Finance Week 4, Part 2

Using 2009 District Snapshot data, our group has determined that the two districts are quite different.



District 1:

Student population: 830

2% AA

22% H

76% White

0% Other

43% Eco Dis

4% LEP

10% SPED

District 1 highlights:

Total Revenue per pupil: $10,529

Total Operational Expenditures per pupil: $8,611

Fund Balance: 2,552,074, 39% of 2008-09 budget

Average teacher salary: $39,771

Teacher average years of experience 13.3

Teacher turnover rate: 16.4

Student Progress Measures:

% Passing All tests taken 80

Average SAT 1043

% taking SAT 60.5

Attendance rate: 96.7

Longitudinal Dropout rate 1.9



District 2:

Student population: 32,326

7% AA

56% H

31% White

7% Other

54% Eco Dis

33% LEP

9% SPED



District 2 highlights:

Total Revenue per pupil: $10,316

Total Operational Expenditures per pupil: $8,908

Fund Balance: 42,780,035, 16% of 2008-09 budget

Average teacher salary: $50,307

Teacher turnover rate: 15.7

Teacher average years of experience 11.6

Student Progress Measures:

% Passing All tests taken 78

Average SAT 1058

% taking SAT 86

Attendance rate: 95.9

Longitudinal Dropout rate 10.2



When examining the two districts, district 2 is much larger than district 1. While the total revenue per pupil is only about $213 more in district 1, this represents a great deal less funding for district 2 because of the number of students the district serves. Additionally, district 2 must have to pay their teachers a greater salary to retain quality teachers as indicated by the higher teacher turnover rate and lower years of teacher experience in district 2, compared to district 1. This results in more revenue that must be allocated to operations and taken away from instruction. Teacher salaries are likely to be the most impacted when funding is decreased for district 2 especially considering that their current fund balance is only 16% of their 2008-09 budget, compared to 39% of district 1’s budget.



Both districts have similar percents of economically disadvantaged students; however, district 1 has a significantly less longitudinal dropout rate. While the two districts have fairly similar percent of students meeting standard on all TAKS tests taken, district 2 has a much larger percent taking the SAT test as well as a higher average total score. This would indicate that district 2 has a much more success with preparing students for college.



Dr. Lu Stephens mentioned in the week 4 EDLD 5342 lecture, “economy of scale” certainly plays a factor in student learning. “Economy of scale” is when increased size results in lower per unit cost. The state considers the "economy of scale" when calculating the WADA of each school district in an effort to provide additional funding to smaller school districts. Due to this concept of "economy of scale" students in a much larger school district are less expensive to educate than those in a rural environment. Larger districts are thought to have an advantage of creating greater efficiency due to a decreased cost per student. Dr. Stephens discussed that the larger district would be attract and retain excellent teachers. This is likely why the district is able to offer much higher salaries which likely has led to higher quality teachers. This is the best reason to support why district 2 has much fared much better on their college admissions indicators with a very similar percent of economically disadvantaged students.

PART 2 REFLECTION

Dr. Lu Stephens talked about economy of scale during her interview. She explained how larger districts benefit from economy of scale as opposed to smaller districts. I was able to get hands on experience with it from part two assignment. District 1 is much smaller with 830 students, while District 2 has 32,326 students. The assignment allowed me to see that District 1 (smaller) spent around 34% of its budget for Plant Services and other Operating Expenditures. District 2 (bigger) spent approximately 28%. District 2 was allowed to pay more money towards teacher salaries since they don’t have to use a high percentage towards Plant Services and other Operating Expenditures. District 2 also has a better chance of retaining quality teachers due to the salary they will receive. The starting salary will attract highly qualified teachers to their district. It was eye opening to see that both districts received around the same amount of money for students per class and tax rates. I wasn’t sure if the size of a district was considered when the amount of money for student per class was factored. I can clearly see that larger districts have the advantage when it comes to an economy of scale.