New numbers help frame school debate in Montana – Utah is still last in Education spending

With school funding issue looming large, new Census Bureau report offers useful perspective.

Montanans, with one of the smallest economies and nearly the lowest average incomes in the country, outspend the residents of 20 other states when it comes to public schools, according the U.S. Census Bureau reported last week.

Missoulian Editorial

http://missoulian.com/articles/2004/06/13/opinion/opinion1.txt

Is that good? Or is it not nearly good enough? That’s a good question, one Montanans will be hearing a lot in the coming months. A state District Court judge this spring ruled the state’s system of school funding unconstitutional. That ruling came in a lawsuit filed by education groups seeking higher funding; testimony from their expert witnesses in the trial suggested the need to raise school spending by another $300 million a year. The issue should figure prominently in upcoming elections for legislators and governor.

Anybody with an interest in school funding – parents, taxpayers, politicians – ought to check out the report issued last week by the U.S. Census Bureau. It won’t do much to resolve Montana’s debate, but it certainly helps put the question of how much Montanans spend on education in perspective.

Part of the 2002 Census of Governments, the report of public elementary-secondary education finances offers some interesting and useful comparisons. All of the figures below come from or were calculated using that report, which you can find at http://www.census.gov/govs/www/school.html.

n Montanans spent an average of $7,027 per student on K-12 schools in 2002. That ranks the state 30th in the nation for per-pupil spending. Missouri, South Carolina, Washington, Colorado, Texas, North Dakota, New Mexico, Louisiana, North Carolina, Kentucky, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Nevada, Tennessee, Idaho, Arizona, Mississippi and Utah all spent less than Montana.

n Of the 29 states that spent more per student, only 19 spent over 10 percent more than Montana did.

n The national average for school spending per student was $7,701. Schools in the District of Columbia spent the most, averaging $13,187 a year per student; Utah is dead-last at $4,890.

n If Montana had spent the additional $300 million a year on education as some have advocated, the state would have ranked 10th in the nation for per-student spending in 2002. (If the state had cut spending by $300 million that year, it still would have ranked ahead of last-place Utah.)

n While the state ranks 30th in total per-pupil spending, it ranks 28th for the amount spent on instruction, 38th for what it spends on teachers’ salaries and 30th for teachers’ benefits.

n Montana ranks 13th in the nation for the amount of money spent, per student, on general administration, but 35th for spending on school administration.

n Nationally, per-student spending for public schools averaged 26.6 percent of per-capita personal income; Montanans spent 31.4 percent.

n Total revenue collected for elementary-secondary schools averaged $7,653 in Montana – 36th in the nation. Montana ranked 5th nationally for the amount of money, per student, coming from the federal government ($1,002). However, it ranked 36th for state funding ($3,653) and 30th for money from local sources ($2,998).

Sad to say, you can’t simply add up all these numbers and come up with an answer to Montana’s school-funding questions. But these statistics are worth mulling, because they could help advance the debate by giving us some concrete things to focus on. Those relatively high expenditures for administration might be a good place to start. Eventually, though, we’ll also need to look at what all the money buys.

****************

But state ranks 26th in nation in ratio of income spent for students

When it comes to the amount of money spent on each public school student, Utah continues to rank last in the nation, according to a new U.S. Census Bureau report.

By Deborah Bulkeley
Deseret Morning News

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,595069115,00.html

The report released Tuesday shows Utah’s spending per student at $4,890 in 2002 — $7,805 less than the District of Columbia, which topped the list at $13,187. The state closest to Utah is Mississippi, which spent $5,382 per student, according the census.

**************

Following the District of Columbia in per student expenditures were: New York ($11,546), New Jersey ($11,436), Connecticut ($10,001) and Massachusetts ($9,856). The lowest per pupil spending amounts were in Utah ($4,890), Mississippi ($5,382), Arizona ($5,524), Idaho ($5,923) and Tennessee ($5,984).

Other findings:

* Public school systems spent $435.3 billion, up 6.0 percent from 2001. About $224.8 billion was spent on elementary-secondary instruction, $125.5 billion on services that support elementary-secondary instruction, $52.9 billion on capital outlay and $32.1 billion on other items.

* School districts received $155.6 billion, or 37.1 percent of all revenues from local taxes and local government appropriations.

* Instructional salaries totaled $160.7 billion in 2002, up 5.0 percent.

The tabulations contain data on revenue, expenditure, debt and assets for all individual public elementary and secondary school systems. The data are not subject to sampling error, but are subject to possible error from miscoding and misidentification of schools.

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/governments/001841.html

*******************

Utah would have to boost its state spending by more than $300 million just to bump itself off the bottom of the list, said Mark Petersen, spokesman for the State Office of Education.

However, Utah holds steady on its test scores — well above the national average in science, and is slightly above average in reading and math, Petersen said.

"Considering the resources spent, it’s a remarkable bargain the taxpayers are getting," Petersen said.

Utah’s total education revenues from federal, state and local sources rose about 4 percent in 2002 to nearly $2.9 billion, according to the census. That’s about the same rate of growth as national education revenues, which reached $419.8 billion in 2002.

Still, Petersen said Utah would have to boost its state spending by more than $300 million just to bump itself off the bottom of the list.

Petersen attributes Utah’s low per-pupil spending to the state’s demographics — specifically its high birth rate.

"We have more kids per capita than anyone else," he said. "Just shy than one-fourth of our population are public school students. That’s about one-seventh for the rest of the country."

When looking at the amount of money spent on education per $1,000 of personal income, Utah ranks 26th, spending $42.80, according to the census. In spending on instruction, Utah ranked 15th, spending $28 per $1,000 of income, the census said.

"For the size of our economy we’re doing about average," said Janice Houston, director of research at Utah Foundation.

She said Utah has made concerted efforts to keep its building costs down and has lower administration costs than some other states because of lower salaries and larger districts, which means less duplication of cost.

"Since the majority of Utah’s school revenue comes from income tax, and we already have the ninth highest income tax burden in the country, we don’t have a lot of room to wiggle," she said.

Lincoln Elementary School principal Shannon Andersen says the state is in a "sticky situation" when it comes to student spending. "There’s no easy answers at all," she said, mentioning property tax hikes or student head taxes as possible but likely unpopular ways to raise the state’s per student spending.

She said the state, which remains largely white and middle class, is for the most part managing to do more with less, thanks in large part to family support.

However, Anderson said schools like hers, which receive federal Title I funds for low-income students, face a tougher challenge when it comes to educating children.

"It’s only in those dire poverty situations where hands, like mine, are feeling tied because we don’t have more funding," she said. "We are really suffering from a lack of resources. That’s because our job is so much harder. Academic success is tied to socio-economic status."

E-mail: [email protected]