E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe average income of Americans differs by state, county, city and ZIP code, obviously. At each level, the amount residents earn every year impacts available government services, health and overall quality of life. This is especially true when education is examined by school district.
24/7 Wall St. analyzed census data from 2006 through 2010 for each of the more than 10,000 unified school districts in the United States. Wealth appears to have an outsized effect on education at the local level. Residents who live in wealthy school districts have among the best schools in the nation based on graduation rates, test scores and independent ratings of academic success. Children who attend these schools are more likely to earn a college degree than the national average. To illustrate the influence wealth and poverty have on educational attainment, 24/7 Wall St. examined the wealthiest and poorest school districts in the country.
Nearly all of the wealthiest school districts are found within a short distance from cities that are among the richest in the country. Other than one suburb of Portland, Ore., all of the wealthiest school districts are in commuter towns of New York City, located in either Fairfield County, Conn., or Westchester County, N.Y. The poorest districts are rural communities scattered all over the country, from Ohio and Kentucky to Texas and Mississippi.
24/7 Wall St.: America's poorest school districts
Compared to the national median income, the families in the most well-off districts are incredibly wealthy. In the 10 richest school districts, median incomes ranged from $175,766 to $238,000. By comparison, the national median household income from 2006 to 2010 was $51,914. Among the 10 wealthiest districts, between 48 percent and 64 percent earned $200,000. Nationally, only 5.4 percent of households earned more than that.
Median income in the poorest school districts was at the extreme opposite end of the spectrum. Annual median incomes in those districts ranged from $16,607 to $18,980, well below $22,314, the national poverty line for a household of four. In San Perlita Independent School District in Texas, one of the poorest districts in the country, 30 percent of residents earned less than $10,000 each year.
According to the National Center of Education Statistics, all of the wealthiest school districts spend far more per pupil than the national average. The Darien, Conn., public school district spends $15,433 per student per year, more than 50 percent above the U.S. average of $10,591. The Edgemont, N.Y., public school district spends more than $25,000 per student annually. Barbourville, Ky., the poorest school district, spends less than one-third that amount.
Not surprisingly, the richest schools are considered better than the poorest schools, based on measures used by the media to rank academic success. All of the richest school districts were included in the 2012 U.S News & World Report Best High Schools list, except for Bronxville, which was ranked fourth in Newsweek's Top 20 High Schools in the Northeast. U.S. News based its rankings on state test scores and college readiness, while Newsweek's methodology included graduation rates, college acceptance and AP exams. The poorest school districts did not fare as well. Only two were included in the U.S. News rankings.
24/7 Wall St.: The happiest countries in the world
On a national level, nearly half of all property tax revenue goes to public school funding. As a result, most districts rely heavily on local funding. In the richest school districts, up to 90 percent of the school district budget is from residents’ taxes. Homeowners in these regions pay an average of $18,000 in Weston, Conn., to $43,000 in Bronxville, N.Y. Bronxville’s average property tax bill alone is more than twice the median household income of any of the poorest school districts on this list. By comparison, as little as 6 percent of school revenue is generated by local taxes in the poorest school districts, with state and federal funding making up the difference.
24/7 Wall St. used the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey from 2006 to 2010 to measure the economic conditions of more than 10,000 unified school districts across the United States. After eliminating the districts with fewer than 10 school-aged children, those that are not unified and those that do not provide a K-12 curriculum, we identified the 10 districts with the highest median income among residents and the 10 with the lowest median income. We also considered income distribution, the percentage of children living in poverty, median home values and the percentages of adults holding high school and bachelor degrees in these school districts. From the housing information site Trulia, we obtained academic test scores in all of the districts. Information on academic performance for each district also was based on the 2012 U.S News Best High Schools, the 2012 Newsweek Top High Schools and individual district websites. 24/7 Wall St. contacted assessor’s offices to obtain average property taxes paid in these areas and relied on the National Center of Education Statistics for information on school funding.
