IUSD vs TUSD funding

Hi Everyone!

As a parent of a child in IUSD (daughter attends Woodbury elementary), I've noticed how active the Irvine Public School Foundation is with fundraising, which prompted me to do a bit of research on school funding and expenditures.

I know very little about K-12 school funding, but I did pull the School Accountability report cards for 2 elementary schools as a basis for comparison. I pulled the data for Stonegate elementary (IUSD, regarded as one of the best elementary schools in the district) and for Hicks Canyon elementary (Northpark community in Irvine but zoned to TUSD).

Here is what I found:

Stonegate Elementary: Across 6 grades, average class size around 32 students. Total expenditures per pupil was $5,062

Hicks Canyon Elementary: Across 5 grades, average class size around 25 students. Total expenditures per pupil was $10,510.

I also read the budget report for IUSD from the Superintendent and there were several slides indicating that IUSD gets much less funding from the state than other districts (I'm assuming because of high property taxes here?).

Can anyone explain why IUSD is considered superior to TUSD when they spend so much less per student than TUSD and have bigger class sizes? My understanding is that more school funding usually translates to better outcomes (though I know this is complex). Does the Irvine Public Schools Foundation do so much fundraising that it offsets the lower state funding in IUSD? And perhaps those foundation funds aren't reflected in the pupil expenditures amount?

If anyone knows more about this, I'd really appreciate any insight you can provide. I also have a call in to the IUSD fiscal services department but haven't received a call back yet.
 
The report numbers are wrong.

LCFF funding for Irvine USD isn $8919 last year compared to county average of $9414.  LCFF is weighted to favor socioeconomically disadvantaged students populations.

District wide IUSD spends $9931/student ADA.  TUSD spends $12,261. 

There?s many factors to the spending differences, funding differences and perception.  Do not underestimate the impact of shiny new facilities on parent perception.

And people like ?concrete? things like test scores and published lists of perfect SATs.  Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain in gaming the state tests scores.
 
In addition, the state of California gives additional funds for non duplicated pupils who are identified under low income, English language learner, and foster children.
 
Thank you both, that?s very helpful.

I did pull the numbers directly from the school accountability report cards on the respective district sites, but perhaps these were ?raw? expenditures before LCFF added in (again, I?m totally ignorant as to the funding model and plan to do additional research).
 
winterblues said:
I know very little about K-12 school funding,

Can anyone explain why IUSD is considered superior to TUSD when they spend so much less per student than TUSD and have bigger class sizes? My understanding is that more school funding usually translates to better outcomes (though I know this is complex). Does the Irvine Public Schools Foundation do so much fundraising that it offsets the lower state funding in IUSD? And perhaps those foundation funds aren't reflected in the pupil expenditures amount?

1.  The correlation between educational spending and educational achievement is inverse. In other words, the more money spent for education, the worse they do with it.  This has been constant for fifty years and so what do educators today say?  "WE NEED MORE MONEY!"  NOW

2.  It isn't the schools that are so great in Irvine.  It's the demographics.  What is the #1 correlate to education achievement in K-12?  Anyone, anyone?  Anyone?  You don't know. 
It's th father's education level.

3. If you took the teachers in Santa Ana school district and switched them all with IUSD teachers, is there any doubt that the results wouldn't change much?

4.  Same exercise with the Santa Ana Police Department and Irvine Police Department.  I submitted these suggestions to Santa Ana and Irvine police and city councils and nobody challenged me at all.

?In 1950, we spent (in 1989 dollars) $1,333 per student. In 1989 we spent $4931. As John Silber, the President of Boston University, has written, ?It is troubling that this nearly fourfold increase in real spending has brought no improvement. It is scandalous that it has not prevented substantial decline.? ?  ? William J. Bennett, former Secretary of Education, in The De-Valuing of America

?Yet universities are becoming laughing stocks of  intolerance?.? -Stephen Pinker, liberal and atheist professor, Harvard University

The sixth-grade textbooks of today are much less challenging than those of a few decades ago?? ? Carl Sagan, Demon Haunted World, page 362

It has been said that we have not had the three R?s in America, we had the six R?s; remedial readin?, remedial ?ritin? and remedial ?rithmetic. ? Robert Maynard Hutchins (also Maynard Hutchins) (1899?1977) educational philosopher, dean of Yale Law School (1927-1929), a president of the University of Chicago (1929?1945) and its chancellor (1945?1951).


Education is one of the few things a person is willing to pay for and not get. ? William Lowe Bryan (1860?1955) 10th president of Indiana University (1902 to 1937).
 

Attachments

  • Education spending increases vs performance.jpg
    Education spending increases vs performance.jpg
    61.5 KB · Views: 159
Back
Top