The simple facts about Washington's K-12 public schools are dynamite.
How much does it cost to educate a child for one year (or twelve)? How much do teachers earn? How many people get paychecks from the K-12 system? How are schools performing? How much will the average household pay in public school taxes at current rates? Has spending gone up or down?
You'll find answers to all of these questions and many more in a new reader-friendly, fully-footnoted, two-sided publication from the Evergreen Freedom Foundation. (I know because I spent a long time compiling it.)
Please feel free to print a million copies and pass them out to everyone you know.
Note: FTE = "full-time equivalent." It can be two people working half-time, one person working full-time, or any other combination of 100 percent.
Posted by Marsha Richards at March 09, 2005 04:35 PM | Email ThisMe: It's a little weird talking to Me. Anyway, I think excellent teachers could make a lot more in a market-based system.
Posted by: Marsha Richards on March 9, 2005 05:09 PMA proper comparison would show teachers just below or at average for statewide personal incomes. Compared with folks with the college degrees they are below average.
Posted by: DeadWood on March 9, 2005 05:16 PMIf it costs $9,687.77 per year per student, then K-12 should be $125,941.01 because 13 x 9,687.77 = 125,941.01. K-12 is 13 years right? The figure you are showing, $116,253.24 is 12 x 9,687.77 which is only representative of grades 1-12, not K-12.
Posted by: Jason on March 9, 2005 05:23 PMTuition: $3500 per year. Average teacher salary $26,000 plus health insurance. (Because of the large group of "newly-arrived" children requiring special help, many teachers work six-days per week during the school year. An additional 2-weeks is mandatory for all teachers during the summer months....) According to a well-placed source, there is a WAITING LIST of teacher applicants wanting to teach at the school.
Posted by: Lew on March 9, 2005 05:30 PMAs a high school English teacher, I see 130 students per day for about an hour each. Let's say I get paid $3 per hour by stingy parents. $3 x 130 is $390. Multiply that by the number of school days, and I'll earn $70,200 per annum.
Oh, and that'd be a $30 grand raise--and I have a master's degree. Am I bitching about being underpaid? No. But don't ever call me a babysitter. They make more.
Posted by: Jim Anderson on March 9, 2005 05:30 PMwith 2 1/2 months off and lots and lots of 3 day weekends. Not me though, I work everyday to pay my mortgage and taxes.
Posted by: chardonnay on March 9, 2005 05:58 PMChardonnay: You might want to consider getting into teaching. We need the teachers.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 9, 2005 06:05 PMLike you, I was educated in public schools, and like you, I can't find any dynamite. Looks to me like Marsha is just tooting her own horn here.
Help us out Marsha.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 9, 2005 06:28 PMThe number I was looking for is what individuals would call the bottom line number for the individual reader. What is the lifelong taxed amount for K-12 education collected from a average earning Washingtonian who has lived his or her whole life in Washington and who has worked from age 20 thru age 65 and retires in Washington until he dies at an average death age. This is what really one has to pay for K-12 education (on the average). I asked the MN Taxpayer's league this question and this is a figure that government does not want citizens to know because then the average citizen would realize that public education truly costs more than would it would cost to send one's child to a church-sponsored K-12 education. Anyway, a wild guess by an analyst at the MN Taxpayer's league guessed it would truly be more than the cost to send one's child to private school. So the old myth that public school is required because it makes school affordable is not true for probably 60 percent of the population (certainly not the upper half). Question, does EFF have a clue what the average bottom line lifetime K-12 collected taxes are for a average living, average earning individual?
Thanks!
Roleigh Martin
Maybe you can clear up something that has confused me for awhile now. Your study states that WA State spends ~$9,700 per pupil per year on K-12 education. OSPI states (http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:Ef0jyTBI2zoJ:www.k12.wa.us/communications/pubdocs/A_Partner_in_Student_Success.pdf+washington+state+per+pupil+spending+OSPI&hl=en&client=firefox-a) that Fed, State and local spending is ~$8,000 (ok, $7,956).
What is the source of the difference? Are you accusing that the OSPI is releasing fraudulent numbers? Or are they not considering a cost that your numbers consider?
Posted by: iconoclast on March 9, 2005 06:29 PM'Nuff said
Pudster
Posted by: Puddybud on March 9, 2005 08:03 PMThe difference is probably for capital spending, i.e., school construction.
