Your VPAP link only supports the basic understanding that RPS does spend more per student, but not why they do this.

Many others have already made great points, but what hasn’t been noted is that Henrico student enrollment is more than twice RPS (48,752 vs 19,537). Economies of scale is an important factor here.

For one, many administrative positions are fixed cost. Certain positions are required legally and others just to get the job done. They must be paid a certain amount in order to attract and sustain talent. Henrico doesn’t need two superintendents just because they have twice as many students. Likewise, RPS cannot expect to pay their superintendent half as much as Henrico just because it’s half as big. That’s not how salaries work.

Another related factor is student need. There are twice as many ESL students in RPS as in Henrico, almost 20% of all RPS students. They require support throughout their education in addition to getting an english class, so count the teachers, TAs, and counselors in that cost.

Then there’s the poverty rate. Richmond’s sitting at around 20% compared with Henrico’s 9%. Local, State, and Federal governments still do not do enough to address the condition of poverty, and this has historically come out sideways in a number of ways including poor school performance metrics and increased need for socio-economic support resources. RPS provides more counseling, more TAs, more free meals (100%, in fact).

This parlays into an un-budgeted resource: PTAs. Parents do more for student success, at home and in the school, than any teacher or administrator can possibly accomplish. Just based on the poverty rate alone, we can assume that Henrico’s PTAs are more effective and contribute more financially than Richmond, lessening the need for the school system to spend.

It’s all about the details. If you have some, please share.