Save Our State  

Go Back   Save Our State > General Forum (non official Save Our State business) > California Schools

California Schools Topics And Information Relating To California Schools

Immigration Pushed To The Forefront Again.... Thanks! To Everyone Who Has Propelled This Issue To Its' Rightful Position. Years Of Hard Work Are Paying Off.....Keep Up The Good Work!......
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-20-2009, 12:48 PM
ilbegone's Avatar
ilbegone ilbegone is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,066
Default Riverside school trustees hear grim budget report

Riverside school trustees hear grim budget report

10:00 PM PDT on Monday, October 19, 2009

By DAYNA STRAEHLEY
The Press-Enterprise

Quote:
California's per-pupil spending has dropped to 50th out of 50 states and is $1,700 less than the national average, an administrator told the Riverside school board Monday.

Mike Fine, deputy superintendent of the Riverside Unified School District, said in his budget update that the 50th-place ranking resulted from state budget cuts in May.

School funding based on Prop. 98, which set minimum funding guarantees, has fallen 13 percent since 2008, Fine said. He projected further cuts for 2009-10 after January and more for 2010-11.

With revenue declining and not projected to improve for a few years, Trustee Tom Hunt suggested the district may have to consider consolidating some schools.

"We have some sites here with low enrollment and we may have to make some difficult decisions," Hunt said after Fine's update.

"Absolutely," said board President Kathy Allavie.

The district expects a shortfall of $66.3 million by 2011-12, Fine said.

The district will spend $25.6 million more than its revenue for the current year but has a $47 million balance, his memo said. School districts received some federal stimulus money late last year. California districts also expected 2008-09 budget cuts from Sacramento, which were postponed until this year.

The budget projects a $10 million balance going into 2010-11 and a shortfall of $22.2 million, the memo states.

Per pupil revenue from the state has dropped to $5,209.23. It had been projected at $6,380.34 before state budget cuts, the staff report says.

However, state revenues still are falling below the projections on which the state budget was based.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-20-2009, 01:13 PM
ilbegone's Avatar
ilbegone ilbegone is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,066
Default

I don't believe this.

Quote:
California's per-pupil spending has dropped to 50th out of 50 states and is $1,700 less than the national average, an administrator told the Riverside school board Monday.
I contacted State Senator Benoit's office and got some figures on the revised 2009 - 10 State budget:

K - 12 education 40%

Higher education 12%

(between the two, that's over half of the state
budget. How typical is this across the nation?)

Health & Human Services 29%

Corrections and Rehabilitation 10%

Business, Transportation and housing 3%

(Caltrans also has another source of funding, which is
independent of the budget)

Legislative, Judicial, Executive 2%

All other spending 4%

There is a pie chart on Benoit's newsletter http://cssrc.us/%28X%281%29A%28rlGjf...ookieSupport=1

If the link doesn't work, search for Benoit Bulletin July 2009
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-20-2009, 01:23 PM
ilbegone's Avatar
ilbegone ilbegone is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,066
Default

U.S. spends average $8,701 per pupil on education
Quote:
May 24, 2007

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States spent an average of $8,701 per pupil to educate its children in 2005, the Census Bureau said on Thursday, with some states paying more than twice as much per student as others.

New York was the biggest spender on education, at $14,119 per student, with New Jersey second at $13,800 and Washington, D.C., third at $12,979, the Census Bureau said. Seven of the top 10 education spenders were Northeastern states.

The states with the lowest spending were Utah, at $5,257 per pupil, Arizona $6,261, Idaho $6,283, Mississippi $6,575 and Oklahoma $6,613. The 10 states with the lowest education spending were in the West or South.

Overall the United States spent an average of $8,701 per student on elementary and secondary education in 2005, up 5 percent from $8,287 the previous year, the bureau said.

Funding is largely a state and local responsibility under the U.S. system, with 47 percent coming from state governments, 43.9 percent from local sources and only 9.1 percent from the federal government.

Students in northeastern and northern states tend to perform better on standardized tests than students in southern and southwestern states. But experts say the correlation between spending and testing performance is not strong.

The "No Child Left Behind" education reforms passed during President George W. Bush's first term have placed increased emphasis on performance on national standardized tests. Schools can be penalized if they repeatedly fail to meet targets for improving student scores.