These are the richest school districts in America.
1) Scarsdale Union Free School District, N.Y.
- Median household income: $238,000
- Percent households earning $200,000+: 64.3 percent
- Percent households earning less than $10,000: 0 percent
- Expenditure per student: $26,742
- Percent local funding: 89 percent
With a median income of $238,000, the Scarsdale Union Free School District tops 24/7 Wall St.’s list of the wealthiest school districts in the country. In the district, just 35.7 percent of households earn less $200,000 a year. Because Scarsdale collects an average property tax of approximately $31,000, the district is able to spend a lot on education. Scarsdale provides 89 percent of funding for its own schools and spends $26,742 per student. The district’s schools are also among the best in the country. Approximately 90 percent of eighth-grade students at Scarsdale Middle School meet or exceed NYSA’s standards, while in each subsection of the NYSA high school tests at least 90 percent of Scarsdale High School students had passing grades.
2) Weston School District, Conn.
- Median household income: $209,630
- Percent households earning $200,000+: 59.3 percent
- Percent households earning less than $10,000: 0.8 percent
- Expenditure per student: $20,718
- Percent local funding: 90 percent
Weston School District serves 2,550 students, primarily from households that earn some of the highest incomes in the country. According to the region’s assessor’s office, median property taxes paid per household are roughly $18,000. Weston spends $20,718 per pupil each year, almost 100 percent more per pupil than the national average of $10,591, placing the district in the 97th percentile in national spending. U.S. News ranks Weston High School as the fourth best high school in Connecticut.
24/7 Wall St.: The most dangerous cars in America
3) Riverdale School District, Ore.
- Median household income: $199,167
- Percent households earning $200,000+: 59.8 percent
- Percent households earning less than $10,000: 1.9 percent
- Expenditure per student: $16,807
- Percent local funding: 76 percent
The only school district outside Westchester County, N.Y., or Fairfield County, Conn., among the 10 wealthiest districts is Riverdale School District, where the median household earns almost $200,000 a year. With a median home value exceeding $1 million, the district is able to collect property taxes as needed to fund its educational initiatives. Though the district spends less per student than any of its East Coast counterparts, this has not limited educational success. Roughly 80 percent of 10th-grade students met or exceeded state standards for math and more than 90 percent met or exceeded standards for reading. In both cases, Riverdale High School students far exceeded state averages for the Oregon Assessment of Knowledge and Skills tests.
4) Chappaqua Central School District, N.Y.
- Median household income: $198,382
- Percent households earning $200,000+: 55.7 percent
- Percent households earning less than $10,000: 0.2 percent
- Expenditure per student: $24,705
- Percent local funding: 84 percent
The Chappaqua Central School District in Westchester, N.Y., is regularly listed as one of the best school districts in the country. Chappaqua’s only public high school, Horace Greeley, is currently ranked the 14th-best high school in New York State by U.S. News, based on state test proficiency and college readiness. The enormous $110 million budget — more than $24,705 per student — is 84 percent funded by Chappaqua residents’ taxes. The median home value in Chappaqua is $929,700 and the average property taxes are $23,500, according to the New Castle assessor’s office. More than 78 percent of adults in Chappaqua hold a bachelor’s degree, which is more than three times the national average.
5) Briarcliff Manor Union Free School District, N.Y.
- Median household income: $183,148
- Percent households earning $200,000+: 55.6 percent
- Percent households earning less than $10,000: 3.3 percent
- Expenditure per student: $27,938
- Percent local funding: 82 percent
In the Briarcliff Manor Union Free School District, 55.6 percent of households earn more than $200,000. The median income of the district’s residents is $183,148 — more than three times the 2010 national median of $51,914. From the large property taxes in the region as well as other forms of local funding, the district is able to generate enough revenue from residents to spend as much as $27,938 per student. Briarcliff High School students significantly outperformed statewide averages on New York State Assessment tests. For all 10 sections of the tests, almost 100 percent of Briarcliff students recorded passing grades.
Click here to read all of 24/7 Wall St.'s richest and poorest school districts
24/7 Wall St.'s Michael B. Sauter, Ashley C. Allen, Lisa A. Nelson and Alexander E.M. Hess contributed to this report.
Leave a Comment:
yet another shining example of school district waste in the northeast in particular. $20k+ PER STUDENT is beyond absurd. i didn't read the whole article but inflated salaries of adminstrators and certain teachers, corruption, general waste and a lack of understanding of how to leverage buying power/create cost certainty through contracts (teachers unions/pensions included) are the glaring issues.
if this weren't so painfully stupid it would be hilarious, nevermind the fact that even with these substantial investments the kids appear to be getting dumber when compared against the balance of other industrialized nations on the planet.
spend more, get less--sounds backwards, doesn't it? another stellar job by our elected officials.
sebrad, I disagree.
I think it is yet more evidence that poverty is the issue we need to address if we are concerned about the education of American children.
Children from wealthy families usually have experiences and background knowledge that help them succeed in school. They've had good medical care and nutrition. Most do not have to worry about having a place to live, food on the table, or whether someone they love is going to get shot that night.
Children from families in poverty all too often do not have that kind of experience and background knowledge. Frequently they have not had the advantages of good nutrition and good medical care. And many -- quite understandably -- are worried by the unpredictability of their lives.
The article corroborates the connection between excellent resources and quality of education. It is likely that the teachers are highly educated in those wealthy districts, and that the buildings are in good repair. Probably the wealthier districts are able to offer their students more individual attention and more opportunities for learning.
And just as students who do not have to worry about their next meal come to school more available to learning, teachers who do not have to worry about their next paycheck -- or whether they're going to lose their pensions -- are better able to focus on their teaching.
I believe that if you looked at the 'numbers' from the top ten schools, you would see that they are not "dumber" at all. It is the increase in poverty that makes the country's schools as a whole look less effective -- more schools than ever pushed down toward the bottom ten because of budget cuts and increasing poverty.
Your solutions, sebrad, are wrongheaded. I agree that there is waste. But education is NOT a business, and when it gets looked at that way, bad things happen.
morrigan--i disagree with your disagreement. the issues between rich and poor, while relevant, are not what my concern is--there is nothing that can be done about that unless we switch to socialism. the issues you are referring to are more relevant to maslow's hierarchy of needs. for example, it's harder for kids to focus/succeed in school if they don't have reasonable shelter, food, stable family life, etc. additionally, many of the students (rich or poor) that struggle in school have sh*t parents that don't "understand" maslow's point either, which literally guarantees a substandard result, but that's a discussion for another time...
my point is that per student spending of $20k+/yr is patently absurd. how much of that $ is actually teaching expenditures vs administrative greed and general ineptness in utilizing the TAXPAYER funds that are available? if the $'s were utilized correctly, there would be no shortage of resources to provide solid general curricula and additional specialized instruction along with some of the other items you mentioned.
and what kind of sample size is "the top 10 schools"? that doesn't prove/disprove anything. look at standardized test scores...they are down across the board. look at the kids that come here from other places and are literally performing several grade levels above their like-aged peers that were born here.
please don't even try to use the "worries" that teachers have about their jobs. 90% of us have the same worries these days. i'm worried about my employment, but i still find a way to do my job correctly. a good portion of these teachers, the tenured in particular, recycle the same old lesson plans and give less than a half assed effort in many cases. where i come from, when you accept a paycheck to perform, and then don't, that's called STEALING.
finally, i don't believe i offered "solutions", because frankly there aren't any. as much as you may not want to admit it, education is not just a business, it is a huge INDUSTRY. educators are generally notorious for thinking they know everything, and 99.9% of them don't know squat about business. the one solution i would offer is that BUSINESS people should run the business side of education with input from educators. EDUCATORS trying to run a business and educate at the same time merely guarantees failure in both education AND business, which is what we are confronted with right now...
