General fund cost study, Arizona school districts

              ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
eFd -3 Carolyn Warner, Superin tenden t Dr. Jim Hartgraves, Deputy Superintendent
Education Services General Operations Special Program Services Business Services
Division Division Division Division
Dr. Thomas R. Reno Mr. James J. Brunstein Mr. William J. Anderson Mr. John M. George
Associate Superintendent Associate Superintendent Associate Superintendent Associate Superintendent
ARIZONA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
Mr. Leon H. Maehling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . President
Mr. Jack Whiteman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vice President
Mrs. Carolyn Warner . . . . . . . . . . . . Executive Officer and Secretary
Mr. Lynwood Evans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member
Mrs. Beth Packard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member
Dr. John P. Schaefer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member
Dr. George N. Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member
Mrs. Miriam Sorey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member
Mrs. Julieta Bencomo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Member
Total Copies Printed - 1000
Total Printing Cost - $2910.00
Unit Printing Cost - $2.91
Date of Printing - 7/79
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
I. INTRODUCTION AND STUDY METHOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
I I. ELEMENTARY VS. HIGH SCHOOL EXPENDITURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Ill. ELEMENTARY EXPENDITURES BY GRADE AND PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . 8
IV. HIGH SCHOOL EXPENDITURES BY PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1
V. SOURCES OF EXPENDITURE VARIATION AMONG
ELEMENTARY AND HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
VI. ELEMENTARY AND HIGH SCHOOL BENCHMARK DISTRICTS . . . . . . . . . . 38
Appendixes
A. SCHOOL DISTRICT SAMPLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
B. REGULAR INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM AREAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
C. TABLESC-lTHROUGHC-11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1-62
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Chart Page
1A. General Fund Expenditures Per Student by Function:
1977-78 (Elementary and High School) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1 B. Major Differences in General Fund Expenditures by Function:
1977-78 (Elementary and High School) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2. Average Elementary General Fund Expenditure and Ratio
of FTE Students to FTE Teachers by Grade Level: 1977-78 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3. Comparison of Elementary Average Class Size for Regular Teachers
and Ratio of FTE Students to FTE Teachers by Grade Level: 1977-78 . . . . . . . 10
4. Average General Fund Expenditure Per FTE Student and Average
Ratio of FTE Students to FTE Teachers by Program: 1977-78
5. Percent Distribution of Elementary General Fund
ExpendituresWithinGrade Level by Program: 1977-78 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17-18
6. Elementary General Fund Expenditures Per FTE Student by
Program for Lowest and Highest Spending Districts: 1977-78 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7. Average General Fund Expenditure Per FTE Student and Average Ratio
of FTE Students to FTE Teachers for High School by Program: 1977-78. . . . . . 2 2
8. Percent Distribution of High School General
Fund Expenditures by Program: 1977-78 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
9. High School General Fund Expenditures Per FTE Student by
Program for Lowest and Highest Spending Districts: 1977-78. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
10. Major Sources of Variation in Elementary District General
Fund Expenditures Per Student From Typical Elementary Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30-31
11. Major Sources of Variation in High School District General
Fund Expenditures Per Student From Typical High School Level . . . . . . . . . . . . 36-37
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Average StudentITeacher Ratios and Average Class Sizes
For Lowest and Highest Spending Elementary Districts: 1977-78 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0
2. Comparison of Average Elementary and High School Regular
Teacher Class Sizes and FTE StudentITeacher Ratios: 1977-78 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1
3. Average High School General Fund Expenditures
Per FTE Student and Percentage Distribution of FTE
Students by Vocational Education Program: 1977-78 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5
4. Average StudentITeacher Ratios and Average Class Sizes
For Lowest and Highest Spending High School Districts: 1977-78 . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5. Typical General Fund Expenditures Per Student: 1977-78 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6. Characteristics of an Elementary Benchmark District
General Fund: 1977-78 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-40
7. Characteristics of a High School Benchmark District
General Fund: 1977-78 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32-43
8. Reconciliation of Benchmark District Expenditures Per Student With
Elementary and High School General Fund Average Expenditures: 1977-78 . . . . 45
GENERAL FUND COST STUDY
ARIZONA SCHOOL DISTRICTS
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION AND STUDY METHOD
In 1977-78, General Fund spending by Arizona school districts was nearly $600 million. These
expenditures covered the costs of most of the public school regular operations. With the
exception of capital items, General Fund expenditures reflect the backbone of the public
school system. Most of the instructional staff, administrative personnel, a variety of support
functions and physical plant maintenance and operations are covered by the General Fund.
It is also at this area that most of the state's financial assistance to the schools is aimed and on
which the major budgeting control provisions historically have been applied.
The purpose of this study is to develop estimates of district General Fund expenditures on
various education programs and school district functions for 1977-78 in order (I)to under-stand
better how school districts are using their resources, (2) to establish the major sources
of expenditure variation among the districts, and (3) to make the findings available for use in
deliberations on policy proposals for a restructure of state aid and budgetary control
provisions.
In 1974, the Arizona Legislature completed a major overhaul of the school financing system.
State aid for General Fund operations was increased. All former methods of distributing aid
to the districts were replaced by an equalization aid formula. General Fund budget limitations
were modified. Lower spending districts were given a five-year period to accelerate their allow-able
expenditures to the level supported by the aid formula. A redo of school district budget
formats and school district accounting procedures was mandated.
The revised state aid provisions solidly established the principle of equalizing basic state aid.
Aid is distributed to the districts each year on the basis of a statutory formula. Essentially,
this formula prescribes the following:
1. Determine the total dollar support level for the district.
2. Determine how much a qualifying tax rate of $1.30 ($2.60 for unified districts)
would raise on the district's assessed valuation.
3. If the amount which could be raised by the qualifying tax rate is less than the
support level, the difference is the district's entitlement to state aid.
The support level was statutorily established for the year 1973-1974 at $745 for each ele-mentary
student and $1,015 for each high school student. Under the statutory provisions,
these original support levels have increased by seven percent each year until in 1978-1979
they are $1,045 for each elementary student and $1,423 for each high school student. This
system of aid guarantees that each district will have available for i t s use a combination of
state aid and district dollars equal to the support level and with a tax rate that will not exceed
an upper limit.
Closely tied to the establishment of support levels is the annual determination of the General
Fund budget limitation for each district. With the exception of certain revenue sources
(including override elections) each district is allowed to increase i t s budget for General Fund
expenditures by an amount per student equal to the increase in the state support level per
student. In 1978-79, for example, the allowable increases per student were $68 in the elemen-tary
system and $93 for high school students.
However, it must be candidly conceded that when the state constructed its present basic aid
system, there was a large dose of the unknown in the selection of the support levels established
for elementary and high school students. Little was known about what the support levels
would buy in terms of education programs, instructional staffing ratios or elementary pro-grams
and functions compared to high school programs and functions. Nor was much known
about why spending levels per student varied substantially among the districts. In other words,
it was not possible to translate the support levels into a picture of what they would opera-tionally
provide at the school district level. This study is aimed at filling this void.
Study Method
The expenditure analysis is based on data compiled for a sample of Arizona school districts
for the year 1977-78. The study was integrated with the requirements for the statutorily man-dated
special education cost study. The basic special education study results were provided to
the Legislature in December, 1978."
The sample is composed of 28 districts. Ten of these districts are either unified or elementary
districts teaching high school. Fourteen districts are elementary and four districts are high
school. When the combined districts are separated into their elementary and high school
portions, the sample consists of the equivalent of 24 elementary districts and 13 high school
districts. (See Appendix A for a listing of the sample districts.)
Selection of the sample was designed to provide a representative group that would reflect the
diversity of the state's school districts. The criteria used to select the districts included
(I)st udent population-small to large, (2) assessed valuation per student-low to high,
(3) expenditure levels per student-low to high, (4) geographical and urban-rural dispersion,
and (5) districts with different enrollment trends-growing, stable and declining.
The elementary portion of the sample accounted for nearly 50 percent of the state's elemen-tary
ADM in 1977-78. The high school sample contained about 60 percent of the state's high
school ADM.
Extensive, on-site field work was undertaken by personnel of the Department's audit division
during 1978. Detailed data on fund expenditures, staffing levels, curriculum and teacher and
student time devoted to different education program areas were obtained with the cooperation
and assistance of district personnel.
Procedures were established to (I)all ocate administration and operations expenditures
between the General Fund (001) and the Special Education Fund (002), (2) allocate special
education expenditures to the various handicapped categories, (3) allocate General Fund
expenditures for unified districts and elementary districts teaching high school to elementary
* See Arizona Department of Education, Special Educufion Cost Study (December, 1978).
2
and high school functions, (4) allocate elementary General Fund expenditures to the different
grade levels, (5) allocate elementary and high school General Fund expenditures to the various
education program (curriculum) areas, and (6) isolate the sources of General Fund expenditure
variations among the school districts.
