"...your comment about needing more funding for schools hit a sour note with me."
Sam Adams
Gary,
Well that at least gives us a sense of what would be a more detailed response from you to [name deleted]'s comments. Maybe you and Jane could have a conversation that she could summarize offering more details? Thanks, Sam
-----Original Message-----
From: Blackmer, Gary
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 8:21 AM
To: Adams, Sam
Cc: [name deleted]
Subject: RE: School Funding
Sam,
This requires a thoughtful and well-researched response to adequately address all the points Mr. [name deleted] raises. Unfortunately, right now I don’t have the time, due to a convergence of many very high priority responsibilities. Also, County Auditor Suzanne Flynn has just begun a vacation. I respect Mr. [name deleted]’s priorities and values, but some of his statements about the school spending aren’t supported by the data we developed, or they reflect conditions five or six years ago rather than now. We did substantial work analyzing all the school districts in Multnomah County, including spending on administration and that report (entitled Students, Spending, Services, and Accomplishments - Multnomah County School Districts 2003) can be found at: http://www.multnomahschools.org/reports.htm
Gary Blackmer
Portland City Auditor
-----Original Message-----
From: Adams, Sam
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 7:47 PM
To: Blackmer, Gary
Cc: [name deleted]
Subject: RE: School Funding
Gary,
You and the county auditor have been reviewing the budgets for the school districts. I have received variations of the [name deleted]'s questions. I was hoping that you could give us your your perspective on the questions and concerns that he's raised. Of like to post this interaction on my blog if that's OK with the both of you.
Sam
-----Original Message-----
From: [name deleted]
Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2005 3:59 PM
To: samadams@ci.portland.or.us
Subject: School Funding
Dear Sam,
I enjoyed your visit to us at the Wastewater Treatment Plant last week. It was great to hear what your plans are for the City as well as BES and especially for the treatment plant. However, your comment about needing more funding for schools hit a sour note with me.
I am a great believer that children are our future and schooling is top of the list for them. I also hear we need more money for schools and I question that.
I would like your explanation on why when our ALL-FUNDS school budget is among the highest in the nation per student and our scholastic scores are near the bottom we need more money. I don't believe that throwing more money at schools will solve the scholastic scores problem. There are examples of schools in Oregon that have a lower per student funding and still manage to have higher scholastic scores.
When funding is tight for the Oregon Public Schools it seems the first group to feel the effect is the teachers and students. I have never heard of any top administrator being let go to adjust the budget. Just the opposite seems to happen, they get raises or when they leave their position they receive exorbitant severance pay.
When I see a plan that puts the student first, insures that teachers teach the basics, provide the necessary school discipline, spend less "in service" time, quality teachers are kept rather than those with seniority, administration cut to the bare minimum, salaries in the realm of reason and there is a good explanation of why it cost so much more to educate children in Oregon than other states, then I will consider voting for increased school funding. Until that time, I will send my grandchildren to parochial schools where they obtain quality education at lower costs than in Oregon Public Schools.
Sincerely
[name deleted]
Posted by Sam Adams on July 16, 2005
(6) Comments | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Filed Under Education, Front Page
Comments by site visitors
/\Lars is missing the point. PPS may spend $10,000 per student based on the entire district's budget and all of Lars's numbers, that doesn't mean we are actually spending $10,000 on each kid. If our children need more money for quality instruction and quality schools than we have the moral obligation to provide it. Is it more important to prove that we spend $7K or $10K per kid per year, or should we first secure a full school year and make sure our children can participate in music and sports. I don't understand why we punish our children first, while arguing like children about which number is correct.
To me, there is only one issue, do our kids have enough money to be properly educated? I'm tired of hearing "THEY could spend their money better" "THEY'RE spending it all on genereous severances," etc. etc. Our government, people, belongs to each one of us! If you don't like the way the board is spending our money, than run for office and make the changes that supposedly "need to happen." If you, or your candidate, doesn't win, than you can attend the board meetings and present your facts and your opinions on how to correct the problem DIRECTLY to the board. Making a simple statement about abuses is easy (and easily ignored), finding solutions can be more difficult but your audience will be more receptive to what you have to offer.