"It's not necessarily so that states with higher spending have higher test scores," said Tom Loveless, an education policy expert at the Brookings Institution think tank.

He said Washington, D.C., has among the highest spending in the country but its students have among the lowest scores on standardized tests, while some states like Montana with relatively low spending have fairly high performance on tests.

Loveless said two areas where education spending might make a difference were in teacher salaries and small class sizes for first graders. But overall, the relationship between spending on education and test performance was not strong, he said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domes...ype=RSS&rpc=22
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-20-2009, 01:34 PM
ilbegone's Avatar
ilbegone ilbegone is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,066
Default

US Census Bureau News press release

National Per Student Public School Spending Nears $9,000

Quote:
MAY 24, 2007

The nation’s public school districts spent an average of $8,701 per student on elementary and secondary education in fiscal year 2005, up 5 percent from $8,287 the previous year, the U.S. Census Bureau reported today.

States with the highest spending per student

Findings from Public Education Finances: 2005, show that New York spent $14,119 per student — the highest amount among states and state equivalents. Just behind was neighboring New Jersey at $13,800, the District of Columbia at $12,979, Vermont ($11,835) and Connecticut ($11,572). Seven of the top 10 with the highest per pupil expenditures were in the Northeast.

Utah spent the least per student ($5,257), followed by Arizona ($6,261), Idaho ($6,283), Mississippi ($6,575) and Oklahoma ($6,613). All 10 of the states with the lowest spending per student were in the West or South.

The report and associated data files contain information for all local public school systems in the country. For example, in New York City, the largest school district in the country, per pupil spending was $13,755.

In all, public school systems spent $497 billion, up from $472.3 billion the previous year. Of these expenditures, the largest portions went to instruction ($258.3 billion) and support services such as pupil transportation and school administration ($146.3 billion).

These school systems received $488.5 billion in 2005, up from $462.7 billion the previous year. Of the total, 47 percent came from state governments, 43.9 percent from local sources and 9.1 percent from the federal government.

Other highlights:


* The $214.6 billion schools received from local sources included $186.5 billion from taxes and local government appropriations.

* School construction spending totaled $41.8 billion nationwide, with California ($8.7 billion) and Texas ($4.7 billion) combined accounting for almost one-third of this amount.

* Alaska led all states or state equivalents in the proportion of its public school system revenue coming from the federal government (18.9 percent). Hawaii led all states in proportion from state sources at 87.4 percent; Vermont’s share was 87.2 percent.

The data come from the 2005 Annual Survey of Local Government Finances. The tabulations contain data on revenues, expenditures, debt and assets for all individual public elementary and secondary school systems.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-20-2009, 01:45 PM
ilbegone's Avatar
ilbegone ilbegone is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,066
Default

Comparing California with other states has some inherent difficulties.

Quote:
Comparing California with other states has some inherent difficulties. The data are not always consistent from one state to another. Differences can occur in what numbers are collected, how they are collected, and variations in their interpretations and reporting. States are dramatically different in size, ethnic and socioeconomic characteristics, cost of living, and in how they set policy, fund public education, and govern their schools. Teachers’ salaries can reflect the changing characteristics of the workforce over time, particularly the addition of new teachers. In addition, averages and aggregates, while often illuminating, can mask variations that are informative and important to the accuracy of the picture they paint.

Still, in the absence of a robust data system capable of tracking inputs and outputs, comparison data offer valuable information to California’s citizens: California schools are attempting to educate the most diverse and challenging school population in the country and doing it with substantially fewer human resources than almost any other state. The state has the most students, a diverse group of students, more English learners than any other state, and substantial numbers of students from low-income backgrounds. It will also soon again face increasing enrollment. At the same time, the state has fewer school staff per pupil than all other states and spends less than the national average per pupil.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-20-2009, 01:53 PM
ilbegone's Avatar
ilbegone ilbegone is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,066
Default

New York Governor Makes Sweeping Budget Reduction Proposal to Improve Long Term Fiscal Stability

Quote:
...Specific 2009-10 programmatic impacts as part of this $1.3 billion across-the-board local assistance reduction include the following: a $480 million State fiscal year cut to school districts ($686 million on a 2009-10 school-year basis); a $287 million cut to Medicaid; a $184 million cut to other health and mental hygiene programs; a $28 million cut to social service programs; a $67 million cut to Aid and Incentives to Municipalities; a $125 million cut to transportation programs; a $62 million cut to higher education programs; as well as other reductions.

