Skip to comments.
Data show costs of educating students in South Dakota average of $5,095
Rapid City Journal ^
| 1/2/02
| AP
Posted on 01/02/2002 8:18:15 AM PST by Native American Female Vet
Data show costs of educating students
By The Associated Press
MITCHELL - It cost the state an average of $5,095 to educate each student in the 2000-2001 school year, a survey said. But of the 176 school districts in the state, 123 of them spent more than the state average.
The state Department of Education and Cultural Affairs recently released its 2000-2001 expenditure and data rankings. The data lists each public-school district's average daily membership and the amount spent for each student.
However, some school superintendents say the amount of money a school district spends does not give the full picture of it.
The Geddes school district spent $7,248 per student, information from the Department of Education and Cultural Affairs said.
But Geddes Superintendent Jerry Ray said that although his district may be spending more on students, the students benefit from a wider variety of courses being offered.
"It's going to cost you X amount of dollars to educate kids. My feeling is, whatever our community people are paying for the education, if they're getting a well-rounded curriculum, our kids fare very well," Ray said. "We offer about 40 courses here in our eight-period curriculum, which is a pretty good course offering for a small school."
Of the 53 school districts whose spending averages per student came in lower than the state's average, most of them were the larger school districts in the state.
For example, Mitchell ranked 164th out of 176 districts with its average at $4,445 per student. Superintendent Joe Graves said averages can be helpful for a district to try to distinguish whether it is running efficiently.
"If you're somewhere in the middle, you could say you're where you ought to be," Graves said.
Some of the other larger school districts came in even lower than Mitchell. Rapid City was at $4,438. Brookings spent $4,425 and Yankton spent $4,336. Of the state's larger schools, Spearfish was the highest, with $4,959, which still was below the state average.
TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
To: Native American Female Vet
And, we still have the lowest taxes in the country, and finish near the top in test scores. Money=smart kids is a DNC/NEA fallacy.
2
posted on
01/02/2002 8:27:52 AM PST
by
SoDak
To: SoDak
Money=smart kids is a DNC/NEA fallacy. New Jersey is pushing $20 grand per student, D.C. almost $30K.
I wonder how their test scores compare to South Dakota's...
3
posted on
01/02/2002 8:31:39 AM PST
by
okie01
To: Native American Female Vet
FWIW, in the fall of 1998 NYS was spending approximately $10,514/pupil. And the education one gets from the public schools in this state isn't worth a tenth of that. So much for money being the sole criterion of what's needed to improve education (which is the argument put forward by the public school officials around here).
4
posted on
01/02/2002 8:34:59 AM PST
by
mewzilla
To: Native American Female Vet
Wouldn't you think that the communists would all spend about the same amount except for the district where the commisars lived, which would spend a great deal more. Why would anyone outside of SD be interested in anything to do with people so stupid and corrupt that they'd elect some one like Dasschle?
5
posted on
01/02/2002 8:40:27 AM PST
by
Tacis
To: Native American Female Vet
California spends over $7,500 per pupil ... nearly $10,000 when all state, federal and local money is factored in ... and we have among the lowest test scores in the country. This doesn't included multi-billion dollar bonds to pay for maintenance and contruction which increases the cost to all taxpayers and our children and grandchildren.
California is in dire straits, but I know that most people in the country will be smiling and laughing at us. I wouldn't ... we have the largest economy of any state, if we go down the rest of the country goes down.
The liberals have been in control for so long that the Republicans here are more liberal than the Democrats in the South. The only way to win the battle against the education establishment is to take over the government and institute strong reform measures, knowing there will be a major battle for control from the teacher unions who don't want to give it up.
That's one reason I'm supporting Bill Simon for Governor ... he isn't beholden to the teachers' unions, has many good ideas, and is willing to fight for major common sense education reforms.
Simon for Governor website
6
posted on
01/02/2002 8:56:52 AM PST
by
Gophack
To: Gophack; elkgrovedan; Impeach98
Ping
7
posted on
01/02/2002 8:58:20 AM PST
by
Gophack
To: Tacis
So, just where the h#ll are you from Tacis? How many dems are elected out of your state? Which party controls your legislature and governorship? How about your congressman? Mine of all the above are GOP. God, I'm sick to death of seeing my home state, and essentially my friends and family, trashed in FR.
8
posted on
01/02/2002 9:33:06 AM PST
by
SoDak
To: SoDak
And, we still have the lowest taxes in the country, and finish near the top in test scores. Considering who South Dakota has in the Senate I wouldn't brag too much about the intellect of South Dakotans.
