South Carolina public school funding 2009-2010

South Carolina Public School Funding

Many parents (and even many lawmakers) are confused about the size and scope of public spending on government schools in South Carolina.

Money for public schools comes from three sources (local, state, and federal taxes) and filters down to the classroom through a convoluted array of “programs” and “categories” leaving a mere 43 cents per dollar for classroom instruction.

Regular Voice readers will  recall that in South Carolina there is no discernible correlation between per-student funding levels and student achievement, and that real School Choice is the only proven reform that will both save money and improve student achievement.

All that said, many parents and taxpayers are still surprised to hear that public schools across South Carolina will be funded at an average of $11,242 per child this year. Compare that to just $8,500 last year in North Carolina.

From the South Carolina Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2009-2010:

The base student cost for the current fiscal year for Part IA has been determined to be $2,034 and the base student cost for Part III has been determined to be $300 for a total base student cost of $2,334. In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the total pupil count is projected to be 691,816. The average per pupil funding is projected to be $4,153 state, $1,296 federal, and $5,792 local. This is an average total funding level of $11,242 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

Here is the district-by-district listing of local, state, and federal allocations for each of the 85 public school districts:

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Abbeville School District total pupil count is projected to be 2,911. The per pupil funding is projected to be $6,059 state, $1,616 federal, and $3,604 local. This is a total projected funding level of $11,279 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Aiken School District total pupil count is projected to be 23,640. The per pupil funding is projected to be $4,084 state, $1,225 federal, and $3,673 local. This is a total projected funding level of $8,982 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Allendale School District total pupil count is projected to be 1,454. The per pupil funding is projected to be $7,310 state, $1,764 federal, and $3,978 local. This is a total projected funding level of $13,053 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Anderson School District 1 total pupil count is projected to be 9,168. The per pupil funding is projected to be $4,053 state, $656 federal, and $3,485 local. This is a total projected funding level of $8,194 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Anderson School District 2 total pupil count is projected to be 3,694. The per pupil funding is projected to be $4,573 state, $609 federal, and $3,780 local. This is a total projected funding level of $8,962 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Anderson School District 3 total pupil count is projected to be 2,558. The per pupil funding is projected to be $4,919 state, $1,370 federal, and $3,857 local. This is a total projected funding level of $10,146 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Anderson School District 4 total pupil count is projected to be 2,901. The per pupil funding is projected to be $3,850 state, $1,231 federal, and $7,007 local. This is a total projected funding level of $12,087 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Anderson School District 5 total pupil count is projected to be 11,985. The per pupil funding is projected to be $4,277 state, $1,488 federal, and $4,675 local. This is a total projected funding level of $10,440 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Bamberg School District 1 total pupil count is projected to be 1,377. The per pupil funding is projected to be $5,491 state, $1,675 federal, and $3,723 local. This is a total projected funding level of $10,889 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Bamberg School District 2 total pupil count is projected to be 872. The per pupil funding is projected to be $6,126 state, $2,011 federal, and $4,334 local. This is a total projected funding level of $12,471 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Barnwell School District 19 total pupil count is projected to be 747. The per pupil funding is projected to be $5,256 state, 2,578 federal, and $3,900 local. This is a total projected funding level of $11,734 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Barnwell School District 29 total pupil count is projected to be 972. The per pupil funding is projected to be $4,544 state, $1,466 federal, and $3,305 local. This is a total projected funding level of $9,315 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Barnwell School District 45 total pupil count is projected to be 2,445. The per pupil funding is projected to be $4,898 state, $1,177 federal, and $2,970 local. This is a total projected funding level of $9,045 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Beaufort School District total pupil count is projected to be 18,425. The per pupil funding is projected to be $1,379 state, $1,703 federal, and $12,157 local. This is a total projected funding level of $15,240 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Berkeley School District total pupil count is projected to be 28,058. The per pupil funding is projected to be $4,119 state, $959 federal, and $5,655 local. This is a total projected funding level of $10,733 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Calhoun School District total pupil count is projected to be 1,569. The per pupil funding is projected to be $5,309 state, $1,495 federal, and $6,632 local. This is a total projected funding level of $13,436 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Charleston School