get $10,000 and the 40 students in poverty (P) each get an additional $2000, the 30 students learning to speak English (E) each get an additional $2000, the 20 students needing special education (SE) services each get an additional $10,000, and the 5 students in the highly capable program (HC) each get an additional $1,500.

The formula for the total funding for the district is:

Total Funding = (100 * $10,000) + (40 * $2,000) + (30 * $2,000) + (20 * $10,000) + (5 * $1,500)
Total Funding = $1,000,000 + $80,000 + $60,000 + $200,000 + $7,500
Total Funding = $1,347,500
Total Number of Weighted Students =
= (100 * $10,000/$10,000) + (40 * $2,000/$10,000) + (30 * $2,000/$10,000) + (20 * $10,000/$10,000) + (5 * $1,500/$10,000)
= (100 * 1) + (40 * 0.2) + (30 * 0.2) + (20 * 1) + (5 * 0.15)
= 100 + 8 + 6 + 20 + 0.75
= 134.75

The Student Weighted Funding Formula =
= (S * 100% * per pupil guaranteed entitlement) + (P * 20% * per pupil guaranteed entitlement]) + (E * 20% * per pupil guaranteed entitlement) + (SE * 100% * per pupil guaranteed entitlement) + (HC * 100% * [per pupil guaranteed entitlement])

Showing just the student weights:
100% S + 20% P + 20% E + 100% SE + 15% HC

It works like this: This is an example, not real data.
So, if you want, you can figure out the student weights for Washington. Below’s the data from my study:

2. Regarding QEC recommendations
I’ll provide the list of QEC studies used in my study. In the meantime, all of them are on line at:
The Odden & et al (2006) study significantly informed the QEC proceedings.
Odden, A., Picus, L. O., Goetz, M., Mangan, M. T., & Fermanich, M. (2006). An Evidenced-Based Approach to School Finance Adequacy in Washington.…/WA-Evidence-Based-Adequacy-Study-Ju…

#3 Sticker Shock Over the Cost of Education? Don’t Fret, At the Very Least It’s Reasonable

Like others, I too had some sticker shock about the recommended per pupil cost of education. After years of getting accustomed to the state’s meager funding for education, it was surprising to see how ample is full-funding.

In my study, I estimated that the SY 2018-19 QEC-recommended average for the full funding of basic education per student is $14,621 – all in state funds.

Back in 2006, based on the state studies being done at the time, the recommended per pupil funding for basic education looked like it was going to be at least $10,000 per pupil. At the time, the state’s SY 2005-06 average (state + local + federal) funding per pupil was just under $8,000 per pupil – most of which went to the funding of basic education.

In 2006 I wondered how the recommended $10,000 figure compared to the per pupil cost of education at private schools in my area. So, I looked up tuition costs for 31 private high schools in the Seattle Times School Guide (2006). These are listed in the table below.

In SY 2005-06, tuition costs at private high schools in the area ranged from $5,500 to $21,404.

But the actual cost of educating a student in these schools was higher, and in some cases, much higher. From talking to private school officials and reading about private schools’ funding sources, I learned that tuition pays the bulk of education costs in private schools, but not the whole freight.

Other funding sources included student fees, mandatory parent contributions, subsidies from religious organizations, donations garnered through fund raising efforts, and differentially higher tuition rates for certain categories of students. Some schools had established and then drew upon an endowment to help finance their operations.

In 2006 I was satisfied in thinking that $10,000 per pupil was probably a realistic figure given what was likely to be the actual cost private schools incurred to educate each student.

What about now? Recently I visited the websites of these same schools to find their current tuition rates. These rates are listed in the table below too. Note that some rates are for SY 2016-17 and some for SY 2017-18.

Many of these schools still make no bones about it, tuition only pays for some of their costs. All of the schools have a fee schedule in addition to their tuition rates.

In particular, all the religious high schools rely on funding sources external to their parents’ contributions to make up for the difference btween tuition and the actual cost of education.

For example, Evergreen Lutheran High School reports that its actual cost of education is $15,750 per pupil; yet its tuition for students from an affiliated synod is only $7,895.

Archbishop Murphy High School reports an actual cost of $17,345 per pupil of which $15,545 is paid by tuition and $1,800 by a subsidy from parishes.

The graph plots the table’s data and shows the placement of the recommended average state funding per pupil in SY 2005-06 and in SY 2018-19.

So, before judging the reasonableness of QEC’s SY 2018-19 recommendation, it’s important to consider two points.

First, the actual cost of educating students in private schools is likely to be significantly higher than their tuition costs.

