Getting the Facts Straight on Per Pupil Spending in California

[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By Julia Rosen

Dan Walters is out with a column arguing that our schools have plenty of money already. He describes the education community and Democratic legislators as "howling" about Schwarzenegger's proposed bugdet, which slashes education spending and has already resulted in 20,000 education professionals getting pick slips.

Naturally, the Republicans are attempting to claim that we are already spending too much on school administration costs and education reforms. They point to California's poor scores on standardized tests as a reason to cut school funding even more. Somehow logic seems to be eluding them.

Walters bases his column on numbers released by the Census Bureau, based on what he calls "hard numbers", but when you dig into them, they actually undermine Walter's argument. (check the flip)

The Census Bureau report strongly refutes the oft-cited "fact" that California is near the bottom in per-pupil school spending. The national average was $9,138 in 2005-06. California was at $8,486, with New York the highest at $14,884 and Utah the lowest at $5,437 - one of 22 states, in fact, that fell below California's level.

In terms of school revenues, California was 25th among the states at $10,264 per pupil, just under the national average. It was above average in per-pupil income from federal and state sources and about $1,700 per pupil below average in local revenues, thanks to Proposition 13, the 1978 property tax limit measure.

Walters is arguing that below average is just peachy. Keep in mind that these figures are not adjusted for cost of living, just straight expenditures. The Education Coalition naturally has a few things to say about these numbers and points out a few details that Walters conveniently skipped over:

“The Census Bureau numbers show that California still spends $652 less per student than the national average, even though their figures on "student spending" include funds from outside the state that never make it into the classroom, which arguably inflate the figures. The Census Bureau estimates lump in payments made into the state retirement system, as well as federal funding beyond what the state spends. But even including those calculations, California's significantly below-average spending on students is abysmal. By comparison, the non-partisan national publication Education Week issued a report showing that California spends $1,900 less than the national average, because it only includes the actual funds spent by each state on each student.”

Back to the cost of living discussion....even though we have extremely high costs, housing in particular, our teachers are still paid below the national average on a per pupil basis: $3,479 in California - compared to the national average of $3,811.