Dr. John Augenblick

Augenblick, Palaich and Associates

What APA Was Asked to DoExamine how revenues and expenditures have

changed over time in DCSDEvaluate the efficiency of DCSD in terms of

spending and personnel usagePrepare a document that would help the public

understand DCSD’s fiscal situation

2

What Data Did APA Use in its Work?Data collected by state (CDE) and national (NCES) agencies that

gather and organize information for their own purposes (2002-03, 2006-07, and 2007-08)

Data from DCSD comprehensive financial reports, which was verified by DCSD staff after APA organized it (2002-03, 2007-08, and 2008-09, which became available on November 17)

It is important to note that:Data from state/national sources do not always match local dataThe primary use of state/national data is inter-district comparison

and trends over time, where precision is of less concern.

3

“Drivers” of School District Spending/Revenue Over Time

Number of students servedEconomies of scale (large districts cost less per

student than small districts)Change in enrollment (marginal cost vs. average cost)

Changes in student needsSpecial education, “at-risk”, and ELL

InflationInflation rose by 9.3% between 2002-03 and 2007-08

and by 13.6% between 2002-03 and 2008-09 (Denver-Boulder CPI, the official index used by the state)

4

Counting StudentsBasic approaches

Enrollment -- the number expected to be servedFull-time-equivalent (FTE) attendance – the number

that are servedState count (funded pupils) – an artificial number based

on the multi-year trend of attendance in a limited time period during the year

Weighted studentsCounts students based on relative cost (2.1 for special

education, 1.4 for low income, and 1.9 for ELL, 1.0 for others)

Ratio of weighted to unweighted -- indicates “need”

5

Adjusting Spending for Need and Inter-District Cost-of-LivingExample of student weights

A district has 1,000 students with 100 in special education, 200 from low income families, and 30 ELL

Weighted students = 1,217Ratio of weighted to unweighted = 1.217 If spending were $1,217,000, that would be $1,217 per

unweighted student or $1,000 per weighted studentInter-district cost adjustment

The Colorado School Finance Act uses an inter-district cost-of-living factor to adjust state aid

APA created factors to adjust other districts to DCSD’s cost of living

6

Comparing DSCD to Other DistrictsWe used a 12 district group based on size and proximityWe used a 6 district group based on competition (Academy, Adams

Five Star, Aurora, Boulder Valley, Cherry Creek, and Littleton)Used simple average for comparison but also counts of districts

above/below DCSD and number of standard deviations DCSD is from the average

For personnel, we used the number of personnel per 1,000 students to standardize across districts of different size and over time

See Table 1EnrollmentRatio of weighted to unweighted studentsCost of living

7

Summary of Findings - DemographicsDCSD has had much higher growth than the two

comparison groups or the state average.See Table 1

DSCD’s needs are 15.3% higher than if it had no students with special needs, which is less than the two comparison groups and the state average.See Table 6 and Table 1

DCSD has not increased the number of its employees at the same rate as enrollment has grown.See Table 6 and Table 7

8

Summary of Findings - PersonnelDCSD has comparatively fewer of some kinds of

personnel and more of othersFewer

Librarians and media specialists (Table 3B) Guidance counselors (Table 3B) School and district administrative support (Tables 3C and 3D) Instructional coordinators (Table 3C)

More Teachers (Table 3A) Instructional aides (Table 3A) Library and media support staff (Table 3B)

9

Summary of Findings – Salaries and BenefitsSalaries – slightly below the 6 district group average

See Table 4ABenefits – in most cases, slightly higher than the 6 district average

See Table 4B

10

Summary of Findings – Spending by FunctionPer student spending for school administration,

district administration, and facilities maintenance and operation are lower than the two comparison groups and the statewide average. (Table 2)

Per student spending for transportation has been comparatively high. (Table 2)

Spending for instruction is slightly lower in per student terms and slightly higher in per weighted student terms. (Table 2)

11

Summary of Findings – State RevenueDCSD revenue from the state is comparable to that

of other districts (Table 5A)School Finance Act of 1994

“Foundation” program Base per student (Amendment 23 assures rise of inflation

plus 1 percentage point from 2000-01 through 2010-11, then inflation only)

Adjustments to base for small size, enrollment decline, inter-district cost-of-living, and at risk students(free lunch + ELL)

Other aid for special education, transportation, ELL

12

Summary of Findings – Local SupportDCSD generates more local revenue than other

districts (Table 5B)Most local revenue is controlled by the School

Finance ActSFA determines an expected contribution to pay for

the foundation programSFA allows districts to generate up to 25% of adjusted

base in millage overridesDistricts can generate revenues from fees,

investments, etc.

13

Summary of Findings – Federal and Total RevenueDCSD raises less federal revenue (Table 5C)DCSD raises comparable total revenue in per

student terms and more in per weighted student terms (Table 5C)

Figures do not add up perfectly due to combining funds and use of fund balance.

14

Cost PressuresStudent need (Table 6)

Special education, at-risk, and ELLNote performance improvement

Salaries and Benefits (Table 7)Number of personnel is down relative to numbers of

studentsIn 2008-09, DCSD was spending $10.3 million more

for salaries and $10.5 million more for benefits than would have been expected based on student growth and inflation (note situation in 2007-08, when the figures were $32.1 million for salaries and $11.0 million for benefits)

15

Revenues vs. ExpendituresState revenue grew far more than local revenue,

particularly relative to enrollment growth and inflation (Table 8)Note 2007-08 vs. 2008-09

Expenditure growth outstripped revenue growth between 2002-03 and 2007-08 but the situation changed in 2008-09 (compare Tables 7 and 8)This appears to be explained by numbers of personnel

and use of fund balance.

16

The FutureStudent needs and the new accreditation system based on the

“growth” modelRevenue

Amendment 23 (as we have discussed)State aid

Property assessment will put pressure on state aid Rescissions in 2010-11 (4%, 6%, or higher – December 18

revenue forecast) and beyondSpending

Numbers of employeesTransportationBenefits

17