As the General Fund expenditure analysis was nearing completion, several meetings were held
to permit a review by representatives from the sample districts. The basic data compiled for
each of the districts, the allocation methods and major findings were presented and discussed
in some detail. The primary purpose of these meetings was to permit a critique of the data
compiled for individual districts and of the methods used to allocate General Fund expendi-tures
to the various grade levels and education programs.
This report reflects an analysis of school district General Fund expenditures only. As already
mentioned, the basic special education cost study results are treated in a separate report.
School district expenditures for transportation and the various capital areas are not considered
in this analysis. County expenditures covering the employers' contributions for state retire-ment
and Social Security for school district certified staff are not included in district General
Fund expenditures.
In the course of distributing General Fund expenditures to their appropriate program areas,
approximately $9.1 milliorr of administrative and operations expenditures were reassigned
from the General Fund to the Special Education Fund. This amount represents three percent
of the total General Fund expenditures reported by the sample districts. The special education
cost study reflects this reallocation. The expenditures per student for each handicapped cate-gory
include the amounts allocated from the General Fund to special education.
The major findings of the General Fund expenditure analysis are presented in the following
sections. Heavy reliance is made of charts included in the text. The first reference to a chart
is accompanied by a ( ) which refers to an appendix table that contains the data from which
the chart has been developed.
SECTION II
ELEMENTARY VS. HIGH SCHOOL EXPENDITURES
Average General Fund expenditures per student by elementary and high school systems are
displayed in Chart I-A (Appendix Table C-I). Elementary expenditures per student averaged
$1,102, while the corresponding high school average was $1,282.
The difference, $180 per student, was substantially less than the variation in the support levels
used to determine entitlement to state aid. In 1977-78 the state aid support level was $977 for
elementary students and $1,330 for high school students. The difference in support levels,
$353 per student, was about twice the variation in spending levels. Relative to expenditure
levels it appears that the elementary system is under-supported in establishing entitlement to
state aid.
In addition, the disparity between spending levels and support levels creates a distortion in the
application of the General Fund budget limit. Since 1973-74, the school districts have been
permitted to increase the controlled portion of their General Fund budgets by an amount
equal to seven percent of the state aid support level per student. For 1978-79, the allowable
elementary increase of $68 per student actually represented only about a six percent increase
over the elementary average expenditure of $1,102 in 1977-78. On the other hand, the allow-able
high school increase of $93 per student amounted to more than a seven percent increase
over the high school average expenditure of $1,282 in 1977-78.
As Chart I-A reveals, the differences that do exist between the elementary and high school
systems are primarily concentrated in the instructional support and operations functions.*
Administration spending was identical. Very l i t t l e variation existed in the dominant instruction
function.
As shown in Chart I-B (Appendix Table C-I), most of the $180 difference in spending levels
was attributable to guidance and psychological services (counselors) and interscholastics within
the instructional support function. Utilities and physical plant maintenance accounted for
most of the variation in the operations function.
* As used in this report, school district functions are defined to include the following items as
specified in the Uniform System of Financial Records (USFR).
Administration: Function 100 (Administration), Function 310 (Principal's Office),
Function 350 (Curriculum Services) and Employee Benefits allocable to
this function.
Instruction: Function 200 (Instruction) and Employee Benefits allocable to this
function.
Instructional Support: Function 300 (Instructional Support), exclusive of Function 310
and 350, plus Employee Benefits allocable to this function.
Operations: Function 400 (Operations) less Employee Benefits allocated to the other
functions.
CHART I-A
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES PER STUDENT
BY FUNCTION: 1977-78
ELEMENTARY AND HlGH SCHOOL
ELEMENTARY
HlGH SCHOOL
CHART I-B
MAJOR DIFFERENCES IN GENERAL FUND
EXPENDITURES BY FUNCTION: 1977-78
ELEMENTARY AND HlGH SCHOOL
ELEMENTARY
HlGH SCHOOL
In large part, the difference between elementary and high school General Fund spending levels
is relatively small because teacher staffing levels are quite similar. In 1977-78, the elementary
system averaged one full-time equivalent (FTE) teacher paid from the General Fund for every
22.4 students in average daily membership (FTE students). The corresponding ratio for the
high school system was 23.8 students to one teacher. If all other cost factors had been the
same between the two systems, the lower elementary FTE studentlteacher ratio would have
caused higher instructional expenditures in the elementary system. In fact, however, the high
school system exhibits slightly higher salary schedules as well as a higher percentage of teachers
paid on the upper portions of the salary schedule. As a result, high school instruction expen-ditures
per student averaged slightly above ($18) the elementary level.
(A word of caution should be inserted here. These FTE studentlteacher ratios do not represent
average class sizes faced by teachers. As will be discussed later, class size for regular elementary
teachers averaged 25.9 in 1977-78. Average high school teacher class size was 25.2.)
SECTION Ill
ELEMENTARY EXPENDITURES BY GRADE
AND PROGRAM
In this section, the major findings concerning elementary General Fund expenditures at
different grade levels and spending for the various programs that comprise the elementary
curriculum are reported. A comparison is made between teacher class sizes and ratios of FTE
students to FPE teachers. The question of whether higher spending districts expend more
per student because of particular emphasis on specific education programs is explored.
Elementary General Fund Expenditures Per Student by Grade Level
Average 1977-78 expenditures per student at different grade levels are shown on Chart 2
(Appendix Table C-2). For each grade level group the corresponding FTE studentlteacher
ratio is also presented.
Except for kindergarten, there is a systematic increase in expenditures per student as students
progress from grade 1 .through grade 8."
Expenditures averaged $1,052 per student for grades 1-3, while the spending level for grades
7-8 averaged $1 ,I 74.
Parallel iilg this expenditure pattern was a decrease in FTE studentlteacher ratios from the
lower grades to the upper grades. The studentkeacher ratio averaged 23.6 in grades 1-3. For
grades 7-8 the average was 20.9.
To some extent, however, these overall grade level averages paint a misleading picture. Con
rained 0 1 1 Chart 3 (Appendix Table C-3) is a comparison of average class sires for "regular"
teachers with the FTE studentlteacher ratios for the differen? grade levels."" V\Jk~ilet he FTE
ratios systematically decline from the lower to the upper grades, average "regl~lar" teacher
c!;lss size exIiibit5 a ttiuch more stable pattern. In fact it can be argued, with the rxception of
kirudcrgdrren, that average "regular" teacher class sizes among the grades do not sigrlificantly
differ from about 26 to one.
Ti-leri are two rnajor reasons why the FTE ratios decline while the class sizes are relatively
stable. l-he first and rrisst significant reason is the difference between teacher and student
Lc:rta6,i: hours ax the different grade levels (sco Appendix Table C 3). While students spend
more lime at scilool as they progress LIP the grade !evels, rcquircrl contact time for teacfiers
" The kindergarten cost of $1,156 per student is based on a student FTE count which is the
same as the method used to establish ADM for state aid purposes. Because kindergarten
programs are half day in length, each student in average daily membership is counted as
one-half FTE.
** "Regular" teachers at the elementary level are defined as all teachers paid from the General
Fund other than full-time specialists engaged in the areas of fine arts (music, art, band),
physical education, industrial arts and home economics.
CHART 2
AVERAGE ELEMENTARY GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE
AND RATIO OF FTE STUDENTS TO FTE TEACHERS
BY GRADE LEVEL: 1977-78
EXPENDITURE PER STUDENT
RATIO OF STUDENTS TO TEACHERS
CHART 3
COMPARISON OF ELEMENTARY AVERAGE CLASS
SlZE FOR REGULAR TEACHERS AND RATIO
OF FTE STUDENTS TO FTE TEACHERS
BY GRADE LEVEL: 1977-78
CLASS SlZE
RATIO OF STUDENTS TO TEACHERS
does not keep pace. To compensate for the difference, districts utilize more instructional staff
in the higher elementary grades. The net effect is a reduction in the FTE studentlteacher
ratios. The second major contributor to the lower ratios is more intensive use of specialized
teachers for fine arts, physical education, industrial arts and home economics in grades 4 and
up. Smaller class sizes, fewer teacher contact hours or both for the specialized teachers con-tribute
to the use of more teacher staff at these grade levels (see Appendix Table C-3). Again,
the net effect is to reduce the FTE studentlteacher ratios in the higher elementary grades.
Elementary General Fund Expenditures Per Student by Program
To carry the analysis one step further, 1977-78 average expenditures per FTE student for
different education programs are presented in Charts 4-A (grade 1-8), 4-B (grades 1-3), 4-C
(y rades 4-6) and 4-D (grades 7-8). * Accompanying the expenditures are average FTE student1
teacher ratios for each program (corresponding Appendix Table is C-4).**
Viewed in total for grades 1-8 (Chart 4-A), program expenditure levels and FTE ratios were
quite similar except for industrial artslhome economics and fine arts. In these two programs,
the impact of the specialized teachers is clearly observable.