Blue States = Richest School Districts
Red States = Poorest School Districts
And it has nothing to do with teacher's salaries. They don't vary that widely.
Cost per student is dependent more on classroom size, facilities and other infrastructure.
They spend that much money because they can afford it. Look at the median household salary. For richest school districts, it's > $200K. For poorest districts it's <$20K
But I note the existence of "Union Free" in a couple of names. :)
The link that no one mentions is what I call "culture". In the affluent districts, you have educated parents that place a value on education and hard work. The best teachers want to teach in these districts .
It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy that has nothing to do with teachers unions: Parents are involved and insist the kids put school first, they pay property taxes to support good schools, the best teachers want to teach there. Result the kids do well. Even the dumb kids do well. The kids go to college. They marry another kid from a similar background. They have little kids of their own and support their education.
Contrast that with rural and inner city districts. Over half the kids are born out of wedlock to uneducated mothers. Dad ain't around. Mom is working to put food on the table. Kids come home and play X box and watch tv. Again, the cycle is self reinforcing. Parents don't value education. Kids don't value education. Teachers unions run the schools because the super motivated teachers are in the affluent suburbs. Kids get pregnant because there is nothing else to do. Another generation on welfare.
By 12th grade the difference is astounding in the knowledge and skills of the wealthy kids vs the poor kids.
This is the real reason the rich get richer. They pass along habits and skills of successful people.
All the estate and Buffet taxes in the world won't solve this problem.
My biggest complaint about Obama and I have many is this: Barack and Michelle Obama could make this their cause. Their celebrity and street cred could help turn the tide. Kids get an education. Girls respect yourself and your bodies. Boys: respect girls and women and your mothers. Get educated, get a job, get married, have children IN THAT ORDER!!!
Bill Cosby has tried to say this and he is laughed out of town by the Hollywood elite. Every minister in every black, hispanic and poor white church should preach this every Sunday.
Change the culture. Change behavior. Change will come.
So all of those wealthy people are just plain stupid to spend so much on their schools?
I would bet that those wealthy people are most likely quite fine with spending money on schools - in fact, I live in a very well off school district and not only do we spend more than the average on our public schools - there are always nice donations that people make to enhance the schools even further and over 95% of the kids go to college.
Is there more to it than just money, of course there is, however, the people in these wealthy areas are not stupid - if they thought that money did not make a difference they would not be so willing to spend so much money on the schools.
You can't get a good education unless you go to a well to do public school. You can't go to a well to do public school unless you live in a well to do school district. You can't live in a well to do school district unless you are well to do.
The well to do control you. If you ain't well to do, you might as well just give up.
Which is why the riduclous little red school house notion we have of education is long past broken. We can't depend on lottery tickets and property taxes if we want ALL American kids competitive in the 21st century.
Disagree completely. Example- Girl from alcohol/drug family goes to Harvard next year (Upstate NY). You don't have to be wealthy to be a hard worker, intelligent, or resourceful.
Fine, give up. In this country there will be a line of people willing to take your spot.
The big difference in these areas noted in the study is affluence. What leads to affluence, usually hard work and a strong work ethic. The people there would likely push their kids as well as have the additional resources to provide them with additional learning opportunities. You can take an affluent kid, provide them with no encouragement or support, and nothing beyond a rudimentary education and they'll perform like anyone else around them. You can take a poor kid and provide them with support/encouragement, and a rudimentary education and they thrive. Why? They feel like they can do it and want to succeed. It's human nature, not money based.
Most of the districts are heavily JEWISH and PROGRESSIVELY LIBERAL.
Funny how liberals like to tell us that equality for all.....TOGETHER - ONE is a virtue but they like those towns where there are no minorities and high fences.
Like the true elitist puke that they are.
Just saying......................
Anti Semitic...just saying.