Second, I am comparing a SY 2018-19 average to the tuition rates in older years (2016-17 and 2017-18). Private school tuition rates are likely to be even higher in SY 2018-19.
Given the data and the considerations, I’m satisfied that an estimated average of $14,621 per pupil to educate all our amazing and wonderfully diverse children in this state in school year 2018-19 is quite reasonable, and maybe even less than what it should be. 
No automatic alt text available.

 #4 Which proposal is better for Basic Ed funding?

Both the House and the Senate proposals come up short. Neither proposal is sufficiently adequate. Neither proposal is sufficiently equitable.

How do I know this? Well Last October I began to model the state’s current appropriation formulas and QEC’s recommended formulas for basic ed on an excel spread sheet. Three models: elementary, middle school and high school.

I used these three models to model the state’s Current funding program, the House’s proposed program, and the QEC recommended program.

I also modeled the Senate’s proposed funding program on an excel spread sheet.

I’ve updated my analysis to reflect the new bills (SB 5875, HB 2185, the proposed substitute HB 1067, and the levy cliff bill SB 5023).

For the Current, House and QEC proposals, there are two types of formulas: staffing and non- staff. So, for any given year and funding proposal, there are specific staffing ratios, salary allocations, non-staff allocation rates, student subgroup enrollment figures, eligibility rules, and assumptions, if needed, regarding inflation rates.

The senate’s funding program is more straightforward. I modeled the Senate’s proposed plan, paying attention to per pupil rates by category, the formulas for the maximum state per pupil guarantee by year, and the formulas for the maximum total funding per pupil guarantee by year.

To be clear then, I modeled four funding plans: Current, House, Senate and QEC. I analyzed the state funding generated by each model in two different years: SY 2018-19 when the Court expects full funding, and SY 2024-25, the last year in which any proposed changes would be made (i.e. the House’s proposal). So, that’s a total of eight analyses.

In all eight analyses I used total and subgroup student enrollment numbers for the state’s elementary students (K-6) in SY 2016-17.

Although my results are only for elementary (K-6) students in the state, they are certainly enough to get the picture of what would happen under each proposal.

Main Purpose of Analyses:
So my main interest in all of this was to show how the Current, House and Senate proposals compare, in terms of adequacy and equity, to the QEC-recommended funding proposal.

For each proposal and for each year, I first calculated the total amount of state funding that would be generated, and used that to calculate an average state funding per pupil for elementary students. The proposed average per pupil figures can be compared to QEC’s average as a way of judging the adequacy of the proposals.

Adequacy Results
In SY 2018-19, both the Senate and House proposals would generate about the same basic education funding average: close to $10,700 per pupil.

Both are about a whopping $4000 per pupil short of the QEC recommended average of $14,621!
By the House’s proposal, our children will have to wait seven years until the final enhancements are made to basic education in September 2024! By then, the House’s average will have gained some ground on the QEC’s - $15, 453 per pupil as compared to $17,779 per pupil. But still short about $2,300 per pupil.

Meanwhile, the Senate’s average of $13,573 per pupil is now more than $4,000 less than the QEC average. 

From Nancy Chamberlain:
More on Equity - I have redone my analysis on the Senate Education funding plan based on the revised Senate Ways & Means staff tables. If similar data exist for the House budget, I would be happy to produce those charts.

These charts show the CHANGE in average per student funding in each school district, plotted verses that school district's % Free and Reduced Lunch (FRL). Remember that the Senate bill uses a different definition of poverty, which would greatly reduce the % of students identified as in poverty. I used the % FRL on the State Report Card on the OSPI website. Note that 44% of all WA K-12 students are on FRL.

The difference between the two charts is the year - 2018-19 and 2019-20. You can see two main themes:

1) There is NO relationship between a school district's %FRL and how much new funding they receive.
2) In 2019-20, many school districts actually receive LESS funding than they do now, including school districts with very high FRL.
Image may contain: text

Read more here:

Read more here:


Fair Share said…
"Both are about a whopping $4000 per pupil short of the QEC recommended average of $14,621!
By the House’s proposal, our children will have to wait seven years until the final enhancements are made to basic education in September 2024! By then, the House’s average will have gained some ground on the QEC’s - $15, 453 per pupil as compared to $17,779 per pupil. But still short about $2,300 per pupil."

Some WPD folks advocate for an $8B and $10B investment in education. "Tax the rich." and "The rich needs to pay their fair share!". I'm waiting for someone to define "fair share".