The School Aid reduction would be structured progressively based on local fiscal capacity, student need, and residential tax effort. Prior to proposed mid-year actions, enacted 2009-10 school year School Aid was projected to total $21.9 billion, an increase of $415 million or 1.9 percent from 2008-09. After enactment of the DRP, overall 2009-10 school year School Aid would total $21.2 billion, a decrease of $271 million or 1.3 percent from 2008-09. When federal stimulus aid through the Title I and IDEA programs is included, however, support for school districts in the 2009-10 school year would total approximately $22 billion, a $546 million or 2.5 percent increase compared to the prior year.

In recent years, School Aid has increased dramatically. Even after implementation of the DRP, 2009-10 school year School Aid spending of $21.2 billion would still represent a $6.8 billion or 47 percent increase compared to 2003-04. Moreover, based on census data, New York spends more total per pupil than any other state and 63 percent above the national average.

Last edited by ilbegone; 10-20-2009 at 01:57 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-20-2009, 02:04 PM
ilbegone's Avatar
ilbegone ilbegone is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,066
Default

Large Urban-Suburban Gap Seen in Graduation Rates


Quote:
By SAM DILLON
Published: April 22, 2009

It is no surprise that more students drop out of high school in big cities than elsewhere. Now, however, a nationwide study shows the magnitude of the gap: the average high school graduation rate in the nation’s 50 largest cities was 53 percent, compared with 71 percent in the suburbs.

But that urban-suburban gap, which in part is due to hundreds of failing city schools that some researchers call dropout factories, was far wider in some areas.

In Cleveland, for instance, where the gap was largest, only 38 percent of high school freshmen graduated within four years, compared with 80 percent in the Cleveland suburbs, the report said. In Baltimore, which has the nation’s second-largest gap, 41 percent of students graduate from city schools, compared with 81 percent in the suburbs.

New York also had a large gap, with 54 percent of freshmen graduating within four years from schools in the city, compared with 83 percent from suburban high schools.

The report, titled Closing the Graduation Gap, was commissioned by the America’s Promise Alliance, a nonprofit group that works to reduce the nation’s dropout rate. The alliance is headed by Alma Powell and her husband, Colin L. Powell, the former secretary of state.

The graduation rates cited in the report were for the class of 2005, the most recent year for which Department of Education data were available, said Christopher B. Swanson, director of the Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, the Maryland-based group that produced the study. The report builds on research begun in a previous study released a year ago.

Some big city school districts that have worked to improve their graduation rates have made significant progress since the middle of the last decade, Dr. Swanson said. Philadelphia public schools, for instance, raised the graduation rate to 62 percent in 2005 from 39 percent in 1995, the report said.

As a whole, the nation’s graduation rate improved by a few percentage points over the same decade, to 71 percent from 66 percent, the study said.

But Marguerite Kondracke, the executive director of the alliance, said the pace of progress remained disappointing.

“We don’t have time as a nation for incremental change,” Ms. Kondracke said. “Just over half the students in our big cities are graduating from high school, and that’s unacceptable.”

For decades, high school graduation rates were routinely overstated in official statistics, with the Department of Education putting the nation’s rate above 80 percent and some states reporting rates above 90 percent. Behind the false data were a host of faulty reporting methods, including labeling dropouts who obtained G.E.D. certificates as graduates.

The No Child Left Behind law signed in 2002 did little to improve the problem, allowing states to use dozens of different reporting methods. New Mexico, for example, was allowed to define its rate as the percentage of enrolled 12th graders who received a diploma, a method that grossly undercounted dropouts by ignoring all students who left school before 12th grade.

In 2005, the Department of Education joined a trend toward standardization by publishing an official federal estimate of state graduation rates, and governors agreed to adopt a uniform calculation method. In one of her last official acts last year, Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings ordered states to calculate their graduation rates using the formula the governors had agreed upon by 2013.

Several provisions of the economic stimulus law signed in February may help improve graduation rates, including one that requires states to ensure that all schools, city or suburban, rich or poor, have equal access to qualified teachers, Ms. Kondracke said.

“This urban-suburban graduation gap has developed partly because teacher quality is not the same from classroom to classroom,” she said. “So improving teacher quality is crucial to raising graduation rates in these inner-city schools.”

