Tuesday, May 02, 2006
More Money is Not the Answer
Here we go again. Poor Duquesne City School District gets neglected while rich Upper St. Clair receives more state largesse. While we vigorously disagree with the Governor’s decision to grant money to USC for the continuation of a questionable program, the fact is the Duquesne School District receives far more state money per pupil than USC. For the 2004-05 academic year the state bestowed $7.7 million on Duquesne schools. With only 775 students, the per-pupil state subsidy is just a few dollars short of $10,000. In contrast, the state granted USC $8.1 million. However, with more than 4,100 students, the school district’s state funding is just under $2,000 per pupil.
By now it should be general knowledge that the state underwrites a much greater percentage of educational expenses in poorer districts than wealthier ones. For Duquesne, the state picks up the overwhelming majority of operating costs while Upper St. Clair receives only 18 percent of its funding from the state.
The real outrage is that for their efforts, state taxpayers are getting a very poor return on dollars sent to Duquesne because the district’s academic performance is abysmal. It should be possible to provide a good educational experience with just the state’s $10,000 per pupil contribution--and certainly with the $11,000 or so when the local tax money is added. Simply throwing money at education to get better performance is a fool’s errand. If it money were the answer, Pittsburgh’s operating cost of nearly $17,000 per student would be accomplishing academic miracles.
By now it should be general knowledge that the state underwrites a much greater percentage of educational expenses in poorer districts than wealthier ones. For Duquesne, the state picks up the overwhelming majority of operating costs while Upper St. Clair receives only 18 percent of its funding from the state.
The real outrage is that for their efforts, state taxpayers are getting a very poor return on dollars sent to Duquesne because the district’s academic performance is abysmal. It should be possible to provide a good educational experience with just the state’s $10,000 per pupil contribution--and certainly with the $11,000 or so when the local tax money is added. Simply throwing money at education to get better performance is a fool’s errand. If it money were the answer, Pittsburgh’s operating cost of nearly $17,000 per student would be accomplishing academic miracles.
