In yesterday's Washington Post, Andrew Coulson points to some staggering numbers about the cost of public education in Washington, DC:
We're often told that public schools are underfunded. In the District, the spending figure cited most commonly is $8,322 per child, but total spending is close to $25,000 per child -- on par with tuition at Sidwell Friends, the private school Chelsea Clinton attended in the 1990s.
What accounts for the nearly threefold difference in these numbers? The commonly cited figure counts only part of the local operating budget. To calculate total spending, we have to add up all sources of funding for education from kindergarten through 12th grade, excluding spending on charter schools and higher education. For the current school year, the local operating budget is $831 million, including relevant expenses such as the teacher retirement fund. The capital budget is $218 million. The District receives about $85.5 million in federal funding. And the D.C. Council contributes an extra $81 million. Divide all that by the 49,422 students enrolled (for the 2007-08 year) and you end up with about $24,600 per child.
For comparison, total per pupil spending at D.C. area private schools -- among the most upscale in the nation -- averages about $10,000 less. For most private schools, the difference is even greater.
More here.
4 Comments
Ismone | April 8, 2008, 1:47pm | #
I think there are a few dynamics at work here. First, teachers at private schools are paid less than teachers at public schools (according to my teacher-friends). Second, private schools have a dean and a schoolboard, their budgets do not finance county offices of education, state offices of education, and hundreds of bureaucrats filling out paperwork. Public schools could be less expensive to administer if we cut a lot of the strings on funding. And then, we would need less funding. But this would require us to be more comfortable with local schools running things.
Plus, some failing schools, regardless of what kind of money they are spending, do not have adequate physical plants, books, or a decent student:teacher ratio. That needs to be fixed, and repairs of that nature will cost more money. But on the whole, if we get rid of all of these bureaucrats, we will save money and end up with better educational outcomes.
DROD | April 15, 2008, 11:27am | #
In my town we spend just from the budget, almost $15,000 dollars per student. I've never figured in what we get from the state and fed. governments. It makes me more outraged. I sent my two older kids to the local Catholic school that educates children for $ 4,000 per student. The Catholic school gets ripped apart from the teachers in the public school on a regular basis. No compassion there. The Catholic school has a computer for every child and actual textbooks that get updated every few years. In the public school textbooks are replaced with a copy machine and kids are still reading about the Soviet Union. Its an outrage and the biggest con against our kids today.
Mustang | April 16, 2008, 1:19pm | #
In a word, no. We begin with the proposition that public school management is largely incompetent; further, most school districts have lost sight of their principal goal: to educate children. In my view, school districts that are willing to pay for accelerated affiliations (AP/IB), while refusing to incorporate certified vocational/technical programs, discriminate against socio-economically disadvantaged students. Moreover, in the absence of interest and aptitude surveys, schools can never develop viable pathway training programs to meet the needs of students. Finally, a responsible legislature would place limitations upon athletic programs (which serve the interests of a small percentage of students and parents). In my view, there is no justification for allowing a below-average school to participate in any formal athletic program. I will even dare to suggest that athletic funding be limited to a single-digit percentage of the per-pupil daily cost of education. Until the public begins to address these issues, there will be no meaningful improvements to the quality of public school educational platforms. Students aren’t stupid; they recognize institutional dishonesty when they see it. Beyond the cost of public education, administrators fail as acceptable role models.
Lisa | April 20, 2008, 5:29pm | #
Mustang....you are so correct.