The study found that the Indianapolis public schools had the lowest graduation rate of any large American city in 2005, with only 30 percent of freshmen graduating on time. Several large Western cities, in contrast, had graduation rates that exceeded the national average. The Mesa Unified District in Arizona had the highest graduation rate of any large city, with 77 out of every 100 freshmen there graduating four years later, the study found.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/ed...22dropout.html
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-20-2009, 02:12 PM
ilbegone's Avatar
ilbegone ilbegone is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,066
Default

State next to bottom nationally in per-pupil spending, report says

By George B. Sánchez
Arizona Daily Star
Tucson, Arizona 01.10.2008

Quote:
Arizona ranks worst in the nation when it comes to education funding, according to a new report.

Only Utah spends less per student, according to Quality Counts 2008, an annual education report by Education Week, a non-profit organization based on the East Coast. But when other economic variables are considered, the study concludes Arizona is worst in the nation.

The effects are clear, the report says, with Arizona ranked near the bottom for student chance of success, K-12 achievement, teacher pay and school finance. The state did place in the top 10 for education standards and accountability, though.

The results weren't surprising to local and state education leaders.
"The bottom line is there are no surprises," said Roger Pfeuffer, superintendent of the Tucson Unified School District. "It validates that we are below average when it comes to school finances."

"Where we do poorly is financing, and that's really no news," said Tom Horne, state superintendent of public instruction.

Fewer than 5 percent of Arizona students are in school districts with annual per-pupil expenditures at or above the national average of $8,973. Nearly 50 percent of the nation's students receive at least that much funding per year. The average annual funding per student in Arizona is $6,232. Utah's per-pupil funding is $5,463.

The report also took into account state spending on education as a percent of taxable resources, district funding and local property wealth, and disparity in district- and student-spending across the state.

Arizona teacher wages fare poorly compared with the rest of the nation, too, according to the report. The median annual U.S. salary is $45,000, said Chris Swanson of the Editorial Projects in Education Research Center Inc., which conducted the research for Education Week. Arizona teachers average about $39,957 a year, said Carole Vinograd Bausell, project director at Quality Counts.

"That's a real slip over the past few years," said John Wright, president of the Arizona Education Association, the union that represents Arizona teachers and classified employees. "Five years ago, we were in the top two-thirds for pay."

The only section of the report with a high score for Arizona was state standards and accountability.

"The standards and accountability is the area, in general, where all states did best," noted Vinograd Bausell. She said the high scores likely were due to the influence of the standards-based reform movement.

Arizona ranked eighth in the nation in that section.

"If we could get our resources toward the national average, then I feel we'd be among the top states in the country because of our emphasis on academic rigor in the classroom," Horne said.

Overall, Arizona was ranked on the bottom tier for K-12 student achievement. The report took into account fourth- and eighth-grade math and reading scores and proficiency on the National Assessment of Education Progress, a test Horne has criticized for representing only a small portion of Arizona students. The state did show signs of closing the achievement gap when it came to fourth-grade reading and eighth-grade math.

Last year's report debuted the "chance for success index," which correlated education with personal achievement by measuring education and income from birth to post-secondary school life. This year's emphasis was on teaching and state efforts to attract, retain and support qualified teachers.

"High-quality teaching matters more to student achievement than anything else schools do," said Lynn Olson, also with the research center.

Based on skills necessary to teach, the report assembled a list of 16 occupations comparable to K-12 teaching. The list included architects, reporters, clergy, computer programmers and registered nurses.
States lack a system to attract, prepare, retain and allocate resources for teachers, Vinograd Bausell said.

For recent college graduates, the pay gap is great when it comes to teaching or entering a career in engineering, technology and business, Wright said.

A uniform starting pay that is somewhat competitive should be in place in Arizona, Wright said, adding that the longer the state takes to address teacher pay, the greater the gap grows between public teaching and the private sector.

The report offers further proof of the need to invest in education, Pfeuffer said.

