|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Sept 23, 2007 16:50:07 GMT -6
Part 1
Public schools' revenue growth outpaces inflation
Our 10-week course will help you understand how you're paying for schools
By Emily Krone | Daily Herald Staff
Published: 9/23/2007 3:00 AM | Updated: 9/23/2007 6:40 AM
You're a stakeholder in a multibillion-dollar enterprise.
Every year, you cut a check.
Every year, you give more.
Some years, you give much more -- even if you live in the same house, work the same job, pull down the same pay.
Like it or not, you're a contributor to big business -- the big business of Illinois public schools.
This multi-part Daily Herald series will help you understand the financial side of your investment.
Other people do -- people with a stake in the dollars and cents of public schools.
Teachers. Unions.
Superintendents.
Lobbyists and lawyers.
Consultants of all sorts.
In short, people with a lot to gain from maximizing revenue for public schools.
Most of these stakeholders have a plan to tweak, update or completely overhaul the way Illinois funds its schools.
The Illinois Education Association has called for a constitutional amendment to increase the state contribution to public schools.
The Illinois Federation of Teachers has called for "comprehensive changes in the state's fiscal system."
The Illinois Association of School Administrators wants to increase state funding and amend or repeal laws that limit the amount schools can collect from taxpayers.
Three recent school finance reform plans -- one by more than 200 Illinois mayors, one by civil leaders and education professionals, and one by the Metropolitan Planning Commission -- have called for billions more dollars for Illinois schools.
This year, lawmakers battled over but did not pass two school funding reform bills.
The plan supported by Gov. Rod Blagojevich would have imposed a new tax on business and generated an estimated $7.7 billion extra for health care and schools.
Recent rumbles over school funding are part of a long-roiling debate that never seems to reach a conclusion.
Thus, reliably, a funding debate flares every few years.
And just as reliably, passions flare, because billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of young minds are at stake.
Your dollars.
Your child's mind.
For decades, the debate over school finance has been the purview of professionals.
This series aims to provide you with the information and ammunition necessary to participate in and help shape that debate in a sensible and comprehensible manner.
The weekly series, based on 10 years' worth of state data, will strip away the terms that compartmentalize and complicate school finance.
Using a chapter-by-chapter, textbook-style approach, the series will show how revenue was raised in your district, how revenue was distributed to your district, and how revenue was allocated in your district.
The Illinois Education Association says those three aspects of the school finance system -- the revenue stream, the distribution system and the allocation system -- are deeply flawed.
You decide.
The starting point
We'll begin with numbers almost too big to understand.
In the past 10 school years, the 1996-97 year to the 2005-06 year, Illinois schools collected more than $171 billion.
That's $171 billion for teachers, administrators, supplies, transportation, new construction and day-to-day maintenance.
The $171 billion came from local sources, including property taxes and school fees; from the state; and from the federal government.
That $171 billion does not include bond loans taken out to build new schools.
In the Daily Herald coverage area -- from Gurnee down to Bolingbrook, from Des Plaines west to Huntley -- 10 districts each took in more than $1 billion over the past decade.
Elgin Area School District U-46, the state's second largest district, collected the most of area districts: $2.91 billion.
Several factors determine how much money schools collect. Chief among them is student enrollment.
Over the 10-year span, U-46 averaged 32,906 students.
The second most populous suburban district during that period was Naperville Unit District 203, with an average of 17,324 students.
Yet, while Naperville 203 was second in average number of students, it was fifth in amount of money taken in.
In fact, District 203 received millions less than school districts with smaller populations.
Take Northwest Suburban High School District 214, which averaged 11,087 students annually -- 6,000 fewer students than Naperville 203.
District 214, based in Arlington Heights, collected $1.78 billion over the 10 years.
Naperville 203 took in $1.55 billion.
That's a difference of $230 million -- $23 million a year -- and District 203 had on average 6,000 more students each and every year.
In addition to average attendance figures, property values determine how much money a district receives.
Later, we'll delve into why districts receive the amount they do from federal, state and local sources.
For now, we'll focus more on the "how much" rather than the "why."
It's all about growth
"How much" has increased exponentially, and much faster than the rate of inflation, in most area districts during the past 10 years.
