Public School Expenditures

(Last Updated: May 2015)

From 2000–01 to 2011–12, current expenditures per student in public elementary and secondary schools increased by 11 percent, after adjusting for inflation. Current expenditures per student peaked in 2008–09 at $11,537 and have decreased each year since then. The amount for 2011–12 ($11,014) was 3 percent less than the amount for 2010–11 ($11,332).

Total expenditures for public elementary and secondary schools in the United States amounted to $621 billion in 2011–12, or $12,401 per public school student enrolled in the fall (in constant 2013–14 dollars, based on the Consumer Price Index). These expenditures include $11,014 per student in current expenditures for operation of schools; $1,018 for capital outlay (i.e., expenditures for property and for buildings and alterations completed by school district staff or contractors); and $370 for interest on school debt.

---

Figure 1. Total expenditures per student in fall enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools, by type of expenditure: 2000–01, 2005–06, 2010–11, and 2011–12

NOTE: Current expenditures, Capital outlay, and Interest on school debt are subcategories of Total expenditures. Capital outlay includes expenditures for property and for buildings and alterations completed by school district staff or contractors. Expenditures are reported in constant 2013–14 dollars, based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), "National Public Education Financial Survey," 2000–01, 2005–06, 2010–11, and 2011–12. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 236.60.

---

From 2000–01 to 2011–12, current expenditures per student enrolled in the fall in public elementary and secondary schools increased by 11 percent (from $9,904 to $11,014 in constant 2013–14 dollars). Current expenditures per student peaked in 2008–09 at $11,537 and have decreased each year since then. The amount for 2011–12 ($11,014) was 3 percent ($318) less than the amount for 2010–11 ($11,332).

Interest payments on school debt per student in fall enrollment increased by 28 percent (from $289 to $370 in constant 2013–14 dollars) during the period from 2000–01 to 2011–12. Capital outlay expenditures per student in 2011–12 ($1,018) were 22 percent lower than the 2000–01 amount ($1,310) and 7 percent lower than the 2010–11 amount ($1,094); however, there were some fluctuations during this period.

---

Figure 2. Current expenditures per student in fall enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools, by function of expenditure: 2000–01, 2005–06, 2010–11, and 2011–12

NOTE: Instruction, Student support, Instructional staff services, Operation and maintenance, Administration, Transportation, and Food services are subcategories of Current expenditures. Student support include expenditures for guidance, health, attendance, and speech pathology services. Instructional staff services include expenditures for curriculum development, staff training, libraries, and media and computer centers. Administration includes both general administration and school administration. Transportation refers to student transportation. Expenditures are reported in constant 2013–14 dollars, based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), "National Public Education Financial Survey," 2000–01, 2005–06, 2010–11, and 2011–12. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 236.60.

---

In addition to being reported by type, expenditures are also reported by function, which describes the activity for which a service or material object is acquired. Per student current expenditures (in constant 2013–14 dollars) increased for most functions between 2000–01 and 2011–12, though expenditures for most functions were lower in 2011–12 than in 2010–11. In 2011–12, instruction—the single largest component of current expenditures—was $6,706 per student, or about 61 percent of current expenditures. Instruction expenditures include salaries and benefits of teachers and teaching assistants as well as costs for instructional materials and instructional services provided under contract. Between 2000–01 and 2011–12, expenditures per student for instruction increased by 10 percent (from $6,093 to $6,706), though they peaked in 2009–10 at $7,059. Expenditures per pupil for instruction for 2011–12 ($6,706) were 3 percent lower than the amount in 2010–11 ($6,932). Expenditures between 2000–01 and 2011–12 for several other major school functions increased more rapidly. However, with the exception of food services, instructional staff services, and transportation services, all function categories peaked within a year of 2009–10. For example, expenditures per student for student support services, such as guidance and health personnel, increased by 25 percent from 2000–01 to 2011–12 (from $492 to $613), but peaked in 2009–10 at $640. Expenditures per student for instructional staff services, including curriculum development, staff training, libraries, and media and computer centers, increased by 13 percent from 2000–01 to 2011–12 (from $453 to $511), but peaked in 2008–09 at $556. The exception to this trend was food services where expenditures per student in 2011–12 were the highest ever reported ($443).

---

Figure 3. Percentage of current expenditures per student in fall enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools, by type of expenditure: 2000–01, 2005–06, 2010–11, and 2011–12

NOTE: Salaries and benefits, Salaries, Benefits, Purchased services, and Supplies are subcategories of Current expenditures. Purchased services includes expenditures for contracts for food, transportation, or janitorial services, or professional development for teachers. Supplies include expenditures for items ranging from books to heating oil. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), "National Public Education Financial Survey," 2000–01, 2005–06, 2010–11, and 2011–12. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 236.60.

---

Current expenditures for education can also be expressed in terms of the percentage of funds going toward salaries, benefits, purchased services, or supplies. On a national basis in 2011–12, approximately 80 percent of current expenditures were for salaries and benefits for staff. Approximately 10 percent of current expenditures were for purchased services, which include a wide variety of items, such as contracts for food, transportation, or janitorial services, or for professional development for teachers. Generally speaking, this expenditure distribution shifted only slightly from 2000–01 to 2011–12, when expenditures for purchased services increased from 9 to 10 percent. Eight percent of school expenditures in 2011–12 were for supplies, ranging from books to heating oil. The percentages of expenditures for supplies changed less than one percentage point over the period from 2000–01 to 2011–12. There were, however, shifts within the distribution of salaries and benefits for staff, as the proportion of school budgets for staff salaries decreased from 64 percent in 2000–01 to 59 percent in 2011–12, and the proportion of staff benefits increased from 17 to 22 percent during this period.

---

Glossary terms: Consumer Price Index (CPI), Current expenditures (elementary/secondary), Expenditures, Total, Public school or institution, Salary
Data Source: Common Core Data (CCD)

PDF

• Download/View the PDF containing this indicator and corresponding tables and figures. (121 KB)

Reference Tables

• Table 236.10 (Digest 2014): Summary of expenditures for public elementary and secondary education and other related programs, by purpose: Selected years, 1919-20 through 2011-12
• Table 236.55 (Digest 2014): Total and current expenditures per pupil in public elementary and secondary schools: Selected years, 1919-20 through 2011-12
• Table 236.60 (Digest 2014): Total and current expenditures per pupil in fall enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools, by function and subfunction: Selected years, 1990-91 through 2011-12

Related Indicators

• Public School Revenue Sources

Previous Versions of This Indicator

• April 2014 - (530 KB)


• May 2013 - (137 KB)

Public School Revenue Sources

(Last Updated: May 2015)

From school years 2001–02 through 2011–12, total elementary and secondary public school revenues increased from $553 billion to $620 billion (in constant 2013–14 dollars). During the most recent period from 2010–11 through 2011–12, total revenues for public elementary and secondary schools decreased by about $22 billion, or more than 3 percent.