Bitter....just saying.
Anti-education...just saying
Moronic loser...just saying.
Its common sense if the school districts taxpayers have money the school district will ask for more money. Most school districts take around 65% of the RE taxes per home every year..owning a big house and land you will pay more then in RE taxes. Plus all school districts get some funds from the Feds and states just not all same amounts.
To bad our nation rather pay (read this story yesterday) $800,000 per year to lock up just "one" terrorist prisoner in Gitmo Cuba..instead of placing that money into the nations education system.
Supposedly, state and federal goverment was to eliminate this disparity by collecting the taxes for schools and then redistributing the taxes to school districts on a per student basis. Thus school districts in poor school districts would receive more money than they would otherwise.
In California, which is one of the nations top wage, salary, pensions in pay to teachers, has shown, simply paying more doesn't equate to better education. California drop out rates in high school is one of the highest in the nation, and California consistently scores lower than most states in standardized test scores.
Dont forget about parents' expectations and participation. "Rich kids" are very competitive because their parents expect them to be-- and typically are themselves.
Spaceman Mike, not true. I lived in a well-to-do school district in Illinois where most of the students were white, the football team had custom coaches to ride around in and money was pissed away as if a bunch of drunken sailors were running the district. I attended one of the board meetings when they started complaining about not having enough money, and if they don't raise taxes, they will have to start cutting extra activities, like band, orchestra, and other stuff that was considered non-essential. This was happening while they were in the midst of re-furbishing the baseball fields and building new club houses at the school, buying two more new custom coaches for the sports teams, and more. They were SELFISHLY using our kids to leverage a substantial increase in taxes. Well, they got their increase in taxes because they scared the crap out of everybody. The money started pouring into the school district. The next thing we knew, the board passed a 7.5% per year for 5 years raise for teachers. (My income went up only 1.5%, while cost of living was over 3%!) Well, guess what? The school was usually on the top school list year after year. It got bumped off and never showed up on the list since.
In any case, our family moved out of that corrupt district and into one that is mostly Hispanic with a much lower average household income (I happen to be a white dude). After 8 years in the lower income district, I like it much better. The people and teachers are more REAL and the quality of education much higher and personalized with a noticeable absence of all the (plainly obvious) stuck-up obnoxious phony people, greed and corruption that the well-to-do distract had.
Sounds like a mirror of the district I live in.. They have been cutting everything so people will vote them a raise so they can build indoor pools for the swim team. If the housing market comes back, I'm out of this place..
The kids are in these school districts do well because they come from families that are hard working and successful. It all starts at home. Quit blaming the schools
Even if I accepted your assertion that wealth equates with hard work, which I don't (creating nothing and living off the transactions of others is not hard work), the logical conclusion of your argument is that the poor will always be poor no matter what they do and this situation is right and permanent. That's not a very patriotic argument, even the Indian's have tried to eliminate the caste system and you propose an American version.
The poor are always with us. Please pass me my perfumed hankerchief.
PERFECT EXAMPLES of STATE BUDGETS GONE WILD !!!
The states where these "supposedly wealthy school districts" are located just happen to be topping the list of the MOST FINANCIALLY BROKEN STATES in the USA ?
Consider New York state? Spending per pupil: $18,126, Graduation rate: 72%. New York leads the nation in per pupil spending for the fifth year in a row, but it comes at a cost: The state has one of the highest property tax rates in the country.
The state has doubled its per student spending over the past decade, and school districts pay the MOST LUCRATIVE TEACHER SALARIES & BENEFITS in the USA, about DOUBLE the national average. Studies PROVE the vast majority of New York's grads are NOT prepared for college.
How about Oregon? With nearly $800 million in tax increases, Oregon is among a handful of states to recently approve big tax hikes. Budget cuts announced in May anticipated the layoffs of 1,700 state employees and a 14 percent budget cut in higher education, for $2 billion in cuts.