Driving revenue increases were some obvious factors.
The revenue in Huntley Unit District 158, for example, increased by 660 percent.
The McHenry County-based district collected $8.9 million in the 1996-97 school year -- and 10 years later collected $67.6 million.
Skyrocketing growth in attendance, 404 percent over the 10-year period, drove most of the increase.
Generally, population increases mean bumps in the number of homes, property values and tax revenue.
But many suburban districts tallied revenue spikes that had little or nothing to do with the number of students.
Of the 94 districts the Daily Herald covers, 83 increased per-pupil revenues by more than the rate of inflation over the past decade.
The state tax cap limits how much more school districts can collect in local taxes from one year to the next. The limit is the lesser of 5 percent or the rate of inflation, excluding revenue from new construction.
But tax caps don't apply to school fees -- to register, for driver's ed, for band -- and these fees have risen quickly.
Between fees, new homes and tax increases, the revenue in many districts has consistently, overwhelmingly outpaced the rate of inflation over the past decade.
Grass Lake Elementary District 36, for example, increased its per-pupil revenue by 189 percent, to $15,575, over 10 years.
In that time, the district's total revenue increased by more than 100 percent, even as its student population declined by nearly 30 percent.
In comparison, the rate of inflation over the 10 years was 24 percent. Districts statewide collected, on average, 52 percent more per student in 2005 than in 1996.
That is, average per-pupil revenue increased by more than twice the rate of inflation in Illinois school districts over the past decade.
• Chapter 2: State and federal contributions to Illinois public schools.
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Sept 23, 2007 16:56:49 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by proschool on Sept 23, 2007 18:01:35 GMT -6
Between fees, new homes and tax increases, the revenue in many districts has consistently, overwhelmingly outpaced the rate of inflation over the past decade. Boy you really have to dig into these Herald articles. Of course the revenue to the district has to outpace the rate of inflation when it has MORE HOMES. DUHHHHH.... |
|
|
|
Post by sam2 on Sept 24, 2007 21:55:50 GMT -6
The article specifically deals in revenue per student.....DUHHHHH
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Sept 25, 2007 6:37:56 GMT -6
Let's watch the DUHHHs Please.....
|
|
|
|
Post by proschool on Sept 25, 2007 7:54:50 GMT -6
The article specifically deals in revenue per student.....DUHHHHH No it does not. it pretends to be talking about revenue per student but that sentence specifically talks about total revenue to the district from all sources. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Sept 25, 2007 8:15:41 GMT -6
Where is the basic fact checking of a article?
204 avergaged 22,840 over the same period. If the writer can't get this right, what else is wrong?
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Sept 30, 2007 13:33:01 GMT -6
Chapter 2: Unequal state equalizer
By Emily Krone | Daily Herald Staff
Published: 9/30/2007 5:59 AM
The Illinois Constitution assigns the state the primary responsibility for financing public schools.
The state doesn't live up to that responsibility.
Not by a long shot.
In the 10 school years from 1996-97 through 2005-06, the state supplied just 29 percent of the money collected by all Illinois public schools.
With only three sources of funding -- state, federal and local government -- 29 percent can hardly meet anyone's definition of "primary."
Over the past decade, the state contributed 16 percent of all the revenue collected by the 94 districts in the Daily Herald coverage area.
And that doesn't count the bond debt local school districts took on.
Critics of the state's funding system key in on the discrepancy between the demands of the state Constitution and what the state actually delivers.
They say the system creates inequalities among poor and wealthy districts.
Some areas generate enough property tax revenue to render the state contribution inconsequential.
Other areas operate with very little revenue beyond the state contribution.
Then there are the middle-class districts, which often fare worse than either.
"The way Illinois funds education is both unfair and inadequate," says a position paper by the bipartisan Chicago-based Center for Tax and Budget Accountability. "The end result; the state fails to give every school enough money to provide a quality education to all children."
The state does make an effort to level the playing field.
Wealthy areas get less state aid.
Poor areas get more.
Yet, inequalities remain, some exacerbated -- rather than eased -- by the state's attempt to take from the rich and give to the poor.
