The U.S. Department of Education announced Wednesday that more than 40 percent of the nation's high-poverty schools are getting short shrift on local and state education money.
As many blog readers know, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools spends significantly more per student at schools with the highest levels of student poverty, in part because the federal Title I program pumps in millions of dollars in aid. The Ed Department set out to see whether school districts are using that money to supplant state and local spending, shifting money to wealthier schools. They pulled federal money out of the equation and recalculated 2008-09 per-pupil spending for schools in more than 13,000 districts.
According to the news release, more than 40 percent of Title I schools spent less state and local money on teachers and other personnel than more affluent schools in the same district.
“Educators across the country understand that low-income students need extra support and resources to succeed, but in far too many places policies for assigning teachers and allocating resources are perpetuating the problem rather than solving it,” U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan says in the release. “The good news in this report is that it is feasible for districts to address this problem and it will have a significant impact on educational opportunities for our nation’s poorest children.”
I downloaded their data from CMS (go here for the raw data), and it doesn't look like high-poverty schools are coming up short, even without the federal aid factored in. Not surprisingly, size and need seem to be the biggest factors in high per-pupil spending; at very small schools, administrative, support and building costs are divided among fewer students. Small alternative schools had the highest state and local totals, led by $15,545 at Derita, which served students with severe behavioral problems.
Garinger High was the highest regular school at $7,462. At that time, no CMS high schools had hit the 75 percent poverty mark that CMS uses to distribute Title I aid, but it's a high-poverty neighborhood school getting lots of extra support from CMS. In general, the high-spending list was dominated by small high-poverty elementary schools, such as Shamrock Gardens and Thomasboro, and small magnets such as the Montessori schools, Davis Military/Leadership and Davidson IB.
The lowest per-pupil state and local spending was at large suburban schools with low poverty levels, according to the federal tally. Alexander Graham Middle was lowest at $2,907, followed by Community House Middle at $3,039. Wilson Middle, which closed this year, was the Title I school that landed lowest on the spending list, 95th of 167 schools.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
High-poverty schools shortchanged?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
40 comments:
Clearly the local NAACP leader is correct in labeling Charlotte a "bastion of racism".
For five decades we've thrown billions towards the "low-income" types. And decade after decade they've produced the same results.
Shortchanged? ROFLMAO Why not figure how much taxes they pay or what govt benefits they get for free and see who is really getting shortchanged?
The recent survery showed 50% of households pay ZERO taxes. In other words 50% of America are bums parasites maggots and beggars.
Beggars cant be choosey so pipe down all you freeloaders. The hated elite 1% pay more than the bottom 95% of those who pay taxes.
This has to change. Cut off all freebies to the bums unless they are proven physically unable to work to pay taxes to get the 15 trillion debt erased.
"For five decades we've thrown billions towards the "low-income" types"
Only billions?
Its been trillions. Big error.
Interesting that the constant drumbeat from The Observer (especially the editorial page) and local advocates for most of the past ten years was that high poverty schools and students were being shortchanged. That became "common knowledge" with no one, reporters included, really challenging the proposition until very recently (and those who did challenge it were scorned). Unfortunately this idea was promoted so forcefully that many still believe it (or prefer to believe it). And this has done real damage to community relations throughout Mecklenburg County. Of course, promoting the unfairness of it all has kept the grievance industry chugging right along.
I am pretty sure the way CMS derive "high-poverty" schools is from the % of kids receiving Free or Reduced Lunches (FRL). That makes the whole article ridiculous as time and time again the FRL program in CMS has been shown to be overstated as parents lie about their income to qualify.
To 7:44 AM "The recent survery showed 50% of households pay ZERO taxes."
Actually, that is portion of those that "file" federal income taxes. There is another 45% that does not even file federal income tax forms.
Let me see if I can squeeze one more heartbeat of this horse I thought was dead 100 times over.
