California Watch is out today with another great project, this time looking at school districts' spending per student.
It's a topic that creates controversy in education circles because there are such great disparities -- and because it's all based on a locked-in, byzantine funding system created by in the wake of a 1971 court ruling on state education spending, Serrano v. Priest.
Here's the crux of the issue:
The Supreme Court ruled that differences in the basic amount spent per student - so-called "revenue limit" funding - had to be within $100 across all districts. Taking inflation into account, the permissible difference is now $350 per student. Although larger differences remain among some districts, disparities in the basic amount districts receive from the state have been substantially reduced.
But that reduction has been wiped out by local, state and federal funds for close to a hundred different programs. A large part of the money is based on formulas established in the 1970s for meals, transportation and other services that often have little connection to current student needs.The inequities the court sought to alleviate with its Serrano ruling persist. About two-thirds of districts now spend at least $500 above or below the state average, according to California Watch's analysis.
Comparing spending data from 2009-10, Cal Watch calculated per-pupil spending based on "annual salaries, employee benefits, books, supplies and other educational services" but not on "building purchases, construction, retiree benefits and food services."
Here's a surprising result of the research:
The analysis found there was virtually no correlation between funding and (API) scores that could explain the wide variation across the state in per-pupil spending in districts.
California Watch also looked at correlations between expenditures and student backgrounds, including their race and ethnicity and whether they are poor enough to receive a free or reduced lunch. The analysis also did not find any significant correlations among these variables.
Their database shows some surprising results locally. I know officials in some of the districts in affluent areas -- including Manhattan Beach and the Palos Verdes Peninsula -- are prone to emphasizing their comparative lack of per-pupil funding. But this is pretty stark in terms of more cash going to districts that educate lower-income student bodies.
In descending order, here are Cal Watch's figures for per-pupil spending in local districts:
- LAUSD $10,015
- Lennox $9,759
- Centinela Valley $9,366
- Inglewood $8,931
- California average $8,452
- Lawndale $8,390
- Redondo Beach $7,991
- Palos Verdes $7,812
- Hawthorne $7,806
- El Segundo $7,733
- Hermosa Beach $7,527
- Torrance $7,505
- Manhattan Beach $7,467
- Wiseburn $6,884
Wiseburn, the high-achieving K-8 district in Hawthorne, is clearly the curveball here.
Here's an important component of Cal Watch's story on these figures:
The disconnect between money and academic performance is at the heart of an ongoing debate among educators and researchers.
"Money may be necessary for school improvement, but it doesn't guarantee that improvement takes place," concluded UC Berkeley education professor W. Norton Grubb in his recent book "The Money Myth," after conducting an intensive review on the subject.In particular, he found that urban schools tended to spend inefficiently for a variety of reasons, including high staff and student turnover and conflicts over how to teach struggling students. At the same time, he said, urban districts often have extra expenses for needs such as security, dropout prevention, or for teaching students who are not proficient in English.
Here's a Q&A with some more info.
