How much do we really spend per student in Florida?

Is it really about $7,000, as the St. Petersburg Times and every other Florida newspaper says? Or is it more in the $12,000 range?

In a recent email to the Gradebook, relentless voucher die-hard Andrew J. Coulson of the Cato Institute says obviously it’s the latter. By his calculations, which include federal money and construction dollars, it was about $12,000 in 2007-08.

The bigger figure makes corporate tax credit vouchers, which cost the state $3,950 each, look like an even better bargain, Coulson says. (He sent his email after reading Tuesday’s St. Peterburg Times story about vouchers.) But his point about per-pupil spending, and whether the figures most frequently used are the most accurate, matters beyond the voucher debate.

The oft-cited, in-the-$7,000-range figure (this year, it’s $6,871) is from Florida Department of Education calculations, based on state and local dollars.

DOE officials say it’s fair to roll federal money into a per-pupil spending figure – that money does go to operational costs - but not capital outlay and debt service.

Coulson disagrees: “If you want to buy a car, and you’re trying to comparison shop among different models, would you be satisfied with only knowing the labor cost that went into the vehicle? Or the cost of all the metal parts, but not the plastics? Or would you want to know the honest to goodness total cost?”

Counting federal money, Florida spent $8,868 on operational costs per pupil in 2007-08 (according to the figures on page 4 of this DOE document.)

- Ron Matus, state education reporter

Comments

[Teacher]

Private schools that receive public fund should be required to provide the same services as public schools... And same certification requirements... The private school my son went to daycare at had teachers w/out college degrees teaching grade school... No library, no gym...

[?]

When Jeb took office state funding of education was sat 52% of the budget, today the stated funding of education is at 36% and the local effort is responsible for the rest. Which means that local School Boards have to pickup the slack! GO Florida Legislators!

[terminator]

constance:
you must not work in the education business because you fail to grasp even the most rudimentary aspects of how education finance in Florida operates.
Local property taxes are not the source for "all" money the districts receive.
In fact right now, it's about 50/50 even though the state's share has been steadily declining throughout the past ten years.
Also capital and operational budgets are separate silos, not co-mingled.
This isn't business and the FEFP is a very different animal for those not accustomed to how it works.
Try boning up and learning more about what you're typing before you go spouting off. Otherwise you come off looking like a fool.

[constance]

Firstly, the state spends very little to fund the public schools especially in property rich districts like Pinellas. Almost all the money comes from local property taxes. Secondly, no corporation treats capital purchases as though it is part of the per unit cost of operations. Why? Because capital expenses produce assets on the corporate balance sheets, the money isn't spent or lost. I run a business. I know how to keep books. I would think that at least one person at the Cato Institute would also be able to produce financial statements.

[where is the gifted money disappearing?]

The OPPAGA report would lead one to question whether the gifted students are being financially supported. Does
FloriDUH think it unwise to invest in its most promising minds?

[Reality Check]

I would like to know how much the STATE is spending on students, and to be able to compare that to other STATES. Trying to count in federal dollars spent paying back debts, not spent on students, sounds like flimflam designed to make it seem the state spends more on students than it really does.

[Pat Connolly]

And while we're at it, let's consider the fact that these el cheapo "other" schools don't have to provide anything other than the basics. No gymnasium for indoor sports; no stadium for outdoor sports; no theater/practice rooms for drama and band; no equipment, travel, coaches/leaders, or anything else for the aforementioned activities. Their students can come to the public schools and participate with the public schools if their schools don't have that activity.

Can you imagine the uproar if a district decided to not offer these activities? You don't have to imagine, just remember the last time someone suggested cutting sports.

I'm waiting for the day when one of these schools sues districts for access to public school facilities for use by their teams and clubs. I can see the argument now, "Our tax dollars built that football field, our teams should be able to use it too." Goodness gravy, I hope I haven't just planted a seed in the "let's destroy public education" minds of the Jebbites.

[Insider]

Some of you need to move beyond your obvious political/emotional agenda, and get your facts straight. I know that there is waste, but the issue is distribution and use, NOT amount.

(Total Revenues Divided By Total Student)-- I understand your point, but the distinction comes when we look at "state" per pupil funding, along with the stipulations attached to it. Though federal money is "tax" money, it comes from "outside" of the state (of which we pay a portion), and much of it is allocated and used outside of the classroom. It also has heavy strings attached and requires certain adherence to federal standards, etc. It does not have the same level of ownership attached as local monies do.