Posted by: MarkDaMan | Jul 18, 2005 10:36:04 AM
Jane (on my staff),
When I was last on Lars' show I said I would get him and others an answer to the questions he was asking before I vote to spend more local dollars on schools.
Sam
Posted by: Sam Adams | Jul 18, 2005 8:25:06 PM
I read the comments by (name deleted) and Lars Larson in which they use a lot of numbers that sound like a financial discussion that doesn’t seem accurate, or complete to me. I turned to the person whose knowledge and integrity with regard to education funding is highly respected by a very wide range of people in Oregon.
Jim Scherzinger has a reputation for being straightforward, clear, and honest with the information he provides. For many years he was the Oregon State Legislative Revenue Fiscal Officer; he then worked for Portland Public Schools as their chief financial officer, and later as superintendent. When Superintendent Phillips was hired, Jim retired. He has been willing to work part-time for the district on special projects. Jim is highly regarded as someone whose numbers you can trust whether you like the information they provide or not.
The reply that follows was written by Jim on his own time, at my personal request:
In response to [name deleted]
[Name deleted] claims that “our all funds school budget is among the highest in the nation per student and our scholastic scores are near the bottom.” Both of these assertions are false.
Our "scholastic scores" are above national averages. According to the National Assessment for Education Progress – the only assessment administered nationally to a statistically comparable group using the same standards – Oregon students have consistently outperformed national averages. This data is available on the National Center for Education Statistics website at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states.
Furthermore, the percentages of Portland Public School students meeting or exceeding state standards are generally higher than the state averages. See the Portland report card on the Oregon Department of Education website at http://www.ode.state.or.us/data/reportcard/RCpdfs/05/05-ReportCard-2180.pdf.
Our total costs per student are below national averages. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, Oregon had total expenditures (including capital and operating costs) per student of $8,646 in 2002-03, almost $500 less than the national average of $9,136. Portland spent a total of $8,661 per student in 2001-02 (the most recent year for district data from NCES), about $170 above the Oregon state average. The above figures and more can be found on the Standard and Poor’s website at http://www.schoolmatters.com. If anything, Oregon’s budget problems have made this gap larger. Preliminary data for 2003-04 show Oregon’s total cost per student to be $8,876. This is almost $700 below the national average of $9,571.
In response to Lars:
Lars method seriously misrepresents the comparison of public and private school costs in three fundamental ways:
His “all funds” methodology overstates actual spending. Simply adding fund expenditures double-counts transfers and other payments between funds (such as transfers from the General Fund to debt service funds or assessments to the self-insurance fund) and payments to enterprise funds. It also double-counts principal payments on debt (capital payments are counted once when the roof is replaced and again when the principal of the loan is repaid). Private accounting systems do not treat repayment of principal as an expenditure at all (it is simply an asset transfer) and expense capital expenditures over time. So comparing all “all-funds” governmental budget to private accounting would require significant adjustments to make them comparable. NCES makes these adjustments and gets significantly lower numbers as noted above.
With no evidence, he understates private school costs. Lars says the “cost per student” at many fine private schools is $3,000-4,000 for elementary grades, $4,000-5,000 for middle school and $5,000-7,000 for high school. What he apparently means is tuition, although the figures still seem too low. I’m sure we all would appreciate it if he listed the private schools in the Portland area that fall in these ranges, especially the high schools. The least expensive regular tuition at a Catholic high school in the Portland area is $6,930 ($7,348 for non-Catholics). That does not count annual student activity, registration, technology, and other assorted fees. And, as anyone who has had a child at a private school will attest, the tuition and fees do not cover the full cost of educating a child, let alone a contribution to capital costs. For example, at Valley Catholic in Beaverton the high school tuition is $7,420 and the “actual cost” is listed as $9,420. Private religious elementary schools are often subsidized both by direct payments from the sponsoring church and subsidies like free rent and utilities.
