|
|
|
Are we getting what we’re paying for? Fayette County paying more for school system but getting less return on investment [Editor’s note: This article originally accompanied county comparisons for the 2005-2006 school year and for the year range from 2002 to 2006. A few problem areas indicated by those comparisons did not recur in the 2006-2007 school year, including all schools achieving “Good Standing” status. Other cited problems remain, as can be seen in the comparison chart for 2006-2007. The 2002-2006 comparison chart has been updated to include 2007.] A quick look at a few key numbers from the annual Report Cards published by the Tennessee Department of Education for the four school years from 2002 to 2006 reveals a startling conclusion. Fayette County leads the pack of neighboring county school systems in spending per pupil but comes in last on performance. Size of School System The Fayette County School System had an average daily membership of 3,513 students over the four-year period. Neighboring Hardeman County averaged 4,506 students for the same period, and Haywood County had 3,565 students. Of the adjacent school systems, only Hardeman and Haywood are comparable to Fayette in terms of student population. In 2005-2006, Tipton County had over three times the number of students as Fayette County. Shelby County had almost 13 times more students, and mammoth Memphis City Schools bordered on 33 times as many. Schools in “Good Standing” Passed in 2001, the federal No Child Left Behind Act went into effect in 2002. Based on the results of annual student testing, each school and school system receive a rating. Schools that do not meet their federal benchmark, known as Adequate Yearly Progress, do not achieve a status of “Good Standing.” Many school systems throughout the state struggled under the new NCLB evaluation system during the first years of its implementation. No schools in Fayette County qualified for Good Standing in the first year, while all the neighboring systems had at least a few schools earn that status. In 2005-2006, all schools in the Hardeman, Haywood and Tipton systems were in Good Standing. But, Fayette only had seven of its 10 schools make the grade. Over the four-year period, the improvement in Fayette County schools has lagged behind the progress made by the surrounding county systems. Graduation Rate “Graduation rate”, a federally required benchmark, is the percent of “on-time” graduates with a regular high school diploma. GED and Special Education diplomas are not counted. Fayette County’s graduation rate in each of the four years is the lowest of all neighboring school systems, including Memphis. It is also markedly lower than the statewide rate. Per Pupil Expenditures The amount for “per pupil expenditures” reflects a school system’s total operating expenditures for a school year on a “per pupil” basis. In addition to teacher and staff salaries, the expenditures include such items as instructional materials, utilities, maintenance and transportation. For each of the four years, Fayette County spent more per pupil than any of the neighboring counties. In 2004-2005, it even outspent Memphis, which expended more than any of the counties in the remaining three years. Fayette’s per pupil expenditures in 2005-2006 exceeded Hardeman, the next highest spending county, by $508 per pupil. This excess multiplied by the average daily membership of 3,549 comes to over $1.8 million that was spent on Fayette County students over and above what Hardeman County expended. Where is the Money Going? The answer for where the money is being spent is not revealed by the Report Card data or by salary data and county rankings reported by the Tennessee Education Association (see comparison chart for 2005-2006). What is explained by the rankings and salary comparisons for 2005-2006 is “where the money is not going.” It is not going into the pockets of Fayette County’s principals and teachers, although some is finding its way to the superintendent’s pocket.. Out of the 136 school systems in the state, Fayette County ranked 16th, in the top 12%, for expenditures per pupil and in the top quarter at 34th for superintendent/director of schools salary. It was dead last in instructional staff pay, next to last in teacher pay, and fifth from the bottom in principal salaries. The rankings show that, on average, the majority of employees in the county’s school system were paid from $2,000 to over $9,000 less than their peers in the region, excluding Shelby County and Memphis. The large disparity between the county’s high ranking per pupil expenditures and the share of those dollars being paid to its educators raises the question of exactly where the money is being spent. Other Observations The detailed 2005-2006 data provides some insight as to where problems may or may not be in the school system. At 23.9% for the year, the county’s share of funding derived from local tax dollars is in line with Hardeman, Haywood and Tipton. The same can be said for the previous three years according to the Report Cards. Fayette receives less of its funding from the state than Hardeman, Haywood and Tipton, but gets considerably more in federal funding than any neighboring school system. Nothing in the student demographics distinguishes Fayette County as unique from the other counties. A possible indicator relating to performance may be the percent of core courses taught by “highly qualified” teachers. Under NCLB, there are core academic classes that are required to be taught by a highly qualified teacher. To meet this standard, a teacher must hold at least a Bachelor’s Degree, be fully licensed in Tennessee, and have the required documents to demonstrate competency in the content area(s) being taught. The portion of core courses taught by highly qualified teachers in Fayette County is well below that of the other school systems. The “average number of students per teacher” is not a statistic contained in the Report Cards. It has been calculated by dividing the average daily membership by the number of teachers to provide a ratio for a rough comparison between school systems. Fayette County has the smallest number at 13.5 students per teacher. If the next lowest ratio, 14 for Hardeman, is divided into Fayette’s 3,549 student count, the result is 253.5 teachers. With 263 teachers for the year, the county could be overstaffed by at least nine or ten teachers, if not more. Questions A number of questions arise from studying the Report Cards, analyzing the county’s rankings among all school systems in the state, and comparing financial and performance data for the region. Among them are: · If the money is not being paid to the educators, then where is it going? · Why is the Board of Education pushing to build yet another new school instead of focusing on improving the quality of education in the existing schools? · Will the Board of Education call for an independent study to evaluate the substandard level of performance and analyze the allocation of funds in the budget?
|
|
Copyright © 2006-2010 Fayette County Insider. All rights reserved. |