The Feds nor CMS have not one clue as to which students truly qualify for free or reduced lunches, which translates into all these extra goodies they claim are not being handed out to "high poverty schools".
So again, comments about being shortchanged is laughable...
The stupidity that is our Federal government continues....
The Charlotte Observer listed the Per Pupil Spending for every school this last year. I could not bring up the link that Ms. Helms posted, but here is mine: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/01/07/1962792/per-pupil-spending-charts.html##ixzz1IzC2vR7f.
As you will see, students at Ballantyne Elementary receive education tax dollars of $ $4,406, while students at Thomasboro Elem. receive $10,393 per pupil-about 2.5 times the tax dollars. Middle school students at Community House receive $4,014 per pupil while spending on students at Sedgefield is $8,377-more than double. High School students at Hopewell receive
$4,538 per pupil while students at Midwood receive $10,086-again-2.5 times. A total of Bright Beginnings
1,746 preschoolers received $7,685 per pupil. 838 Special Schools received an AVERAGE of $18,442 PER PUPIL, with 95 students at Morgan School for behavior disordered students of all ages received $26,549 PER PUPIL. Go look at the entire list to see the range of education funding from the least to the greatest. It's another example of Redistribution of Wealth from the same taxpayers. Most likely those tax dollars are not going to your own children. So no-the cries of the NAACP and the low income community, council, commissioners etc that their children are being discriminated against are totally false-in fact-the very opposite is true. Students are not treated equally, as if your child is in one of the higher income areas-regardless of need or specific family income-your child may be getting $4,000 to $6,000 less for his/her education.
Sorry about the link -- it worked when I tested it last night but didn't work for me this morning, either. I've just redone it and it seems to be working now. You still have to download the 17 MB "Dataset on school-level expenditures" to get their data.
The federal numbers will be significantly lower than the CMS numbers because CMS includes federal, local and state, while the Ed Dept report pulled out federal. I was curious to see how that would pan out -- their premise was that once you took out the federal money, wealthier schools would have the edge. And if the only sort they were doing was Title I vs. non-Title I, they might have concluded that about CMS. The thing is, CMS' non-Title I schools include some with very high poverty levels (60-70 percent on lunch aid would be Title I in most districts, but not here) and some, such as the alternatives and magnets, that have high per-pupil spending because of their specific needs.
Ann,
I appreciate the information, but what can individual citizens do about it? There will always be those who complain about inequity and double standards, but there are those of us who grew up here and attended the public schools in the time of busing who saw the potential of low-income children and the benefits of addressing poverty first-hand. That was the great thing about integration, both racial and economic, performance of all children was everyone's business and in everyone's interest. The system we have now allows an "otherness" and an aloofness that comments posted here show. These are our children, all of them.
Are there any local education funds here that will allow individuals to donate to CMS or specific schools? I've contributed through http://www.donorschoose.org previously, but I've noticed high poverty/high gain schools don't seem to list projects often.
In other words, Ann, the comment at 09:55 AM just blew this nonsense of yours completely out of the proverbial water.
Before long, CMS will be like Memphis--virtually all "high poverty" students and virtually no support from the taxpayers. I guess that is what Mecklenburg wants because they are darned sure making it happen, both with their formula for allocating dollars to the schools and with their fraudulent revaluations in the "more affluent" communities. The fact that spending all this money on certain students has not changed the outcome is just an aside.
To 10:38, first let me respond to say there are a lot of things a single individual can do. A recent interview with a principal indicated what he thought a mentor who took one kid under their arm ful ltime coul dmake a difference in that student's life. Even if you step up to routinely volunteering in a particular teacher's classroom a couple of times a week would help. But however, the conclusion you draw about seeing the potential when CMS was forcibly integrated did not pan out in test results as we saw in the the first NC ABC test results when busing first stopped. The difference came when that child of poverty had parents who cared and loved the child to discipline the child and monitor the child and actively raised the child instead of letting the TV or the streets raise the child.