Posted by: ewaggin on March 9, 2005 08:04 PMAnd Visa Versa.
No wonder.
Nice neutral report on schools. Lets look at who wrote it and their interests:
Evergreen Freedom Foundation
POSTED FEBRUARY 15, 2002 --
When is a think tank not a think tank? In the case of the Olympia, Washington based Evergreen Freedom Foundation (EFF), it’s when a group that purports to be public interest policy organization turns out to be a private interest law firm for a few contributors.
Evergreen, which enjoys 501 (c) (3) nonprofit tax status, claims in its literature and on its web site to be a “public policy research organization” – a local think tank claiming support from some 2,500 donors. On it tax returns, Evergreen describes its mission as “educational research and analysis.” Newsletters and fundraising mail tout Evergreen’s advice to Washington state legislators on budget and tax issues, reducing growth management regulations, and privatizing public services, including schools. The tidy mission of a public policy group, however, is merely Evergreen’s public face.
In truth, Evergreen has built its revenue base and committed much of its expenses on a seven-year public relations and legal campaign to curb the Washington Education Association’s (WEA) use of dues for political purposes – the country’s most sustained and targeted “paycheck protection” campaign. Much of Evergreen’s work -- and its subsequent expenses and its fundraising – is tied to legal complaints in the courts and in Washington state’s Public Disclosure Commission.
Posted by: Erik on March 9, 2005 08:24 PMNow she's making a nice neutral post just informing the public?
Evergreen Foundation slapped with court order
http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20020921/southsound/6289.shtml
Hmmm. Whats happening here? Why is Evergreen being so nice by supplying us with general and unbiased information about the school system?
A Thurston County judge has ordered the Evergreen Freedom Foundation to pay the legal fees of the National Education Association, finding the foundation's courtroom tactics were in "bad faith."
Sure attack the teachers with baseless lawsuits.
The EFF did not apologize for its actions, but spokeswoman Marsha Richards agreed the sanctions are embarrassing for the organization, which has waged a seven-year war with the NEA and Washington Education Association over the use of union dues for political purposes.
Marsha. Marsha....I think "you got some splainin' to do"
Posted by: Erik on March 9, 2005 08:53 PMDon't forget that your figure is an average for all wages and does not account for benefits. It also doesn't compare techer slaries against peolpe with similar education levels.
Erik:
EFF is not a socialist advocacy organization. So what? They advocate and research conservative solutions to the problems facing our country. Does that mean EFF is evil? Or do subscribe to the theory that anyone who doesn't believe in your worldview must by definition (your of course) be evil, or at least stupid.
Now please chill and go back to your yoga or something.
Posted by: DeadWood on March 9, 2005 09:16 PMNah. Their actions speak for themselves. One can make their own conclusions after studying them.
Posted by: Erik on March 9, 2005 09:32 PMThe EFF makes a mistake on a filing, and they're the bad guys?
Do you ever wonder why the sky where you are appears to be brown?
Posted by: South County on March 9, 2005 10:11 PMI have quoted an article from the Olympian.
If you believe the judge was in error to sanction EFF, that's your choice. However, I have not read anything to believe the judge was mistaken.
Posted by: Erik on March 9, 2005 10:23 PMIn section 9 you show the cost of one K-12 student as being $116K, and the one-year cost per class of 20 students as $193.8K. Why wouldn't the class cost be 20 times the one-student cost? I think I am missing something here.
Posted by: Rick on March 10, 2005 12:10 AMFiling lawsuits against the WEA, providing a distinct and opposing point of view from WEA/NEA/OSPI somehow translates to hating the teachers?
EFF certainly feels strongly about the educational establishment in this state, but I haven't found them displaying any hatred toward educators (public, private, secondary, college) in general.
Dislike them strongly as much as you wish. Challenge their data (PLEASE!). But don't make unwarranted generalizations like that unless you want to lessen your own points.
What you've done is pick the seed out of the manure pile.
Posted by: South County on March 10, 2005 08:34 AMWho's going to get the special ed. kids and the children with behavioral disorders? The public or private schools?
Will private schools be forced to take on the really difficult challenges--like public schools are?
How well do you think an 18 year old student with autism will respond to Republican "tough love"?