Expenditure levels and FTE ratios in grades 1-3 (Chart 4-B) are reasonably uniform across
all program areas.
The overwhelming reason why grades 4-6 exhibit somewhat higher spending levels than grades
1-3 is attributable to expenditures per student for the fine arts program (Chart 4-C). In the
areas of language arts, mathematics, social studies and science, spending levels per student and
student/teacher ratios for grades 4-6 are nearly identical to the levels for grades 1-3.
For grades 7-8, the elementary system generally expended more per student on language arts,
mathematics, social studies and science than it did on grades 1-6. However, the single most
important source of the higher expenditure level in this grade group can be traced to spending
levels in industrial artslhome economics. At an average FTE studentlteacher ratio of 14.2 to
one, the resulting expenditure per student in this program accounts for nearly one-third of the
overall spending level difference between grades 1-3 and grades 7-8.
* See Appendix B for a description of what comprises each program area.
** FTE teachers in a program represent the number of teachers that would be required to
staff the program if these teachers had instructional responsibilities only in that area. For
example, if a school district has 100 full-time teachers assigned to grades 1-3 and if these
100 teachers spend 50 percent of their instructional time in language arts, the district
has 50 FTE teachers in the language arts program for grades 1-3.
FTE students in a program represent the number of students in average daily membership
(ADM) equivalent to full-time enrollment in the program. For example, if a district has an
ADM of 2,000 students in grades 1-3 and if these students average 50 percent of their
total instructional time in language arts, the district has 1,000 FTE students in language
arts in grades 1-3.
Using these examples, the district would have an FTE studentheacher ratio of 1,000150
or 20.1 in language arts for grades 1-3.
CHART 4-A
AVERAGE GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE PER FTE STUDENT
AND AVERAGE RATIO OF FTE STUDENTS TO FTE TEACHERS
FOR GRADES 1-8 BY PROGRAM: 1977-78
EXPENDITURE PER STUDENT
- - - RATIO OF STUDENTS TO TEACHERS
CHART 4-B
AVERAGE GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE PER FTE STUDENT
AND AVERAGE RATIO OF FTE STUDENTS TO FTE TEACHERS
FOR GRADES 1-3 BY PROGRAM: 1977-78
- EXPENDITURE PER STUDENT
- - - RATIO OF STUDENTS TO TEACHERS
CHART 4-C
AVERAGE GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE PER FTE STUDENT
AND AVERAGE RATIO OF FTE STUDENTS TO FTE TEACHERS
FOR GRADES 4-6 BY PROGRAM: 1977-78
EXPENDITURE PER STUDENT
--- RATIO OF STUDENTS TO TEACHERS
CHART 4-D
AVERAGE GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE PER FTE STUDENT
AND AVERAGE RATIO OF FTE STUDENTS TO FTE TEACHERS
FOR GRADES 7-8 BY PROGRAM: 1977-78
EXPENDITURE PER STUDENT
--- RATIO OF STUDENTS TO TEACHERS
Distribution of Elementary General Fund Expenditures Among Programs
The emphasis which the elementary system placed on the different program areas is depicted
in Chart 5 (Appendix Table 6-5). For those persons who are particularly interested in school
district commitment of resources to reading and arithmetic, the information in Chart 5 indi-cates
that about 56 percent of elementary General Fund expenditures in grades 1-8 are allo-cated
to providing the two program areas of language arts and mathematics.
As grade level groups are looked at individually, the emphasis pattern changes. In grades 1-3,
language arts and mathematics utilize about 70 percent of the General Fund expenditures on
this grade group. In grades 4-6, the emphasis in these two areas declines to about 54 percent,
By grades 7-8, 40 percent of expenditures on these grade levels is devoted to language arts and
mathematics.
Between the lower and upper elementary grades, a major shift occurs in iiacreased emphasis
on social studies and science. In grades 7-8, this shift is substantially amplified by the intro-duction
of industrial arts, home economics and other courses or study hall activity.
It is important to note, however, that while the distribution of expenditures on programs is
significantly different among the grade levels, it does not follow that the total hours per week
devoted by students follows exactly the same pattern. Based on data compiied during the
course of the study, it is estimated that students in grades 7-8 average about five hours more
per week in class contact time than do students in grades 1-3. These additional hours in school
approximately equal the amount of time spent by the typical 7-8 grade student in industrial
arts, home economics and "other" programs.
Elementary General Fund Expenditure Differences Among Districts: The Influence of
Education Programs
The question to be addressed here is whether the differences in General Fund expenditures
per student within the elementary system can be traced to specific higher cost programs
offered by the higher spending districts. To address this question, expenditures per FTE
student have been compared for lowest and highest spending districts in the sample.
Of the 24 elementary districts in the sample, 20 contained more than 500 students. Recog-nizing
that smaller districts frequently do not have the same ckiarclcteristics as larger units,
the comparison of program spending levels was made among the 20 larger systenss.
Average expenditui-es per student for the five highest spending districts arid For the three
lowest expenditure districts are compared on Chart 6 (Appendix Table: C-6). Fcr the highest
group, total General Fund expenditures per student averaged $1,533 in 1977-78. The corre-sponding
level for the lowest group was $944 per student. The difference, $587 per student,
places the upper expenditure group 62 percent above the lowest group.
With the exception of one program (physical education), the highest spending group of dis-tricts
expended 50 to 70 percent more per student across all program areas. What this means
is that when districts have substantially higher General Fund expenditures per student than
other districts, they generally are higher in all program areas. It cannot be concluded That the
major source of the higher spending is traceable to unusual emphasis on specific higher cost
programs.
CHART 5
PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF ELEMENTARY GENERAL FUND
EXPENDITURES WITHIN GRADE LEVEL BY PROGRAM
1977-78
Language Arts
Mathematics
Social Studies
Fine Arts
Grades 1-8
Physical Education
Science
Industrial Arts and
Home Economics
Other Programs
5 15 25 35 45 55
Percent of Expenditures
Language Arts
Mathematics
Physical Education
Grades 1-3
Fine Arts
Social Studies
Science
I I I I I
5 15 25 35 45 55
Percent of Expenditures
CHART 5 (continued)
Language Arts
Mathematics
Social Studies I
Fine Arts
Physical Education I
Science
Language Arts
Grades 7-8
5 15 25 35 45 55
Percent of Expenditures
Mathematics
Social Studies I
Industrial Arts and
Home Economics
Science
Physical Education I-Fine
Arts
Grades 4-6
Other Programs P
5 15 25 35 45 55
Percent of Expenditures
CHART 6
ELEMENTARY GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES PER
FTE STUDENT BY PROGRAM FOR LOWEST AND
HIGHEST SPENDING DISTRICTS: 1977-78
AVERAGE OF FIVE HIGHEST EXPENDITURE DISTRICTS
AVERAGE OF THREE LOWEST EXPENDITURE DISTRICTS
If upper expenditure districts are higher in all program areas, then the related question is
whether FTE studentlteacher ratios or class size for the districts as a whole will explain most
of the spending level differences. Studentlteacher ratios and class sizes for the five highest and
three lowest expenditure districts are shown in Table 1.
TABLE 1
AVERAGE STUDENTITEACHER RATIOS AND AVERAGE CLASS SIZES
FOR LOWEST AND HIGHEST SPENDING ELEMENTARY DISTRICTS: 1977-78
Average of Average of Ratio of Low
5 Highest 3 Lowest Expend. Districts
Expenditure Expenditure to High
Districts Districts Expend. Districts
StudentITeacher Ratio 19.0 22.2 1.17
Regular Teacher Class Size 22.9 25.7 1.12
What is of most importance in these data are the relatively small differences in studentlteacher
ratios and class sizes when compared with the overall variation in General Fund expenditure
per student. If all other spending characteristics by the highest and lowest expenditure groups
were the same, the studentlteacher ratio difference by itself would suggest that the higher
spending group of districts should have had expenditures per student of approximately 17
percent more than the lowest group. In fact, as discussed above, the difference was about 62
percent.
The conclusion to be drawn is that most of the difference in expenditures per student is attrib-utable
to factors other than direct instructional staffing levels. What these factors are is a major
subject which will be discussed later.
SECTION IV
HlGH SCHOOL EXPENDITURES BY PROGRAM
The expenditure levels for the major high school programs are presented in this section.
General Fund spending on the various areas of vocational education are discussed. High school
teacher class size and ratio of FTE students to FTE teachers are shown and, in turn, compared
with elementary class sizes and studentlteacher ratios. Whether higher cost program emphasis
explains the spending levels of the higher expenditure high school districts is analyzed.
High School General Fund Expenditures Per Student by Program
The average high school expenditures per FTE student for different education programs are
presented in Chart 7 (Appendix Table C-7). For comparison, the average FTE studentlteacher
ratios are also shown for each program.