District total pupil count is projected to be 40,639. The per pupil funding is projected to be $2,703 state, $1,593 federal, and $9,874 local. This is a total projected funding level of $14,169 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Cherokee School District total pupil count is projected to be 8,868. The per pupil funding is projected to be $4,696 state, $1,558 federal, and $4,801 local. This is a total projected funding level of $11,055 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Chester School District total pupil count is projected to be 5,503. The per pupil funding is projected to be $4,761 state, $1,970 federal, and $5,050 local. This is a total projected funding level of $11,781 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Chesterfield School District total pupil count is projected to be 7,730. The per pupil funding is projected to be $4,700 state, $1,453 federal, and $3,303 local. This is a total projected funding level of $9,457 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Clarendon School District 1 total pupil count is projected to be 840. The per pupil funding is projected to be $5,935 state, $1,629 federal, and $6,690 local. This is a total projected funding level of $14,254 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Clarendon School District 2 total pupil count is projected to be 2,974. The per pupil funding is projected to be $5,239 state, $1,897 federal, and $2,517 local. This is a total projected funding level of $9,653 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Clarendon School District 3 total pupil count is projected to be 1,207. The per pupil funding is projected to be $5,095 state, $1,013 federal, and $2,570 local. This is a total projected funding level of $8,678 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Colleton School District total pupil count is projected to be 5,918. The per pupil funding is projected to be $4,822 state, $2,250 federal, and $4,576 local. This is a total projected funding level of $11,648 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Darlington School District total pupil count is projected to be 10,522. The per pupil funding is projected to be $4,772 state, $1,642 federal, and $5,340 local. This is a total projected funding level of $11,754 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Dillon School District 1 total pupil count is projected to be 794. The per pupil funding is projected to be $5,326 state, $1,824 federal, and $2,183 local. This is a total projected funding level of $9,333 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Dillon School District 2 total pupil count is projected to be 3,380. The per pupil funding is projected to be $4,771 state, $1,738 federal, and $1,733 local. This is a total projected funding level of $8,243 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Dillon School District 3 total pupil count is projected to be 1,616. The per pupil funding is projected to be $4,457 state, $1,209 federal, and $2,199 local. This is a total projected funding level of $7,865 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Dorchester School District 2 total pupil count is projected to be 21,969. The per pupil funding is projected to be $3,790 state, $641 federal, and $4,399 local. This is a total projected funding level of $8,830 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Dorchester School District 4 total pupil count is projected to be 2,190. The per pupil funding is projected to be $4,807 state, $1,918 federal, and $6,918 local. This is a total projected funding level of $13,643 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Edgefield School District total pupil count is projected to be 3,795. The per pupil funding is projected to be $5,158 state, $972 federal, and $3,879 local. This is a total projected funding level of $10,010 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Fairfield School District total pupil count is projected to be 2,940. The per pupil funding is projected to be $5,175 state, $2,003 federal, and $8,343 local. This is a total projected funding level of $15,520 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Florence School District 1 total pupil count is projected to be 15,203. The per pupil funding is projected to be $4,228 state, $1,408 federal, and $4,867 local. This is a total projected funding level of $10,503 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Florence School District 2 total pupil count is projected to be 1,230. The per pupil funding is projected to be $4,848 state, $1,099 federal, and $4,008 local. This is a total projected funding level of $9,956 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Florence School District 3 total pupil count is projected to be 3,485. The per pupil funding is projected to be $5,106 state, $3,087 federal, and $2,584 local. This is a total projected funding level of $10,777 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Florence School District 4 total pupil count is projected to be 814. The per pupil funding is projected to be $7,302 state, $1,950 federal, and $4,728 local. This is a total projected funding level of $13,980 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Florence School District 5 total pupil count is projected to be 1,395. The per pupil funding is projected to be $5,314 state, $1,213 federal, and $3,867 local. This is a total projected funding level of $10,394 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Georgetown School District total pupil count is projected to be 9,467. The per pupil funding is projected to be $3,604 state, $1,411 federal, and $7,484 local. This is a total projected funding level of $12,499 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Greenville School District total pupil count is projected to be 69,784. The per pupil funding is projected to be $3,898 state, $1,040 federal, and $4,969 local. This is a total projected funding