Will "private " Schools, who will be siphoning off alot of the "public" funds for education, kick back the students they find too difficult to deal with to the public schools?
Will private schools take all the students who are easy to teach and give us bogus stats. on what a great job they're doing?
What if you pay taxes but have no children? Do you get a voucher , too?(This detail will dog the privatization effort.)
You can see that beyond enriching people with alot of capital who intend to get your tax money,prvatization has nothing even remotely realistic to offer in the way of educating the most people for the least amount of money. It's just a scheme to take your tax dollars and dump all the real problems back on society.
Sorry, Evergreen, you get an F on this one!
Posted by: headless lucy on March 10, 2005 09:28 AMOf course, NOW, I'd love to see a side by side comparison with private schools, (and even more, a side by side comparison with Catholic schools).
I know my Catholic high school tuition costs/year, I know what our graduation rates look like and I know over 95% of our graduates move on to college. I think it would be interesting and highly illustrative to taxpayers to be able to cut through the political and union BS (or to be slapped in the face with it if necessary) to have a true side by side comparison of graduation rates, cost/child, teachers salaries and administrative costs.
Posted by: Cheryl on March 10, 2005 09:29 AMI'd keep it very simple: get rid of all public school and related taxes.
Why?
1) People will keep more of OUR money in our own pockets.
2) With lower property taxes, etc., housing will be cheaper (no need to pass the tax on to the renters so better competition on price -- otherwise people will buy rather than rent). And businesses will offer cheaper services. More money for all: poor and rich.
3) With all the freed up money, people and businesses can choose to help (even sponsor) those who are poor or have special needs. (I'd be willing to help out a family if I didn't have to pay taxes -- we homeschool so we already pay extra for education.)
4) Former public school teachers can either sign up for private schools or hang a shingle. Either way, good teachers will do fine. (Same with admin people, too.)
5) Fortunately, the only (well deserved) loser with no public schools would be bad teachers with "tenure." Oh I forgot one other loser: teacher's union leaders.
Posted by: DannyHSDad on March 10, 2005 10:04 AMLook at the ratio of total staff to teachers, about 2 to 1. In my "K thru 12" days it was exactly the opposite.
Posted by: IcePilot on March 10, 2005 10:49 AMPrivate capital has something to sell and they need labor to make or do what they seek to accomplish. Capital is VERY organized and very rapacious. What is free about a market where labor(OUR capital) is fettered and controlled at every turn but capital is free to do as it pleases. The only "unseen hand " here is the one that is paying off both political parties in this contest. Where is the freedom if one side is not permitted to exersize its options without hindrance?
I already know the specious arguments that you will put forward. But, look at your own situation realistically! Can you really afford to be an apologist for billionaires? As Bill O'Reilly asked: "Who's Looking Out For You?"
Posted by: headless lucy on March 10, 2005 11:30 AMWhere we really ought to be looking is at all of the non-teacher positions in the school system. Yes I know that we need bus drivers, and janitors, and lunch ladies, and office staff. However I get the sense that their is this very bloated bureaucracy with layers upon layers of administration when there simply doesn't need to be that much. That's where we ought to be looking at cuts, not only to save money, but to get the bureaucrats out of the way of teachers and students.
Posted by: Jason on March 10, 2005 12:13 PMI'll be the first to admit that I haven't created a (successful) business.
However, as a parent who has a CHOICE over how our children are educated, I have freely chosen (with my lovely wife) to home educate them. No billionaire forced my hand. No politicians were involved. If I wasn't taxed for public schools, my choice would be even more clear. As it is, I'm reduced to merely complaining about the tax because I HAVE NO CHOICE (yes, by the threat of force I have to pay taxes).
I'm all for getting rid of public school taxation because it means I can keep more of MY money. I don't care if the "rich" benefits or not. I know that those of us who are non-rich will benefit because I'll have extra cash on hand, which I can use even more to help those who are less fortunate than I. What's wrong with this? We, the people, choosing how our money is spent, rather than being taxed and spent by someone else (or by the majority mob)?
Posted by: DannyHSDad on March 10, 2005 01:05 PM10k a year to 'educate' kids? My son's education is less than 5k a year at his private school. Compared to his peers at government schools he is years ahead. A fifth grader he reads at the college level and does high school level math.
Posted by: Jericho on March 13, 2005 05:41 PM