How it's figured
Every year, the legislature sets a baseline level considered necessary to educate each student in the state.
Last year, the baseline level was $5,164 per student.
The baseline figure is not the amount the state provides per student.
Rather, it's the minimum amount the state says all districts should be able to raise for each student.
Once the baseline figure is set, the state uses a complex formula with multiple variables to determine how much each district should be able to contribute and how much of what's left the state will cover.
The primary variable is property value. The greater the property value within a district, the bigger the slice of the whole local taxpayers will have to kick in.
Schools with high concentrations of poor students also receive poverty grants.
A separate calculation determines how much districts should get for specific purposes, such as special education, bilingual education, early childhood programs and transportation.
In theory, then, all districts should be assured of receiving the baseline amount.
Very poor districts and those with high concentrations of special-needs students should receive supplemental state money, in recognition of the fact that it costs more to educate students with certain challenges.
And very wealthy districts should be able to fend for themselves.
That's the theory.
Here's how it plays out in practice in three districts.
Oak Brook
The state has determined property-rich Butler Elementary District 53 doesn't need much help from outside sources.
In 2005-06, the state equations assigned just $700 per student to this DuPage County district.
Still, District 53 collected a total of $18,314 per student, among the highest per-pupil totals in the state, mostly through local property taxes and student fees.
The robust revenue allowed the district to pay average teacher salaries of $67,256, about $10,500 more than the state average.
It also allowed the Oak Brook district to employ a teacher for every 14 students. At elementary schools statewide, the average student-to-teacher ratio was 19 to 1.
For District 53, then, the state contribution was incidental.
In fact, District 53 could have refused the state contribution altogether and still raked in more revenue per pupil than all but 32 of the state's 874 school districts.
Ford Heights
In South suburban Ford Heights Elementary District 169, the state contribution was anything but incidental.
Like Oak Brook 53, Ford Heights 169 is an elementary school district.
That's about where the similarities end.
The student body at Ford Heights is 85 percent low-income.
The student body at Oak Brook is zero percent low-income.
Most stark is the difference between the value of property in Oak Brook and the value of property in Ford Heights.
The state calculation shows all the property within the Ford Heights school district was worth $44 million -- about $62,000 per student.
Oak Brook, home to million-dollar mansions and the upscale Oakbrook Center mall, has about $761 million worth of property within its borders -- or about $1.6 million per student.
To review: an Oak Brook student is backed by 26 times more property wealth than a student from Ford Heights.
The equalizer
Still, these two districts on very opposite ends of the wealth spectrum aren't so far apart when it comes to per-pupil revenue.
In 2005-06, Ford Heights collected a total of $17,719 per student, nearly as much as Oak Brook.
As a result, Ford Heights was able to pay its teachers about the state average and maintain significantly smaller class sizes than the average elementary district in Illinois.
State money, which accounted for about 45 percent of revenue in Ford Heights, made these class sizes and teacher salaries possible.
The state chipped in about $7,369 per kid in Ford Heights, about $6,699 more than it gave for each kid in Oak Brook 53.
So the state aid formula is a great equalizer.
It rights imbalances by taking into account poverty and property values.
It takes from the rich, gives to the poor, and everything evens out in the end.
Right?
Not quite.
Lake Villa
About 50 miles north of Oak Brook is middle-class Lake Villa Elementary District 41.
Lake Villa was not wealthy enough to raise much local money, but too well off to qualify for much state money.
In determining its 2005-06 cut, the state listed the value of property in the Lake Villa district as $463 million -- $154,000 per student.
Each Lake Villa student, then, is backed by about one-tenth the property value of an Oak Brook student, but nearly 2½ times more than a Ford Heights student.
Given the extent to which the Illinois funding system relies on property taxes, it would figure that Lake Villa taxpayers had to kick in more than Ford Heights taxpayers but less than Oak Brook taxpayers.
And, given the intricacy of the state equations, it stands to reason that the three districts would wind up with roughly the same amounts per student.
They didn't.
In 2005-06, Lake Villa collected a total of just $8,468 per student.
That's nearly $10,000 less than Oak Brook raised.
It's $9,250 less per student than Ford Heights got.
And it's about a third less than the state average of $12,675 per pupil.
Ultimately, Lake Villa landed less because it didn't have more -- more property wealth to augment the state contribution, or more poor kids with special needs to draw additional state funds.
Lake Villa received $2,930 per student from the state, $4,400 less than Ford Heights.
The average teacher in Lake Villa makes $8,770 less than a Ford Heights teacher and contends with significantly larger classes.
Lake Villa isn't the only suburban districts in this squeeze.
Of the 94 Herald-area districts, 22 have property values per student that are less than $200,000.
The state contributed, on average, $2,326 per student to these districts in 2005-06.
Meanwhile, the state contributed $4,007 per kid to the remaining 603 districts statewide with property values per student under $200,000.
Suburban districts -- districts which generally have the highest cost of living in the state -- received half as much state aid as districts in other parts of the state with similar property wealth.
It's these types of inequalities that lead to charges that the state formulas are inherently -- and often haphazardly -- unjust.
But setting aside questions of fairness, it's indisputable that the way Illinois funds education places a greater burden on suburban property taxpayers.
• Next week: The local contribution.
Federal funding
Three sources of income keep public schools running: local, state and federal funding.
Federal money generally goes to districts with students who are poor or have special learning needs.
Most suburban districts don't have enough of these students to attract a sizable chunk of federal aid.
In the 2005-06 school year, just 12 area districts received more than 5 percent of their revenue from federal sources.
West Chicago District 33 received the most federal money per student, at $890. The district received 11 times that amount -- $9,812 -- from state and local sources.
Oak Brook District 53 received the least federal money, $48 per student. Its total per student was $18,314.
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Sept 30, 2007 13:35:52 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Oct 7, 2007 20:02:24 GMT -6
Chapter 3: Suburban taxpayers' heavy share
By Tara Malone and Emily Krone | Daily Herald Staff
Published: 10/7/2007 12:35 AM
Your annual property taxes pay for most of the public services associated with suburban living.
They pay for police and firefighters. They pay for parks, libraries, a community college, city or village services, township activities, county roads and courts.
Then comes the big cost: your public school districts.
Two-thirds of the typical suburban tax bill goes to schools. All the other services split the remainder.
That's largely because suburban schools are funded mostly by property taxes.
Over the past decade, suburban schools typically collected 84 percent of their revenue from local sources.
State and federal funds made up the balance.
The arrangement remained stable year after year, even as the amounts schools collected increased at double the rate of inflation.
During the 1996-97 school year, districts in the Daily Herald's circulation area received on average $7,184 per pupil from local sources.
That per-pupil figure increased to $10,843 in 2005-06 -- a 51 percent jump.
The rate of inflation during the decade was 24 percent.
In this third installment of the Daily Herald series on public school finance, we consider why some taxpayers pay more than others. (Hint: People who live in expensive houses generally, but not always, pay more.)
But first, we'll consider how tax bills could go up so fast despite the protection of the tax cap. (Hint: New construction sometimes, but not always, fueled the increases.)
Skirting the tax cap
The tax cap has safeguarded suburban homes and businesses since the mid-1990s, limiting tax revenue growth to the rate of inflation.
The cap, however, does not immediately apply to new construction.
When cornfields yield to condos, the property's revenue potential shoots up -- and the tax cap law makes a one-year exception for that large increase.
System-savvy school districts use a "balloon levy" to fully capture the growth.
That is, when they go to the county with their levy, or annual request for funds, they ask for a lot more property tax money than they actually expect to receive.
The practice ensures that when the county applies the tax cap formula, districts receive every penny allowed by state law, every year, independent of need.
Taxpayers have only themselves to blame, or congratulate, for the second factor driving up revenues.
Since 1995, voters in 56 school districts covered by the Daily Herald have approved tax-rate increases.
Four districts -- Buffalo Grove-Long Grove Elementary District 96 and Millburn Elementary District 24 in Lake County, Kaneland Unit District 302 in Kane County, and Round Lake Area District 116 -- each passed two tax rate increases during that period.
The low end
Round Lake District Unit 116 taxpayers provided 45 percent of all revenues collected by their Lake County district over the past decade.
It was the lowest local share of any district in the Daily Herald circulation area.