Oregon's lawmakers traditionally meet just every other year, but state legislators met last month to pass a $6 billion budget for the state's K-12 schools. However, schools still have to cut back, as evidenced by bigger classes, fewer music and athletic programs and a freeze in employee pay at many districts.
While public school students were spared from deep cuts, the same cannot be said for the state's working poor, seniors and disabled. The Department of Human Services will receive $387 million less than what officials say is needed to sustain their programs. Among the largest cuts is a $41 million reduction in a daycare program for low-income families.
And Connecticut too? "Cost Per pupil spending remains at least 4th HIGHEST in the nation, right alongside of New York and New Jersey". Rounding out the worst 10 is Connecticut, where there is currently no budget in place. Last September, the state's Department of Children and Families budget took a heavy hit, including a more than $9.8 million cut in residential services and shelters for children in state custody.
Apparently, and SO TYPICALLY of PMSLSD... they "somehow, conveniently and intentionally" neglected to mention how FINANCIALLY BROKE these states happen to be... in spite of the fact that each of these states ALSO have AGGRESSIVE STATE TAX rates and equally AGGRESSIVE STATE INCOME TAXES ?
These "financially loaded state school districts" will CANNOT remain that way for long. Their INSANE levels of OUT of CONTROL, WASTEFUL SPENDING are perfect examples of just how much sooner their state governments will PANIC any day soon.
Stay tuned for the coming "FINANCIAL COLLAPSE of STATE GOVERNMENTS".
Now, just "guess" which states will go "belly up" first?
Uhh these people pay a lot more income and property taxes then everyone else. they deserve better schools. You all live in some peter pan fantasyland if you think you can just live and work a mediocre life and deserve that same level of education for your children. This class envy garbage is getting so old... and poverty isnt OUR problem.. the impoverished CHOOSE to have children they can barely feed then complain about their lot and ask the rich to pay more. Simply because your parents can breed DOES NOT entitle you to a first world education.
Hobgoblin: You might have a point if any responding here were demanding the same school spending in poor districts as rich ones. You might want to actually read what others are posting before beginning your rant. Wondering how you spend 20k per student on kindergarden through middle school isn't envy it's called curiosity. Seems to me for that money you could have a teacher for every 4 to 5 students and i doubt that's the case.
I can't see how any school district could spend 20k per student especially for lower grades. People in affluent communities that pay such huge property taxes deserve quality schools but even with small class sizes of 20 students that's 400k per class. How would you spend that? In college i can see that, in grade schools no way.
Overhead costs like water, gas, electricity, sewage, toilet paper, printer paper, ink, basic building maintenance; if there is a pool, add even more. Think about how big your house is, now multiple that times over for at least three buildings and yeah, it adds up and that's just for basics.. New buildings, repairs, paint, etc.. Well paid teachers (not always equaling higher qualified, but helps attract those qualified.) No fundraising for extracurricular or regular school trips and activities. New books. Actual desks for students (a lot of the poorer schools I work in have tables, not individual desks.) Lower schools probably have more aids in the classroom, very VERY essential in giving individualized attention.
Most of these districts are heavily JEWISH and PROGRESSIVELY LIBERAL.
Funny how liberals like to tell us that equality for all.....TOGETHER - ONE is a virtue but they like those towns where there are no minorities and high fences.
Like the true elitist puke that they are.
Just saying......................
There must be an association of Red states and poverty that relate to Republican values.
Everyone could have a decent education like that... College in countries like Denmark offer free attendance because of high taxes.
If only the people with power would think to spend the money we send them on improving quality of life instead of spending billions to maintain multiple war occupations and imprison nearly 2 million drug users per year.
the districts are wealthy because....that is, what sort of work do the inhabitants perform, and what sort of family heritage did they receive? to what extent are the districts ethnic identifiable? other obvious questions can be added if one is serious about an objective analysis, and not just the usual simplistic references to "hard work" , "value education" etc etc