Public schools must provide some services that private schools typically do not. He mentions special education, but understates the effect by comparing the cost to an inflated total cost. He dismisses the costs of educating students whose native language is not English by an unsupported statement that “California’s” approach works better for less. He doesn’t mention the higher costs associated with educating students from low income backgrounds who disproportionately attend public schools. He also doesn’t mention that public schools must serve all students regardless of the issues or costs that they create for the system. Together these costs constitute about 20% of public school expenditures. A large share of these costs are paid for by federal and other grants outside the districts general fund, but his “all funds” methodology includes them like any other cost. In fact, private schools can receive the benefit of poverty (Title I) funds or services if they have high numbers of students from poverty areas just like public schools. But, under government accounting rules, these “pass-through” funds or services are counted as spending by the school district even if the benefit goes to the private school.
In addition, public schools by law must provide transportation to and from school which many private schools do not.
Finally, the all-funds methodology includes things that are self-funded such as school lunches and parent-pay kindergartens. In the case of the kindergartens, the ADM student count does not include the extra half-day although the costs are included in the cost figures. Total costs also include costs for public use of buildings. The public has access to our buildings and often pays for it, but in any event, the costs are in the totals.
Jim, Thank you for your informative response.
Private schools and public schools both work hard to provide students with quality education. Parts of what their missions and responsibilities are do overlap, but there are other aspects of their responsibilities and missions that diverge.
Comparing a public school district that has more than 80 schools, over 40,000 students, must follow federal and state mandates, must design curriculum and evaluate student achievement annually in a manner that provides comparable results, among an array of other requirements, to private schools is not an apples to apples comparison.
Providing free public education to all of our children is a federal, state, and community responsibility. It is a good thing. It is challenging work but it is at the core of what is good about our country. It is expensive, and we have a strong responsibility to both provide adequate funding to do the job well, and provide oversight to assure we are spending our tax dollars effectively. It will always be a dynamic balance and we must continually be diligent in our efforts.
Jane Ames
Posted by: Jane Ames | Jul 19, 2005 11:45:34 AM
Sam, I do hope that you can get those answers quickly. It is a shame that we sacrifice our children's education year after year as politicians promise that they will research the problems in our schools and get back with us later. You are only one in a line of many who have said something like "I would get him and others an answer to the questions he was asking before I vote to spend more local dollars on schools" it would be stellar if you do actually follow up in a reasonable time.
It might not appear that it is the City Council's job to fix our local schools, but what good does it do to promote our city to local business and those that are looking to move in if we have shoddy schools, angry parents, and children who are becoming more and more vocal about the poor education they are receiving in Portland schools. Remember the youth led sit-in at city hall a couple years ago? What an embarrassment to our city leaders that our youth have to skip important instruction time in their classes and head downtown to create drama, just to get noticed.
I was recently talking with a friend that has two children and lives in Oregon City. She works downtown and I asked her if there was affordable housing close in, wouldn't she rather live in Portland than have to commute in everyday. She looked at me funny and said, "I have a child getting ready to enter kindergarten and another one a few years away, there's no way in hell I'd move into Portland and sacrifice my children's education to have a shorter commute." I guess that means we join the other big cities across the nation in that we chase families into the suburbs where schools and increasingly better jobs are being located. There will be no economic renaissance for our city until our schools are once again held with great respect as they were many years ago.
Posted by: MarkDaMan | Jul 19, 2005 12:01:38 PM
Dear Sam,
First of all I want to thank you for asking Mr. Blackmer to respond to my questions and secondly you may place this interaction on your blog.
Having read the audit referenced by Mr. Blackmer I don't believe it answers my questions in fact it raises a few more. The audit states "School district in Oregon must continuously look for ways to reduce expenses so that all available resources can be directed toward student instruction." I concur with that statement. The audit recommends looking at managing Teacher leave to reduce cost and contracting out custodial services as a cost reducing measure. All of these are good ideas, however my question is who going to see they are implemented. Why are we spending money to teach English as a second language over several years at high cost when California has demonstrated that approach does not work? California found It is best to do it in one year or less.
This audit did not answer how the State, County, City is going to hold the administrators accountable for reducing expenses and direct those reduction toward student instruction. How/when are the administrators going to be held accountable for improving the scholastic scores and get rid of them if they don't.
The audit did not go to the budget line item detail which is where administrators should be looking and requiring justification for the amounts there. I know I have to justify my line item amounts. What is being done to look for energy efficiency? What is being done to retain quality teachers rather than those just with seniority.