That isn't to say the load was light.
In 2005-06, Round Lake taxpayers paid the highest tax rate in the suburbs -- $5.59 per $100 of assessed value.
The average tax rate of the 20 other unit districts in the Herald area was $4.27.
The Round Lake rate was high for two reasons. The first is low property values.
Property within Round Lake is worth about $70,000 per student, the lowest per-pupil value in the suburbs.
Property value per pupil is a key measure of a district's ability to raise money from local sources.
"The property values in the district are low and we don't have opportunities to expand," Chief Financial Officer Walter Korpan said. "We don't have the big Targets or Home Depots because you need property for that."
Weak property values, combined with a moderate enrollment growth rate of 29 percent over the 10-year period, created the conditions for the second factor driving the rate.
In the 1996-97 school year, the district ran up a $2 million deficit, and voters quickly approved a tax rate increase.
It didn't help much.
The district continued to operate in the red year after year. In 2000, voters approved another tax rate hike.
The state seized control of the district in 2002.
The deficits finally stopped -- in the 2003-04 school year.
With its high tax rate, District 116 has since emerged from its financial hole.
Still, the district is stuck with the distinction of raising less per pupil from local sources than any other suburban district -- $4,588 in 2005-06.
The high end
Less than 20 miles away, Rondout Elementary District 72 -- a one-school district with 22 teachers, two administrators, a bookkeeper and a custodian -- collected $26.1 million in revenue during the past decade.
Of that, 97 percent came from local businesses and homeowners. It was the largest local load carried by a suburban school district.
To understand why, consider the Lake Forest-based district's 5-square-mile footprint, which includes pockets of homes, business parks, small factories and restaurants.
The estimated value of all property within the district is $224.8 million -- or $1.8 million per student.
About two-thirds of Rondout's $224.8 million tax base comes from commercial and industrial sources, lightening the load for homeowners.
"Unless you are fortunate to have a strong commercial or industrial base, the burden falls on the homeowners, so it can often be difficult," Superintendent Jennifer Wojcik said.
With its financial seesaw tilted toward commercial sources, Rondout has not sought voter approval for a tax-rate increase.
There wasn't a need.
In 2005-06, Rondout collected $27,336 per student, tops in the suburbs.
Voting to pay more
Rondout residents and businesses provided nearly six times more revenue per pupil to their local schools than residents in Round Lake District 116.
And Rondout had nearly 26 times more property wealth per pupil than Round Lake.
Generally, more property wealth means more local money to schools.
But not always.
Take the examples of Grayslake High School District 127 and Crystal Lake High School District 155.
The suburban districts have nearly identical rates of per-pupil property value.
Each Grayslake student is backed by $422,000 worth of property; each Crystal Lake student by $427,000.
But Grayslake taxpayers paid $15,594 per student in 2005-06, while Crystal Lake taxpayers paid $9,782.
Grayslake voters passed a tax rate increase in 2002 mostly because the district's enrollment had doubled over the past decade.
The Crystal Lake district has not asked for a tax rate hike in the past decade, mostly because its enrollment grew half as fast as Grayslake's.
In both cases, however, revenue grew.
The pace of the revenue growth largely is in the hands of voters. They can't cut it back much, but they can raise a district's revenue.
It's through the election of school board members that residents can exercise some control on the expenditure side of school budgets.
In the next chapter, we'll consider where the money collected from state, federal and local sources goes -- and how much actually makes it into the classroom.
Next week: instruction costs.
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Oct 7, 2007 20:04:53 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Oct 14, 2007 14:46:05 GMT -6
Chapter 4:
1 of every 2 education dollars stays in classroom
By Emily Krone | Daily Herald Staff
Published: 10/14/2007 5:59 AM | Updated: 10/14/2007 6:19 AM
A typical suburban classroom of 25 students represents $315,000 in revenue.
That's $12,600 per kid, the average per-pupil revenue collected in 2005-06 by the 94 school districts in the Daily Herald coverage area.
Some of that $315,000 goes to teacher salaries and benefits, supplies, textbooks and classroom technology.
The rest -- more than half -- leaves the classroom.
Over the past decade, the 94 districts spent an average of 48 percent of their revenue on instruction and teacher-pupil activities.