To: curmudgeonII
If you take issue with my intellect, it may be for the best if you avoid reading my responses. Thanks.
10
posted on
01/02/2002 10:56:36 AM PST
by
SoDak
To: okie01
I think the $20K figure is for high school students only. I think it is about $10K across all students. Do you have a source for this handy? Of course tuition at a Catholic elementary school near me is about $4K (if you aren't a member of the church) and I think some of the local Protestant Christian schools are about the some.
To: SoDak
If you take issue with my intellect, it may be for the best if you avoid reading my responses. Thanks.Am I to take that as a defence of our [South Dakotan] U.S. Senate majority leader?
To: mewzilla
I saw a study a couple months ago that said that in 1999 more than 1/2 of the cost of public education nationwide was for the administration of school systems. Not teaching!
13
posted on
01/02/2002 12:04:12 PM PST
by
CJinVA
To: Gophack
nearly $10,000 when all state, federal and local money is factored in ...Does that include capital acquisition and debt service for the building of schools, capital improvements etc? $7k, $8k $10k does not in most states truly represent the real cost to the taxpayers of public education. It is much much more than that.
14
posted on
01/02/2002 12:09:24 PM PST
by
CJinVA
To: vigl
You're probably right about that. I'm talking about per pupil spending in the schools (which includes salaries, benefits, books, etc.) I think they should quantify every dime they spend. Unfortunately, the education bureaucracy controls the information and taxpayers and parents are left out of the loop. And, we've been sold a bill of goods about needing more money, we don't fight to learn the truth.
And, there are people like me who contribute to the problem ... I make a major financial sacrifice to send my kids to private school because I don't want my beautiful girls to be taught about sex and condoms and cucumbers and homosexuality and other immoral "there is no right and wrong" behavior.
15
posted on
01/02/2002 12:25:54 PM PST
by
Gophack
To: curmudgeonII
Absolutely not, take it as a defense of the fine people I grew up and live amongst here in SD. I certainly didn't vote for the guy. You know as well as I that sometimes dems get elected in our states, even though they really shouldn't, when we consider the predominant ideology within those states. Some candidates are good at fooling a great deal of the people. Look at x42, and how he fooled a nation. As 2004 draws closer, I for one will be working my tail-end off to rid us of Daschle. In the meantime, please understand if I take offense to remarks which are aimed at my intellect, or lack thereof.
16
posted on
01/02/2002 12:59:14 PM PST
by
SoDak
To: okie01
I'd definitely put our grad rates and test scores up against those in NJ. We consistently finish in the top ten. Of course, year after year we are forced to fight the NEA which considers us a pariah because our spending is so low. We are also forced to try to bring up to speed children from three of the poorest Indian reservations in the country. Ironically, their school districts are ran federally.
17
posted on
01/02/2002 1:03:30 PM PST
by
SoDak
To: vigl
Talk to your local school board. They'll tell you that most of their budget goes for salaries and benefits, not books or buildings. Right now our local teachers are fighting against contributing more toward their own health care costs. Considering that they pay in less and receive a lot more than we do vis-a-vis ours, I'm not terribly sympathetic.
18
posted on
01/02/2002 1:32:07 PM PST
by
mewzilla
To: Question_Assumptions
"I think the $20K figure is for high school students only. I think it is about $10K across all students. Do you have a source for this handy?" Only source is memory. Recall the number being published several years ago (it was $19-grand-and-a-fraction). It may have been high school. Or it may have been Newark. But it was in New Jersey.
Limbaugh focussed on it for several weeks, because it translated to about $500,000 per classroom of 25 students. And, when you look at the expenditure in this light, it's hard to figure out what the hell they were spending the money on.
19
posted on
01/02/2002 2:22:03 PM PST
by
okie01
To: Gophack
In the county were we live the school bonds are paid for out of the counties general fund, not the school boards budget. When the school board requests money for a new school
building they include books, computers, football uniforms, band uniforms etc. The taxpayers end up financing for 12 or 15 years items that have a life of 5 or 6 years. The School Board, what do they care? It"s not their money.
Our children are finished with school and are out in the work force. We sent them to a Christian school all the way up to high school. In high school we keep them involved in their studies and sports. They didn't have the time for, or the interest in all the other garbage that's fed to them in public schools. I think the most important thing you can do for a child nowadays is to keep them out of public schools. We gladly sacrificed a lot of things in order to send our boys to private school, and it paid off.
20
posted on
01/02/2002 4:22:01 PM PST
by
CJinVA
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson