Public Education Funding Cuts

You are currently browsing the archive for the Public Education Funding Cuts category.

More Education Funding: Less Education Funding?

April 29, 2011 in Public Education Funding Cuts by Holly

Which is it?

Here’s the math. This year per pupil funding is at $2,577 dollars. Next year it’s $2,816 dollars, a gain of $239 dollars. But while the legislature was increasing funding for one area, it was decreasing it in another. Lawmakers took money the schools already had and moved it to increase per pupil funding.

Hidden budget cuts have a big impact on local schools

Moving money around is not the same as increasing the pot. But certain legislators convinced the Legislature to do just that. And then to claim they have provided the new money needed to educate an expected influx of more than 14,000 new students in Utah schools next year.

After the State Office of Education analyzed education funding dollars, they found it may not curb class sizes after all. In fact, there is less funding per pupil in the coming year, than there is this year.

Hidden budget cuts have a big impact on local schools

February 2, 2011 in Public Education Funding Cuts by Holly

Despite reports to the contrary, there has been a steady decline—totaling 16%—in the actual dollar value of the WPU (Weighted Pupil Unit) over the course of the last several years.  The statutory value of the WPU was set (by the legislature) at $2577 for FY 2009 through FY 2011.  However, Flexible Allocation WPU Distribution, a line in the Basic School Program (formerly called Social Security and Retirement), adds to the value of the WPU because it is distributed as an add-on to the districts in exactly the same manner as the WPU, making the value of the WPU incrementally higher than that actually shown in the statute and on the budget sheets distributed by the Public Education Appropriations Committee. 

Originally, this line item was created to help districts pay for increasing retirement and social security costs.  It now functions as a WPU add-on, which gives local schools the flexibility to allocate the funds according to their specific needs.  Its distribution is based on the percentage of WPUs local schools receive.  So, fundamentally, cutting this line item is just like cutting the value of the WPU. 

The numbers below show the true value, and how it has declined.

FY 2009

$350 million divided by 714,000 WPUs=$490 (Flexible Allocation WPU Distribution-formerly called Social Security and Retirement)

$490 (added WPU value)
+$2577  (statutorily generated WPU value)
=$3067 (True Value of WPU)

FY 2010

$280 million divided by 731,500 WPUs=$384 (Flexible Allocation WPU Distribution-formerly called Social Security and Retirement)

$384 (added WPU value)
+$2577  (statutorily generated WPU value)
=$2961 (True Value of WPU)

FY 2011

$217 million divided by 745,100 WPUs=$291 (Flexible Allocation WPU Distribution-formerly called Social Security and Retirement)

$291 (added WPU value)
+$2577  (statutorily generated WPU value)
=$2868 (True value of WPU)

FY 2012

$0 (added WPU value)
+$2577 (statutorily generated WPU value)
=$2577 (True value of the WPU)

The FY 2012 budget proposes cutting the Flexible Allocation WPU Distribution completely, causing the true value of the WPU to drop to the statutory value of $2577.  This is a hidden cut to the basic funding unit of public education and is difficult to track, but will result in further losses to teacher salaries in local districts, larger class sizes and fewer programs.  Additionally, if this is the avenue for funding growth, or supplanting education funds in another area, it’s tantamount to another undisclosed cut to public education.  Held harmless?  Hardly!

Tags: , , ,

Does Utah’s low per-pupil spending disadvantage Utah students?

February 14, 2010 in Public Education Funding Cuts by Holly

“Something is limiting Utah’s ability to perform at a level that would be expected for a state with its demographic profile.  With per-pupil funding $3,000 lower than its peer-group average, financial limitations are a likely limiting factor.”  Utah Foundation

 

Utah cut public education spending for the 2009-10 school year and plans to cut it again for the 2010-11. We feel it’s important that you know what Utah’s school children are going without because of these cuts and the constant ratcheting down of the revenue effort used to fund public education. Some of Utah’s policymakers consider reducing the ongoing revenue stream to public education sound policy in good economic times as well as in bad.  These recent budget cuts and this constant reduction to revenue effort affects what Utah students experience in terms of class size and support services that impact student achievement.  Research outlining Utah’s tax policy changes show that over 1 billion dollars a year have been eroded from public education funding.

 
If you are reading this blog, you’re probably already familiar with the statistics that show Utah last in the nation in per pupil spending, but what do the students in other states have that Utah students do not?  Utah spent an average of $5,437 per pupil in 2005-06, compared to $9,138 nationally.  Thus, the gap between Utah and U.S. average per pupil expenditures during that period was $3,702.  That difference increased to $3,977 in 2006-07, which is the most current period for which such statistics are available.  Follow the discussions concerning this year’s public education budget at: http://twitter.com/UTPS

 In the report issued by the Utah Foundation entitled “What Can $3,702 Buy? How Utah Compares in Education Spending and Services,” it indicates that Utah’s students get less and have lower achievement than five peer states. The report shows Utah’s five peer states (identified in Utah Foundation’s 2007 report as being demographically similar to Utah) spent between $7,700 and $10,000 per pupil.  Utah scored lowest on NAEP of all of its peer states in every category.  The states scoring lower than Utah are almost all states that struggle with entrenched poverty, heavy immigration or other demographic disadvantages.  Those with similar demographics to Utah scored higher.

Utah Students have Larger Classes

Utah Students have Larger Classes

Utah Students have fewer Counselors

Utah Students have fewer Counselors

 

 

Utah Students have larger School Districts

Utah Students have Larger School Districts

Utah Foundation states in its report, School Testing Results, 2006 & 2007: How Utah Compares to Other States—” The report finds that Utah is scoring well below what would be expected for a state with its demographic profile. In math, reading, and science tests for 8th graders, Utah ranked 30th (math), 29th (reading), and 18th (science). But if Utah were in the middle of its demographic peers, it would score in the top 10 nationally in science and in the top 15 states for math and reading. Utah’s closest overall peer states are South Dakota, Montana, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Nebraska. These are generally high-scoring states, and Utah falls behind each of them in each test examined.”

When Compared to Peer States Utah Scores Last

When Compared to Peer States Utah Scores Last

 It is imperative we have a tax system that is fair, equitable, broad-based, stable, and in sync with our economy, along with a school funding system that meets the needs of our children, ensuring adequate class sizes and quality educational opportunities for all students. The revenues invested in public schools are an investment in our state’s future. Public education should be funded at a level that meets the educational needs of Utah’s children, which will help to ensure the state’s economic future.

 

 

 

Tags: ,