On page 9 they say total enrollment including charter school in 131,541. It also says non charter enrollment is 117,249.
On page 35 you can see the breakdown of expenses excluding charters so it’s probably more accurate to compare expenses to 117K students.
The 3 major ones being.
Certified Salaries 516 million
Classified Salaries 218 million
Employee Benefits 311 million <- This is the invisible killer. Employees don't see it on their paycheck as an amount but it's increased from 276 million in 2007-2008 even with fewer staff. Everything else has decreased.
Total expenditures on page 38 are 1.11 billion. So it seems pretty accurate to say 1,111,000,000/117,000 ~ 10K spending per kid.
On page 36 you can see the number of positions by type. Basically 5000 classroom teachers and then about another 2500 employees related to special education. That is only 7500 of a total staff of 12,848. So there's quite of bit of not in the classroom staff in the budget.[/quote]
Sorry, after so many pages on this thread I'm not really sure which post you're referring to here. This is the only one I could find where I asked you for proof of your assertion that 2% of any increased funds goes toward new teachers, supplies, infrastructure, etc.
Also, I can't see where half of the new money is going toward raises, much less 10% raises! Can you please link to the data showing where teachers have been getting raises that would consume half of the increased funding? From everything I've seen and heard, most teachers have either seen stagnant wages (declining in real terms) or nominal cuts (making the cuts even more devastating in real terms), some being quite severe, since the recession started in ~2008.
[/quote]
I didn't post the budget as a response to you. It was posted just so anybody that wanted to look at the number could.
[quote]
Is this the post you were responding to?:
[quote=CA renter][quote=livinincali]The problem with giving schools more money is that it’s never used for the things they say it will be used for. Say we gave SDUSD a 10% increase in the budget. Anybody want to bet that least than half of that increase is going to give the existing teachers and administrator raises? They might use 2% of that money to hire new teachers and make a big spectacle about how they hired those new teachers but the vast majority of that money is going to the existing employees in raises. Not only that but the biggest portion is going to go to those people that have a short time left in the classroom (i.e. nearing retirement) or those already not in the classroom (Administrators). Why should we give money money to schools when we know the money isn’t going to be used to improve the education experience. The existing administrators and teachers are the ones that are failing and giving them all 10% raises isn’t going to suddenly make them better teachers or administrators.[/quote]
Again…evidence, please![/quote][/quote]
I wrote Anybody want to bet? I would think most people would assume that would be a speculation on my part. A bet is an agreement on 2 differing speculations on future outcomes. You don’t usually use evidence to justify a speculation.
The problem in this case that it might be rather hard to prove the winner in this type of bet. It speculates on the amount of the increase in funding and it speculates what the district would do with that money. It also ignores the question of, are increases in benefits pretty much the same thing as an unseen raise. I can tell you through the budget number that total compensation has been going up per employee because of the increases in the benefits budget. That’s with a pretty flat budget number. Not only that but since teachers have gone without raises for quite some time I’m guessing that the union is going to hammer on the district to provide raises soon with any little increase in funding.
Do you really want to take that bet knowing everything that’s going on. I get the impression that you don’t really want to take that bet but you also want my statement to be false.