From school years 2001–02 through 2011–12, total elementary and secondary public school revenues increased from $553 billion to $620 billion (in constant 2013–14 dollars), a 12 percent increase, adjusting for inflation using the Consumer Price Index (CPI). This increase was accompanied by a 4 percent increase in total elementary and secondary public school enrollment, from 48 million students in 2001–02 to 50 million students in 2011–12. Federal revenues increased 89 percent from 2001–02 to 2009–10 (from $44 billion to $82 billion), but decreased by 3 percent from 2009–10 to 2010–11 (from $82 billion to $80 billion). These revenues then decreased by another 22 percent, to $63 billion in 2011–12. From 2001–02 through 2011–12, local revenues increased by 17 percent, to $277 billion in 2011–12. State revenues fluctuated between $272 billion and $314 billion during this period, and they were 3 percent higher in 2011–12 than in 2001–02 ($280 billion vs. $272 billion). During this period, federal revenues peaked in 2009–10 at $82 billion, while local revenues peaked in 2008–09 at $284 billion and state revenues peaked in 2007–08 at $314 billion.

---

Figure 1. Revenues for public elementary and secondary schools, by revenue source: School years 2001–02 through 2011–12

NOTE: Revenues are in constant 2013–14 dollars, adjusted using the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), "National Public Education Financial Survey," 2001–02 through 2011–12. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 235.10.

---

The percentage of total revenues for public elementary and secondary education that came from federal sources was 8 percent in school year 2001–02 and 10 percent in 2011–12. Between school years 2001–02 and 2011–12, the percentage coming from local sources fluctuated between 43 and 45 percent, accounting for 45 percent of total revenues in 2011–12. The percentage of total revenues from state sources decreased from 49 percent in school year 2001–02 to a low of 43 percent in school year 2009–10. The percentage of revenues from state sources was higher in 2011–12 (45 percent) than in 2009–10 (43 percent).

More recently, from school years 2010–11 through 2011–12, total revenues for public elementary and secondary schools decreased by about $22 billion in constant 2013–14 dollars (3 percent). During this period, federal revenue declined by $17 billion (22 percent) and state revenue declined by $3 billion (1 percent). Local revenues declined by $1.6 billion (1 percent), reflecting a $2.1 billion decrease in revenues from local property taxes, a $0.7 billion increase in other local public revenues, and a $0.2 billion decrease in private revenues (consisting of receipts from school lunches, student activities, and other fees from students). Other local public revenues were the only source that increased from 2010–11 through 2011–12.

In school year 2011–12, there were significant variations across the states in the percentages of public school revenues coming from state, local, and federal sources of revenue. In 20 states, at least half of education revenues came from state governments, while in 16 states and the District of Columbia at least half came from local revenues. In the remaining 14 states, no single revenue source made up more than half of education revenues: Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin.

---

Figure 2. State revenues for public elementary and secondary schools as a percentage of total public school revenues,
by state: School year 2011

NOTE: All 50 states and the District of Columbia are included in the U.S. average, even though the District of Columbia does not receive any state revenue. The District of Columbia and Hawaii have only one school district each; therefore, neither is comparable to the other states. Categorizations are based on unrounded percentages. Excludes revenues for state education agencies.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), "National Public Education Financial Survey," 2011–12. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 235.20.

---

In school year 2011–12, the percentages of public school revenues coming from state sources were highest in Vermont and Hawaii (88 and 85 percent, respectively), and lowest in South Dakota and Nebraska (31 percent each). The percentage of revenues coming from federal sources was highest in Mississippi (18 percent), followed by Louisiana and South Dakota (17 percent each); the percentage was lowest in Connecticut and New Jersey (5 percent each), followed by Maryland (6 percent). Among all states, the percentage of revenues coming from local sources was highest in Nebraska and Illinois (60 percent each), and lowest in Vermont and Hawaii (4 and 2 percent, respectively). Most of the revenues for the District of Columbia (90 percent) were from local sources; the remaining 10 percent of revenues were from federal sources.

---

Figure 3. Property tax revenues for public elementary and secondary schools as a percentage of total public school revenues, by state: School year 2011–12

NOTE: All 50 states and the District of Columbia are included in the U.S. average. The District of Columbia and Hawaii have only one school district each; therefore, neither is comparable to the other states. Categorizations are based on unrounded percentages.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), "National Public Education Financial Survey," 2011–12. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 235.20.

---

In school year 2011–12, local property taxes constituted 81 percent of total local revenues and 36 percent of total revenues for elementary and secondary schools. The percentages of total revenues from local property taxes differed by state. In 2011–12, New Hampshire and Connecticut had the highest percentage of revenues from property taxes, at 55 percent each. Five other states had percentages of revenues from property taxes of 50 percent or more (in descending order): Illinois, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Nebraska. Vermont and Hawaii¹ had the lowest percentages of revenues from property taxes (0.1 percent and 0 percent, respectively). In 14 other states, property taxes made up less than 25 percent of education revenues (in descending order): Montana, Delaware, California, Maryland, Indiana, Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, Idaho, Minnesota, Louisiana, Alabama, New Mexico, and Alaska.

---

¹ Hawaii has only one school district, which receives no funding from property taxes

---

Glossary terms: Consumer Price Index (CPI), Elementary school, Property tax, Public school or institution, Revenue, Secondary school
Data Source:Common Core of Data (CCD)

PDF

• Download/View the PDF containing this indicator and corresponding tables and figures. (1906 KB)

Reference Tables

• Table 203.20 (Digest 2013): Enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools, by region, state, and jurisdiction: Selected years, fall 1990 through fall 2023
• Table 235.10 (Digest 2014): Revenues for public elementary and secondary schools, by source of funds: Selected years, 1919-20 through 2011-12
• Table 235.20 (Digest 2014): Revenues for public elementary and secondary schools, by source of funds and state or jurisdiction: 2011-12

Related Indicators

• Public School Expenditures

Previous Versions of This Indicator

• April 2014 - (2332 KB)


• May 2013 - (1936 KB)

The Significance of the Tennessee School Finance Decision.

