[Mpls] An alternative to downsizing the school district

[David Brauer]

Doug Mann writes:

> The school district gets more aid per-pupil from low income students, but
> spends less money educating them. Students who are eligible for free and
> reduced-priced lunch bring in something on the order of $2,500 per student
in title 1
> money. About one-third of the district's operating budget is spend on
regular
> Ed teachers, and the difference in average pay per teacher between schools
in
> high and low poverty neighborhoods is huge.

Doug - any numbers for this contention on a kid-by-kid or school-by-school
basis?

Schools with lots of poor kids may have more low-paid - but they have many
more teachers & aides.

Consider Lyndale School:
390 kids (2003)
90 percent of kids qualify for free & reduced student lunch.
33 teachers
36 classroom support staff
 (https://secure.mpls.k12.mn.us/schoolinfo/reports/2003/lyndale.pdf).
Student-teacher ratio: 11.8 to 1
Student-education staff ratio: 5.6 to 1

Now compare that to Burroughs: 
500 kids (2003)
24 percent qualify for free & reduced price lunch
20 teachers
26 classroom support staff
(https://secure.mpls.k12.mn.us/schoolinfo/reports/2003/burroughs.pdf)
Student-teacher ratio: 20 to 1
Student-education staff ratio: 8.9 to 1

Compare & contrast:
Lyndale (high-poverty school) has nearly half as many kids per class as
Burroughs (low-poverty). OR, you could say, Lyndale has nearly twice as many
teachers per kid as Burroughs.

Even if there's a disparity in average salary at the two schools, the sheer
# of teachers probably overcomes any savings.

I have school-by-school per-pupil funding figures at the office - couldn't
find them on the MPS Web site. But I believe they show per-pupil funding at
high-poverty schools is nearly double low-poverty schools. I'll post it when
I get back on Tuesday - though I would love it if a district employee or
concerned citizen could beat me to it.

David Brauer
Kingfield