Over a broad array of programs, high school expenditures per FTE student fall within a $100
range. The exceptions to this pattern occur in industrial arts and foreign language on the high
side and in social studies and physical education on the low side. The middle group of pro-grams
that falls within the $100 spending range, however, accounts for more than 60 percent
of high school General Fund expenditures (see Chart 8 and Appendix Table C-8).W hen com-pared
with the elementary system, high school programs exhibit less disparity both in expen-diture
levels per student and in FTE studentlteacher ratios.
As with the elementary system, however, FTE studentlteacher ratios are not the same as
class size. Average high school class size for regular programs was 25.2 to one compared to an
FTE studentlteacher ratio for General Fund teachers of 23.8 to one. The main factor causing
a difference was the variation between average classroom hours of teachers and average class-room
hours of students.
For a quick comparison of elementary and high school studentlteacher ratios and class sizes,
the 1977-78 averages for the two systems are shown in Table 2.
TABLE 2
COMPARlSON OF AVERAGE ELEMENTARY AND
HlGH SCHOOL REGULAR TEACHER CLASS SIZES
AND FTE STUDENTITEACHER RATIOS: 1977-78
Item Elementary High School
Regular Teacher Average Class Size
FTE StudentITeacher Ratio
CHART 7
AVERAGE GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE PER FTE STUDE.NT
AND AVERAGE RATIO OF FTE STUDENTS TO FTE TEACHERS
FOR HIGH SCHOOL BY PROGRAM: 1977-78
EXPENDITURE PER STUDENT
--- RATIO OF STUDENTS TO TEACHERS
Distribution of High School General Fund Expenditures Among Programs
The way in which the high school system as a whole distributed i t s General Fund expenditures
aniong education programs is shown in Chart 8 (Appendix Table C-8). The significance of high
school resources committed to vocatiorjal education and the closely related industrial arts and
business prograrns is readily apparent. These areas absorbed 22 percent of high school General
F9nd spending. The program areas of languaye arts, mathematics, social studies, science, fine
arts and physical education, alorig with kindergarten, use 95 percent of the eiementary General
Fund. The corresponding programs in the high school system account for 71 percent of high
school General Fund expenditures.
High School General Fund Expenditures on Vocational Education
Average General Fund expenditures per student for vocational education, industrial arts and
all other high school programs in 1977-78 were as follows:
Average General
Fund Expenditure
Program Per FTE Student
Vocational Education $1,340
Industrial Arts 1,501
All Other Programs -- 1,263
Total High School Programs $1,282
The average expenditure of $1,340 per FTE student for all areas of vocational education was
$77 more than the average for the regular (All Other) programs. This amount represents a
spending level which is six percent above the regular prograrns. The impact of vocational
education and industrial arts combined adds $19 per student to the regular program cost of
$1,263 per student to produce an overall average of $1,282 per student for all high school
programs. Of this $13, vocational education accounts for $7 and industrial arts adds Ihe
remaining $1 2 per student.
Within the broad area of vocational education, however, there are substantial differences in
spending levels among the programs that comprise vocational education as now defined.
Presented in Table 3 are the average General Fund expenditures per FTE student in the various
vocational education programs. Included in the table is the percentage distribution of total
vocational FTE enrollment among the programs.
CHART 8
PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF HIGH SCHOOL
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES BY
PROGRAM : 1977-78
TABLE 3
AVERAGE HIGH SCHOOL GENERAL FUND
EXPENDITURES PER FTE STUDENT AND
PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF FTE STUDENTS
BY VOCATIONAL EDUCATION PROGRAM : 1977-78
Average General Percent of
Fund Expenditure Vocational Education
Vocational Education Program Per FTE Student FTE Students
Distributive Education
Home Economics
Office Education
Trades and Industry
Agriculture
Health
Other Vocational Education
Total Vocational Education
Expenditures per student in the agriculture and trades and industry groups are substantially
above spending in the regular high school programs. The small health occupations program is
even higher. Distributive education, home economics and office education, however, exhibit
expenditure levels below the regular programs. Because these three programs account for
about 70 percent of the vocational education FTE students, they have the effect of largely
offsetting the higher spending levels in agriculture and trades and industry.
It must be emphasized that these General Fund expenditures are exclusive of additional
spending which is funded by federal allocations for vocational education. When the effects of
federal funding are added to district general funds, average expenditures on vocational
education are about $1,609 per FTE student. The overall FTE studentlteacher ratio for
vocational education becomes 19.5 to one when federally funded teachers are included in the
computation.
The conclusion to be drawn is that operating costs of vocational education are higher than
regular programs, but it is the addition of federal categorical funds which largely accounts for
why the combined General Fund and federal fund spending per FTE student in vocational
education is significantly above the regular programs.
High Schooil General Fund Expenditure Differences Among Districts: The Influence of
Education Programs
As was done with the elementary system, the question addressed here is whether the differ-ences
in General Fund expenditures per student within the high school system can be traced
to specific higher cost programs offered by the higher spending districts. Of the 13 high school
districts in the sample, 11 housed rnore than 500 students. The comparisons are made between
the highest and lowest expenditure groups within these 1 1 districts.
Average expenditures per student for the two highest spending districts and for the five lowest
expenditure districts are compared on Chart 9 (Appendix Table C-9). For the highest group,
expenditures per student averaged $1,558 in 1977-78. The lowest group expended $1,140 per
student. The difference, $418 per student, represents a high group expenditure level which is
37 percent above the lowest group.
As was true for the elementary system, the pattern of expenditures per student among pro-grams
does not point to specific concentration on higher cost programs by the higher spending
districts. The districts with higher overall General Fund expenditures per student are just
generally more costly in all program areas.
The differences in overall FTE studentlteacher ratios and average class sizes for highest and
lowest expenditure districts are shown in Table 4.
TABLE 4
AVERAGE STUDENTITEACHER RATIOS AND
AVERAGE CLASS SIZES FOR LOWEST AND HIGHEST
SPENDING HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICTS: 1977-78
Average of
2 Highest
Expenditure
Districts
Average of Ratio of Low
5 Lowest Expend. Districts
Expenditure To High
Districts Expend. Districts
StudentITeacher Ratio 20.7 24.8 1.20
Average Teacher Class Size 21.6 25.2 1.17
Based on the studentlteacher ratios, it could be expected that the highest expenditure group
would have expended 20 percent more per student than the lowest spending group, if all
other cost characteristics were the same. A somewhat larger proportion of spending variation
among high school districts is attributable to teacher staffing levels than is true for the elemen-tary
system. Nevertheless, significant amounts of expenditure differences are caused by factors
other than direct instructional staffing levels.
CHART 9
C, s
aa
'El
3 ;;
?!
3
.C- ,
'El s
aa
Q
X
W
HIGH SCHOOL GENERAL FUND EXPENDiTURES PER
FTE STUDENT BY PROGRAM FOR LOWEST AND
HIGHEST SPENDING DISTRICTS: 1977-78
AVERAGE OF TWO HIGHEST EXPENDITURE DISTRICTS
AVERAGE OF FIVE LOWEST EXPENDITURE DISTRICTS
SECTION V
SOURCES OF EXPENDITURE VARIATION AMONG
ELEMEBTARY AND HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICTS
This section is devoted to an analysis of the characteristics of the sample districts which
contribute to variations in expenditures per student. As discussed in the previous sections,
neither differences in program emphasis nor overall studentlteacher ratios can adequately
explain the different spending levels. To get at the major sources of variation it is necessary to
analyze the functional activities (administration, instruction, instructional support and opera-tions)
of the school districts.
Elementary Districts: Major Sources of General Fund Expenditure Variations
Among the sample elementary districts, General Fund expenditures per student ranged from
$930 to $1,545 for the 20 districts with more than 500 students. As noted earlier, the elemen-tary
system averaged $1,102 of General Fund spending per student in 1977-78. Eight of the
elementary districts in the sample had expenditure levels within approximately $50 on either
side of this average. These eight districts as a group can be viewed as representing the "normal"
or "typical" elementary operation in the state.
The 1977-78 General Fund expenditures per student by the typical group of districts are
presented in Column (1) of Table 5. (Column (2) will be used later when discussing the high
school variations.) Total General Fund expenditure per student for the typical district aver-aged
$1,084. The instruction function accounted for $701 or 65 percent of the total. Class-room
teacher compensation alone amounted to 61 percent of the total.
Staff compensation for all functions represented $967 or 89 percent of the total. It is quite
obvious, therefore, that the source of major differences in spending levels among the districts
should be traceable to variations in staff compensation among some or all of the functions.
Staff compensation, in turn, will differ because of variations in studentlstaff ratios and
differences in salary levels.