The Supreme Court of Tennessee, in "Tennessee Small School Systems, Inc. v. McWherter," declared that Tennessee's method of financing its public schools violated the state constitution. The court's mode of analysis relies on the state equal protection clause rather than the state education clause. Examines implications for school finance cases in other states. (93 footnotes) (MLF)

Thro, William E.

West's Education Law Quarterly, v3 n1 p66-81 Jan 1994

Country v. Town: School Finance Reform in Tennessee.

Three conference papers on school finance reform in Tennessee are presented in this document, with a focus on the disparities between rural and urban public school funding. The first paper examines the nature and size of contributions of various funding sources to the per-pupil revenue in local school districts, analyzes specific problems of the Tennessee Foundation Program (TFP), and investigates state categorical support. The second paper presents an overview of state legislation challenging the TFP's constitutionality. The declaratory judgment handed down in "Tennessee Small School Systems v. McWherter" (1978) held that Tennessee school funding was not uniform and was therefore in violation of the equal protection provisions in the state constitution. The third paper determines the extent to which the TFP equalized funding for all districts and concludes that none of the 1979 Tennessee School Finance Equity Study's recommendations have been implemented. Problems of the TFP included inadequate appropriations, inadequate state funding, and failure to keep up with inflation. References and tables are included with each article. (LMI)

Hirth, Marilyn A.; And Others

American school statistics for 2014

Via: Fast Facts

Question:
What are the new Back to School statistics for 2014?

Response:

Elementary and Secondary Education

Enrollment

In fall 2014, about 49.8 million students will attend public elementary and secondary schools. Of these, 35.1 million will be in prekindergarten through grade 8 and 14.7 million will be in grades 9 through 12. An additional 5.0 million students are expected to attend private schools (source). The fall 2014 public school enrollment is expected to remain near the record enrollment level of fall 2013.

Of the projected 49.8 million students attending public elementary and secondary schools in fall 2014, White students will account for 24.8 million. The remaining 25.0 million will be composed of 7.7 million Black students, 12.8 million Hispanic students, 2.6 million Asian/Pacific Islander students, 0.5 million American Indian/Alaska Native students, and 1.4 million students of two or more races (source). The national percentage of students who are White is projected to be less than 50 percent in 2014. The percentage of White students is expected to continue declining as the enrollments of Hispanics and Asians/Pacific Islanders increase through at least fall 2023, the last year for which projections are available (source).

About 1.3 million children are expected to attend public prekindergarten in fall 2014; enrollment in public kindergarten is projected to reach approximately 3.7 million students (source).

In fall 2014, about 4.1 million public school students are expected to enroll in 9th grade—the typical entry grade for many American high schools(source).

Teachers

Public school systems will employ about 3.1 million full-time-equivalent (FTE) teachers in fall 2014, such that the number of pupils per FTE teacher—that is, the pupil/teacher ratio—will be 16.0. This ratio is not measurably different from the 2000 ratio of 16.0. A projected 0.4 million FTE teachers will be working in private schools this fall, resulting in an estimated pupil/teacher ratio of 12.5, which is lower than the 2000 ratio of 14.5(source).

Schools and Districts

In 2011–12, there were about 13,600 public school districts (source) with over 98,300 public schools, including about 5,700 charter schools(source). In fall 2011, there were about 30,900 private schools offering kindergarten or higher grades (source).

Expenditures

Current expenditures for public elementary and secondary schools are projected to be $619 billion for the 2014–15 school year. These expenditures include such items as salaries for school personnel, benefits, student transportation, school books and materials, and energy costs. The current expenditure per student is projected at $12,281 for the 2014–15 school year (source).

Attainment

About 3.3 million students are expected to graduate from high school in 2014–15, including 3.0 million students from public high schools and about 0.3 million students from private high schools (source).

The percentage of high school dropouts among 16- through 24-year-olds declined from 10.9 percent in 2000 to 6.6 percent in 2012 (source). Reflecting the overall decline in the dropout rate between 2000 and 2012, the rates also declined for Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics (source).

The percentage of students enrolling in college in the fall immediately following high school completion was 66.2 percent in 2012 (source). Females enrolled at a higher rate (71.3 percent) than males (61.3 percent) (source).

College and University Education

Enrollment

In fall 2014, some 21.0 million students are expected to attend American colleges and universities, constituting an increase of about 5.7 million since fall 2000 (source).

Females are expected to account for the majority of college students: about 12.0 million females will attend in fall 2014, compared with 9.0 million males. Also, more students are expected to attend full time than part time (an estimated 13.0 million, compared with about 8.0 million, respectively)(source).

About 7.3 million students will attend 2-year institutions and nearly 13.7 million will attend 4-year institutions. Some 18.0 million students are expected to enroll in undergraduate programs and about 3.0 million will enroll in postbaccalaureate programs (source).

Increases in the traditional college-age population and rising enrollment rates have contributed to the increase in college enrollment. Between 2000 and 2012, the 18- to 24-year-old population rose from approximately 27.3 million to approximately 31.4 million (source). The percentage of 18- to 24-year-olds enrolled in college also was higher in 2012 (41.0 percent) than in 2000 (35.5 percent) (source).

In 2012, there were about 13 million students under age 25 and 8 million students 25 years old and over. Both the number of younger and older students increased between 2000 and 2012 (source).

Increasing numbers and percentages of Black and Hispanic students are attending college. Between 2000 and 2012, the percentage of college students who were Black rose from 11.7 to 14.9 percent, and the percentage of students who were Hispanic rose from 9.9 to 15.0 percent(source). Also, the percentage of Black 18- to 24-year-olds enrolled in college increased from 30.5 percent in 2000 to 36.4 percent in 2012, and the percentage of Hispanics enrolled increased from 21.7 to 37.5 percent (source).

Finance

For the 2012–13 academic year, the average annual price for undergraduate tuition, fees, room, and board was $15,022 at public institutions, $39,173 at private nonprofit institutions, and $23,158 at private for-profit institutions. Charges for tuition and required fees averaged $5,899 at public institutions, $28,569 at private nonprofit institutions, and $13,766 at private for-profit institutions (source).

