AP Funding Cuts

a.k.a. punishing Lowell for academic excellence

AP prep period vs AP funding

The San Francisco Board of Education recently approved a temporary agreement (TA) with United Educators of San Francisco (UESF) to cut Advanced Placement (AP) funding. To understand what happened, we need some background. Prior to the TA, each AP teacher either got an extra preparation period (AP prep period), or a stipend of $3000, depending on the size of their class. Separately, each school received $600 per AP test taken by its students in the previous year (AP funding). AP funding was used to cover the cost of AP prep periods. Remaining funds were spent by the school administration however they saw fit. At Lowell High, the surplus paid for programs like Peer Resources and extra courses. The $6.5 million figure you see floating around in these discussions is the total AP funding for SFUSD, not the amount of money needed to cover AP preps — the latter is just a fraction of that.

Where will that money go instead?

The rhetoric in the temporary agreement between UESF and SFUSD was that the “extra prep period” for AP teachers would be paused for one year, but what the TA actually does is redirect all AP funding (not just the portion that pays for AP preps) to one-time bonuses for teachers. In addition to $4000 for almost all teachers, $3000 will go to teachers at “high potential” (previously “hard-to-staff”) schools, and $3000 to teachers of AP courses. In effect, some teachers will be fired in order to give others bonuses of up to $10,000. The TA does not produce savings for SFUSD: money will be taken away from student programming and put directly into the pockets of certain teachers.

What does the TA mean for students?

Fewer teachers, fewer courses, and the elimination of popular programs. Japanese language courses, JROTC, and Peer Resources are among the many cuts which directly affect students. Confusingly, both UESF and recalled commissioner Alison Collins are using “AP prep periods” interchangeably with “AP funding.” As defined above, two are not synonymous. They like to frame the cuts as “pausing AP prep periods, which no other schools in the Bay Area provide” because that sounds less bad than the truth: “firing teachers and eliminating student programs and courses to pay for one-time bonuses.” Calling it “AP prep period pause” is misleading, as that sounds like “the only change is AP teachers no longer get extra time to prepare.” It isn’t just the prep period that’s going away. It’s every class, teacher, and program that AP funding paid for.

Does Lowell High get too much funding?

The strange and everlasting focus on Lowell High is creepy. Forgive the childish language — there’s no better way to describe the obsession with Lowell and the insistence that Lowell “hoards resources.” But is it true? Does Lowell really receive more funding than other SFUSD high schools?

The answer is a resounding “no.” According to this summary compiled from district data, Lowell, at $6,304 per pupil, is in the bottom 35% of the 18 SFUSD high schools, receiving some $1500 less than #1 funded O’Connell High. Without AP funding, Lowell will be dead last, receiving just $5,331, making the difference with O’Connell over $2,300 per pupil. This, at a school where a student reported a lack of basic necessities like hand soap during a recent school board meeting.

If we examine only AP funding, Lowell does receive a larger-than-proportional share of the pie. Note that this share is proportional to what’s relevant: the number of students taking AP tests. However, this characterization ignores all other funding sources that benefit Lowell less than other schools. The correct figure to examine in this discourse is per pupil funding, not a single source of funding that doesn’t even lift Lowell out of the bottom half of worst-funded SFUSD high schools.

Suppose we agree that school funding should not based on students’ ability to take tests. But wait, it already is, except the funding is inversely proportional to students’ ability to do well on tests! Currently, schools receive more funding for students with characteristics that are correlated with worse test performance (e.g., special education, low socioeconomic status, English language learner) under the weighted student formula. Maybe we should eliminate that as well, since “A school’s funding should not be tied to its students’ ability to take tests”?

Is AP funding truly “inequitable”?

Does AP funding really depend on “students’ ability to take tests”? Not really: this is a mischaracterization of the way AP funds are allocated. Any student is allowed to take AP tests, even if their schools don’t offer the corresponding AP class. Ability to pass the test never enters the equation: funding depends only on how many AP tests students decide to take, not on their performance. So, to be more precise, AP funding is tied to the initiative students take in challenging themselves to get the most out of their educations. A better way to phrase the question is, “Should schools with highly motivated students who excel at academics be given more funding to help those students shoot for the stars?”

Read this thoughtful essay for the answer. The gist: when society invests in those students who have the potential to deliver the greatest ROI, everyone benefits. I understand why those who believe in educational equity (equal outcomes) push to defund any program that benefits high achievers (gifted and talented education, 8th grade algebra, AP funding). These initiatives widen the gap. The pervasive drive to take opportunities away from our most talented students is strong evidence that an equity lens is detrimental to society at large. If our goal is to advance humanity and society, we don’t want identical outcomes. Why not? Because we understand that not everyone can be Ramanujan or Mozart: no matter how much we try to “uplift” them, no matter how many resources we squander on them.

Do we truly want to suppress brilliance because most can never measure up?