The base question of why it cost more to provide minimal education in this state than most other states and most parochial schools is still not answered. Nor why our education system is providing such low scholastic scores.
I also question why the City of Portland participated in the audit when the funding provided was for the county to perform the audit. Is there another audit that shows the county actually used the tax money only where the voters authorized via the ballet measure.
Lastly since this is a State problem of school funding why is the county and city trying to obtain money to through at the school. Should not everyone including the county and city be pushing our state legislators to provide adequate funding.
Posted by: Duane and Nancy Sanger | Aug 26, 2005 6:40:52 PM
Post your comment
Please note: your email address, although required to post, will not be visible. We remove inappropriate or offensive content, and content deemed improper by State and City election and ethics law. The comments posted do not necessarily reflect the views of the office or the City of Portland.
If $10,000 a student per year isn’t enough…
How much is?
Oregon taxpayers fund kindergarten through 12th grade education to the tune of $10,000 per student per year. That’s what we spend on public education in government schools (lets not call them public…nearly every school is open to the public. Only government schools are run by the government).
People challenge me nearly every day on that particular issue. Most of them have a reason for not liking that number. Most of them have not been told the truth about the cost of public education in Oregon. Most of them buy the line that’s fed to them on a regular basis by TV, newspapers and (yes, gasp!) some radio stations (but not Newsradio 750 KXL).
I’m going to make the case for the truth of the $10k number right here and I invite you to share it with your liberal and unbelieving friends.
Let’s start with a little budget honesty.
The government schools run two sets of books. There are good reasons for doing this from an accounting standpoint. But it’s often used to deceive the public.
The school budget most people hear about is called the “general fund”. The general fund is the money local governments have some choice in spending. A school board can spend general fund money on salaries, health care, books, and computers or just about anything they want.
The budget that I consider the real budget is known in government circles as the “all funds” budget. It includes all of the “general fund” money plus other money that’s dedicated to specific uses.
Here’s where the dishonesty comes in. The “all funds” budget is always much bigger than the general fund. For example, the Portland public schools have a general fund of about 330 million dollars. But the all funds budget is 560 million dollars give or take.
If you ask how much money it costs to educate a child in a government school, Portland public schools will give you a number that’s somewhere in the range of $5,000 to $7000 dollars or so.
It’s simply not true.
Divide the “all funds” budget by the student population of the Portland schools, for example, you come up with an average (and frankly stunning) figure of $11,558 per student per year.
Now, that’s Portland…but what about the rest of the state?
The Oregon School Boards Association (which represents the boards that run every school district in Oregon), less than two years ago, commissioned a study of school finance. Here’s what the OSBA study found:
“Total expenditures per average daily attendance is $10,037 in 2002 “In 2002, total expenditures per ADA slightly exceeded 10,000”.
So how do school administrators tell taxpayers that the costs are 50% to 100% lower than that?
It involves a little mathematical magic that they never taught you in school.
School administrators don’t like to talk about the number of students who actually sit in classrooms on a daily basis. They like to “weight” the numbers.
If you thought that the ENRON scandal involved some funky math, consider these numbers.
Every child in kindergarten is counted as a child and a half (source OSBA)
Every child who is defined as “living in poverty” is counted as one and a quarter students.
Every child who has been placed on an IEP (individualized educational program) is counted as two students.
If you could do a quick walk through of Oregon’s nearly two hundred school districts and you counted up the number of warm bodies you saw on an average day, the number would come out at about 480,000 on an average day (source OSBA). But if you look at the ADMW (average daily measurement, weighted) that the schools like to use at budget time, you would count 650,000 students.
If you divide the “general fund” budgets of Oregon schools by the ADMW you can create an “average” cost per student as low as $5,000 dollars.
That’s the number you tell the taxpayers. But it’s not honest.
The honest number (source OSBA) is $10,000 per student per year.
Now, let’s talk about where that money goes, what it buys and why the number is so high.
The first objection you’ll hear from people is that “public schools have to educate all the children, and some of them have special needs”. That’s true. But you’d be surprised to find how relatively little of that $11,558 (or 10,000 statewide) goes to “special needs”.