level of $9,908 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Greenwood School District 50 total pupil count is projected to be 8,922. The per pupil funding is projected to be $4,412 state, $1,143 federal, and 6,156 local. This is a total projected funding level of $11,712 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Greenwood School District 51 total pupil count is projected to be 1,053. The per pupil funding is projected to be $5,397 state, $1,143 federal, and $4,229 local. This is a total projected funding level of $10,770 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Greenwood School District 52 total pupil count is projected to be 1,593. The per pupil funding is projected to be $3,152 state, $867 federal, and $6,296 local. This is a total projected funding level of $10,314 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Hampton School District 1 total pupil count is projected to be 2,607. The per pupil funding is projected to be $5,135 state, $1,516 federal, and $2,876 local. This is a total projected funding level of $9,526 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Hampton School District 2 total pupil count is projected to be 1,047. The per pupil funding is projected to be $7,510 state, $2,148 federal, and $4,070 local. This is a total projected funding level of $13,728 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Horry School District total pupil count is projected to be 37,225. The per pupil funding is projected to be $3,391 state, $1,336 federal, and $7,836 local. This is a total projected funding level of $12,563 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Jasper School District total pupil count is projected to be 3,274. The per pupil funding is projected to be $4,373 state, $1,793 federal, and $6,546 local. This is a total projected funding level of $12,713 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Kershaw School District total pupil count is projected to be 10,267. The per pupil funding is projected to be $4,588 state, $1,183 federal, and $4,653 local. This is a total projected funding level of $10,424 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Lancaster School District total pupil count is projected to be 11,786. The per pupil funding is projected to be $4,200 state, $1,641 federal, and $4,597 local. This is a total projected funding level of $10,437 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Laurens School District 55 total pupil count is projected to be 5,559. The per pupil funding is projected to be $4,855 state, $1,382 federal, and $3,520 local. This is a total projected funding level of $9,757 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Laurens School District 56 total pupil count is projected to be 3,058. The per pupil funding is projected to be $5,020 state, $2,023 federal, and $3,725 local. This is a total projected funding level of $10,768 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Lee School District total pupil count is projected to be 2,367. The per pupil funding is projected to be $6,796 state, $2,105 federal, and $3,295 local. This is a total projected funding level of $12,196 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Lexington School District 1 total pupil count is projected to be 22,013. The per pupil funding is projected to be $4,174 state, $605 federal, and $6,914 local. This is a total projected funding level of $11,693 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Lexington School District 2 total pupil count is projected to be 8,419. The per pupil funding is projected to be $4,639 state, $1,270 federal, and $4,827 local. This is a total projected funding level of $10,736 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Lexington School District 3 total pupil count is projected to be 1,987. The per pupil funding is projected to be $4,959 state, $1,571 federal, and $6,565 local. This is a total projected funding level of $13,095 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Lexington School District 4 total pupil count is projected to be 3,072. The per pupil funding is projected to be $6,247 state, $2,329 federal, and $3,847 local. This is a total projected funding level of $12,423 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Lexington School District 5 total pupil count is projected to be 16,235. The per pupil funding is projected to be $4,650 state, $672 federal, and $7,042 local. This is a total projected funding level of $12,363 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Marion School District 1 total pupil count is projected to be 2,653. The per pupil funding is projected to be $5,025 state, $2,221 federal, and $2,712 local. This is a total projected funding level of $9,959 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Marion School District 2 total pupil count is projected to be 1,857. The per pupil funding is projected to be $4,838 state, $2,792 federal, and $2,864 local. This is a total projected funding level of $10,495 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Marion School District 7 total pupil count is projected to be 694. The per pupil funding is projected to be $7,773 state, $1,892 federal, and 2,989 local. This is a total projected funding level of $12,654 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Marlboro School District total pupil count is projected to be 4,274. The per pupil funding is projected to be $5,702 state, $2,037 federal, and $2,881 local. This is a total projected funding level of $10,620 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the McCormick School District total pupil count is projected to be 831. The per pupil funding is projected to be $4,428 state, $2,322 federal, and $8,688 local. This is a total projected funding level of $15,439 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Newberry School District total pupil count is projected to be 5,762. The per pupil funding is projected to be $4,910 state, $1,596 federal, and $6,399 local. This is a total projected funding level of $12,905 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Oconee School District total pupil count is projected to be 10,274. The per pupil funding is projected to be $3,852 state, $1,291 federal, and $7,284 local. This is a total projected funding level of $12,427 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Orangeburg School District 3 total pupil count is projected to be 2,878. The per pupil funding is projected to be $5,560 state, $2,075 federal, and $6,098 local. This is a total projected funding level of $13,733 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Orangeburg School District 4 total pupil count is projected to be 3,836. The per pupil funding is projected to be $5,002 state, $1,614 federal, and $4,917 local. This is a total projected funding level of $11,533 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Orangeburg School District 5 total pupil count is projected to be 6,392. The per pupil funding is projected to be $5,139 state, $1,900 federal, and $5,795 local. This is a total projected funding level of $12,834 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Pickens School District total pupil count is projected to be 16,210. The per pupil funding is projected to be $4,040 state, $1,034 federal, and $4,727 local. This is a total projected funding level of $9,801 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Richland School District 1 total pupil count is projected to be 23,060. The per pupil funding is projected to be $4,542 state, $2,072 federal, and $7,897 local. This is a total projected funding level of $14,511 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Richland School District 2 total pupil count is projected to be 24,669. The per pupil funding is projected to be $4,028 state, $903 federal, and $6,326 local. This is a total projected funding level of $11,256 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Saluda School District total pupil count is projected to be 2,047. The per pupil funding is projected to be $4,971 state, $1,228 federal, and $3,936 local. This is a total projected funding level of $10,135 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Spartanburg School District 1 total pupil count is projected to be 5,009. The per pupil funding is projected to be $4,538 state, $1,054 federal, and $4,840 local. This is a total projected funding level of $10,432 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Spartanburg School District 2 total pupil count is projected to be 9,656. The per pupil funding is projected to be $4,212 state, $939 federal, and $3,747 local. This is a total projected funding level of $8,898 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Spartanburg School District 3 total pupil count is projected to be 2,929. The per pupil funding is projected to be $4,791 state, $1,190 federal, and $5,288 local. This is a total projected funding level of $11,269 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Spartanburg School District 4 total pupil count is projected to be 2,881. The per pupil funding is projected to be $4,465 state, $850 federal, and $4,388 local. This is a total projected funding level of $9,702 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Spartanburg School District 5 total pupil count is projected to be 7,679. The per pupil funding is projected to be $3,847 state, $760 federal, and $6,675 local. This is a total projected funding level of $11,282 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Spartanburg School District 6 total pupil count is projected to be 10,132. The per pupil funding is projected to be $4,180 state, $960 federal, and $4,943 local. This is a total projected funding level of $10,082 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Spartanburg School District 7 total pupil count is projected to be 7,261. The per pupil funding is projected to be $4,999 state, $1,899 federal, and $7,071 local. This is a total projected funding level of $13,969 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Sumter School District 2 total pupil count is projected to be 8,354. The per pupil funding is projected to be $4,629 state, $1,784 federal, and $3,393 local. This is a total projected funding level of $9,805 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Sumter School District 17 total pupil count is projected to be 8,385. The per pupil funding is projected to be $4,607 state, $1,947 federal, and $3,164 local. This is a total projected funding level of $9,718 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Union School District total pupil count is projected to be 4,403. The per pupil funding is projected to be $5,204 state, $1,246 federal, and $2,788 local. This is a total projected funding level of $9,238 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the Williamsburg School District total pupil count is projected to be 4,980. The per pupil funding is projected to be $5,085 state, $3,005 federal, and $3,277 local. This is a total projected funding level of $11,367 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the York School District 1 total pupil count is projected to be 5,187. The per pupil funding is projected to be $4,303 state, $1,065 federal, and $4,189 local. This is a total projected funding level of $9,557 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the York School District 2 total pupil count is projected to be 6,353. The per pupil funding is projected to be $3,125 state, $527 federal, and $8,218 local. This is a total projected funding level of $11,870 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the York School District 3 total pupil count is projected to be 17,459. The per pupil funding is projected to be $4,377 state, $770 federal, and $6,085 local. This is a total projected funding level of $11,232 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

