AUSD Does Not Overspend
Alameda Journal, May 2008
By Tony Daysog
On a recent internet blog devoted to local issues, called The Island, opponents
of Measure H wrote school spending “increased from $71,164,000 in 1999-2000
to $80,702,000 in 2006-2007.” To buttress claims about overspending, they also
wrote, “Salaries and benefits have increased $15.3 million from $51,149,000 in
1999-2000 to $66,452,000 in 2006-2007, a 30 percent increase.”
Unfortunately, opponents forgot to adjust the data for inflation. When
adjusted, a more interesting picture emerges.
Based on data from the United State Bureau of Labor Statistics’ web-site, we
see that school year 1999-2000 spending of $71,164,000 in 2000 dollars equals
$85,709,000 in 2007 dollars.
Thus, AUSD expenditures did not increase between 2000 and 2007 but actually
fell by $5 million, from an aggregate of $85,709,000 to $80,702,000.
Claims of “30 percent” and “$15.3 million” in teacher pay increases are also
overstated. Instead, the increase amounted to $4.8 million in inflation-adjusted
dollars, for a 7.9 percent increase over seven years – or slightly over one
percent per year.
In actuality, per pupil comparisons are more appropriate than aggregate
comparisons since AUSD’s fiscal position fluctuates with annual shifts in
student population. Analyzing costs on a per student basis controls for these
fluctuations.
In 1999-2000, AUSD's per pupil expenditure was $6,925 in 2007 dollars. Then,
the District was slightly below the statewide average of $6,935. Albany and
Piedmont’s per pupil expenditures were $7,837 and $7,686. These cities
probably self-assessed themselves an amount to put them at their 1999-2000
levels. But the point remains that, when compared against the state and what
many agree to be quality bed-room communities in the East Bay, Alameda
ranked below.
Since 1999-2000, AUSD succeeded in bringing itself up to par with the state and
comparison areas. The first parcel tax helped out immensely. By 2006-2007,
AUSD's expenditure was $8,466 per student. Yet, the District continued to
slightly trail the state ($8,499), was somewhat behind Albany ($8,511), and, like
many others, far behind Piedmont ($10,510).
The AUSD caught up by, among other things, cutting back on capital outlays,
which averaged $1.9 million each year between 1997 and 2002. The California
Department of Education’s web-site shows that in 2002-2003 AUSD’s outlays
dropped to $176,800. In 04-05, 05-06, and 06-07, capital outlays amounted to
$19,475, $8,591, and $55,733 respectively – far below the $1.9 million annual
average between 1997 and 2002. Thus, AUSD has cut to the bone to place as
much money where it belongs -- in the classroom.
While empirically AUSD spent more per student in school year 2006-2007
($8,466) than in 1999-2000 ($6,925 in year 2007 dollars), this underscores how
far the District had come and how much further it still must go to deliver quality
educational services on par with the state in general and nearby bedroom
communities in particular.
Above all, data does not indicate that AUSD overspends, as ballot opponents
argue. To the contrary, AUSD reduced total aggregate spending since 1999-
2000 and, on a spending per student basis, exhibited modest increases that
unfortunately still places Alameda behind the curve.
Alameda Journal, May 2008
By Tony Daysog
On a recent internet blog devoted to local issues, called The Island, opponents
of Measure H wrote school spending “increased from $71,164,000 in 1999-2000
to $80,702,000 in 2006-2007.” To buttress claims about overspending, they also
wrote, “Salaries and benefits have increased $15.3 million from $51,149,000 in
1999-2000 to $66,452,000 in 2006-2007, a 30 percent increase.”
Unfortunately, opponents forgot to adjust the data for inflation. When
adjusted, a more interesting picture emerges.
Based on data from the United State Bureau of Labor Statistics’ web-site, we
see that school year 1999-2000 spending of $71,164,000 in 2000 dollars equals
$85,709,000 in 2007 dollars.
Thus, AUSD expenditures did not increase between 2000 and 2007 but actually
fell by $5 million, from an aggregate of $85,709,000 to $80,702,000.
Claims of “30 percent” and “$15.3 million” in teacher pay increases are also
overstated. Instead, the increase amounted to $4.8 million in inflation-adjusted
dollars, for a 7.9 percent increase over seven years – or slightly over one
percent per year.
In actuality, per pupil comparisons are more appropriate than aggregate
comparisons since AUSD’s fiscal position fluctuates with annual shifts in
student population. Analyzing costs on a per student basis controls for these
fluctuations.
In 1999-2000, AUSD's per pupil expenditure was $6,925 in 2007 dollars. Then,
the District was slightly below the statewide average of $6,935. Albany and
Piedmont’s per pupil expenditures were $7,837 and $7,686. These cities
probably self-assessed themselves an amount to put them at their 1999-2000
levels. But the point remains that, when compared against the state and what
many agree to be quality bed-room communities in the East Bay, Alameda
ranked below.
Since 1999-2000, AUSD succeeded in bringing itself up to par with the state and
comparison areas. The first parcel tax helped out immensely. By 2006-2007,
AUSD's expenditure was $8,466 per student. Yet, the District continued to
slightly trail the state ($8,499), was somewhat behind Albany ($8,511), and, like
many others, far behind Piedmont ($10,510).
The AUSD caught up by, among other things, cutting back on capital outlays,
which averaged $1.9 million each year between 1997 and 2002. The California
Department of Education’s web-site shows that in 2002-2003 AUSD’s outlays
dropped to $176,800. In 04-05, 05-06, and 06-07, capital outlays amounted to
$19,475, $8,591, and $55,733 respectively – far below the $1.9 million annual
average between 1997 and 2002. Thus, AUSD has cut to the bone to place as
much money where it belongs -- in the classroom.
While empirically AUSD spent more per student in school year 2006-2007
($8,466) than in 1999-2000 ($6,925 in year 2007 dollars), this underscores how
far the District had come and how much further it still must go to deliver quality
educational services on par with the state in general and nearby bedroom
communities in particular.
Above all, data does not indicate that AUSD overspends, as ballot opponents
argue. To the contrary, AUSD reduced total aggregate spending since 1999-
2000 and, on a spending per student basis, exhibited modest increases that
unfortunately still places Alameda behind the curve.
| ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ |
