Funding Inequity: how it works in DeKalb

One of our contributors was able to gather per pupil funding information via a Freedom of Information request. The results: funding (like test scores) is inconsistent.  In fact, funding is wildly inconsistent—and not exactly in the same ways you would expect.

Click for a larger view

Some of our most outrageously expensive programs are of course high needs special education (Margaret Harris spends $35,942.47 on average per pupil and Coralwood: $24,881.44 per pupil). But you may be surprised to learn that some of our alternative programs cost much more (Some examples: DeKalb Truancy: $45,292.61 per pupil, DeKalb Early College Academy: $14,410.78 per pupil, Elizabeth Andrews HS: $12,151.96 per pupil, DeKalb Alternative: $20,792.11 and DeKalb Alternative Night School: $18,958.90, DeKalb Transition: $20,265.86, Gateway to College Charter: $16,319.21).

Interestingly, as we expected, DeKalb School of the Arts and other magnets cost more per student than regular schools—however, some regular schools spend far more per student than others.  Factor in the additional bump from Title 1 and some of our schools are bringing in quite a lot of money for student education.

So it seems that we have plenty of money to educate our students.  Why are we having to cram over 30 in a classroom? Why are we having to cut parapros, media clerks, tech support and hands-on staff? With a $1.2 Billion (with a "B") annual budget, we simply have enough money.

The total in Title 1 funds allocated to DeKalb Schools according to this chart (the data is also inconsistent everywhere you turn), is $52,446,907.75. Fifty-two and a half million dollars. I have to think that somehow this money could impact our children's ability to learn to read and write and do math. Why are test scores still so abysmally low in so many of our Title 1 schools? Take Columbia High School, for example. Columbia received an additional $1,077,434.20 in Title 1 allocated funds in 2009-10. Yet, Columbia has not made AYP, is in Needs Improvement Year 3, is in Corrective Action and must offer a transfer choice and supplemental tutoring services.

The average per pupil funding—including Title 1—for Columbia students is $9,380.02. Compare that with Lakeside's per pupil average funding of $7,834.76 (with no Title 1 compensation whatsoever). Lakeside has consistently made AYP and maintained decent test scores overall. Same goes for Dunwoody High School, with a per pupil funding (no Title 1 bump) of $7,773.66, Dunwoody makes the grade. In fact, these schools make the grade just as well as say, Chamblee, the magnet school for high achievers with a per student cost of $8,021.73 (no Title 1 bump) or even the wildly expensive DSA—at a whopping $11,612.95 per pupil. Then, compare all of those to Arabia (a non-Title 1 school) which only gets $5,214.29 per pupil—the lowest in the entire system.

The "regular" elementary schools is where the funding is all over the board. We spend anywhere from a low of $6,920.66 per pupil at Dunwoody Elementary to a high of $12,857.36 at Knollwood ES. Again, on the low end, we have Narvie Harris at $7,600.40 per pupil, Fernbank at $7,894.97 per pupil, Oak Grove at $7,930.98 per pupil and Vanderlyn at $7,954.17 per pupil. Over at the high end, we top off spending at Wadsworth where we spend $13,010.20 per pupil. Nipping at Wadsworth's spending heels is Gresham Park at $12,804.60 per pupil, Huntley Hills at $12,275.73 per pupil, Bob Mathis at $12,207.36, Peachcrest at $11,872.83 and Sky Haven at $11,828.01 per pupil. (In case you're wondering, Kittredge isn't far behind at $11,001.34 per pupil.)

Now, certainly, some of these schools have more special education students (and dollars per student) than others, some have more gifted, some have other needs that require special funding, so there is really no best way to compare apples to apples exactly. But this is the best we have, and by and large, the comparisons simply show that we have a whole lot of work to do to get our schools back in balance. Work that goes far beyond simply rearranging deck chairs.

===
Note:  The picture of the spreadsheet is hard to read, so if you would like the actual Excel spreadsheet we received from DCSS, send an email to reparteeforfun@gmail.com and we will send it to you. 

Follow the Money Trail

Slide 1

Slide 2

Slide 3

Slide 4

Slide 5

Slide 6

Slide 7

Slide 8

Slide 9

Slide 10

The above photos are charts that allow you to "Follow the Money Trail" (in 10 easy steps). Click on them to view them larger or to download them. The data for the graphs came from the Georgia Department of Education - School System Financial Reports.

Perhaps you are familiar with this state website. It offers a wealth of information in a nicely condensed format. One of our bloggers very kindly made graphs of the state data because DeKalb Watch posters grasp visuals easier than numbers - true of most of us.

Going through the charts you can easily see that direct instruction (i.e. interaction with students) has been where DCSS has placed the LEAST emphasis. This category/area has grown slower than revenues and every other expenditure category. Revenues have risen 28% while expenditures on Direct Instruction have only increased by 10%. Meanwhile, Pupil Services, Staff Services, and General Administration have grown by astounding percentages far outpacing increases in revenue. There is a direct correlation in the decline in direct instruction of students with the decline in student achievement over time in DCSS. The schoolhouse has been starved of funding (reference not only Direct Instruction but also School Administration as contrasted to General Administration), and this is showing up in student achievement.

2003 was chosen as a starting point because this was the last year that Dr. Brown was superintendent. This allows us to see what happened to revenue and expenditures when Dr. Lewis became superintendent. Where did he and the BOE spend our money? The largest increase was not General Administration (although that saw an 84% increase). Pupil Services experienced the largest increase with a 133% increase in expenditures - understandable since Dr. Lewis headed up staff development before he was superintendent. Staff Services was third in expenditure increases with 61% more in expenditures.

One other interesting factoid is that more and more of our funding is coming from the Federal Government - currently 14% up from 3% in 2003. This is extraordinarily high for a school system, even by today's standards. We are running $128,000,000 in federal funds most likely concentrated under the Office of School Improvement since they handle federal funds—making this department a real power center within the Central Office.

Look at transportation cost in the last two years (chart #9) as the DCSS administration reined in "choice school" transportation. We can actually see the decline in transportation costs in the last two years. This gives us definitive proof that prudent fiscal action by the DCSS administration and BOE can result in an immediate and substantial decline in non-instructional expenses.

A real storm is coming in terms of budgetary cuts. The federal government money that has taken over a large percentage of the DCSS budget is short term and will end in the near future. This administration and BOE must make some real cuts outside the schoolhouse now, not later. They must understand that cutting direct instruction for students has disabled our core business of educating students. The schoolhouse has no more to give.

The BOE needs to ask Mrs. Tyson for the data, analyze that data, and make decisions based on that data. They are responsible for our tax dollars and ultimately for our students' achievement. They have to have the tools and information necessary to make responsible, future-minded decisions.