From Fiscal note for HB 2186: as of 7/1/24 "this part imposes a 20 percent surcharge on printing and publishing of newspapers" Does this circumstance constitute "fair share"? Should we work to further dismantle public information systems?
That lengthy, in-depth thread on McCleary and that's what you took away from it?
Fair Shre said…
No. WPD does advocate for a capital gains tax. A capital gains threatens news outlets. I'm not fond of this solution.
Fair Share, if you are not going to discuss what this thread is truly about, then stop commenting. I'm not going to argue about how to get there - I'm arguing neither of them are getting there.
No more taxes I'm done said…
I have no interest in paying the kind of taxes it would take to get per pupil funding to $15,000. I am sure my elderly neighbors don't want to see their property taxes rise to the levels necessary to fund education at that level. Don't give me the nonsense about "modest" capital gains taxes either. The only way they raise the kind of revenue to get to these levels is through either a broad income tax or through misrepresentations like they did with the car tab valuation formula.

We have some big bills coming. (E.g. The cost overruns for the the tunnel).

Anonymous said…
"I have no interest in paying the kind of taxes it would take to get per pupil funding to $15,000. I am sure my elderly neighbors don't want to see their property taxes rise to the levels necessary to fund education at that level"

Dear "No More Taxes"- Regarding your comments, I urge you to look at places like Long Island that have public schools that rival many private schools in Seattle. Very low class sizes etc. They do not tax the seniors. The fixed income seniors and low income people qualify for a property tax exemption called "STAR". My grandmother qualified.

In a related note, I am always amazed at how 30% of people send their kids to private schools in Seattle and people think that is "normal". This is not the case on Long Island, as well as other areas on the East coast. If we do not fund education adequately it will lead to even more privatization and stratification of the classes.
-look beyond

Anonymous No more taxes I'm done said.., please read our comment policy and pick a shorter name. I have no idea who "they" is in your comment.

New Yorker said…

"Dear "No More Taxes"- Regarding your comments, I urge you to look at places like Long Island that have public schools that rival many private schools in Seattle. Very low class sizes etc"

If we lived in on Long Island, Seattle residents would be paying $12K-$17K per year in property taxes. Your property tax would be in addition to federal, state, city, commuter and a variety of other taxes. Guess what? Paying all those taxes entitles you to a volunteer fire department.

Many seniors can't afford to live on Long Island and pay property taxes; they flee to Florida.

Long Island Island schools still have issues with unfunded mandates. Long Island is also loosing funding. Funding from Long Island flows to the rest of the state. I imagine the same would happen in Seattle.

As of 2015, there were still proposals to raise the levy cap:

I certainly wouldn't look to one of the highest taxed parts of the country.

Long Island said…
Similar to Long Island, I imagine it is possible for the state to increase education funding via property taxes and Seattle would see minimal- if any- additional revenue.
Seattle will get more revenue BUT the tax rate would go up significantly to boost revenue for property-poor regions in the state.
Anonymous said…
"I certainly wouldn't look to one of the highest taxed parts of the country."

New Yorker-- It is true. I agree it is one of the most heavily taxed places in the entire country. Many people cannot afford to live there, but in comparison Seattle has very low taxes. I was pointing out the STAR property tax exemption for seniors on Long Island. Many seniors do get an exemption. My grandmother had qualified. Three times as much is spent per pupil. I don't think you can compare other services either. Many towns on LI have their own police force and you do not have anywhere near the property crime rate that you have here in Seattle.
-Look Beyond
Fact Checker said…
Long Island has extremely high property taxes and volunteer fire departments:

"All of the fire departments in Nassau and Suffolk are volunteer, and they rely on neighbors helping neighbors,” McConville said. “Our volunteers answer the call for medical emergencies, floods, snow and ice storms, hurricanes and countless other emergency events.”

As of 2015, Long Island officials put out a call for more volunteer firefighters:

"We need volunteer firefighters. They need help,” Suffolk County Executive Steve Bellone said Thursday during a press conference at the Nassau County Firefighters Museum & Education Center in Garden City. “Sign up to be a volunteer. Sign up to help your community.”


"In November, CBS2’s Carolyn Gusoff reported medical emergency calls to 911 are up and volunteerism is down."

Look Beyond states:

" do not have anywhere near the property crime rate that you have here in Seattle.". Not true- at all. Property crime exists everywhere. Long Island is not free of crime".