Attainment

During the 2014–15 school year, colleges and universities are expected to award 1.0 million associate’s degrees; 1.8 million bachelor's degrees; 821,000 master's degrees; and 177,500 doctor's degrees (source). In 2011–12, postsecondary institutions awarded 1.0 million certificates below the associate’s degree level, 1.0 million associate’s degrees, 1.8 million bachelor’s degrees, 754,000 master’s degrees, and 170,100 doctor’s degrees (source).

In 2012, about 73 percent of young adults ages 25–34 with a bachelor's or higher degree in the labor force had year-round, full-time jobs, compared with 65 percent of those with an associate's degree, 59 percent of those with some college education, 60 percent of high school completers, and 49 percent of those without a high school diploma or its equivalent (source). In 2013, a smaller percentage of young adults with a bachelor's degree or higher were unemployed than were their peers with lower levels of education (source).

In 2012, the median earnings for full-time year-round working young adults ages 25–34 with a bachelor's degree was $46,900, while the median was $22,900 for those without a high school diploma or its equivalent, $30,000 for those with a high school diploma or its equivalent, and $35,700 for those with an associate's degree. In other words, young adults with a bachelor's degree earned more than twice as much as those without a high school diploma or its equivalent (105 percent more) and 57 percent more than young adult high school completers. Additionally, in 2012 the median earnings for young adults with a master's degree or higher was $59,600, some 27 percent more than the median for young adults with a bachelor's degree (source).

For more information, please see the following:

• The Condition of Education: The annual report to Congress on important developments and trends in U.S. education.
• The Digest of Education Statistics: A compilation of statistical information covering the broad field of American education from prekindergarten through graduate school.
• State-level data resource page: Links to selected publications and websites that provide state-by-state information on achievement, attainment, demographics, enrollment, finances, and teachers at the elementary, secondary, and postsecondary levels.
• Projections of Education Statistics: This report provides projections for key education statistics, including enrollment, graduates, teachers, and expenditures in elementary and secondary schools.
• U.S. Department of Education program and budget information can be found here.
• U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Survey: The Current Population Survey (CPS) is a monthly survey of about 60,000 households conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau. The CPS is the primary source of information on labor force statistics and also contains information on enrollment and educational attainment.

Students Exceed SAT Benchmark and Lift National Average

October 2, 2013 -- Average SAT scores for 2013 graduates from religious and independent schools significantly exceeded the SAT College and Career Readiness Benchmark, a combined score of 1550 on three SAT tests (critical reading, writing, and mathematics) that is associated with success in college.

For college-bound seniors in independent schools across the nation, the combined average SAT score was 1662 (112 points above the benchmark) while the average for religious school students was 1595 (45 points above the benchmark).  Public school students scored 1474, 76 points shy of the standard.

In each of the subjects tested, SAT scores for college-bound seniors in religious and independent schools were significantly higher than the national average, actually helping to boost the average.  Mean SAT scores for students in public schools were 491 in reading, 480 in writing, and 503 in math, while comparable scores for students in religious schools were 531, 528, and 536.  Students in independent schools scored 536, 545, and 581.

Among SAT class of 2013 students for whom a high school is known, 9.4 percent attended a religiously affiliated school, 6.4 percent attended an independent school, and 84 percent attended a public school.

Find out more in the October 2013 Outlook.

via: www.capenet.com 

TN teachers would lose money under pay plan, critics say

Article Via: June 21, 2013 - By Lisa Fingeroot, The Tennessean

Tennessee teachers marshaled their forces and House Democrats hurled insults at Education Commissioner Kevin Huffman on Thursday over concerns that teachers will lose money if the state adopts a controversial plan today to require merit pay.

The pay plan, part of a drive to boost student test scores, would eliminate traditional salary increases for teachers based solely on years of experience and advanced degrees. The state Board of Education is expected to approve it today.
Members already gave the proposal a nod of approval in April when Huffman presented it.

The Tennessee Education Association, the state's only teacher union and largest professional organization, opposed the pay plan from the beginning and has been assembling a group to show opposition at today's meeting. TEA also has been distributing a pay chart supporting its claim that teachers would lose money under the plan.

House Democrats amped up the opposition Thursday when they called a news conference to oppose the plan and throw their support behind the union.

"It's hard to find a commissioner in the history of Tennessee that has assembled a more broad track record of complete failure than Commissioner Huffman," said state Rep. Mike Stewart, a Democrat from Nashville. "Everything this guy has done - every experiment he has tried has so far - has ended in failure, so it's shocking that we would still be listening to this same person."

Stewart was joined by several other Democrats, including state Rep. Gloria Johnson, a teacher from Knoxville, who said she vehemently opposes the pay plan because it eliminates most raises for years of experience and advanced degrees. That's like breaking a promise made to teachers who have been working for years on getting advanced degrees, the Democrats said.

Johnson said many experienced teachers also worry that bonuses would be unfairly distributed.
Huffman responded to the criticism in a written statement. "It is unfortunate that some groups and elected officials are presenting inaccurate information," he wrote. "It is against Tennessee law for any school district to cut a teacher's pay. Additionally, this administration has added more than $130 million in state money for teacher salaries over the past three years. We will continue to look for ways to increase teacher pay, decrease state mandates, and increase local control of school decisions."
Under the plan, no teacher could earn less than he or she currently earns, and the step pay raises usually received at six years and 11 years of experience are included as safeguards.

Huffman said the plan is not a pure merit pay plan because each district can determine how it will differentiate pay. For example, Tennessee certified only 50 chemistry teachers last year, and districts might use a larger salary to attract a chemistry teacher.

While the TEA's chart shows the state-mandated base pay of teachers staying almost flat except for the two step increases, it does not include any amounts for the bonuses and raises that could be earned under Huffman's plan.

Mixed reaction from teachers Teachers from Trousdale County, where a differentiated plan is being piloted, expressed support for the way they are paid.

"I think it's a great plan," said fourth-grade teacher Chris Freeman. "I think it rewards teachers for doing a superb job. It's tailor-made for me. I'm in charge of my own destiny. I control my own children and my own scores."

His colleague, Laura Wilson, chose not to join the alternative plan. "I was scared to take a risk," she said. She admits to being disappointed, however, when she realized she lost about $4,000 in bonuses by not being in the plan.

Rutherford County special education teacher Jennifer Tidwell is so concerned about all the changes being made for teachers that she is considering another profession.

"It's like you're running and kicking sand and not getting anywhere," she said. "They keep moving the goal."

Tidwell's students tend to have individual education plans that can include very simple tasks that cannot be tested. She worries that her achievements might go undocumented for determining pay raises.