In Fiscal Year 2009-10, the York School District 4 total pupil count is projected to be 10,187. The per pupil funding is projected to be $3,666 state, $404 federal, and 6,771 local. This is a total projected funding level of $10,840 excluding revenues of local bond issues.

About these ads

17 responses to “South Carolina public school funding 2009-2010

  1. Richland One is $14k, and Rich Two is $11k.
    That is absurd. Both are a lot of money, but hard to justify a $3k difference. None of these numbers for any of the districts seem justifiable.

    Public schools are like the General Motors of South Carolina. We just keep bailing them out…

  2. Tim,
    That’s nothing. Look at Dorchester’s intra-county gap. School District 2 gets $8,830 each for 21,000 kids while District 4 gets $13,643 per for 2,000 students.

  3. At first i thought there might be some economy of scale (with the bigger Dorchester District getting/needing less money per kid) but compare County-wide Greenville District at $9,908 for 69,000 students with the nearby Spartanburg Districts, ranging from $8,898 for Dist 2 with 9,656 students up to $13,969 for Dist 7 with 7,261.

  4. Need More Tea Parties

    Three word will answer all the questions and speculation about spending on “public” schools: GOVERNMENT JOB MACHINE.

  5. The education bureaucracy is no different than any other government bureaucracy. Grab every penny you can and by all means spend every penny you have so it looks like you need more next year. I think we have seen this past year that school districts can certainly get by on less, so why don’t they? The answer of course is that it is not their money so why not spend every penny available? As mentioned above there is actually a disincentive to be efficient!

  6. We got to make sure all them qualified “educators” and their family members are sitting pretty in good payin’ gubmint jobs. It’s all for the kids…

  7. John Vincent

    $4k school vouchers for parents who will take their students out of the public school system. Leaders with a backbone will have to stand up to the teachers union. Isnt that why we call them leaders? So they will do the right thing for everyone?

  8. You fail to distinguish capital from operations. That explains the differences between districts. Capital money has been approved by the voters of the district. The amount of money for operations is projected to be at 2006 levels and without the federal government stimulus money – at 1996 levels.

  9. You can send a student to a year of college for less. And look at the “Corridor of Shame”, the Pee Dee area schools. And to beat the fact that money does not solve problems, these students are not learning much.

  10. JBV
    Read carefully – revenue for capital, which is raised via bonds, is not even counted. Should we consider that money as well, the sums would skyrocket!

  11. Our schools are bankrupt!…Intellectually, that is. Until we change the way teachers are prepared, student achievement will remain at th bottom. Even private schools, who hire “certified” teachers, are drawing from the same pool of applicants produced by the “colleges of education.”

    University professors, pharmacists, and other professionals should be allowed to teach in our high schools. It’s a shame that a 30-year veteran from USC or Clemson cannot retire and go teach at a high school, without having to take “feel good” courses that contribute nothing to teaching and learning.

  12. Jeremy Hodge

    I am a principal at a private school in Easley, SC. These numbers are appalling. Our per pupil cost is $2,700, and our students are on average 2 years ahead of their public school counterparts(that’s nationally, meaning 3-5 years ahead of their SC counterparts) on standardized test. We do no test prep in advance either. Last year our K-5 class tested at 99.9% in the national rankings, the highest possible score. Once you get past the $4,000 per child level, there is no discernible difference in student performance. Nearly everthing above that is pure waste.

  13. I send my child to a private school for less than half of the averages shown here. He gets a MUCH BETTER education, is disciplined as kids should be, takes AND PASSES more difficult college bound courses, attends classes LESS hours and LESS days than public shool, has better teachers, and MUCH more. This proves that quality education CAN work for much less than our government spends. Its time to take government out of our children’s education.