(Andrew Coulson)-- You are incorrect in stating that there is an "official" way to calculate per-student spending. Actually, the federal government and the states differ on this, with many states providing varying formulas. There are political reasons for this. I do agree with your call for transparency, and would favor a standard way of calculating. Thanks for your strong insights.

(Fed Up With Inaccurate Numbers In The Press)-- You need to make sure that YOUR numbers are accurate as it appears that you have drastically inflated the per student spending of the Abbott districts in NJ. Actually, they are among the LEAST funded. Feel free to verify at: http://www.edlawcenter.org/ELCPubl/elcnews_070326_SpendingDataShowsEquity.htm

(Even more fed up with public schools)-- I appreciate your uninformed and patronizing tone, even though you need to re-think your statements. As I said, the funds that you are referencing come from the FEDERAL government, raised by FEDERAL taxes. You may want to look up what that means.

The bottom line is my initial statement STANDS. States with higher per student funding GENERALLY outperform states with lower funding. I challenge anyone to refute that simple fact. Florida will continue to under-perform until that, along with other sweeping changes take place.

For more, feel free to check out the link: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/economic_surveys/006685.html.

[Mo]

The schools that take vouchers won't accept our most "expensive" students - those with autism, hearing impairments, severe emotional disabilities, Down syndrome, non-English speakers, etc. Public schools are open to all students, private schools can cherry-pick. Now we have the mother of the boy with food allergies demanding a full time aide. His per-pupil spending will jump $20,000 per year if she prevails. If schools take vouchers they should be required to take ALL students and be held to the same ridiculous FCAT grading nonsense as public schools.

[Even more fed up with public schools]

insider: " they do not include federal dollars or construction monies "

Do you believe these monies come from the Public School Fairies? Santa Claus? The Easter Bunny?

[Fed Up With Inaccurate Numbers In The Press]

Insider,

Your number on New Jersey is ridiculous. The "Abbott" districts (the ones with many poor kids) spend well over $20,000 per child. And by the way, they have graduation rates of well under 50%.

What possible motivation do you have for citing such radically deflated numbers?

[Total Revenues Divided By Total Students]

Insider,

We should not, as you suggest, use the same propaganda as other state DOEs do just because they spout it. Per pupil spending is total expenditures divided by total number of students. That's how the real world would do it. Excluding this and that is just b.s.

Look at page 3 of the DOE report. The number is there for anyone to see. It's $11,017 per student. Why would you exclude debt service and capital costs? Do taxpayers not have to pay it? I'm afraid they do. The number of students in the state has been decreasing for several years. What possible rationale do you have for not including capital costs? Or debt service, for that matter?

Face it, the number is over $11,000 per kid. Even an honest guy like Ron Matus can't bring himself to say it. It's just too hard to admit.

[Andrew Coulson]

I didn't invent the definition of total per pupil spending. It is not only common sense (total spending / enrollment) it is the official definition used by the U.S. Department of Education. Florida's DOE officials quoted by Mr. Matus and the blog commenter "Inisider" are mistaken.

If you take a look at the current issue of the Department's "Digest of Education Statistics", table 182, you will see that Florida's total per pupil spending was already $9,854 in the 2005-06 school year. And that is not adjusted for inflation.

In 2007-08, it was spending $12,000, which was almost exactly the national average.

I can't imagine why anyone would want the total cost of a government service to be hidden from them. Floridians have to pay for every dollar public schools spend. And while DOE officials may imagine that some dollars matter less than others, I suspect few taxpayers would agree with them.

[Inisider]

We should use the same criteria as other states do in determining our spending, and to my knowledge, they do not include federal dollars or construction monies. Interestingly, many of the highest performing states, far outspend us. Coincidence? I doubt. U.S. public school districts spent an average of over $8,287 per student.

New Jersey spent approx. ($12,981) per student, New York ($12,930), Vermont ($11,128), and Connecticut ($10,788).
All of the states rank among the top in public education.

Like it or not, with a few exceptions, the states with the highest achieving public schools tend to be the ones with smaller, localized, neighborhood-based school districts, and solid per-student financial support from the state.

Still, Pinellas County continues to build schools the size of small colleges (just look at Gibbs), and bankroll self-serving administrative positions with the limited resources that we receive from this state.

Florida will continue to underachieve UNTIL we decentralize and downsize our districts, eliminate our excess spending (which is connected to the size), and put our financial support into the classrooms instead of the inept, mismanaged mega-districts.