As to your second point, there are a number of funds including the CMS Foundation to the school level funds which will gladly take your donation and if your comany matches it, it is even better.
But bottom line is, what this analysis obviously misses is how education is valued in these different households.
And I will briefly add to, CMS doers skew an anlysi liek this on pupose. The federal government recognizes a Title 1 school at 40% FRL rate (I will not elaborate on that fruad here). However CMS collects up all that Tile 1 money and funnels it to only most fo the over 75% FRL schools. So a good many of what the feds call high poverty schools in CMS do not get the funds and this report tries to make you think it is diverted to non high poverty schools and that is incorrect.
Bottom line, public education of the masses gets little to no mileage of all the extra money and effort put into the high poverty population.
9:55 and 10:40, facts are stubborn things to overcome.
Could it be that the
Multicultural-Diverse-Americans just all want everything for FREE from Uncle Sam aka Uncle Barack?
Ever see on tv any zoo animals or those raised from birth released back into the wild?
They inevitably all die or get killed and eaten without exception. Why? They never had to learn how to work or earn their food like the wild animals but we given all their food for free.
Its survival of the fittest and only the strong survive. Thats the way of the world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Og3aU7d8y0
Perhaps anonymous at 10:33 would like to clarify what he or she means by the "situation we have now." Does our current formula for allocating dollars not address poverty, since the high poverty schools receive as much as 2 1/2 times the amount of others? The fact that we spend disproportionately on one group while another group goes to crowded classrooms does seem to indicate that those who make these decisions find some children more deserving than others, but it isn't the group you seem to be talking about. I think the perceived unfairness of this formula for allocating money without evidence of its achieving the desired results is what creates the "aloofness" to which you refer. The perceived unfairness of the recent revaluation just adds to that feeling.
If Fed money is factored into what local municpalities and states pay for eduction and the Fed money goes to poverty schools, then wouldn't it make sense that if the Fed money is removed, these schools get less? Is the Fed money supposed to be allocated above and beyond the local and state money? Why would states and local municiplities pay more if the Fed picks up the tab on certain schools?
I think Razor's Edge has hit the nail on the head. Those who wish for a return to busing have from the get-go accused those who did not favor busing as not caring about the poor or not wanting their children to mingle with minorities. They have perpetuated the myth that suburbanites are selfish, totally ignoring not only the difference in tax dollars going to the various schools but also the many volunteer hours, supplies, and dollars that suburban schools have contributed to inner city schools and students.
Perhaps if, when busing ended, the entire community had been encouraged to work together to make our school system a success we might have much less animosity today. Instead those who were unhappy about the court decision have continued to predict failure and unfairness and have cast as the bad guys suburban families who have kept their children in the public school system and worked to make it better.
In my experience, I have seen a lot of wasted, unused resources at the high poverty schools because of the lack of educational culture and management. The poorer, urban, segregated schools get the lowest-paid teachers in the early parts of their careers. The older, more seasoned veterans are in the higher-level classes. It's a seniority, good-ol'-boy network that is worse than ever because of misguided legislation (NCLB, etc.). The bottom line is these Title I schools need LEADERSHIP and DISCIPLINE - everything else will fall into place. I've had the same percentage of students in all types of classes ("rich" and "poor") who want to do well, have issues, or have troubles. It all starts at the top.
Listen to therestofthestory folks...they are a well-informed source of the real issues
12:32, I think that's exactly what the feds are saying, that their money is supposed to be in addition to what they'd normally spend on those schools, not supplanting state and local spending. Sort of like the Education Lottery money ...
10:38, donorschoose.com seems like a great vehicle; too bad you're not finding schools you want. Other options that come to mind: Classroom Central (classroomcentral.org) takes donations to provide classroom supplies at high-poverty schools, and Project LIFT (projectliftcharlotte.org) is raising money for eight westside schools. Or, I'm pretty sure you can just contact the principal of an individual school and ask what they need.