Statewide, districts spent 50.1 percent on instruction, about half of the $171 billion they collected.
The remainder went to everything else: construction and maintenance; janitors, nurses, social workers and guidance counselors; administrators and principals; consultants and lawyers.
Some states, though not Illinois, now specify a certain percentage of all expenditures that must go toward instruction.
The regulations raise questions about whether such laws improve or hamstring learning -- and whether a fair way exists to measure whether classrooms are getting their fair share.
Most people can agree they'd like to see their tax money spent on teachers and textbooks, not bureaucracies and consultants.
But school expenditures cannot easily be grouped into tidy percentages of good spending versus bad.
Define instruction
The first step in analyzing classroom spending is semantic: determining how to define classroom spending.
The Illinois State Board of Education takes a seemingly straightforward approach.
The board defines instruction as anything related to the teaching of pupils, or the interaction between teachers and pupils, including the services of aides of any type.
Simple enough. But there are dilemmas in the details.
First, there are quirks in what does and does not constitute instruction.
In Illinois, contributions to teacher retirement funds count as instruction.
The salary of a speech pathologist does not.
Adult and continuing education classes count as instruction.
Professional development for teachers does not.
Special education counts as instruction.
Payments to outside agencies to teach special ed kids do not.
The measuring stick
Defining instruction is tough enough.
But the pitfalls become even more pronounced when comparing instructional expenditures among districts.
On state report cards, Illinois records the amount spent on instruction -- as a percentage of expenditures.
Because certain types of expenditures are more likely to spike and plunge year over year, this method can cause artificially high -- or low -- percentages of instructional spending.
For example, if a district is growing quickly, it pays big money to build schools. That ups its expenditures total, which shrinks the instructional percentage, even if the district spends the same on instruction as its peers.
This often is aggravated by the fact that the state does not include construction bond money in revenue -- but does count the use of that money as an expenditure.
To neutralize that volatility, we looked at instruction spending as a percentage of total revenue -- rather than expenditures.
As a rule, revenue streams are more stable year-to-year than expenditures. Using revenue as the common denominator puts fast-growing and stable districts on more equal footing.
Using this revenue-based approach, let's examine two districts on opposite ends of the instructional spending spectrum. This will better enable us to evaluate the share of revenue any district puts toward instruction.
Rosemont 78
Year after year, Rosemont Elementary District 78 spends most of its revenue on instruction.
In 2005-06, the district spent $9,784 per student on instruction, second highest among Daily Herald districts.
Rosemont teachers are paid more -- and there's more of them.
The average teacher in Rosemont makes $66,500, about $10,000 above the state average. The district employs one teacher for every 11 students, compared with the state average of 19.
The one-school district can afford to spend more on teachers, in part because its transportation costs are low -- $250 per kid in 2005-06.
The district saves on other support services as well.
In 2005-06, Rosemont spent just $41,000 on social workers and $60,000 on speech and hearing services.
The district spent no money on health, guidance or psychological services.
The district also saved on administrative costs, with just one administrator for its 247 students.
All of these factors -- generous compensation packages for teachers, combined with low administrative and transportation costs -- combined to swell the share of instructional spending in Rosemont District 78.
Over the past decade, Rosemont spent, on average, 67 percent of its revenue on instruction -- the largest portion of any Herald district.
Huntley 158
At the other end of the spectrum, over the past decade fast-growing Huntley Unit District 158 spent just 37 percent of its revenue on instruction.
In 2005-06, the district spent $4,138 per student on instruction, second lowest among Herald districts, and less than half of what Rosemont spent.
And unlike Rosemont, teacher salaries in Huntley are $10,000 lower than the state average.
The K-12 district also employs a slew of support staff that Rosemont, an elementary district, does not.
Huntley spent nearly $1 million in salary and benefits for health service workers and more than $500,000 for guidance counselors, neither of which fall in the category of instruction.
The starkest difference between Rosemont and Huntley was the amount of tax money they collected to pay off debt.
Huntley in 2005-06 collected $7.7 million for bond payments, while Rosemont collected only $170,000.
