Ulster schools earn low ranking

It”™s back to school, but Ulster County residents who are familiar with a Forbes magazine study that rated “the best and worst school districts for the buck” might be wondering whether the taxpayer investment in their public schools is a worthwhile expenditure.

 

The study, which was published in the July 5 issue of the magazine, rated Ulster County number 94 ”“ third from the bottom ”“ in terms of the amount spent per pupil in 2004 versus performance, which was measured in terms of the percentage of seniors who graduated, the number of seniors who took the SAT college entrance exam and the mean SAT score.

 

The per-pupil spend in Ulster County was $12,482. The graduation rate was under 84 percent, approximately 62 percent of seniors took the college entrance exam and the median SAT score was 1032 (out of a perfect score of 1600).  By comparison, Marin County, Calif., which was ranked number one, spent an average of only $9,356 ($6,579 adjusted for the cost of living relative to the metro areas in the U.S.) per pupil, yet more than 96 percent of its seniors graduated. Just above 60 percent took the SAT (strangely, that number is below Ulster County”™s), but the median score was 1133.

 

Given that Marin County is also one of the most affluent areas of the U.S., might there be other mitigating factors that impact performance? A similar comparison could be made with another wealthy area closer to home: Fairfield County, Conn., which ranked number six. Fairfield spent $8,376 per pupil, had a graduation rate of 92 percent, and more than 82 percent of seniors took the SAT, with a median score of 1051.

 

Forbes limited its study to a list of counties with populations greater than 65,000 that had the country”™s highest average property taxes. It ultimately selected 97 counties where more than 50 percent of per-pupil spending contributions derived from property taxes. It also adjusted expenditures for each metropolitan area based on a national cost-of-living average.

 

Given Ulster County”™s escalating property taxes, the study”™s findings doubtless hit a nerve with many residents. School district superintendents, however, said the rating system was overly simplistic and Forbes”™ conclusion that “the losers spend a lot of money and have little to show for it” didn”™t take into account the many factors that affect both school spending and performance.

 

“There are so many variables, such as what type of social economic base is in these districts, which has a huge impact on test scores,” said Richard Rhau, superintendent of the Saugerties Central School District. “Parents who can provide trips and pay for tutors can have a big impact on SAT scores.”

 

Another factor not accounted for in the study is the cost of special education, required for pupils with severe handicaps, for example. Tuition for these students on an annual basis is $60,000 to $70,000, said Rhau. The federal government requires the school district to meet their special education needs, although 60 percent of the cost is borne by the district, said Rhau.

 

 

Dr. Leslie Ford, superintendent of the Onteora Central School District, said the fact that many costs are outside the district”™s control makes comparing a school district to a private enterprise a flawed proposition. For example, the rising cost of health care “is one of our biggest expenses,” she said. Unlike California, where Ford previously worked as a school superintendent, school districts in New York state must fund this cost for retired employees. “Districts in California went bankrupt” partially because of this cost, so “California got out of that business.”

 

The Forbes study failed to parse out how much of the county”™s per-pupil spend was comprised of such mandatory costs, she noted, expenses that might not be a factor for counties in other states.

 

California is an anomaly in that schools rely on two types of funding: unrestricted funds, which are provided by the state, and restricted funds, which are provided by the Legislature, said Ford. She said she didn”™t think the Forbes numbers included the restricted funds as part of the per-pupil spend. Furthermore, in wealthy areas such as Marin County, “some parents are allowed to contribute funds by class section,” in amounts as much as $10,000. So the Forbes figures might not reflect the actual cost of taxpayer expenditure, she said.

 

Ford said that even the issue of graduation rates is complicated, given that some high school students graduate in five years, not four, some take the GED high school equivalency test and some attend community college. “We have different types of agreements,” she said.

 

To ascertain the true value of the taxpayer spend, people need “to ask deep questions,” Ford said. “You need to look at all of the budget and see how the pieces relate.” In the Forbes study, “the criterion is not spelled out clearly.”

 

Other Hudson Valley counties were also rated in the study, none of which ranked particularly well. Rockland was ranked number 44, Westchester was 46, and Putnam was 59. The spend per pupil ranged from $14,352 in Westchester to $12,616 in Putnam. Putnam had the highest graduation rate, at 88 percent, versus a low of 84 percent in Westchester. However, Westchester had the highest percent of students taking the SAT, at about 81 percent.

 

Despite the caveats, numerous other studies, available from The Business Council of New York State, based in Albany, show that New York state as a whole is among the highest spenders on public education and has been found to deliver lackluster results. In 2003-”™04, New York schools spent an average of $12,930 per pupil, which was 56 percent above the national average of $8,287, according to statistics published by the U.S. Census Bureau. The annual increase in rate of spending is also higher than the national average ”“ 7 percent for the 2002-”™03 school year in New York, compared with 3 percent nationally.

 

However, New York ranked sixth highest in the nation in terms of money available from the state, according to the Census Bureau figures. In 2003-”™04, public schools received $6,269 per pupil in revenue from the state, 38 percent above the national average.

 

New York schools also received 66 percent more revenue from local sources than the national average. Per-pupil revenue from local sources was $7,039, 66 percent above the national average and the third highest in the country. New York”™s teacher salaries and benefits were highest in the country for 2003-”™04. They were 17 percent higher than in New Jersey, which was the runner-up, and 75 percent above the national average, according to The Business Council of New York State referencing U.S. Census Bureau data for the 2003-”™04 school year.