Fact check:

There were 39,810 violent or property crimes recorded on Long Island in 2015 by the state's Division of Criminal Justice Services. The division counts violent crimes (murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault) and property crimes (burglary, larceny and motor vehicle theft) reported by the two county police departments and by 47 town, village and other police jurisdictions on Long Island. (*The Suffolk County Park Police was inactivated as of October 2014. Their jurisdiction is now being covered by the Suffolk County Police Department.)
L.I. Gal said…
My uncle was a public school teacher in one of those Long Island counties, an art teacher. He was making over $130,000 a year before he retired. (And you can see on the link that the median teacher salary is around $118,000 a year). My aunt was a housewife. They had a 5 bedroom house with a beautiful yard about a mile from the ocean. Sent 3 kids to expensive Ivy League schools. Took the family skiing in the Poconos every winter and to Disneyworld in Florida every summer. Just retired after a long an happy career.
Anonymous said…
When east of the Cascades votes for a tax hike to support any state-wide social service I will in turn support the proposed levy structure that sends education taxes from here east. Until I see proof it's happened I'll be fighting like hell to stop this stick-it-to-Seattle proposal. I expect our local legislators not to cave on pushing back on this.

North of 85th
Fact Checker said…
Long Island is 120 miles long. There are varying socio-economic groups.

Higher socioeconomic areas have better schools. Lower socioeconomic areas have gangs. Unlikely, poor areas are not spending time skiing in the Poconos and Disney Land.

Nothing changes.
Anonymous said…
LI Gal-- "My uncle was a public school teacher in one of those Long Island counties, an art teacher. He was making over $130,000 a year before he retired. (And you can see on the link that the median teacher salary is around $118,000 a year)"
YUP! My friend who teaches at a public school on LI is paid well.

Dear Fact Checker, My point is that LI funds education at a higher rate per student, has much higher taxes and NY state has a STAR exemption program for low income people as well as seniors. We obviously need to raise revenue in WA state to fund education. Be it property taxes, capital gains, taxes on carbon emmissions? Do you agree or do you send your kids to private school?

Of course are areas that vary socio-economically, like everywhere but in general you cannot compare funding for education & resources to Seattle and WA state. I know very well funded public schools and they rival some of the best private in Seattle. There are places in this country that is a reality. There are also very small districts throughout LI. So lots of differences.
- Look Beyond
Fact Checker said…
No need to get testy, Look Beyond.

LI does pay higher taxes than Seattle. So?

My point: How many people in Seattle wish to pay- or can afford to pay- between $12K and $17K for property taxes per year? Still, despite higher taxes, school districts face budget cuts and choices. Here is one of many stories:

"The Sachem School Board voted Wednesday night to enact cuts that include jobs, clubs, security and sports teams. School officials blame the budget gap on unexpected costs such as an increase in the number of special education students, workers' compensation costs and flood damage. They also place blame on the state's 2 percent tax cap."

Some seniors receive STAR. These same seniors do not have access to paid fire departments or medics- despite living in an enormously taxed area. My point was high property taxes does not mean necessarily mean better services.

Yes, some LI schools rival private schools, but they are in enormously wealthy areas with enormous amounts of community support.

Yes, we do need more funding, but McCleary will not be the dream that some imagine.

Look beyond has asserted that LI spends "Three times as much is spent per pupil". I look forward to a link with such data. I'd like to see a school district that spends $30K per pupil.

I'll end my conversation, here, but I look forward to your link related to per pupil funding.
No More said…
Long Island is a godaweful mess of taxes and fees. I don't think we "obviously" need more revenue. The legislature can redefine "basic education" so we can avoid deconian cuts to other health and welfare programs.

It's no secret that Washington has no income tax and a regressive tax system. Many people and businesses move here for that reason.

If you want to live somewhere where an art teacher makes six figures there is a place for you.

I don't want to pay any more taxes.
HIMS teacher said…
Where do people get the number that 30% of Seattle kids attend private schools? I have tried to find the actual numbers and could not find them. Time magazine had an article about cities with the highest private school rates. Seattle was not even in the top 10. Number 10, St. Louis had 16.7% private school enrollment, so we must be lower than 16%, correct?
Anonymous said…
The report on this page has a number from 2014-2015 (15994). For that enrollment year, that comes out to 23%. I have seen 28% several places, but that includes preschool(and maybe even running start?), and yeah, sure, lots of 3 year olds are in "private" schools.

Anonymous said…
This page:
Stop with the 30 said…
I don't believe the 30% number. Even if it was ttrue, many people choose private schools for reasons other than the quality or perceived lack of quality of the public schools. Finally, would anyone here really want to see a huge influx of kids coming from the private schools?

Hey, chicken little a, it's not that bad. Don't raise my taxes.
Anonymous said…
Can we get this city to try an income tax on federal AGI over 150K/single or 250K/any size family (or something like that, whatever it ends up looking like, I'm not that into tax minutiae) - a mid-high or high earner tax, only a small percent - 3%? 6%? - something, anything. Experience says it should have an escalator in it, because otherwise in 10 years the tax is hitting mid-middle and not high earners, but that's all out there - there are examples. It can be done.

It could go to schools or to general fund - we have problems, we need more revenue stream, and NOT more property tax. More property tax exacerbates a lot of our problems. So while I think a "luxury tax" or a cap gains tax is better than more property or sales tax, which are crazy to keep raising, I really think an income tax is the most fair.

People always say we can't b/c of state law - BUT LET'S GET SEATTLE TO TRY. Look how the city of SeaTac tried the "crazy" $15 minimum wage, and then we did it, and now it's spreading.

(We talk about this a lot at my house, b/c we'd probably end up paying - and we're good with it. We want to pay a state or city income tax. We want the things we love about this city to be less precarious).

-- Math Counts
Fair Share said…
Murray and Hanauer wanted to increase your taxes to pay for a half baked homeless plan.

The city's consultant felt the city had enough dollars for the homeless, but the dollars were being poorly spent.

The city just created a parallel education system.

Why would you want to give the city more money - Math Counts?
Fair Shre said…
Oh, yea. After Seattle citizens approved an enormous parks levy, the city wants to privatize public schools.
Anonymous said…
"Fact Checker regarding your comment "Yes, some LI schools rival private schools, but they are in enormously wealthy areas with enormous amounts of community support."

I do not agree with the enormously wealthy area comment. All over LI are middle class neighborhoods on par with many neighborhoods as far as income in Seattle. Many small schools districts, have small class sizes and many places fund at least 3 times per pupil what we fund. Yes, taxes are very very high. People move to LI from other places because of the public schools. Yes, agree they are heavily taxed. I do not agree about your comment about services and the difference in taxes not making a difference. In fact our WA sales tax is high, but we pay no state income tax and property taxes are not high. I have experience with the education system in both places. As you are aware, we need more per pupil funding in this state. It would make a big difference in my opinion. I do believe we would not have so many sending kids to private school, if the public schools were well funded & well managed. Compare it with other less expensive places if you wish, but that is the reality.
-Look Beyond

Anonymous said…
Fact Checker-- Here are a couple stats for you and links. LI is a big area and there are differences in spending in different areas. But on average they do spend alot more than WA state, 2-3 times more. 90% graduation rate. 30% free and reduced lunch across island. But of course there are big variations in the districts. LI has tons of small districts. More LI students go on to 4 year colleges than any other area in the state. LI ranks second on per pupil spending in NY. $26,000 was median per pupil for LI schools a few years ago in 2014. I had looked up schools in middle class areas I was familiar with in Nassau county and they were spending near $30,000 per pupil. NY state does spend more than most if not all states on education. Having experience with both, per pupil spending makes a big big difference. Do we need to spend as much as NY? Maybe not. But IMO we need to spend more!
Anonymous said…
P.S Fact Check--- Did you also compare population in Seattle (roughly 3.8 million and 42,639 crimes) to LI (7.8 million, roughly 39,000 crimes in 2015?). Many towns on LI have their own police departments. Having lived in both areas I can attest that Seattle has far far less in police resources. It is nuts actually. People in our neighborhood in Seattle wait for a very long time for the police to show up. Houses on our block have been robbed, cars broken into yearly. Property crime is beyond terrible in this city.
- Look Beyond
Anonymous said…
P.P.S Fact Check-- Correction comparing apples to apples: City of Seattle proper population just under 700,000. 42,639 crimes. LI (Nassau & Suffolk County) population 7.8 million and 39,000 crimes in 2015.
Fact Checker said…
School districts in LI are very small. For the most part, the majority of districts have less than 10,000 students. This means greater administrative costs. There are benefits of smaller districts. On the average, I'm finding $18K-$20K per pupil.;|

We agree: Washington students need and would benefit from additional funding.
Anonymous said…
" School districts in LI are very small. For the most part, the majority of districts have less than 10,000 students. This means greater administrative costs. There are benefits of smaller districts. On the average, I'm finding $18K-$20K per pupil."

You are correct about school districts being very small. I also mentioned that in my previous post. Many are also very well resourced compared to us with low class sizes. Not 25-30 for elementary and 30-35 students in middle and high school like we have here. Very small school districts. About 75% of them have less than 5000 students. However, per pupil funding is not 18-20K on average even back in 2013. See the link below which is more recent than your link from 2013. There are two counties on LI Nassau and Suffolk. Enter Nassau county for example and look up districts. 18K was the low end several years ago. The median as reported in the article link I sent is 24+ per student. Half the districts (Syosset etc.) spend more.

-Look Beyond

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

Seattle Public Schools and Their Principals

COVID Issues Heating up for Seattle Public Schools