To establish why districts vary from each other in General Fund spending per student, each
of the elementary districts in the sample has been compared with the typical elementary
district in Table 5. For the 20 larger elementary districts in the sample, the summary results
of this analysis are shown on Chart 10 (Appendix Table C-10).
The 20 districts have been placed into groups which represent different levels of expenditure
per student both above and below the typical district. Group 1, for example, is comprised of
three districts which had General Fund expenditures per student in excess of $1,335. This
group averaged a level of spending which was $457 per student greater than the typical district.
Group 7, on the other hand, is composed of three districts within a spending range of $884 to
$983 per student. As a group, these districts averaged a spending level per student which was
$140 less than the typical district.
Group 2 and Group 4 represent districts which have been separateiy identified because of
their declining enrollment. In total spending levels, Group 2 is comparable to Group 1 and
Group 4 is comparable to Group 5. As will be noted below, however, the declining enrollment
TABLE 5
TYPICAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
PER STUDENT: 1977-78
(1) (2
Typical Typical
Elementary Elementary
FunctionIType Expenditure Modified for
of Expenditures Per Student High School
Instruction
Classroom Teacher Compensation
lnstructional Aides
Other Expenditures
Total Instruction
Administration
Education Services
Staff Compensation
Other Expenditures
Principal's Office
Staff Compensation
Other Expenditures
Other Administrative Functions
Staff Compensation
Other Expenditures
Total Administration
Instructional Support
Guidance and Psychological Services
Staff Compensation
Library
Staff Compensation
Other Expenditures
I nterscholastics
Other Instructional Support Functions
Staff Compensation
Other Expenditures
Total Instructional Support
Operations
Physical Plant Maintenance
Staff Compensation
Other Expenditures
Utilities
Other Operations Functions
Staff Compensation
Other Expenditures
Total Operations
GENERAL FUND TOTAL
CHART 10
Group 1
(3 Districts)
MAJOR SOURCES OF VARIATION IN ELEMENTARY DISTRICT
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES PER STUDENT
FROM TYPICAL ELEMENTARY LEVEL
AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE DIFFERENCE PER STUDENT ATTRIBUTABLE TO:
Group 2
(2 Districts)
(Declining Enrollment)
districts exhibit particular cost characteristics which make them dissimilar to comparable
expenditure level districts.
The primary purpose of Chart TO is to identify the major functions or characteristics which
will explain most of the total difference by which the groups of districts either exceed or fall
below the typical district expenditure level. The first four sources (salary schedule, student/
teacher ratio, teacher mix and other instructional expenditures) relate to expenditure varia-tions
in the instruction function. Administration and support staff pertains to the administra-tion
and instructional support functions combined. The last three sources (maintenance and
operations staff, utilities and other operations expenditures) cover the operations function.
Each of these sources of expenditure variation are more specifically defined as follows:
1. Salary Schedule:
2. StudentITeacher Ratio:
3. Teacher Mix :
These three sources of expenditure difference relate to teacher compensation.
They reflect the basic reasons why districts will differ in their teacher compensation
expenditures per student. High salary schedules for certified teachers have the
effect of producing higher teacher compensation expenditures per student. Lower
district FTE studentheacher ratios push teacher compensation expenditures up.
Teacher mix is a source that reflects where teachers are located on a district's
salary schedule. Two districts with the same teacher salary schedule, for example,
could have substantially different teacher compensation expenditures. If in one
district there is a large proportion of the teaching staff that is junior in terms of
years of experience and academic training, salaries for these persons will be paid
on the lower portion of the salary schedule. In another district with just the
opposite characteristics, there will be a heavy concentration of teachers paid on the
upper portion of the salary schedule. The teacher mix source identifies the extent
to which this factor affects teacher compensation per student.
4. Other Instructional Expenditures:
This source reflects differences in expenditure levels for teacher aides and instruc-tional
supplies.
5. Administration and Support Staff:
This source summarizes the net expenditure variations attributable to staffing levels
and average staff compensation for all areas of the administration and instructional
support functions (except interscholastics) of the General Fund. (See Table 5 for
the various functions that make up administration and instructional support.)
6. Maintenance and Operations Staff:
This area covers the net expenditure variations attributable to staffing levels and
average staff compensation for physical plant maintenance personnel and other
types of staff charged against the operations function.
7. Utilities:
This source represents heating, cooling and lighting expenses along with charges for
telephone and other communications.
8. Other Operations Expenditures:
This source includes all other expenditures such as building and maintenance
supplies or plant maintenance and other operations services received on a contracted
basis.
As an example of what Chart 10 and Appendix Table C-18 say, consider the Group 2 and
Group 6 districts. Group 2 exceeded the typical district General Fund expenditures per stu-dent
by $436. Group 6 was $48 per student less than the typical district. The single most
important reason why the Group 6 districts fall below the typical level is the teacher mix.
In general, the seven districts that make up this group are staffed with teachers concentrated
more heavily in the lower portion of their salary schedules than is true for the typical district.
In the other areas, Group 6 does not significantly differ from the typical district.
For Group 2, on the other hand, there are several significant sources of variation which contri-bute
to the total difference of $436 per student above the typical level. The certified teacher
salary schedules for these districts were at a higher average level than for the typical district.
This characteristic contributed $36 per student toward the total difference. Lower student1
teacher ratios added another $135. The teacher mix impact, unlike Group 6, added $94 per
student. These declining enrollment districts are faced with a sizable concentration of senior
teaching staff paid on the higher portions of the salary schedule. More administrative, instruc-tional
support and maintenance staff, relative to the number of students, accounted for most
of the remaining sources of higher expenditures per student.
Viewed in total, the range in General Fund expenditures from the lowest to the highest groups
is nearly $600 per student. The significance of the individual sources of variations in explaining
this range can be summarized as follows:
1. Differences in teacher salary schedule levels alone can amount to $120 per student.
For the lowest expenditure group (Group 7), relatively low salary schedules
accounted for about 50 percent of this group's total difference from the typical
district.
2. The studentlteacher ratio effect accdunts for another $1 10-$130 per student
between the lowest and two highest spending groups. The studentlteacher ratio,
however, does not become a significant explainer of higher expenditures until Gen-eral
Fund expenditures exceed the typical district by more than $100 per student.
The primary explanation for this lack of significance is that regular teacher class
size for the lowest expenditure group is not much different from the typical district
(about 26 to one).
For the top two spending groups, regular teacher class size averages approximately
23 to one. The difference in class size levels is not substantial enough to cause the
studentlteacher ratio source to be the single most important explainer of total
expenditure variation.
3. The teacher mix effect, particml3rlv wikl-1 respect to declinin;~ versus non-declining
enrollment districts, is dearly apparent Stmilar to tkie student/teacher ratio effect,
the impact of teacher mix accolan" for $130-$130 per student between the two
lowest expend,terie grotips omrd C;l;ro~li32
Interestingly, the teacher mix effect a b n e explains the total deviation of one
declining enrolirnent group (Grotip ('8.)" it also sif-eglehandedly accounts for why
Group 6 (almost exehasiveiy r?on-$eclinir~gd ist, lcts) is somewhat less than the
typical district in shs exgenditi~rerp; er student. Ever?f or Group 2 (two higher expen-diture
districts vvith dt:clsriiag enrollment), the teacher mix effect explains 20 per-cent
of the total spc.:d ng ~ e r r a t i ofr~o7 1 The typical Icvel.
4. The difference attriirut;)Rts to c:.";her rnstractso~al expenditures is of significance
only for the Group 2 district; in Fsa." I , is contiraed to one district within that
group, whicb~ expended about $180 ;L sttident u i l teachef hides. That situation is
unique among the sample elernentery districts.
5. Expenditur~d iffere~~ceosn radcr~inistratior~an d irls",~ctional support staff account
for $100-$130 npp st~~dian~tc twsdeen the ~rwcstg roup and the highest two groups.
6. Maintenance stafi" al-rd cilner orseraairg e)cpcndir:sres :are substantial contributors to
spending differences ~ n i yio : the n ; ~ ~ l i~e~;i ,,-air:ndi~dijisaaer !cts.
Overall, some general conclhsions car, hie diawr~c oslc;.rnii7p, :hc sources of variation in General
Fund expenditures arncng The cicrnsniar:, oirtrlsts. t sag be argued that most of the $600
range in expenditures ,xr stardent is l - r ~ r -3bbe ro fur7eiias!~aI spending which has little, if
anything, to do with the d l r e ~ td elivery o: edueatiov programs in the classroom. Most of the
variation can be traced to a cc~rnbinationr af rjiffere~cesin salary schudu!es, teacher mix and
administrative, support and rnainte~ances P+ff 1cvc.I~.t \ en that portion which is attributable to
studentlteacher ratios reprcscnts a very iY,~~ieeIoz rlya in regular teacher class size from an
average of 23 to one for the higher spendinq districts tca 26 to one for the lower expenditure
districts.