Liberal social engineered Marxists are so appallingly criminal to shortchange our wonderful students in CMS rifling 2.5 times more on the unappreciative irresponsible crime ridden welfare areas than on good taxpaying responsible trustworthy areas who pay through the nose for everything.
What a crock. Where is justice and equality for all? This is gross inequality. We demand at least equal expenditure for all CMS areas across the board. Its not like we are asking for our pro rata share according to what we pay into the system. We would get it all if that were the case.
Using Ballentyne and Thomasboro as guides each student in each school regardless of race gender or social class should have exactly 7399.50 spend on them splitting the 14799. as otherwise students are being illegally and unethically discriminated against based on immoral socialist agendas.
Clearly CMS is a bastion of NAACP liberalist reverse racism and evil bigotry. Where is the outcry from our good citizens? We demand immediate equality.
Stop shortchanging our students. No wonder China is passing America.
Plain and simple. The data shows the inequality of suburb school funding compared to a Title I school. Suburb schools receive 2 to 2.5 times less in funding.This is called:
TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION
Lots of talk, here are some specifics...I tutored at Thomasboro - very nice, spacious building, lots of unused computers in the library, nobody knew what to do with them. Meanwhile, kids eat off the floor at the top ranked public high school in Charlotte, and a science teacher distributed the only prep books available, from 1998, to help kids prepare for last year's AP exam. Now that's some serious inequality.
We've been out of paper for over a month. No textbooks, too bad, buy your own paper or use the non-available technology to supplant your evaluation.
CMS expects the higher socioeconomic areas to provided through the PTA. They do not give a damn that these areas pay more in taxes and receive less than half of the funds.They NEVER will.The time will come very soon when the demographics will change and the great experiment that has been know for sometime will be seen by all.Teachers with any experience see this and are flocking to Raleigh or Northern Virginia.
Just another example of the enablement of a group that will never learn how to fish. Just keep giving them the fish. See how that has worked since LBJ. Where are the vocational and trade schools? When will we ever learn?@@?
At least it's known that the many, many vocational and trade teachers in CMS have been run off by CTE leadership and the cadre of yes persons carefully chosen not to excel more than the boss. Ms. Clark has known this for years but has refused to do anything about it.
Looks like you picked a sore subject for your topic today, Ann. Too bad that so many in Charlotte have for so long been led to believe that the suburbs were getting it all (how else could those suburban kids be doing so well?)at the expense of inner city kids. I wonder why it has taken so long for the truth to come out?
Is CPCC classified as a high-poverty school? They don't even get enough money to hire full-time teachers.
Define a Title 1 school? A 75% or higher poverty rate seems excessively high for this designation. I would think a school hitting a 30- 40% poverty rate would be classified as a Title 1 school. Who decides Title 1 funding? Is the same formula used for rural and urban schools? CMS's poverty rate surpassed 50% a couple of years ago (note: I really don't want to hear about FRL fraud in CMS since this is a STATE issue. Until the STATE decides to look into this problem, I'm not interested in discussing this issue here. Perhaps another day).
Let's say a school with 900 students has a poverty rate of 58% but a school with only 350 students has a poverty rate of 75%. I'm not a mathematician, but something doesn't add up.
(cont..)
OK, some stat junky help me here.
What school receives more state and federal funding? A school with more students who are classified as low-income OR a school with a higher percentage of low-income students? A large school may have more students who are classified low-income but a lower percentage of OVERALL students who are classified as low income (vs. a small school). Please explain the process of assigning Title 1 money per pupil vs. per school. I'm curious how Title 1 funds are distributed at rural schools? Who decides Title 1 funding? Local school boards, the state, the federal government - who? Where's Pamela when we need her?
Have at it Wiley and Thereintofor whatever your name is.
Ahhhh...Project LIFT...
Another waste of $55 million good old American dollars...