"That's what I am kind of afraid of," she said. "I don't have a problem with merit pay, but I have a problem with the way (achievement is) measured."

In Trousdale County, special education teachers are hard to find, so they are rewarded with a bonus every year for working in the system. High school chemistry and physics teachers also are rewarded.
"We're kind of like a guinea pig," said system Director Clint Satterfield. "I think the main goal is to improve teacher quality, because if we improve the quality of the teacher, we will improve the outcome for students."

Tennessee (Education/Finance)

Career & Technical Education - Finance in Tennessee

The Finance Cluster prepares learners for careers in financial and investment planning, banking, insurance and business financial management. Career opportunities are available in every sector of the economy and require specific skills in organization, time management, customer service and communication.

The finance and insurance industry is projected to increase by 9 percent from 2013 to 2020, resulting in 505,100 new jobs. Employment in accounting, auditing, financial analysis, securities, and other financial investments and related activities is expected to expand 25 percent by 2020. Growth will be driven by the wide range of financial assets available for trade, the number of baby boomers reaching retirement age and therefore seeking advice on retirement options, and the globalization of securities markets. Employment in credit intermediation and related activities, an industry that includes banks, is projected to grow by about 3 percent. Almost 6% of the total working US population is working in finance, real-estate, and insurance.

Banking & Finance

In the Banking and Finance program of study, students gain an understanding of the banking and financial industries, beginning with basic economics as the underlying basis of the transfer and growth of money in the financial services system. Content in this POS covers business principles, accounting, and bank services management, ranging from traditional means (savings and loans, credit unions, and local banks) to newer ventures (insurance companies, brokerage houses, and internet-based services). Upon completion of this program of study, students will have gained the skills and knowledge to pursue careers in the various fields of this industry or continue on to postsecondary study.

Accounting

The Accounting program of study encompasses careers that record, classify, summarize, analyze, and communicate a business’s financial information and business transactions for use in management decision-making. Accounting includes such activities as bookkeeping, systems design, analysis, and interpretation of accounting information. Upon completion of this program of study, students will have achieved the academic knowledge and skills required to pursue the full range of career and postsecondary opportunities available within this industry.

Financial Planning

The Financial Planning program of study includes the study of how business financial services function in a company to make policy and strategy for (and the implementation of) capital structure, budgeting, acquisition and investment, financial modeling and planning, funding, dividends, and taxation. Course content includes legal and ethical issues, the examination of investment opportunities, retirement plans, and plans for administering disposition of estate property. Upon completion of this program of study, students will be equipped with the knowledge and skills required to pursue career and postsecondary opportunities in wealth management, financial consulting, and related fields.

Washington State Lawmakers Clash on K-12 Funding

Article via: May 12, 2015 - Education Week Andrew Ujifusa

Washington state lawmakers are struggling in a special session to agree on a strategy to pay for basic education. But as they try to build a system that bridges deep partisan divides over tax policy, they must also resolve to what extent greater state aid for K-12 will lead to reduced financial and political clout for local districts and union leaders.

Looming over the process that began April 28 is the state supreme court, which held the state in contempt last year over its failure to satisfy a 2012 decision that ordered legislators to reform and increase K-12 spending by 2018. Lawmakers must make significant strides toward meeting that mandate this year, or face court sanctions.

As states like Washington look at how to overhaul their funding formulas to smooth out inequities, there's a corresponding tension between state officials and local K-12 leaders about the strings that come along with greater support for some districts.

"What the districts really want is the increased commitment without increased control. But that's not going to happen," said Michael Griffith, the senior school finance analyst for the Denver-based Education Commission of the States. "Now I hear it constantly [from state lawmakers]: We're willing to spend more money, but we want to know what we're going to get for our money."

Broader debates about the proper relationship between the sources of school funding and authority over K-12 have been in the spotlight nationally since at least the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez. In that case, the court held that using local property taxes as a basis for financing schools was not unconstitutional.

The political landscape in Washington state is sufficiently complex that as lawmakers there push their own solutions and resist those from the other party, "we have Democrats complaining about Republicans raising taxes," said Frank Ordway, the chief lobbyist for the League of Education Voters. The Seattle-base group supports full-day kindergarten and charter schools.

Trends and Roadblocks

Recently, states in general have shown limited appetite for pushing school funding burdens onto their local districts.

From 1991 to 2011, on average, the percentage of total spending on public schools coming from local tax sources dropped by 5 percentage points, according to Jennifer Schiess, an associate partner at Bellwether Education Partners, a consulting firm based in Washington, D.C.

"The general trend over the last 20 years or so has been reduced reliance on local taxes in school funding—but it's not a dramatic trend," said Ms. Schiess in an email, citing data from the National Center for Education Statistics.

That doesn't mean the shift is easy in individual states. An Illinois bill introduced during the state's previous legislative session by Democratic Sen. Andy Manar would have altered the influence of property taxes by redistributing funds from wealthy to poor districts. But that bill has so far failed to pass, and it faces an uncertain future in this session.

And officials in Pennsylvania, faced with huge funding gaps between rich and poor districts because of property-tax disparities, are trying to craft a new funding system that might dramatically affect some districts' budgets, creating clear winners and losers in local school financing that could instantly divide lawmakers.

There, as in Washington state, any tax hike to pay for Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf's proposed spending increase for K-12 must first pass muster with GOP lawmakers.

Basic Obligations, More Revenue

The Washington state high court's 2012 ruling in McCleary v. State of Washington said that the state had fallen short of providing adequate resources for basic education. The court specifically called on lawmakers to meet prior commitments to fund class-size reductions in grades K-3, to provide full-day kindergarten, and to increase support for transportation needs and schools' materials and operating costs. Lawmakers increased basic K-12 spending by $982 million in the state's 2013-15 budget, but it did not satisfy the court.

The special session is set to last 30 days, although Gov. Jay Inslee, a Democrat, can extend it. The state uses biennial budgets. Complicating the matter is that control of the legislature is split, with Democrats holding the House of Representatives and Republicans the Senate.

Washington currently has no tax on personal income or capital gains, and Democrats, including Gov. Inslee, want to change that in order to resolve the school funding fight.