If bond revenue was removed from the equation, Huntley's percentage of instructional spending in 2005-06 would have been 45 percent of revenue, rather than the 40 percent reported.
There are other complications in making value judgments about how much Huntley -- or any other district -- spends on instruction.
Take, for example, Huntley's busing costs.
Bus costs in the sprawling, rural district were more than twice as high on a per-pupil basis than in Rosemont.
In 2005-06, Huntley spent nearly $600 per pupil on transportation.
But while the district did spend $4.1 million on transportation, it also received $2.3 million in state grants and local fees earmarked specifically for that purpose.
Less than half the money the district spent on transportation, then, could legally have made it into the classroom in the first place.
A moot point?
Even if there were a fair way to calculate and compare how much districts spend in the classroom, another, more fundamental question remains unanswered.
That is, does the percentage districts spend on instruction even matter?
A Standard and Poor's analysis found no significant correlation between the percentage of money districts spend on instruction and the percentage of students who meet state standards in reading and math.
Still, Standard and Poor's acknowledged that monitoring the percentage districts allocate to instruction can be useful, even if mandating specific levels is not.
Monitoring requires financial transparency and allows the public to evaluate whether they are getting a good return on their investment, the report found.
To that end, the discussion about the percentage districts spend on instruction is instructive in and of itself.
In Chapter 5 we'll continue the dialogue, by examining where the rest of the money goes.
Next week: Administrative, support and "other" expenses.
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Oct 14, 2007 14:47:59 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Oct 21, 2007 9:26:58 GMT -6
SCHOOL FINANCE 101
Chapter 5
Non-class costs weigh heavy on schools
It's a common refrain among education critics: More money needs to stay in the classroom and less spent outside.
And they have the numbers to point to.
Over a decade, most of the 94 districts in the Daily Herald coverage area consistently spent more money outside the classroom than they did on instruction.
From the 1996-97 school year through 2005-06, the imbalance was worse in some districts than others:
• 82 area districts spent more than half their revenue outside their classrooms.
• 20 districts spent more than two-thirds of their total revenues outside the class.
• Two districts spent all of their revenue outside the classroom.
Actually, Huntley Unit District 158 and Big Hollow Elementary District 38 both spent more on busing and building, heating and cooling, lawyers, a laundry list of support staff and other costs than they collected from local, state and federal sources.
Then they had to worry about paying teachers and buying textbooks.
Technically, the districts borrowed money to build and covered their instruction costs with annual revenue, but the effect is the same -- the schools spent more outside classrooms than inside.
The twist is that the money they borrowed is not counted as revenue by the state. If it were, the percentage of what they spent outside the classroom would not seem so dramatic.
But even if bond proceeds were counted as revenue, Huntley and Big Hollow still would have spent less on teaching than they did outside the classroom.
The state as a whole in 2005-06 did the same.
Illinois' 873 districts collectively spent 49.1 percent of all revenue in the classroom, and 53.7 percent outside.
That adds up to more than 100 percent mostly because sometimes the districts spent more money than they took in. Again, bond funds were not counted as revenue.
Still, education officials say a flat comparison of instructional versus non-instructional spending doesn't always factually determine whether a district needs to change how much it devotes to its classrooms.
There's a wide range of needs -- from transportation to building schools -- that make instruction possible, and they vary from district to district and year to year.
Let's look at those needs and where school districts spend their money.
The big four
The state divides school expenditures into four large categories: instruction, support services, general administration and other.
Last week, we tackled instruction. This week, we focus on the other three areas.
General administration may be the most popular target for critics who say districts should spend more on their students.
This category includes salaries and benefits for top administrators, including superintendents, associate superintendents, principals and assistant principals.
Support services, just as it sounds, includes all of the specialized staff that handles student and school needs outside the classroom -- guidance counselors, social workers, school psychologists and financial officials, to name just a few.
This category also includes transportation -- the cost of buying or leasing buses, bus driver salaries, fuel and fleet maintenance.
Lastly, there's the vaguely named "other" category. The biggest chunk of these dollars goes toward capital expenses -- buying land and building new schools.
Other expenses
In 2005-066, Big Hollow District 38 spent more than twice as much as it took in.