High School Districts: Major Sources sf Gerrera! F:t.nJ &xpr)enditure Variatsan
The high school portion of the sy.tem has clearly been observed to have higher expenditures
per student for guidance and psychological service; {counselors), interscholastics, plant main-tenance
and utilities. Usirig the same approach as \I.JC~S applied lo the t;lementary system but
recognizing these additional high school costs, the characteristics of the .typical or normal
elementary district were modified.
Column (2) of Table 5 contains thiq modification. Typical elementary expenditures per
student were increased by a total of $135 in instructionai support and operations to establish
a "typical" level for the high school system. Instruction and adniinistration expenditures were
kept the same as for the typical elementary district because average high school spending per
student was similar to the elementary levels in these functions (see Chart I-A).
Against this modified elementary set of expenditures, each of the 11 sample high school
districts housing more than 500 students has been compared. The process of comparison is
the same as the one used for the elementary system. The sumrnary results of this analysis are
presented in Chart 11 (Appendix Table C-'I 1).
The total range in expenditures from the lowest to the highest groups is about $500 per
student. The significance of the individual sources of variation in explaining this range can
be summarized as follows:
1. For the most part, differences in the general level of teacher salary schedules are
not a major contributor to spending level variations. Within the high school portion
of the sample, there is greater similarity among salary schedules than is true for the
elementary system. The one notable exception is the lowest spending district
(Group 5) where a relatively low salary schedule accounted for nearly 33 percent of
the district's total difference from the typical level.
2. The studentlteacher ratio effect accounted for $1 10-$115 per student between the
two lowest and the highest expenditure groups. Average teacher class size is gen-erally
at a level of 24-25 per teacher over much of the spending range. Only at the
extremes do class sizes differ enough (about 22 for the highest spending group and
27 for the lowest group) to have a noticeable effect on studentheacher ratios.
3. The teacher mix effect is difficult to generalize. For the high school system, teacher
mix impact is not as systematic as at the elementary level. It is not directly related
to long-standing declining enrollment. For whatever reason, however, it does exist.
The teacher mix variation among the districts can account for well over $100
difference in expenditure levels among the districts. In this sense, teacher mix is
nearly as significant a source of variation as is true within the elementary system.
4. A fairly clear pattern does emerge with respect to administrative, support, main-tenance
and other operations expenditures. Except at the extreme ends of the
spending range, these functional areas, for the most part, do not explain much of the
spending differences among the districts. They do, however, account for a major
portion of the variation between the lowest and highest expenditure groups. In fact,
for the highest expenditure group (Group I ) , these functions account for 90 percent
of the total variance of this group from the typical level.
In very broad terms, the range in high school General Fund spending per student is not largely
explained by those factors (salary schedule, studentlteacher ratio and teacher mix) which
affect instructional costs per student. Most of the overall high school variation is rather
explained by differences in administrative, support and maintenance staff and by other non-instructional
expenditures. Within the overall spending range, however, teacher mix can have
a sizable impact from district to district.
CHART 11
MAJOR SOURCES OF VARIATION IN HlGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES PER STUDENT
FROM TYPICAL HlGH SCHOOL LEVEL
Group 1
(2 districts)
Group 2
(2 Districts)
SECTION VI
ELEMENTARY AND HIGH SCHOOL
BENCHMARK DISTRICTS: 1977-78
If there is one overriding characteristic which permeates both the elementary and high school
systems, it is that the number of school district staff and their compensation levels dictate
General Fund expenditures per student. The existing school finance provisions combined with
the state statutes of the past and district management decisions have led to the expenditure
levels discussed throughout the report. These expenditure levels, in turn, are largely a reflec-tion
of how the school districts staff their various functions (administration, instruction, etc.)
and at what salary levels.
Noted throughout the report has been the variation in expenditure levels among the districts.
Spending characteristics for a "typical" elementary district have been used to explain the
major sources of expenditure variations among the elementary districts. This typical elemen-tary
pattern was modified for performing the same analysis of the high school system. As a
final step in detailing what lies behind the overall General Fund expenditure per student in
the elementary and high school systems, an attempt has been made to establish the character-istics
of benchmark districts for 1977-78. These benchmark characteristics are primarily aimed
at studentlstaff ratios, average compensation levels and corresponding expenditures per stu-dent
for the various school district functions." They are intended to be representative of the
elementary system and the high school system as they actually existed in 1977-78.
Elementary Benchmark
The characteristics of an elementary benchmark district for 1977-78 are displayed in Table 6.
As applicable, the ratio of FTE students to FTE staff is shown for each staff compensation
area within a function. The average compensation level (salaries and benefits) is also presented
for each staff area. The studentlstaff ratios are then converted to total staff requirements per
1,000 students. In the last column, the resulting expenditure per student is noted.
The average compensation for classroom teachers requires sotne definitions. The $14,870
shown in Table 6 is a combination of salary, employee bene.fits and payment for substitute
teachers. The salary portion is about $14,000. This amount represents the midpoint between
the beginning and top salaries on the adopted salary schedules of the eight elementary districts
used to establish the typical expenditure level. This salary in 1977-78 was characteristic of a
classroom teacher with an M.A. degree and nine years of allowable experience in the district.
The remaining portion ($870) of the average compensation level represents employee benefits
and payment for substitute teachers.
Thus, the benchmark elementary district in 1977-78 utilized one FT'E classroom teacher .for
every 22.5 students. The average teacher compensation was $14,870. At this studentlstaff
ratio, 44.4 teachers were required for every 1,000 students. Teacher compensation cost per
student equaled $66 1.
* The reader is again reminded that county funded contributions for state retirement and
Social Security for district certified staff are not included in the General Fund staff compen-sation
levels.
TABLE 6
CHARACTERISTICS OF AN ELEMENTARY BENCHMARK DISTRICT
GENERAL FUND: 1977-78
BENCHMARK CHARACTERISTICS
Ratio of Average Number of
FTE Students Staff Staff Per Expenditure
to FTE Staff Compensation 1,000 Students Per Student
FunctionIType
of Expenditure
Irrstructisn
Classroom Teacher Compensation 22.5: 1
l r~structioriaAl ides 400: 1
Other Instructional Expend.
Total Instruction 21.3: 1
Administration
Education Services
Certified Staff 2,000: I
Classified Staff 2,300: 1
Other Expenditures
Principal's Office
Certified Staff
Classified Staff
Other Expenditures
Other Administrative Functions
Certified Staff 3,300: 1
Classified Staff 550: 1
Other Expenditures
Total Administration 125: 1
l nstructional Support
Guidance and Psychological Svcs.
Certified Staff 2,000: 1
Library
Certified Staff
Classified Staff
Other Expenditures
I nterscholastics
Other Instructional Support
Functions
Classified Staff 600: 1
Other Expenditures --
Total Instructional Support 200: I
TABLE 6 (continued)
FunctionIType
of Expenditure
BENCHMARK CHARACTERISTICS
Ratio of Average Number of
FTE Students Staff Staff Per Expenditure
to FTE Staff Compensation 1,000 Students Per Student
Operations
Physical Plant Maintenance
Classified Staff
Other Expenditures
Utilities
Other Operations Functions
Classified Staff
Other Expenditures
Total Operations
Total District
Staff Compensation
Other Expenditures
Total District
As another example, the benchmark district employed a certified staff person (principal,
assistant principal or other certified staff) in the office of the principal for every 450 students.
Average compensation for these staff members was $24,200 (salary plus benefits). At a
studentlstaff ratio of 450 to one, certified staff in the principal's office amounted to 2.2 FTE
personnel for every 1,000 students at a cost of $55 per student.
Overall, the benchmark elementary district employed 69.3 FTE personnel for every 1,000
students. Average annual compensation (salary plus benefits) was $13,950. This staff level
provided one FTE employee for every 14.4 students at a total General Fund expenditure per
student of $1,084.
Of this $1,084, staff compensation comprised $967 or 89 percent of the total. Classroom
teachers, principal's office staff and physical plant maintenance staff constituted 84 percent
of the total staff.
Non-staff expenditures amounted to $1 17 per student. Of this amount, $91 (about 78 per-cent)
was expended on utilities, maintenance supplies or contracted services and instructional
supplies.
High School Benchmark
The characteristics of a high school benchmark district for 1977-78 are shown in Table 7.
The administration function is identical to the elementary benchmark. Instructional support
characteristics differ from elementary in the guidance and psychological services and inter-scholastics
functions. The operations characteristics are higher than elementary in nearly
every area.
The establishment of the high school benchmark for instruction requires further explanation.
Classroom teacher compensation is based on a studentlteacher ratio of 23.8 to one. This ratio
was the high school average in 1977-78. Average teacher compensation was set at the same
level as the elementary benchmark. As such, the high school benchmark presumes the same
salary schedule as the elementary. It also presumes the same average mix of teachers on the
salary schedule. The resulting expenditure per student for teacher compensation is $625.