The House Democrats' budget plan, released in March, includes a new 5 percent tax on capital gains as part of a blueprint for increasing K-12 spending by $3.2 billion for the 2015-17 biennial budget. Of that amount, $1.4 billion would be earmarked for K-3 class-size reduction and other obligations under McCleary. Gov. Inslee also proposed a new capital gains tax of 7 percent in his 2015-17 budget.
State Rep. Ross Hunter, a Democrat and the lead budget writer in the House, stressed in an April 30 hearing that he is more narrowly focused on adequate funding for basic K-12 education as called for in the McCleary ruling, and not on broader issues in play like setting basic teacher salaries at the state level.

"I view our need to comply with the state constitution as the state funding basic education. I don't think the court is requiring us, nor do I think it's a good idea, to limit communities from providing additional services," Mr. Hunter said.

The Democrats' plan also includes a cost-of-living pay increase for K-12 teachers, to the tune of $154 million, and would pick up a share of local school employees' health-care costs.

'Fundamentally Inequitable'

But Republicans who run the state Senate and want no part of a new tax on capital gains or income are exploring a change to the relationship between existing local and state taxes designated for schools, in order to meet the state's K-12 obligations to all districts.
In part, their budget proposal relies on $3 billion in estimated additional revenue generated from the state's existing tax system over the 2015-17 budget period. About $1.3 billion of that funding would go toward satisfying the McCleary ruling.
Republican Sen. Bruce Dammeier argued that state lawmakers must no longer shove 30 percent or more of the funding responsibility for schools onto districts, since in such a system, wealthy districts and local unions drive up teacher pay in their districts, while teacher salaries elsewhere fall far behind.
Mr. Dammeier's plan for changing local levies is technically revenue-neutral. But it would increase the state's common schools levy while simultaneously lowering state property taxes, and moving what the senator says would be $1.5 billion in new revenue for the state into the K-12 budget. Roughly 40 percent of districts, many of them relatively wealthy, would effectively experience a tax hike in Mr. Dammeier's plan.
And he said that requiring basic teacher compensation to be set at the state level, with possible enhancements for teachers in certain areas with high costs of living, would help lawmakers fulfill their obligation to fund basic education that includes fair and reasonable teacher salaries.
"Our system is fundamentally inequitable right now," Mr. Dammeier said. "Our students' education is not supposed to be dependent on their zip code."
But the 86,000-member Washington Education Association has decried plans to set teacher compensation at the state level, calling it an attack on local control of schools.

Getting the Votes

Any plan to satisfy McCleary and fix school funding should ensure a net revenue increase, but also shore up the state's control over basic education funding, such as changes to how local property taxes work, according to state Superintendent of Public Instruction Randy Dorn.
Mr. Dorn has his own plan to satisfy McCleary that would create $2.2 billion in new spending.

"I'm not promoting one or the other," he said of the competing House and Senate tax plans. "I'm just happy if we can get new revenue."

Yet Mr. Dorn's plan would also ask the court to extend the deadline for meeting the requirements of the McCleary ruling to 2021. And Mr. Ordway of the League of Education Voters cautioned that the court will likely not tolerate anything less than "specific and real" commitments in any budget deal.
"Neither one of them really want to do the things that are hard for their party politically," Mr. Ordway said.

Vol. 34, Issue 30, Pages 1,20-21

Dallas Superintendent addresses budget

 

Published on Jun 1, 2015 - video via Dallas ISD

 

Dallas ISD Superintendent Mike Miles sat down with a local news outlet to address a report, which the district considers to be inaccurate, about budget and misapplication of funding. During the discussion, Miles also addressed information about how the district will work to fund academic facilitator and counselor positions impacted by changes in the availability of specific federal funds.

No school district would lose money under Ohio Senate's budget

 Article via: Patrick O'Donnell, The Plain Dealer, June 8, 2015

COLUMBUS, Ohio – Every school district in Ohio should receive at least as much money from the state for the next two years as they do now, Ohio Senate officials said today as they released their proposed state budget for the next two years.

Sen. Chris Widener, a Springfield Republican, said the new budget will "hold harmless" every district for the next two years, with none seeing a cut in money from the state compared to this school year's amount.

Along with many districts seeing increases, Widener said, at minimum "All schools essentially receive what they are receiving this year."

That's even including reductions in the complicated and much-debated reimbursements for the  now-defunct tangible personal property tax, Widener and Senate President Keith Faber said.
That reimbursement is a hot-button issue for many districts, including Solon, who have urged the state to continue the reimbursements permanently. The state ended that tax that many districts relied on in 2005 to reduce the tax burden on some businesses.

The Senate budget proposal is the latest step in the two-year budgeting process that has already had proposals from the House and from Gov. John Kasich. If the Senate version passes, leaders of the House and Senate will meet in conference committee later this month to find a compromise.
The budget that both houses of the legislature agree on will then go to Kasich for approval.
Our early look at the Senate spreadsheets of how each district is affected shows that 18 of Cuyahoga County's 31 districts will have little change - increases of less than one percent - by 2017.

Solon and Cleveland are among those 18, once state aid increases and decreased tangible personal property tax reimbursements are considered. A few will see sizeable increases in dollars of state aid per student. Garfield Heights and Maple Heights would receive about $800 more per student.
Overall, the 31 districts in Cuyahoga County would experience a 3.2 percent increase in state money over the next two years, from $760.2 million for the 2014-15 school year to $784.8 million in 2016-178.Money for the 579 districts in the other 87 counties would increase 8.6 percent from $6.67 billion to $7.24 billion.

Here are some other highlights of the plan, as portrayed by Senate leaders this morning:

• Schools would receive $935 million more over the next two years than they do this year.: $351.5 million more for 2015-16, then continuing that increase and adding $233 million more in 2016-17.
• More money would go to low-wealth districts and extra dollars are targeted at transportation and technology needs for rural districts.
• Leaders envision eventually eliminating all tangible personal property tax reimbursements over time, despite claims from some districts that the state promised in 2005 to replace money they lost when that tax was halted.
• The number of districts on the so-called guarantee will be reduced from 198 now to 100 by 2017. These are districts receiving more money now than the funding formula would give them. An unofficial "guarantee" that they will not see losses has the state giving them extra money beyond the formula to keep state aid flat.
• The number of districts "on the cap" will drop from 238 now to 138 by 2017. These are districts who would receive even greater increases from the funding formula, but limits on how much increase a district can receive block them from receiving the full amount.

Public School Teacher - Private School Parent

This article originally appeared in The Atlantic on March 4, 2015. 

Why I’m a Public-School Teacher but a Private-School Parent

It’s not selling out; it’s buying in.

