Week In Review, March 27, 2008: Per Pupil Funding in California - What It Is and What It Means

The average per pupil funding for kindergarten-12th grade California students is more than $11,500 when factoring in local, state and federal funding, according to the Governor’s Budget.

How does California’s investment in students compare to other states?

It depends on who you ask. Here is a look at three different positions:

• The National Center for Education Statistics ranks California per pupil spending 25th among the states in 2003-04, which is equal to 96 percent of the national average $9,620 per pupil. New Jersey is at the top at $14,917 per pupil, and Utah spends the least: $6,110 per pupil.

• The National Education Association places California 33rd in the nation for 2005-06, 91 percent of the national average. (NEA also calculates the average teacher salary in California of $59,825 as the highest in the nation – 22 percent above the national average.)

• Education Week, adjusting for regional cost differences, figures California spending is 46th in the nation.

The non-partisan Legislative Analysts’ Office selected the National Center for Education Statistics calculation and ranking –suggesting a higher level of confidence in that organization’s figures.

One thing is for sure though: More money and a higher rank will not improve student achievement according to numerous studies on the subject. Among the findings and conclusions are:

• “While comparisons to the national average may have illustrative value, the analytic basis for pursuing the national average as a spending goal is unclear. . . . Research and experience suggest that how we spend available education resources is as least as important as how much we spend on education.” (LAO 2000-01 Analysis)

• “The relationship between dollars and student achievement in California is so uncertain that it cannot be used to gauge the potential effect of resources on student outcomes. . . . [Data illustrating] API [Academic Performance Index] scores as a function of per pupil spending in 2004-2005 . . . finds essentially no relationship between the two. (“Getting Down to Facts: School Finance and Governance in California,” 2007 [GDTF])

• "The relationship between spending per student between the ages of 6 and 15 and student outcomes as measured by PISA [Programme for International Student Achievement, an international testing system] is weak. . . . It is estimated that across OECD countries, there is a potential for increasing learning outcomes by 22% while maintaining current levels of resources.” (Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] “Education at a Glance, 2007,” an international comparison of 30 countries)

• "Lower unit expenditure [dollars per pupil, for example] does not necessarily lead to lower achievement and it would be misleading to equate a lower unit expenditure generally with lower quality of educational services." (OECD, “Education at a Glance”)

• “If we do not know how to achieve a given level of student performance, we cannot estimate the cost of attaining that goal.” (GDTF)

• “If additional dollars were inserted into the current system there is no reason to expect substantial increases in student outcomes related to state goals.” (GDTF)

You can spend all the money in the world on K-12 education, but until we put more money in the classrooms and less in bureaucracy and act responsibly with what we have, the extra money will be for naught.