Actual high school teacher compensation per student averaged $690 in 1977-78. The $65
difference between the benchmark and the actual was due in part to slightly higher salary
schedules at the high school level. Primarily, however, it was due to a different mix of teachers
on the salary schedules. This will be discussed further when the benchmark districts are recon-ciled
with the average elementary and high school General Fund expenditures per student.
In total, the benchmark high school district employed a staff of 71.5 for every 1,000 students.
Average annual compensation was $14,220. One FTE staff person existed for every 14.0
students. Total benchmark district expenditure was $1,191 per student.
Staff compensation was $1,017 or 85 percent of the total. Classroom teachers, principal's
office staff, guidance personnel and plant maintenance staff accounted for 88 percent of total
staff compensation.
Other district expenditures amounted to $174 per student. Of this amount, $140 (about 80
percent) was attributable to instructional supplies, interscholastics, utilities and maintenance
supplies or contracted services.
TABLE 7
CHARACTERISTICS OF A HIGH SCHOOL BENCHMARK DISTRICT
GENERAL FUND: 1977-78
BENCHMARK CHARACTERISTICS
Ratio of Average Number of
FTE Students Staff Staff Per Expenditure
to FTE Staff Compensation 1,000 Students Per Student
FunctionIType
of Expenditure
l nstruction
Classroom Teacher Compensation
l nstructional Aides
Other Instructional Expend.
Total Instruction
Administration
Education Services
Certified Staff
Classified Staff
Other Expenditures
Principal's Office
Certified Staff
Classified Staff
Other Expenditures
Other Administrative Functions
Certified Staff
Classified Staff
Other Expenditures
Total Administration
Instructional Support
Guidance and Psychological Svcs.
Certified Staff
Classified Staff
Library
Certified Staff
Classified Staff
Other Expenditures
l nterscholastics
Other Instructional Support
Functions
Classified Staff
Other Expenditures
Total Instructional Support
TABLE 7 (continued)
FunctionIType
of Expenditure
BENCHMARK CHARACTERISTICS
Ratio of Average Number of
FTE Students Staff Staff Per Expenditure
to FTE Staff Compensation 1,000 Students Per Student
Operations
Physical Plant Maintenance
Classified Staff 90: 1 $1 1,700
Other Expenditures
Utilities
Other Operations Functions
Classified Staff 800: 1 13,400
Other Expenditures
Total Operations 80: 1 $1 1,880
Total District
Staff Compensation
Other Expenditures
Total District 14.0:l $14,220
Reconciliation or Beirchmaaks with Elementary and High School Average Expenditures:
In "177-78, elementary and high school General Fund expenditures per student averaged
$1,102 and $1,282, respectively. The corresponding elementary and high school benchmark
expenditures are $1,084 and $4,191. Reconciliation of the benchmark levels with the system
averages is provided in Table 8.
Because the elementary benchmark was constructed from the eight sample districts used to
establish the '?$ypieai'>elerr%entary spending level, there is only a minor difference between
the benchmark total and the elementary average. Most of the difference that does exist is in
instructional sbpporit. Differences in The other functions are very small.
High school avsrage zxperrcfitures exceeded the benchmark level by $91 per student. Of this
total d~tference $63 is attributable to salary schedules and teacher mix. Once again, the
significance c l ;::acht:r !nix in explaining variations is apparent. Even if the high school system
had used the same salary schedule as the elementary benchmark, the fact that a larger pro-portion
of high set~ooi teschers are paid on the upper segment of the salary schedule would
about offset thc hig1-a~s tr:alent/teacl^ier ratio that characterizes the high school benchmark.
If alloalance is made for the tcacbea. mix effect, the high school benchmark expenditure for
teacher cczmrsenabtiou ~ ~ ~ r s uinlcdre ase by $46 to $671 per student. This level is quite similar
to the etemeaitaty benchniark bevel of $661 far teacher compensation.
Most of the reniaining difference i-selween the high school benchmark and system average is in
the category "bther inskruetionzi sc~pport." The $19 variance, however, is largely attributable
to an unusualiy 9Bgh expenditure I? this category by one high school district in the sample.
Use of the Benchmark i3istricts
The establ~shrneni: c:i bericlimark districts is not intended to suggest that the characteristics
of these disiilcts rep'iSeseq-6~ 0173!~de al or desired pattern for the elementary and high school
systems. Ratlwr, :7i.y awe presented in order to provide users with a picture of how an
"average" or "typ~cal' sei~caol d~strlct was structured and staffed and how it utilized i t s
General Furd ir l977-78,
It is suggested t h a t issties surrrrcrndiny the establishment of expenditure levels to be supported
by state aid can be more clearly dellberated and understood if there is a reference point or
benchmark to hrirg to hear on the issues. For example, consider the question of what the
support level used in determining entitlement to state aid for elementary districts actually
supports. In 1977-78 the elenlentarg state aid support level was $977 per student. Reference
to the elementary berichmark indicates that the support level was about equivalent to total
staff compensatioi-1 per student. For all practical purposes, non-staff expenditures of $1 17 per
student were unsupported by the present state aid formula.
The issues surrounding budget or expentiiture control for school districts can be more clearly
understood and potential implications of control proposals can be more clearly estimated by
reference to the benchmark districts. It is quite obvious that the primary impact of control
provisions must largely be translated into changes in staff ratios, average compensation or
both. The benchmark districts can be used to give an approximate indication of how various
control proposals would impact on school districts.
TABLE 8
RECONCILIATION OF BENCHMARK DISTRICT EXPENDITURES
PER STUDENT WITH ELEMENTARY AND HIGH SCHOOL
GENERAL FUND AVERAGE EXPENDITURES: 1977-78
ELEMENTARY
Benchmark Expend. Per Student
Adjustments For:
l nstruction
Administration
l nstructionai Support
Operations
Total Adjustments
Equals: Average Elementary Expenditures
HIGH SCHOOL
Benchmark Expend. Per Student
Adjustments For:
Instruction :
Average Salary Schedule Level
Teacher Mix
Other Instructional Expense
Administration
Instructional Support:
Guidance and Psychological Services
Library
Other Instructional Support
Operations
Total Adjustments
Equals: Average High School Expenditures
District
Alhambra
Amphitheater
Balsz
Catalina Foothilis
Eloy
Glendale
Kingman
APPENDIX A
SCHOOL DISTRICT SAMPLE
ELEMENTARY
County
Maricopa
Pima
Maricopa
Pima
Pinal
Maricopa
Mohave
District
Oracle
Osborn
Phoenix
Roosevelt
Salome
Sierra Vista
Washington
County
Pinal
Maricopa
Maricopa
Maricopa
Yuma
Cochise
Maricopa
HIGH SCHOOL
District
Glendale
Marana
Phoenix
Sierra Vista
County
Maricopa
Pima
Maricopa
Cochise
UNIFIED
District County
Flagstaff Coconino
Globe Gila
Joseph City Navajo
Mesa Maricopa
Page Coconino
"Elementary portion only.
""Elementary district teaching high school.
District County
Prescott Yavapai
Santa Cruz Valley* Santa Cruz
Scottsdale Maricopa
Tucson Pima
Window Rock*" Apache
APPENDIX B
REGULAR INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM AREAS*
Language Arts (XI
1. English
2. Composition
3. Language
4. Literature
5. Reading
6. Handwriting
7. Spelling
Communications (X)
1. Speech
2. Debate
3. Journalism
4. Media
Mathematics (X)
Social Studies (XI
1. History
2. Government
3. Geography
4. Free Enterprise
5. Economics
6. Humanities
7. Anthropology
8. Sociology
9. Civics
10. Other
Science (X)
1. Chemistry
2. Biology
3. Physics
4. Astronomy
5. Earth Science
6. General Science
7. Other
Foreign Language (X)
Business (Non-Vocational Education) (X)
1. All business type courses not classified as Business and Office Education-
Vocational Education.
Home Economics (Non-Vocational Education) (X)
1. All home economics courses not classified as Home Economics Consumer and
Homemaking or Home Economics Occupational-Vocational Education.
APPENDIX B (continued)
I. Industrial Arts (Non-Vocational Education) (XI
1. All industrial arts type courses not classified as Trades and Industries-
Vocational Education.
J. Physical Education (X)
1. Physical Education
2. Sports
3. Dance
4. Gymnastics
5. Swimming
6. Other
I<. Music (XI
1. Music
2. Band
3. Chorus
4. Orchestra
5. Other
b. Art (XI
1. Art
2. Crafts
3. Photography
4. Drawing
5. Design
6. Graphics
7. Sculpture
8. Other
M. Dramatic Arts (X)
1. Drama
2. Acting
3. Filmmaking
N. Vocational Education
1. Agriculture (X)
2. Distributive Education (X)
3. Health Occupations (X)
4. Home Economics (X)
5. Business and Office Education (X)
6. Trades and l ndustry (X)
7. Diversified Occupations (X)
0. Other Programs (X)**
" Generally, teacher staff and student enrollment hours were developed for the broad
instructional programs marked with an (X). Exceptions include combining Music,
Art, and Dramatic Art into a Fine Arts category and combining Home Economics
and Industrial Arts for the elementary grades.