Here are a few of the findings, quoted directly from their study which you can find on the web
(Source http://www.osba.org/hotopics/funding/crisis/index.htm)
Special Education funding increases -- Funding to meet federal special education mandates took money away from regular programs from both sides of the equalization formula. Since 1992 spending per student on special education in Oregon’s public schools increased 14.3 percent annually while spending on regular classroom instruction increased 3 percent annually. In 1992 Oregon schools spent an average e of $448 per student on special education. By 2000, the system spent $1,301 per student.
Blaming the kids who are mentally retarded or developmentally disabled…or those who don’t speak English well is simply a cheap way for Oregon’s education establishment to blame bad management on society’s most vulnerable.
For now, let’s set aside the question of whether special education should be increasing at nearly five times the rate of regular classroom spending. Instead, let’s compare the cost of education in a government school to the cost of education in a private school.
Take the original statewide average of $10k per student per year. Subtract the 1300 dollars that’s spent on “special education”. You’re left with an average of 8700 dollars per student per year.
A common misperception is that private education is expensive. That can be true. Top notch private schools in the Portland area can charge tuition north of 13,000 dollars. But most of them don’t.
(Insert data from Adam research here)
The cost per student at many fine private schools averages $3,000-4,000 for elementary grades, $4,000-5,000 for middle school and $5,000-7,000 for high school. If you take the actual number of students in Oregon schools and assume (for the sake of argument) that about half of them are in grades k-6, 25 percent in middle or junior high school grades, and 25 percent in high school, what would be the cost of educating them in private schools? The 240,000 in k-6 would cost 960 million dollars per year (using the higher figure of $4,000), the 120,000 in middle school would cost 600 million, and the high school students would cost 840 million dollars per year.
The average cost per student per year? $5,000
Consider this illustration. We’re told over and over in Oregon that schools are bulging with 25 to 30 students per classroom. That means the average classroom has at least $250,000 dollars worth of education resources available (25 students times $10,000 per student). The average classroom teacher makes just under $50,000 dollars per year. Benefits add another 38 percent (source OSBA). That means a maximum of 69,000 dollars is being spent on the person who does the teaching. Special education costs would take another 32,500 dollars per classroom.
It should be hard for taxpayers to swallow the assertion that it takes around $150,000 dollars in support services to put a teacher in front of a classroom of students. Remember, unlike most private schools…nearly every school building in Oregon is completely paid for…and such buildings aren’t subject to property taxes.
English as a second language is another funding problem for Oregon. For every child who speaks Vietnamese, Spanish or Russian, the state allocates 50% more money in the state funding formula (roughly 7500 dollars from the state treasury instead of the 5,000 it provides for mainstream children).
It’s not necessary.
Half a dozen years ago, California voters…fed up with their politician’s lack of action on the problem, voted to demand that children be placed in full immersion English classes for the one year it takes most of them to transition from a foreign language to English. It worked. The kids learned the language (they’re better at it than adults…and ask yourself…if you took a foreign language full time, do you think you would be pretty good at it by the end of a year?), their test scores went up in every subject matter, and the cost of education went down.
Who lost in that equation? The teacher’s unions, who would lose jobs teaching kids in two languages for the five to seven years it takes Oregon to transition a student from one language to another.
Ten percent of Oregon’s school kids are in ESL classes. That means almost 50,000 students who cost 50% more than necessary for years. It’s an extra burden of 125 million dollars a year that we could be freed from in just one year if we followed California’s lead. Think of all the books, computers and teachers that money could buy.
We will continue to be told the lie that Oregon doesn’t fund its schools well. Consider these facts.
America spends the greatest amount of money per student per year on education of any country on planet earth. Oregon spends more than the national average. Oregon funds schools better than in Washington or California. The OSBA study shows that between “1991-2001…the consumer price index increased 30 percent in Oregon and 36 percent in Portland. Total spending per actual student rose 54 percent.”
We fund our schools well. The money is not necessarily managed well. There are easy steps we could take beginning tomorrow to fix Oregon’s education problems…but throwing more money at them is not the answer.
Posted by: Lars | Jul 18, 2005 7:04:57 AM