 Last week, I observed a high-school English class on a campus without bells. The school didn’t need them: Every student showed up for class promptly, and they remained attentive until the last minute—without packing their books early or lining up at the door. San Luis Obispo Classical Academy (SLOCA) is a private school in Central California that promotes "personal character" and "love of learning," and the tangible difference between this environment and that at the public high school in the area was stunning to me—even though I'm a veteran public-school teacher. And even though my own daughter is in her second year of preschool at SLOCA.

I’ve also spent the last four decades exclusively at public schools—either attending them, coaching at them, or teaching at them. I have dedicated my life to them, as have all of my good friends. I even superficially loathe the local Catholic school for its elitist attitudes and alleged recruiting techniques. But as my daughter embarks on her K-12 journey, my wife and I are leaning toward this small, 322-student private school for one really simple reason: The kids take pride in their personal character, and they admit that they love learning.

My 4-year-old daughter, for now, is just like them. And I’ve always found that it’s exponentially more fun, fulfilling, and productive to engage in activities with other people who have "bought in" to whatever they’re doing with the same level of enthusiasm. For me, this has been true in grad school, baseball practice, watching football on TV—anything, really. For my daughter, this happens when she’s learning about personification, reciting poetry, and being a good human.

 

Personally, I was struck by the degree of student buy-in at SLOCA—which serves just 32 high-school students—compared to a typical public school nearby. In 90 minutes of observing the private-school class, there were zero interruptions, zero yawns, and zero cell phones. All 15 students, ranging from sophomores to seniors, had their homework successfully reviewed within the first five minutes of class; they all had their pens and notepads in front of them without being asked. As I listened to their interactions, it became clear, too, that they were engaged. They laughed when one of them made a joke about Frederick II being excommunicated a second time, and they lightly knocked on their desks when they liked a classmate's comment—a delightful custom I had never heard of. Each of them, moreover, answered a question from the teacher at least twice. Other than these moments, there was no noise, not a single distraction—and I was struck by the apparent absence of gender lines or observable differences between the youngest and oldest students in the class. Throughout those 90 minutes, they seemed like a group of old friends, united by a love of learning. 

That the teacher was fluent in that day’s topic, the Holy Roman Empire, was clear in at least two ways: One, she answered every question thoroughly, without hesitation; two, I could actually hear every word she said, in the tone and volume she intended. She didn't have to yell to be heard, and she didn't speak quickly in fear of interruption. She could subtly emphasize certain words, and her jokes landed. Observing this class, I started daydreaming about what, if given the chance, I would teach these kids—not how I would teach these kids.

* * *

As I am writing this, I am observing a different class—one at the 825-student public high school where I teach. The educator’s passion is evident, and his typed lesson plans are immaculate and thoughtful. It's not completely clear how fluent he is in the subject matter, however, because he has been interrupted or distracted by 20 things in 20 minutes: a pencil being sharpened, a paper bag being crumpled and tossed, a few irrelevant jokes that ignite several side conversations, a tardy student sauntering in with a smirk, a student feeding yogurt to a friend, a random class clown outside the window, and the subsequent need to lower the blinds, to name a few. The teacher is probably distracted by a disconcerting suspicion that he’s talking primarily to himself. For the past half hour, I've been thinking about how I would teach this class—not what I would teach this class.

I know most of the kids in this public school: They're not hurtful or malicious, and most of them aren't even consciously rude. They’re just "cool" by default, the opposite of being intrinsically "stoked" or "pumped" (to borrow a few words from their vocabulary) about learning. It’s not a classroom-management issue in this case. The teacher could outlaw food and cellphones, but there would still be jokes, fidgeting, students with passes to or from another place—something to distract them. No matter how diligently he teaches them about the appropriate time to sharpen a pencil, there will still be this culture of coolness, the norm of disengagement.  

SLOCA charges between roughly $3,000 and $7,000 per student in annual tuition—thousands less than the average cost of private high schools in the Western U.S., which according to some estimates is $29,000. And according to school figures, SLOCA also doles out $50,000 a year in need-based scholarships, as well as about $52,000 in tuition discounts. Granted, SLOCA’s tuition is probably too high for many families, but I don’t think the cost of attendance explains why SLOCA is such a special place—the biggest visible difference between my public-school students and their counterparts at SLOCA has little to do with money or natural brilliance (or, if it does, it isn't apparent or even relevant to me). Just like their public-school peers, the kids at SLOCA wear jeans and hoodies, and none of them seem to be any kind of genius; in fact, one of them was a student of mine at the public school, which he still attends part-time (I’ll get to him later). The biggest visible difference is that, at SLOCA, personal engagement is "cool." And any interruption is going to annoy everybody—not just the teacher.

In general, the teens at the public school don’t appear to have bought into an educational environment like that at SLOCA—and for good reason: There's nothing to buy. It’s difficult for them to show personal choice in their schooling because they’re obligated to be there regardless of whether they want to. As in many states, California law explicitly prohibits the school from requiring that parents pay for anything; at this particular institution, the administration even forbade an English teacher from asking parents to buy their kids tickets to an inexpensive play. After tax dollars, support for everything from extracurriculars to learning materials is expected to come through fundraisers, and schools can’t require that the students—the actual beneficiaries—participate in the fundraisers themselves. I completely understand and support the valid reasons behind these kinds of rules, both on conflict-of-interest grounds and, especially, in defense of equality. To me, however, that doesn’t negate the unfortunate, unintended consequence: When the kids aren’t obligated to invest their time and energy in a group project, they’re allowed to play it cool. 

Meanwhile, at SLOCA, the students—if only because they’re attending the school—seem to declare that they want an academic experience unavailable at mainstream institutions. Though SLOCA does have a few small athletic teams and host a couple of dances, the students here visibly favor their studious environment—one that lacks the gyms and swimming pools and other fun amenities available at some public schools. During the day, they’re willing to surrender their personal technology—phones are prohibited during school hours—and, presumably, the intimate gossip that comes with those devices. According to one teacher, "none of them date each other" because "it would be weird for them [in this environment]."

Likewise, if the parents are paying tuition at an independent school—one that advertises an alternative approach to education and promotes a "love of learning" as its cornerstone—they are publicly claiming a stake in a specific curriculum and pedagogy.  They’re not simply accepting the title of "stakeholder" at the school that’s chosen for their kids because of, say, geography. And they’re not choosing the school because of something like superior facilities, either; SLOCA’s campus doesn’t boast any material advantage over nearby public schools. Far from it: SLOCA’s campus sits on an old elementary school that the district abandoned years ago and is now leasing out on a temporary basis. In fact, the district now wants the buildings back to establish a new public elementary school for academically accelerated students, meaning that SLOCA will have to relocate again. Undeterred, the parents continue to give it their time and money.

