Now, this is likely to surprise some readers. I am going to pose an argument that explains why "Choice" and "Transportation" are worthwhile RAS expenditures.Now remember that the numbers in the attached tables are very rough, however I am pretty certain they are +/- 10% on the average for these general 4 "types" of students. Also remember, the general 4 "types" are not clear lines in reality. The real student cost varies dependent on their specific situation and required services.
For simplification I used 12,000 students and applied rough percentages to them. The 20% of Higher Risk & ELL students is spread across all demographics, though often it is indirectly related to lower income households. The 10% Choice/Transport students include IB, AP, RSI, College classes, etc. 10% is approximately the Special Ed number and this leaves 60% in the General category.
For the "average funding", I took the budget divided by the number of students. In reality, Special Education & Title 1 will fund the Spec Ed, Higher Risk and ELL somewhat higher. However I am usually told that the funding difference does not nearly cover the cost, so I kept it simple with one number.
For the "average funding", I took the budget divided by the number of students. In reality, Special Education & Title 1 will fund the Spec Ed, Higher Risk and ELL somewhat higher. However I am usually told that the funding difference does not nearly cover the cost, so I kept it simple with one number.
As for the "Est Cost by Student Type", I worked it by breaking apart the spend and allocating the categories to the student Type that would get the majority of the funding. Regular, Vocational and Overhead apply to all students. Special Instruction applies mostly to the Special Education students. Pupil Support Services applies mostly to students that need psychologists, social workers, etc. Finally, I noted that the Choice/Transport students are ~$800 more than the Regular students because of the additional transport, overhead, curriculum, training, etc that is necessary to maintain these "different from the norm" offerings.
Then using the number of students and their "Est Costs", I made sure that the total "Rolled Up" cost matched the 2009/2010 Budget.....
With all this said, why would we actually want to pay $8,500 for some "Lucky" students, instead $7,697 for all the "Lucky" students?
-
Well, the magic word is "Retention".
-
If those "Choice/Transport" students are not satisfied and leave the district, we lose ~$11,000 per head. Of which, ~$2,500 is currently used to subsidize the higher cost type students. And we would lose ~$2,200 that helps cover the fixed overhead costs. These would then be spread over the remaining students, thereby increasing their costs.
-
Thoughts on the table, methodology or argument?
-
Ps. By the way, I still think those that can should pay some of the difference. However, I do want to help folks see why "Choice" can be important....
-
Also, remember that Special Education law and NCLB force the higher Spec Ed and High Risk/ELL student spend... These are not negotiable, though the High Risk spend rate may be reduced of the long term if we start working with the parents and kids earlier...
10 comments:
"Choice/Transport students are approx. $800 more than the Regular students because of the additional transport, overhead, curriculum, training, etc that is necessary to maintain these 'different from the norm' offerings."
What are the additional overhead, curriculum, training, etc. costs? How did you determine these costs? Does Dist. 281 assign these costs to those programs?
No, this is a big time guess... I am thinking it would be very difficult to get the firm numbers out of RAS. It seems challenging for them to apportion their costs by program. I understand why given the challenge necessary to get it "accounting" perfect, which would be needed before they publish. I am trying to just get in the ballpark to help folks understand a concept..
However, let's talk through my rationale by starting with transport and see where we get. Hopefully I can learn something from the readers.
The rough number I have heard several times is $400K to $500K for the redundent "cross district" transport. Assuming the 1200 kids, this would be ~335 to $417 per child. (ie will be higher if fewer kids use this)
Then comes overhead and its marginal cost. I think of this like my income taxes. RAS has to pay for the core curriculum, scheduling, admin, etc regardless.
The question becomes what is the marginal cost of supporting unique scheduling, curriculum development, paperwork, training, organization, legalities, etc for this ~1200 students. For the challenges presented by having pre-IB, IB, RSI, pre-AP, AP, college courses, AVID, etc. $360K or ~$300 per student??? 6 to 8 staff???
Then we get into needing different low volume textbooks, curriculum, software, labs?, etc. $120K or $100 per student???
Higher costs when kids choose to attend college courses???
Any other marginal costs I've missed? Does it seem high ??? low???
Ironically, I am more interested in the $2,569 and $2,214 numbers. However I am pretty sure the ~$800 will likely draw more attention.
Thanks for the questions !!!!
The cross-district transportation costs have been discussed (though I can't remember the amount) so I'm not questioning that. The rest of the expenses you have "assigned" to the choice programs sound somewhat arbitrary.
Overhead? You are saying there is "additional...overhead" for the choice programs. Shouldn't overhead be included in the base cost (good grief--now it sounds like we are talking about a product instead of children)? I don't see why there is more overhead cost that you would assign to choice programs. No matter what program they are in, they need a building and some lights, desks, etc. I would think books would be considered curriculum and not overhead.
I agree with you on the buildings, classrooms, Principals, Teachers, staff, etc... Even the buses... (w/ no duplicate routes) They are clearly a per student cost as long as you keep the schools, buses and classrooms full.
