Money, Money Everywhere, But I Want Some Results
How Urban School Districts Have Failed Taxpayers and Students Alike
Sean Martin
If you've ever gone to a public school you've heard the traditional song and dance that school districts perform every few years about how costs have gone up, the money just can't stretch any further, yada yada yada. This is immediately followed by a plea for more money and some doomsday prediction/threat of what will happen if they do not get more money. It is similar to the shpeal the Ohio State administration gives every year before it raises tuition by the maximum amount allowed by law. School districts in big cities are no different, but are we getting what we are paying for?
While most people buy into the myth that districts in large cities are under-funded, that is simply not true. It is not an altogether unreasonable assumption given the low test scores, low graduation rates, and deplorable condition of the school buildings. It would be reasonable to assume that the problem is a lack of funds. With a little bit of digging into school spending in Ohio, it becomes clear that big city schools are, in fact, among the richest in the state. The only truly under-funded schools are in rural areas, but they lack the political clout to make any noise. Don't believe me? Go the Ohio Department of Education website and look up the information I'm about to list for yourself. However I must warn you, there are a lot of Excel spreadsheets to sift through.
In Ohio there are 612 public school districts. All of Ohio's urban school districts are in the top 50 in terms of per pupil expenditures, yet none get quality results. This is a bad deal for everybody, but to illustrate my point I'll use three central Ohio school districts: Columbus City Schools, Worthington City Schools, and Jonathan Alder Local Schools. I use these districts because they are all in reasonably close proximity to each other, thus minimizing differences in cost of living, while maximizing differences in per pupil expenditures. Worthington is a suburban district that traditionally spares no expense on its students and is generally considered to be the best school in the area. Jonathan Alder is a rural school and is traditionally one of the lowest funded schools in central Ohio and, at times, the lowest funded. Columbus is a good example of the problem city schools I am trying to illustrate.
At this point the most current data available is from the 2005-06 school year so that is the data I will be referencing. It should also be noted that the state of Ohio uses a list of 25 criteria in order to evaluate the effectiveness of a school district. For the 2005-06 school year Worthington spent $12,232 per student and met all 25 criteria, making it the second highest funded school in central Ohio. Jonathan Alder spent $7,652 per student and met 24 of the criteria, which is very respectable. Columbus spent $11,918 per student but only met 5 of the 25 criteria! That means that out of the 49 districts in central Ohio, Columbus spent the 4th most money and had the worst results by a long shot. The average number of criteria met was 20 and the next worst was Groveport-Madison with 8. For Columbus, this is nothing new. Back in the 2003-04 school year, Columbus was also the lowest achieving district when it met only 5 criteria. Of course, at that time there were only 18 criteria it was measured by, so not only is Columbus blowing through money like nobody's business, but they are continuing to get worse.
The rest at:
http://media.www.osusentinel.com/media/sto...s-2975754.shtml 
Columbus Townhall > Forum > Politics > Local (Moderators: Peter, CTH Public Relations)
Topic: How Urban School Districts Have Failed Taxpayers