"We are a growing state. We are an in-migration state, from other states. We have an economy that looks to be future- oriented. We have to have an educated populace, which includes the workforce and people who can make good decisions," he said. "We are not investing in our future."

http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/219900
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-20-2009, 03:09 PM
ilbegone's Avatar
ilbegone ilbegone is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,066
Default

New York, which spends the most, has a drop out rate which varies depending on who's doing the calculating:

Quote:
New York has reported a 77 percent graduation rate to comply with the No Child law. But the federal department uses a formula that closely approximates the governors’ formula to estimate a graduation rate for all 50 states, and using that method, New York’s graduation rate is 65 percent.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/01/ed...n/01child.html
**

Utah, which spends the least per pupil in the nation, has a graduation rate of 88%.

Utah State Office of Education release entitled 2008 Graduation Rate [ http://www.schools.utah.gov/assessme...Rates_2008.pdf ]

**

Arizona, which is 49th for per pupil spending, has an overall graduation rate of 69% [ http://www.all4ed.org/files/Arizona_wc.pdf ],

Yet there is a 77% graduation rate in the Mesa Unified School District, which the New York Times declared to be the best of any large city (in the US) [ http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/ed...22dropout.html ]

**

California has a graduation rate of 68.3% in 2008, according to the state of California [ http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr09/yr09rel073.asp ]



It's hard to find a hard figure concerning cost per pupil in California. You have to dig through a labyrinth of statistics, and everyone with an axe to grind has a different presentation.



George Runner has this to say in his Week In Review, March 27, 2008: Per Pupil Funding in California - What It Is and What It Means:

Quote:
The average per pupil funding for kindergarten-12th grade California students is more than $11,500 when factoring in local, state and federal funding, according to the Governor’s Budget.

How does California’s investment in students compare to other states?

It depends on who you ask. Here is a look at three different positions:

*

The National Center for Education Statistics ranks California per pupil spending 25th among the states in 2003-04, which is equal to 96 percent of the national average $9,620 per pupil. New Jersey is at the top at $14,917 per pupil, and Utah spends the least: $6,110 per pupil.
*

The National Education Association places California 33rd in the nation for 2005-06, 91 percent of the national average. (NEA also calculates the average teacher salary in California of $59,825 as the highest in the nation – 22 percent above the national average.)
*

Education Week, adjusting for regional cost differences, figures California spending is 46th in the nation.

The non-partisan Legislative Analysts’ Office selected the National Center for Education Statistics calculation and ranking –suggesting a higher level of confidence in that organization’s figures.

One thing is for sure though: More money and a higher rank will not improve student achievement according to numerous studies on the subject. Among the findings and conclusions are:

*

“While comparisons to the national average may have illustrative value, the analytic basis for pursuing the national average as a spending goal is unclear. . . . Research and experience suggest that how we spend available education resources is as least as important as how much we spend on education.” (LAO 2000-01 Analysis)
*

“The relationship between dollars and student achievement in California is so uncertain that it cannot be used to gauge the potential effect of resources on student outcomes. . . . [Data illustrating] API [Academic Performance Index] scores as a function of per pupil spending in 2004-2005 . . . finds essentially no relationship between the two. (“Getting Down to Facts: School Finance and Governance in California,” 2007 [GDTF])
*

"The relationship between spending per student between the ages of 6 and 15 and student outcomes as measured by PISA [Programme for International Student Achievement, an international testing system] is weak. . . . It is estimated that across OECD countries, there is a potential for increasing learning outcomes by 22% while maintaining current levels of resources.” (Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] “Education at a Glance, 2007,” an international comparison of 30 countries)
*

"Lower unit expenditure [dollars per pupil, for example] does not necessarily lead to lower achievement and it would be misleading to equate a lower unit expenditure generally with lower quality of educational services." (OECD, “Education at a Glance”)
*

“If we do not know how to achieve a given level of student performance, we cannot estimate the cost of attaining that goal.” (GDTF)
*

“If additional dollars were inserted into the current system there is no reason to expect substantial increases in student outcomes related to state goals.” (GDTF)

You can spend all the money in the world on K-12 education, but until we put more money in the classrooms and less in bureaucracy and act responsibly with what we have, the extra money will be for naught.

http://cssrc.us/%28X%281%29A%28bAN2a...ookieSupport=1
The California Teachers Association says that California ranks 47th in per pupil spending. http://www.cta.org/NR/rdonlyres/3509...QC20091909.pdf

Last edited by ilbegone; 10-20-2009 at 03:19 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright SaveOurState ©2009 - 2016 All Rights Reserved