The challenge is that whenever you make a system more complicated and specialized, you then require additional organization, administration and communication. And this is likely magnified in the highly legislated, unionized and "public" public school system. This is the marginal cost I am describing.
So, how many fewer employees would RAS need if they offered only a basic General Education curriculum and One Pre-College curriculum that were the same across the whole district? I understand this would make RAS boring, less effective, lower retention, reduce funding, etc. However it would be much simpler and likely less expensive... I am comparing against this scenario since it is the "base" offering that I think many folks would accept.
As for the textbooks, software, equipment, etc. If we get the volume discounts, no additional personnel are needed to manage it, and it replaces general ed/pre-college material. (ie no additional) Then I have likely overstated the cost.
Though I understand the desire to pull the "they are kids" argument into the discussion. However, right now we are talking money... Once we agree on the approximate cost, then folks can clearly talk about the "soft, nurturing, enabling, caring, opportunity giving, etc" benefits. And decide if they are willing to pay for them. I think many will if they understand the net benefit to the district funding and the benefit to the kids.
The question is will folks understand the cost of encouraging and faciltating the open enrollment of high risk students? And the community cost of not helping the district's high risk students and families earlier? (ie when the kids are easier to influence) I am hoping the light will go on.
I had once believed the "people will leave" stuff, but not so much anymore. 281 has already lost one school's worth of kids to charter schools. And more than one school's worth open enroll out. Hmmm.... two school's worth of kids have left... and two schools closed this year. So, who really believes the school closings are due to declining birth rates?
Also, open enrolled students (who are not special ed.) each cause about a $5000 revenue loss, not $11,000. I don't entirely understand why. I should go to that forum next week, right? That # was referenced in this article:
http://www.mnsun.com/articles/2009/08/20/news/rs20charterschools.txt
I am going to try and make it next week for my remedial attempt at understanding the "formula" and education funding.
From the way it was worded, I was wondering if Dennis was only mentioning the money that shifts to the Charters. (ie ~$5,000 per student) We know the district is funded at an average of ~$11,069...(ie budget/kids) Don't we?
I think the district looses all of the funding for the child if it chooses a non-district school. (ie state & local) And the state funding then follows the child.
The stranger thing I remember hearing is that the home district needs to pay the special education expenses for its students, even if they go else where, or exceed the state allocation.
Any thoughts on this out there?
Sorry Christine,
Its late and I spaced off your "people will leave" thoughts.
I agree with you that 281 seems to be protecting the few and letting the others run for the hills. The closure of Sunny Hollow and PLE certainly promoted the exodus by those that can afford to.
Since I was and am an RALC mega elementary fan, I am still stumped as to what they were doing and what they will do with those 2 "in need of significant repair" elementary buildings that were saved...
Maybe some Board members are still doing a "fund" dance in hopes that tax dollars will fall from the sky for building that new mega-elementary... Have not heard much about that building lately...
Hi John,
I don't understand the funding stuff well at all, so I'm not much help there.
And I didn't really make my point all that clearly, though I think you got what I was trying to say. RSI and IB/AP may keep a few in the district, but many more are leaving regardless. And the number who have left is significant. A few of us (less than I would have expected) left after PLE closed, but I'm surprised at how many families I'm finding that left 281 before all of the school closing stuff happened.
281 doesn't need more special programs. It needs for ALL of its schools to maintain discipline and foster high achievement for everyone, not just stable, white families not on free and reduced lunch.
Also, regarding the facilities issue, the last meeting notes available on rdale.org are from way back in June. The next meeting is this upcoming week, when they should approve the August minutes, and then we should be able to see them online.
The frustrating thing about the June minutes is that they put Patsy Green as saying that even if PLE had stayed open, we would still be in the same situation in regards to remodeling. That, of course, is completely not true, because the mega elementary plan would have taken the two most needy facilities completely off the grid. Yes, there probably would remain a long term goal of a new east side elementary, but it wouldn't be pressing, and it would be a 600 student school, as opposed to a 1200 student school.
That's one reason I'm supporting Mark Bomchill for school board. He's committed to making sure the district gets the money for the new building or renovation from the sale or rental of existing property, not from increasing our taxes through alt. facilities funding.
I know we lost quite a few when the funding fell behind, activities went down, class sizes went up and the first referendum attempt did not pass. We lost a dozen plus families that we knew do to moving, private, charter, etc.
What do you think of the white flight concept? By this I mean that the district is screwed due to those with money running and leaving mostly the "unlucky" hard to deal with kids behind. And fewer vote yes people behind to secure adequate funding that is up to the challenge? As I call it, a viscious downward spiral.... (ie is it the chicken or the egg???)
I mean the housing style, size, etc in much of the district isn't going to pull many well to do folks into the district in our current American culture of newer and bigger is better.
As I mentioned before, if any candidate wants to post a platform statement or have me link to theirs. Just drop me an email. Currently all the new folks are totally unknown to me... (except DJ through his blog...)
Post a Comment