"According to the more complete Taxpayers’ Guide, average total spending per pupil for the 2009-2010 school year is reported as $17,836. Furthermore, total spending per pupil in the 31 former Abbott districts averages $20,859 compared to average total spending per pupil of $17,051 in the other 500-plus school districts in New Jersey."
"Previous calculations of the total per-pupil cost in the former Comparative Spending Guide did not include costs such as transportation, debt service, federal funds, and state payments on behalf of the districts for pension, social security, and post-retirement medical costs. The previous guide also omitted the costs of tuition and students sent out of district. The new Taxpayers’ Guide to Education Spending will include these numbers, as they are very real parts to the whole spending picture."
The total per-pupil cost is calculated by
dividing districts’ total expenditures, and state payments on behalf of the
district, by total students, excluding those attending charter schools.
It is good to see the 'whole picture' with respect to any organization's operation, especially the financials, thus underscores the need and value of the (CAFR) Comprehensive Annual Financial Report or audit. What does not compute in the compiling of data is the fact that the comparison of 'district to district' is often skewed by the actual make up of personnel and other negotiated factors that are non-discressionary, albeit negotiable. Each district does not have the same distribution of new teachers at beginning salaries or experienced teachers at the top of the guide. Likewise, number of years experience and years of service in the same district often provide a differential in salaries of supervisors, principals and central office administrators even if the ratio to number of students is the same. The same holds true for health benefits, and other costs related to differences in collective barganing agreements such as co-pays, and plan type. What is helpful is the ability to guage performance of comparable district's based on socio-economic critieria and enrollment size. In this respect the comparisons work as a tool to compare and contrast and measure return on investment and focus on areas for improvement.
The other problem is the lag time between improvements or regression in a district's position and the reporting. While the comparison data is a good indicator in many respects to compare performance and cost distribution, we are three budget cycles forward in adjustments that are reflective of data compiled and reported from four cycles ago. Case in point, district's have already submitted and loaded the 2012-13 budget; yet the department is releasing comparisons based on the 2009-10 school year. Therefore, a district can not see the benefit of changes made on a comparitive scale until four to five years into the future with respect to state reporting.
Perhaps the most troubling comparison in the "New" comparative spending report is that of Debt Service or accrued liability related to principal and interest for facility improvements or constuction as a result of expansion and maintenance. How can districts be compared with respect to debt when each district is unique and the challenges related to such operational needs are likewise unique. The quality of instruction is directly linked to the environment in which that instruction is delivered. Delapadated buildings yield conditions that are unsafe and non conducive to learning. District's that take action to mitegate or relieve such conditions often embark on capital projects that require long term debt in order to finace the work. While the amount of outstanding debt is certainly a consideration in terms of future obligations, it should not be leveraged into the calculation of per student costs for comparative purposes as it serves to only drive up costs that again are non-discressionary and fixed until final payoff of the bonds, typically 20-25 years. This type of scrutiny could presure districts to steer clear of much needed improvements or scale back capacity in design of new buildings to meet increases in student population.
The 2011 Taxpayers’ Guide to Education
Spending can be found online at:
No comments:
Post a Comment