* + Specifically identified as encountered; e.g., Driver Education, Junior ROTC, special
district funded remedial programs.
APPENDIX C
Table Page
C-I Average General Fund Expenditures Per Student: 1977-78
Elementary and High School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Significant Areas of Expenditure Difference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
C-2 Average Elementary General Fund Expenditures
and StudentITeacher Ratios by Grade Level : 1977-78 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
C-3 Comparison of Average Elementary Regular Teacher
Class Size With Average Ratio of FTE Students
to FTE Teachers by Grade: 1977-78 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
C-4 Average Elementary General Fund Expenditures
Per FTE Student by Grade and Program: 1977-78 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Average Elementary Ratios of FTE Students to
FTE Teachers by Grade and Program: 1977-78. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
C-5 Average Elementary Percent of Student Instructional
Time and Percent of General Fund Expenditures
by Grade and Program: 1977-78 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C-6 Average General Fund Expenditures Per Student by
Lowest and Highest Spending Elementary Districts: 1977-78 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
C-7 Average High School General Fund Expenditures and
Ratios of FTE Students to FTE Teachers by Program: 1977-78 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
C-8 Average High School Percent of Student Instructional Time and
Percent of General Fund Expenditures by Program: 1977-78 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
C-9 Average General Fund Expenditures Per Student by
Lowest and Highest Spending High School Districts: 1977-78 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
C-10 Major Sources of Variation in Elementary District General Fund
Expenditures Per Student from Typical Elementary Level: 1977-78. . . . . . . . . . . . 61
C-I I Major Sources of Variation in High School District General Fund
Expenditures Per Student from Typical Elementary (Modified) Level: 1977-78 . . . 62
TABLE C-I
AVERAGE GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
PER STUDENT: 1977-78
ELEMENTARY AND HIGH SCHOOL
-
Function
AVERAGE EXPENDITURE PER STUDENT
Elementary High School Difference
Administration
l nstruction
Instructional Support
Operations
TOTAL
SIGNIFICANT AREAS OF EXPENDITURE DIFFERENCE
Subfunction
AVERAGE EXPENDITURE PER STUDENT
Elementary High School Difference
Instructional Support
Guidance and Psychological
Services
l nterscholastics
Operations
Utilities
Plant Maintenance
TABLE C-2
AVERAGE ELEMENTARY GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
AND
STUDENTITEACHER RATIOS BY GRADE LEVEL: 1977-78
Grade
Average Expenditures
Per Student
Average Ratio of
FTE Students to
FTE Teachers
Kindergarten $1,156 21.4: 1
COMPARISON OF AVEZAGE ELEMENTARY REGULAR
TEACHER CLASS SIZE WITH AVERAGE
RATIO OF FTE STUDENTS TO FTE
TEACHERS BY GRADE: 1977-78
LESS EFFECTS OF: EQUALS:
Regular Teacher Average Ratio
Average Class Teacher vs. Student Specialized of Students
Grade Size Contact Hours Teachers to Teachers
Kindergarten 21.4
1 - 3 25.4
4 - 6 26.8
7 - 8 26.5
K - 8 25.9
TABLE C-4
AVERAGE ELEMENTARY GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
PER FTE STUDENT BY GRADE AND PROGRAM: 1977-78
Ind. Arts Fine Language Physical Social
Grade Home Econ. Arts Arts Education Math St~~dies Science TOTAL -
AVERAGE ELEMENTARY RATIOS OF FTE STUDENTS TO
FTE TEACHERS BY GRADE AND PROGRAM: 1977-78
I nd. Arts Fine Language Physical Social
Grade Home Econ. Arts Arts Education Math Studies Science TOTAL
TABLE C-5
AVERAGE ELEMENTARY PERCENT OF STUDENT
INSTRUCTlONAL TIME AND PERCENT OF
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES BY
GRADE AND PROGRAM: 1977-78
Mathematics
Social St~~ciies
Fine Arts
Physical Educ.
Indust. Arts and
Home Economics
TOTAL
TABLE C-6
AVERAGE GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES PER
STUDENT BY LOWEST AND HIGHEST SPENDING
ELEMENTARY DISTRICTS: 1977-78
Program
EXPENDITURES PER FTE STUDENT
Average of Average of
Five Highest Three Lowest
Expenditure Expenditure Ratio of
Districts Districts High to Low
Industrial Arts and
Home Economics
Fine Arts
Physical Education
Language Arts
Mathematics
Social Studies
Science
ALL PROGRAMS
TABLE C-7
AVERAGE HIGH SCHOOL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
AND RATIOS OF FTE STUDENTS TO FTE TEACHERS
BY PROGRAM: 1977-78
Program
Average Expenditure FTE Student1
Per FTE Student Teacher Ratio
Industrial Arts (Non-Voc. Ed) $1,501 19.6
Foreign Language
Vocational Education
Language Arts
Mathematics
Science
Fine Arts
Business (Non-Voc. Ed.)
Social Studies
Physical Education
ALL PROGRAMS
"Does not reflect vocational education teachers who are funded by FederalIState vocational
education funds.
TABLE C-8
AVERAGE HIGH SCHOOL PERCENT OF STUDENT INSTRUCTIONAL TIME
AND PERCENT OF GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
BY PROGRAM: 1977-78
Percent of Percent of
Program Student Time Expenditures
Language Arts
Social Studies
Mathematics
Physical Education
Vocational Education
Science
Fine Arts
Industrial Arts (Non-Voc. Ed.)
Business ( Non-Voc. Ed.)
Foreign Language
Other Programs
TOTAL
TABLE C-9
AVERAGE GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES PER
STUDENT BY LOWEST AND HIGHEST SPENDING
HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICTS: 1977-78
Program
EXPENDITURES PER FTE STUDENT
Average of Average of
Two Highest Five Lowest
Expenditure Expenditure Ratio of
Districts Districts High to Low
Vocational Education
l ndustrial Arts (Non-Voc. Ed.)
Fine Arts
Foreign Language
Language Arts
Physical Education
Science
Social Studies
Mathematics
Business ( Non-Voc. Ed.)
ALL PROGRAMS
TABLE C-10
MAJOR SOURCES OF VARIATION IN ELEMENTARY DISTRICT GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
PER STUDENT FROM TYPICAL ELEMENTARY LEVEL: 1977-78
// AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE DIFFERENCE PER STUDENT ATTRIBUTABLE TO:
Difference in
Expend. Per // Student1 Administration Maintenance
Average Student from District Salary Teacher Teacher Other Instr. and Instr. and Other Other Ops.
Expenditures Per Student "Typical1' District Schedule Level Ratio Mix Expenditure Support Staff Ops. Staff Utilities Expend.
/I -
Districts Above Typical Level I Group 1: Expend. of
More than $1,335 $457
(3 Districts)
Group 2: Expend. of
More than $1,335* 436
(2 Districts)
Group 3: Expend. equal
cn
A $1,184 - $1,334 149
(2 Districts)
Group 4: Expend. equal
$1,084 - $1,183* 53
(2 Districts)
Group 5: Expend. equal
$1,084 - $1,183
(1 District)
Typical Expend. equal
District: $1,084
Districts Below Typical Level I1
Group 6: Expend. equal
$984 - $1,083
(7 Districts)
Group 7: Expend. equal
$884 - $983 ( 140)
(3 Districts)
*Declining enrollment groups
TABLE C-I I
MAJOR SOURCES OF VARIATION IN HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
PER STUDENT FROM TYPICAL ELEMENTARY (MODIFIED) LEVEL: 1977-78
1 AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE DIFFERENCE PER STUDENT ATTRIBUTABLE TO:
Difference in
Expend. Per Student1 Administration Maintenance Misc.
Average Student from District Salary Teacher Teacher Other Instr. and Instr. and Other Ops. &
Expenditures Per Student "Typical" District Ratio Mix Expenditure Support Staff Ops. Staff Utilities Other Exp.
I, I/
Districts Above Typical Level 1 Group 1: Expend. equal
More than $1,470 $340 /
(2 Districts)
Group 2: Expend. equal
$1,320 - $1,469
(2 Districts)
Group 3: Expend. equal
rn
h) $1,220 - $1,319
(2 Districts)
Typical Expend. equal
District: $1,219
Districts Below Typical Level
Group 4: Expend. equal
$1,120 - $1,219
(4 Districts)
Group 5: Expend. equal
$1,020 - $1,119 (164) I1i1 (52) (59) 78
(1 District)