The Lake County elementary district had collected $11.9 million from local, state and federal sources.
Big Hollow then paid out $27 million. Why? Not because of instruction costs. The district spent less on instruction per student than any other area district.
Which means the root of its spending imbalance had to be non-instructional.
Of the three categories that go into this pot, District 38 actually spent below average on administration and support services.
Where it made up the difference, and where it ranked first among all suburban districts, was its spending in the "other" category. The district spent 166 percent of its revenue in this category alone.
This is a dramatic increase from the previous nine years, when Big Hollow spent only a third of its revenue, on average, in the "other" category.
During the same time, however, District 38 was one of only three suburban districts that more than doubled its student population, from fewer than 500 students in the first year to more than 1,000 students in 2005-06.
To accommodate this triple-digit growth, Big Hollow built a new elementary school and middle school in 2006, using money from a bond issue voters approved the previous year.
District 38 spent more than $16 million on construction in 2005-06 -- $4 million more than the total it brought in.
If the construction costs weren't counted, as the bond proceeds aren't counted, Big Hollow's numbers wouldn't seem so out of kilter.
Remove the $16 million tab paid by bond funds, and Big Hollow winds up with a surplus. And instead of reporting that it spent 194 percent of its revenue on non-instructional costs, they would have reported spending 58 percent outside the classroom.
Administrative costs
The percentage of revenue suburban districts spent on general administration also varied widely during the 10-year period.
At the top of the list was Rondout School District 72, which spent 8.3 percent of its revenue on administration from 1996-07 to 2005-06, a higher percentage than any other district in the suburbs.
Rondout also was the smallest district in the suburbs, with only 123 students in 2005-06.
What's the connection?
Small districts like Rondout have to spread out their administrative expenses over a small student population.
In 1996-97, District 72 spent $263,508 on administration, less than all but 17 other districts.
But with only 88 students that year, administration gobbled up nearly 14 percent of the district's revenue.
While Prospect Heights Elementary District 23 spent a comparable dollar amount on administrators, this represented only 2 percent of its revenue in 1996-97.
But Prospect Heights had more than 1,500 students that year -- and nearly seven times Rondout's revenue.
Even though small districts have fewer students, they may not have a correspondingly smaller group of administrators.
Prospect Heights has 11 administrators. Rondout has two. So it isn't that Rondout pays its administrators more or has too many top-level officials.
It's just that Rondout has fewer students, so even with only four administrators, their salaries and benefits make up a much larger slice of the district's revenue.
Support services
Each year, districts pay thousands of vendors and contractors for everything ranging from school pictures to pizza.
The number of vendors who were paid at least $2,500 in 2005-06 by any suburban district ranged from 54 in Grass Lake Elementary District 36, one of the smallest districts, to almost 650 in Indian Prairie School District 204, one of the largest.
Among the highest payments went to First Student, formerly Laidlaw, a company that transports students and leases buses. First Student received more than $31.4 million from suburban school districts in 2005-06.
Suburban taxi companies, which transport special education students, took more than $5 million to the bank in 2005-06.
Even the Daily Herald got in on the action. All districts are required to publish certain legal notices in the local paper. Payments to Paddock Publications, the Daily Herald's publisher, totaled at least $122,575 in 2005-06.
Most districts publish a list of vendors and payments made each month, and annually report a summary to the state.
Among the biggest payments reported are those made to health insurance companies and pension funds -- only part of any district's most substantial costs.
Next week: Teacher and administrator pay.
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Oct 21, 2007 9:30:14 GMT -6
No dollar left behindDaily Herald Staff Reports Published: 10/20/2007 11:56 PM Classroom costs get all the clamor, but the big bucks are behind the blackboard -- from busing and building to heating and cooling to secretaries and taxis. In fact, Illinois school districts from 1996-97 through 2005-07 spent $98 billion on non-instructional costs. That's $12 billion more than was spent on teaching. The $98 billion was spent in three areas -- administration, support and "other." Administration -- often the target of the most vociferous critics -- accounted for the smallest slice. While "other" included building, the largest share was spent on support. www.dailyherald.com/packages/2007/schoollfinance/chapter5.htmKudos to 204 on being on the lowest end of this
|
|