I noticed the same effect of "buying in" when I used to teach Advanced Placement English at another public school. By law, anyone was allowed to take the class, but the school encouraged every interested student to get a signature from a former teacher to vouch for his or her qualifications. The simple act of taking the initiative to procure a signature was enough to show "buy-in": On the first day of school, every student had made a tiny but significant act that showed that they had chosen to be in this class. This served as implicit evidence that they cared about their education, at least a little bit.

I was once one of those students. As a teenager enrolled in a public high school in Northern California, I often wore a T-shirt with an angel proclaiming "Do not trust the government!" and earned the average grades that came relatively easy to me. Near the time of graduation, my father told me that he saw no point in investing in my college tuition because academics were clearly not my priority. So I started bussing tables and save up money for college on my own, and once it was me paying for my own education, I was angry rather than relieved when a professor canceled class; I constantly calculated how much each hour was costing me, and my grades skyrocketed.

Today, despite my excitement about kids who "geek out" about education, I hope my empathy for and belief in public-school students are evident, if only for my choice of occupation. I’m not trying to be combative, but I do find it ironic that many people who argue against private schools work in the private sector. For 20 years, I have deliberately invested my life in teaching public-school kids, coaching them, and advocating for the ones who don’t have the same support that other kids have. In fact, I chose to teach in a public high school precisely because I pitied the children who felt forced to be at school, who felt trapped like I did when I was their age. I spend my own time and money advising clubs, tutoring those who struggle with English, helping students apply for college, and, sometimes, feeding kids who aren’t sure if they’re going to have dinner. On a daily basis, even as I’m surrounded by a million competing interests and distractions, I work hard to make their compulsory experience something for which they would volunteer.

And I should note that, in expressing my concern about public schools, I’m not talking about individual students—all of whom I care for, respect, and support. Most of these kids are wonderful people, and some of them are fantastic students. Nor am I talking about individual teachers or classes. After all, statistics show that public-school teachers have comparably more classroom experience and qualifications. From what I’ve seen, public-school teachers are just as talented as, if not more talented than, their private-school counterparts; I’ve observed countless public-school classes in which students were, indeed, "stoked" about a particular lesson. And private schools for their part undoubtedly have bouts of misbehavior and poor choices.

I am, however, concerned about the general culture at public schools—at least at the ones I’ve seen—of disengagement and compulsory learning. So when it comes to my daughter, I opt to invest a little more—to ensure she’s immersed in a community where it’s acceptable, and even admirable, to show natural enthusiasm for knowledge. I trust this particular private school, one that was created by like-minded parents, will best set her up for success. After all, numerous studies corroborate what teachers and parents have always observed: A student’s habits and beliefs are significantly affected by his or her friends. Schools like SLOCA, fantastic as it may seem, are possible as long as the students and their parents are willing to buy in. Unfortunately, the critical mass of engaged students and parents that’s integral to creating this environment seems to be lacking at many of today’s public schools. And it may be impossible to attain when everything is both free and compulsory.

Of course, everything I’ve said until now is from my perspective as a parent and teacher. So, wanting to see what an actual student has to say about the issue, I recently sat down with the aforementioned teen who, as part of a unique arrangement, continues to attend the public school where I teach while taking a couple of classes at SLOCA. A typical junior who has a 3.4 GPA and takes few honors courses, the student emphasized that while he really likes his peers and teachers—and the opportunities he has to play soccer—at the public school, he prefers the classes at the academy. "At SLOCA, the kids really want to learn, and they want to be focused," he told me. "At [the public school], some kids don’t, and that puts a damper on things. And then the teachers unfortunately focus on [those kids]." He used the word "damper" again when I asked, hypothetically, what would happen if a SLOCA class were infused with 10 additional disengaged students. And that same word came up yet again when I asked him about ways in which public schools should handle the distracting "cool" kids who pollute classroom environments: "There’s no way to change that. You’d have to take them out of the class, but you don’t have the right to segregate them. Who gets to decide who’s putting the damper on [whom]?"

He’s right: Nobody gets to decide who puts the damper on whom. As taxpayers and citizens, American individuals are entitled to pursuing their own happiness, whether that entails an emphasis on athletics, church, real estate, you name it. For my family, we choose to emphasize a specific learning environment. And though we’re by no means martyrs for carving out $600 a month for tuition and aren’t sacrificing in the same way that many disadvantaged families do, we’re certainly not frittering away our disposable income in an attempt to give our daughter an unfair advantage. We’ve simply made a choice, and that in part means we live in a modest apartment designed for college students.

Of course, not everyone agrees with me. Vox editor Matthew Yglesias claims the country should tax private schools even more because, "At best private school is a private consumption good, like buying your kids expensive clothes." Gawker writer John Cook argues that private school should be illegal. A "public school dad" recently published a "plea to private school parents" on ABC.com that efforts like mine to "get the best education possible in the land of the free … sucks on a bunch of levels." And at least 70,000 people on Facebook liked the "manifesto" against private schools written by Slate senior editor Allison Benedikt, whose many points included: "If you send your kid to private school" then you are "a bad person … ruining one of our nation’s most essential institutions."

Public schools have my tax money, my lifelong employment, and almost anything else they need of me; pulling my daughter—one student—out of the system is probably the least of its worries. And on a more abstract level, the above criticisms fail to acknowledge the cumbersome, almost fixed nature of the dominant culture I’ve seen at public schools—one that occasionally isolates students who love learning, are teased by the "cool" kids and even bullied into joining the masses. No matter how much she voluntarily recites Shakespeare, the student I envision my daughter becoming would never be able to single-handedly transform a public school into an environment that is cool to learning.

These private-school critics, of course, are free to do whatever they want with her own personal time and money. Admitting that she’s "judgemental," Benedikt says one reason she "feels so strongly about public schools" is that, while some teens like to read Walt Whitman, "getting drunk before basketball games … did the same thing" for her. My girl deserves to be in a place where she won’t face diatribes from judgmental students who call her names just because she chooses to buy into her own educational aspirations. She should have the opportunity to read Whitman with sober, like-minded friends knowing that they, too, are getting what they bought in for.

About the Author Michael Godsey is an English teacher and writer based in San Luis Obispo, California.