2 District Comparison

Jay Cantrell

District 1: Student population: 830 2% African American 22% Hispanic 76% White 0% Other 43% Eco Disadvantaged 4% LEP 10% SPED District 1 highlights: Total Revenue per pupil: $10,529 Total Operational Expenditures per pupil: $8,611 Total instructional per pupil $4,619 Fund Balance: 2,552,074      39% of 2008-09 budget Average teacher salary: $39,771 Teacher average years experience 13.3 Teacher turnover rate: 16.4

District 2: Student population: 32,326 7% African American 56% Hispanic 31% White 7% Other 54% Eco Disadvantaged 33% LEP 9% SPED District 2 highlights: Total Revenue per pupil: $10,316 Total Operational Expenditures per pupil: $8,908 Total instructional per pupil $5,494 Fund Balance: 42,780,035      16% of 2008-09 budget Average teacher salary: $50,307 Teacher average years experience 11.6 Teacher turnover rate: 15.7

Looking at the data above, our group has concluded that the districts are indeed different.  When you consider the student populations, district 1 is much smaller obviously.  Looking at the percentages of the sub-populations we see that while the SPED pops are very similar in percentages, the overall number would be much higher for district 2.  District 1 would have approximately 85 SPED students compared to 2910 for District 2.  Also, district 2 has a much higher percentage of LEP students and a higher percentage of economically disadvantaged students.  District 1 would have approximately 35 LEP students and 360 economically disadvantaged students.  District 2 would have approximately 10,675 LEP students and 17,460 economically disadvantaged students.  I bring this up because we have a higher total instructional per pupil amount for district 2 at $5500 per pupil compared to $4600 for district 1.  This could be misleading as it could be assumed that district 2 is in better financial shape due to the amount spent on instructing their students.  Remember, those special populations like SPED, LEP and the economically disadvantaged all require more money to educate and allow them the best opportunity at educational success.

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.  When you multiply the $213 by the 32,326 students educated in district 2, it totals just under 6.9 million dollars more they would receive if the revenue per pupil matched district 1.  Additionally, it appears district 2 must have to pay their teachers a higher salary to retain quality teachers.  District 2 has the lower teacher turnover rate, but is a minimal difference, and the lower average years of teacher experience by nearly 2 years.  

Teacher salaries are likely to be highly impacted if 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.  Many times a smaller district may also mean a rural area and cost of living may be less.  In a bigger district you may be in a metro-plex type of area and cost of living is normally higher.  This is important due to the differences in salaries for the two schools.

Dr. Stephens stated in the lecture, “Economy of scale is a concept that indicates that increasing the size of an organization can result in a lower per unit production cost.”. Thus the larger the district, the more funding they would receive. This should be realized in a lower operating cost per student. Unfortunately, district 2 has a higher operating cost per student at $8900 compared to $8600 for district 1.  Again, I feel this can be attributed to the higher special populations and also the teacher salaries..

In conclusion, district 1 appears to be in a better financial situation with total revenue of $10,529 per student. This is $213 more revenue per student than district 2.  District 1 also has a higher percentage of their budget in the fund balance which would sustain them in the case of an emergency.  

Trevor Edgemon

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

District 1: Student population: 830 2% African American 22% Hispanic 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 Total instructional per pupil $4,619 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

District 2: Student population: 32,326 7% African American 56% Hispanic 31% White 7% Other 54% Eco Dis 33% LEP 9% SPEDDistrict 2 highlights: Total Revenue per pupil: $10,316 Total Operational Expenditures per pupil: $8,908 Total instructional per pupil $5,494 Fund Balance: 42,780,035, 16% of 2008-09 budget Average teacher salary: $50,307 Teacher average years of experience 11.6Teacher turnover rate: 15.7

As indicated in the lecture an “economy of scale is a concept that indicates that increasing the size of an organization can result in a lower per unit production cost.” With this in mind we must consider the impact of an economy of scale on school districts and the costs associated with the education of our children. Obviously the larger the organization, or in this case the district, the more funding they would receive. This would be realized in a lower operating cost per student. To further explore this concept let’s look at two district with very different demographics.

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.  Many times a smaller district may also mean a rural area and cost of living may be less.  In a bigger district you may be in a metro-plex type of area and cost of living may be more.  I state this because of the difference in salary.

My conclusion: district 1 appears to be in a better financial situation per student with total revenue of $10,529 per student. This is $213 more revenue per student than district 2, however district 2 has a larger student base which spreads the operating cost more and results in a lower total operating cost per student.

Shawn Clubb

I have always worked in fairly small school districts and have continuously heard about the possibility of consolidation. However, I never realized the financial advantage that bigger districts have over smaller ones. This week our assignment had us analyze the contrasts between large and small districts and how economy of scale may be the root of these contrasts. In the lecture Dr. Lu Stephens explained economy of scale as “a concept that indicates that increasing the size of an organization can result in a lower per unit production cost.”  As a school district’s scale of operations becomes larger, economies of scale occur which reduce costs. By consolidating schools, costs for maintaining separate campuses would decrease.

Upon reviewing these districts I found that District 1 is a fairly small district with 830 students and 130 staff members. The average teacher salary is $39,771. The total revenue per student is $10,529 which equals a total revenue of $8,823,250. Operating expenses were $8,611 per student which equals out to $7,216,335 for its total operating expenses. Because the total operating expenditures are so great per student it reduces the amount of funds available for improvement in other areas.

District 2 is significantly larger with 32,326 students and a staff of 4,582. The average teacher salary in District 2 is $50,307. Their revenue per student is $10,316 which is a total revenue for the district of $329,638,930. The operating expenditures for the district is $8,908 per student which equates to a total of $284,664,004.

Both districts have similar revenues per pupil and similar operating expenditures per pupil. However, when you look at total revenue for the districts District 1 receives $8,823,250 and District 2 receives $329,638,930. District 2 receives a significant amount more than that of District 1. After expenditures, District 2 has a substantial amount of money left over. The lecture indicates that the savings of having a larger district can be added to teacher salaries. This would explain the difference of District 1’s teacher salaries at $39,771 and District 2’s teacher salaries at $50,307. This could also explain the difference in why District 2 has more teachers with advanced degrees.

When looking at these two districts from a financial standpoint it appears that District 2 has more to offer than District 1. They have more money so they can hire more teachers, spend more toward educating their students, etc. However, when looking at testing scores District 1 outperformed District 2. Therefore, is the concept “economy of scale” beneficial to the students?

When looking at larger districts and smaller districts it may appear that larger districts have more to offer in terms of finances. However, are larger districts really beneficial for the students? My thoughts remain the same. I feel that in smaller districts the students have a less chance of becoming “lost”. Smaller schools offer the students more of a chance to participate in extracurricular activities and keep them more involved. From looking at area schools I feel that the smaller districts have less discipline problems and safety concerns. Therefore, while larger districts can offer more specialized courses and more instructional programs, I feel that smaller districts can offer the students more in terms of positive school climates.