What's comical about Project LIFT is that it is only "helping" a small minority of students....no pun intended.
Any data coming out of this farce should be taken with a grain of salt.
I'll take a stab at the distribution, if folks are still reading. The feds give school districts discretion on how to distribute Title I money. I think there's a floor (someone has posted 30 to 40 percent), but once a school hits 75 percent FRL (or economically disadvantaged), that school must get T1 money. CMS is fairly unusual in having so many over 75 percent that those are the only ones designated T1 schools. So yes, it is somewhat arbitrary: A small school with 76 percent FRL gets T1 money, while a larger one with 74 percent (yet more disadvantaged kids) gets none.
CMS used to distribute its local money through the Equity/FOCUS program in much the same way, with an arbitrary cutoff (generally somewhere in the 60s). Peter Gorman and the board revised that for the very reason cited in the comment. While I think some local money is still distributed based on % FRL, the weighted student staffing formula means additional teachers are assigned based on actual numbers of students. So in that case, a large school with, say, 60 percent FRL would still get significant aid.
to the poster at 10:50 pm...it is a shame you do not want to hear about the FRL program...but it is not a state issue as I understand it, rather a federal issue overseen/monitored by the US Dept of Ag....for those who are knowledgeable of this waste, I urge you to contact Scott Carter who oversees it and vent your frustrations...if enough would do this perhaps they would act...
scott.carter@fns.usda.gov or call at 7033052313 afterwards call your congressperson to express your frustrations...
Several folks have commented about the perception that urban schools are underfunded. The only thing I can say is that turning public perception may be like turning a cruise ship; it's slow. There was a time when inner-city high-poverty schools were seriously shortchanged, but that's been a couple of decades ago. Since then CMS has been working on reversing that trend (some would argue they overcompensated), and the Observer has been reporting on the construction, additional teachers and higher per-pupil spending in high-poverty areas. So yes, I'd agree that "the suburban schools get all the money" is an outdated/incorrect notion, but so it "the Observer keeps saying suburban schools get all the money."
So if suburban schools got all the money back in the past, as a reporter you can prove what you just said?
Where are the numbers to back up YOUR supposition?
We know the numbers for those saying just the fact Urban Schools are getting more?
"Several decades ago high poverty schools were seriously short changed" Ummm--several decades ago we were busing and suburban kids were assigned to those "high poverty" schools. Yes, many of those schools were short changed, but they were short changed for everyone, not just high poverty kids. The school my child was bused to had no hot water after 1:00. Ask for comments about the condition of Marie G. Davis when it was a gifted magnet for middle school kids. And two decades ago there were very few schools in the suburbs--that was strongly resisted by the school board.
The perception that suburban schools were getting it all was very much cultivated by Observer editorials and columnists (notice I didn't say reporters, Ann) following the court decision that overturned busing (which The Observer quite clearly disagreed with).
After the 2003 school board election, which created a board more amenable to neighborhood schools,Observer columnist Don Hudson wrote several columns about that election, calling suburban people the "me people" who won out over the "we people".
This type of editorializing continued well into the middle of the decade (and still sneaks into a Fannie Flono column every so often).
So I'm not so sure it's correct to say that "the Observer keeps saying suburban schools get all the money" is all that outdated of a notion. In my opinion the paper could have done a lot more to provide a balanced view of the school system during the last ten years.
9:14
Thanks for the clarification re: FRL being a federal program not a state program. It's not that I'm not interested in FRL fraud I'm simply more interested in how Title I funding is distributed. Assuming every student who receives FRL is eligible to receive FRL, I was trying to get a better grasp on the formula CMS uses to determine which schools are entitled to Title 1 funding. Ann answered my main question although I'm still unclear how other school districts in NC distribute Title 1 Funds.
Ann:
"So yes, it is somewhat arbitrary: A small school with 76 percent FRL gets T1 money, while a larger one with 74 percent (yet more disadvantaged kids) gets none."
Post a Comment