  14. Tandy Collier

    Homeschoolers spend even less per student, an average of less than $500 per K-6 student, less than $1000 per high school student. And the more children per family, the lower the cost of homeschooling, not because money is not allocated but because books are handed down and re-used, and supplies and equipment are shared. We regularly are offered piles of brand-new public school books, many still in their wrappers but none really used – so many in fact that we refused to accept leftover public school texts at a free give-away book program for homeschoolers in need. Some of these books are samples from vendors/booksellers who send out review copies hoping to get the school to purchase them, but the vast majority are books the school bought to use for that one year only and then discarded with very little use. When dumpsters were in use years ago, the schools literally would pile them to overflowing at the end of the school year, with practically-new and brand-new textbooks and unused workbooks. Now, they pile them in a room for a few days at the end of the school year and invite people like us in to get whatever we want, which might seem like a nice gesture to better use taxpayers’ money than just throwing them away, but since most homeschoolers choose to school for philosophical/worldview reasons that are opposite of those of the public school, most homeschoolers do not WANT these books, so they are left to be thrown away anyway. Why aren’t the books used again the next year? When teachers I know are scrambling for supplies and paying for supplies out of their own pockets (for shame when so much money is allocated per student by our state, even in the “poorest” of counties), why are we wasting money by throwing away “good” hardbound textbooks? I’ve heard some teachers complain they don’t even have books to use and have to make copies of every teaching tool they use. This is crazy when so many new books are going to waste. The writer above is right on in saying that the districts aim to spend every last dime they are allocated so they can justify their projected budget for the following year – that was confirmed by a teacher at a recent school-choice meeting. She stated that the teachers were instructed to spend the last cent they were given and that she had to go out and look for ways to spend money. Homeschoolers regularly score the highest of any “school group” on nationally-normed achievement tests. It’s not how much you spend; it’s how you spend it. If it’s your own money, you tend to be more fiscally conservative with where it’s going. If parents are given a say-so in where they can “spend” their education dollars, the vast majority are concerned enough about their children to choose the school where they believe their children will receive the best education, and that will bring in some beneficial competition among the schools. If some fail, good – they need to. Others will rise in their place that will do a better job. South Carolina regularly is at the bottom of the national educational heap when looking at several parameters, and our nation has dropped gradually over the past many years when compared with the academic achievement of countries internationally. Government inefficiency and bureaucracy is not the way to reverse this downward trend. We need education brought back to the private sector – at the very least with respect to financial control – and give parents control over how and where their children are educated. If we truly believe what we say that our children are our future, we can’t afford to waste time like we’ve been wasting money making some REAL change happen.

  15. TheRealDeal

    The Problem with SC schools is not funding. As a state we have expectations and criteria that are some of the highest and most difficult in the country. At the same time, we have several areas of the state in the the number of people with a high school diploma are near rock bottom. The South Carolina public school system appears much worse, statistically, than it is. School choice, is not the answer. A voucher, sounds good in theory. Yet there are many other variables than tuition. Who gets these kids to school? Who pays for them to eat? Who gets them home?

  16. few things here

    1.) San Antonio v. Rodriguez (1973) negated any involvement by the federal government in school funding. The only school funding from the feds any district receives is with regards to Title 1 spending due to mandates laid out in NCLB. So if you’re angry blame your reps in Columbia, not in D.C. In fact I believe your governor tried to put forth school choice legislation that would create vouchers much like the ones that exist in Ohio. (at least before he went on vacation ;) )

    2.) There is no concrete evidence that more money or less money spent on education results in better performance. Most of the data I’ve examined over the years relates more to communal economic climate than to how much money a school is spending. Essentially meaning kids from economically well off areas or kids who attend private schools where the families have similar socioeconomic backgrounds will do better regardless of money being spent or not spent. Its a data supported fact.

    3.) SC as someone mentioned has some of the highest standards for both kids and school in the nation. The attendance rate in SC for a high school is 95% compared to 90% in Ohio. After looking at a few SC schools that did not make this criteria recently I can assure them in Ohio they would be doing quite well.

    4.) No teacher union currently exists at any level for the teachers or administrators of south carolina. Teachers in SC can belong to the NEA as a union but few to none do and the NEA has virtually no teeth as compared to say the Ohio Federation of Teachers which is probably closer to the stereotypical teachers union many of you probably envision more than half the time.

    5.) bailing out on public schools would essentially result in a sociological nightmare. One I don’t think any of us, white, black, rich, poor, private school, public school want to be a part of. Remember folks – many of the “christian” private schools in SC came as a result of school desegregation. Look at Christ Church and Southside Christian in Greenville County for instance. Is it just me or is it a coincidence that both were established around the same time Greenville County began to fully integrate it’s schools? hmmmmmmm ;). just saying is all. You think upper middle class whites bailed out back in the 70′s just wait until tax payed based school vouchers are handed out. I have some scenarios from my hometown in Ohio that I could share that would make all of us relatively sick.

  17. Jeremy Hodge,
    I would love to know which school you are principal of in Easley. I live in Easley and am currently looking for a private school for my children. I really would like to pull them from public school, but am not familiar with any of the private schools in the area. Please feel free to contact me at lshay@leslieshay.com

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s