Then I got fascinated by all the other data on the same site, specifically how it breaks out the per-pupil expenditure for various parts of the budget. The data for both Amherst and Amherst-Pelham Regional (as well as the State comparisons although I am not sure how useful those are) appear in the table below. The data are taken directly from the source and I added a measure of rank for each item. I will explain. There were 300 (out of 328) districts for which data were available. Thus, a possible rank from 1 to 300. A rank of 1 would mean that you were the "top" in that category--the most pupils (i.e. Boston), the highest per-pupil expenditures for administration, etc. A rank of 150, then, would indicate that a district was essentially right in the middle of the pack for that category.
Looking at the table, it is clear that Amherst and Amherst-Pelham is close to the middle of the pack with respect to total number of pupils (ranks of 177 and 162, respectively). With respect to total per-pupil expenditure, however, both districts are in the top 20% of districts in the Commonwealth. Amherst ranks 56 while Amherst-Pelham ranks 44 in terms of total per-pupil expenditures. I am not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing. I suspect that the more relevant numbers come from measures of student success rather than expenditures. If our students are performing in the top 20% of all students in MA, for example, that might be a better indicator of success for a district. But that correlation between per-pupil expenditures and student performance/outcomes is another analysis.
What we can do with this table is look at what categories of the budget Amherst and Amherst-Pelham are more (or less) likely to spend money on relative both to themselves (i.e. their total ranks of 56 and 44) and to all districts in MA (i.e. where they fall above or below the rank of 150).
When I look at the table, for example, I see that Amherst is more likely to rank higher in expenditures for "instructional leadership," and "classroom and specialist teachers," and much higher for "other teaching services" and "insurance/retirement/other" than either their total rank or the median state rank. At the same time, they rank lower compared both to its total rank and compared to the median state rank in "instructional materials/equipment/technology," "pupil services," and spending on "pupils outside district." Amherst ranks higher than the state median (but lower than their total rank) in expenditures for "administration," "professional development," "guidance, counseling, and testing, and "operations/maintenance."
The Amherst-Pelham district shows a slightly different pattern. It ranks higher than both its own total rank and higher than the state median rank in the categories of "instructional leadership," "guidance, counseling, and testing," "operations/maintenance," and "insurance/retirement/other," and much higher than both in expenditures for "professional development." Amherst-Pelham ranks below its own total but above the state median in expenditures for "administration," "classroom and specialist teachers," "other teaching services," "instructional materials/equipment/technology," "pupil services," and spending on "pupils outside district." Our regional district does not rank below the state median rank for expenditures in any category.
Overall, the highest rank for the Amherst district (22) was in "insurance/retirement/other," followed by the 26 for "other teaching services." The highest rank for the Amherst-Pelham district was the 18 for "professional development" followed by the 27 for "insurance/retirement/other."
When looking at our budgets for next year, the School Committee might want to take a close look at how our money, proportionally to our total budget, is being spent as well as how our per-pupil spending in various areas compares to districts with which we might routinely compare ourselves. In both our districts, for example, we are ranked higher in spending for "insurance/retirement/other," so an explanation for that might be one place to start.
It might very well that our School Committee and/or school administration has already looked at these numbers and has determined that this is how our money is best spent and that our students have the outcomes that support the various types of expenditures. It is also possible that once you restrict the analysis only to school districts with configurations like ours (i.e. only K-6 districts for Amherst and only 7-12 districts like Amherst-Pelham), the relative ranking could be different. But looking at the numbers above is at least a good place to start looking for some answers and some questions.
8 comments:
Amherst spends way too much for not all that great a result (MCAS)
Just compare with Hadley.
Larry: MCAS is definitely one of the standard ways to measure success among our school districts. I will compile some comparative data on Amherst and Hadley for this measure and post about it. You are right, though; Hadley spends a lot less per-pupil than does Amherst. Hadley's FY08 per-pupil expenditure was $9,697.94 with a rank of 286 in a field of 300. For those of you who are more interested in comparisons with the "top districts" in the Commonwealth, here are a few more numbers:
--Brookline: $15,431.47(rank 54)
--Newton: $15,498.08 (rank 53)
--Longmeadow: $11,612.07 (rank 155)
I quickly scanned the districts higher in rank than either Amherst or Amhest-Pelham and notice that, with a few exceptions, these districts are in the eastern part of the state where cost of living is higher. (This includes the districts on the Cape/Islands where I imagine the costs of logistics in potentially seasonal communities are a whole different ball game.) The exceptions are:
--Franklin County: ranked 13
--Rowe: ranked 18
--Northampton-Smith: ranked 23
--Pathfinder: ranked 25
--Tri-County: ranked 38
--Mohawk Trail: ranked 49
--North Adams: ranked 55
Of those, only three (Rowe, Mohawk, and North Adams) are not vo-tech schools. In fact, by looking at the raw data, it is evident that vo-tech schools seem to spend more per-pupil than schools with a traditional curriculum.
This data is fascinating, Alison!
Everyone should take a look at it.
There's so much that can be looked at, but I thought of looking first to see where we can save $500K to $1 million. (using the FY08 budget data).
This is how I did the calculations and how to read the numbers. Just take, for example,
Insurance of Active Employees: The average expenditure on Insurance for Active Employees per pupil for the state is $1231. Amherst Pelham (AP) spends $1678 and Amherst (A) spends $1794 per pupil, which comes out to $447 and $563 MORE than state average per pupil. Multiply that EXCESS by 1892 pupils in AP and 1453 pupils in A, and that means we spend $845K and $818K MORE in total on Insurance of Active Employees than what other schools in the state spend. (Of course for other schools, it has to be calculated on a per pupil basis, but for AP and A, we want to see the net amount that we are “overspending” for each category).
Here are some areas where we are “overspending” compared to state averages.
Under Insurance, Retirement Programs and Other: AP spends $2 million MORE and A spends $1.8 million MORE than state average.
Specifically, the excess costs for AP and A are Insurance of Active Employees ($845K and $818K MORE), Insurance for Retired Employees ($554K and $345K MORE), Employer Retirement Contributions ($613K and $687K MORE)
Under Operations and Maintenance:
AP spends $1.2 million and A spends $300K MORE than state average.
Specifically AP spends $354K more on Extraordinary Maintenance, $166K more on Maintenance and $262K more on Heating of Buildings, $175K on Utility Services, $58K more on Networking and Telecommunications and $135K on Technology Maintenance.
The $300K more that A spends can be split amongst Heating of Buildings ($65K more), Maintenance ($77K), Extraordinary Maintenance ($100K), Networking and Tel ($112K) and Tech Maintenance ($62K).
On the Administration side: AP costs are $384K more and A costs are $244K more than state average. For AP, that is split between $153K more Human Resources and Benefits and $290K more on District Wide Information Mgmt and Tech. For A, that is $84K (Human Res/Benefits), $65K (Dist. Wide Info Mgmt and Tech), and $120K on School Committee (What does the SC do with this money?!)
We spend a lot MORE on Teachers, Specialists! At AP we spend $500K LESS than state average on Teachers, Classroom but spend $1.3 million MORE than state average on Teachers, Specialists. At A, we spend the state average on Teachers, Classroom but spend $1.4 million MORE on Teachers, Specialists.
For Other Teaching Services, AP spends $481K MORE on Non-Clerical Paraprofs./Instructional Assistants. A spends $860K MORE on Non-Clerical Paraprofs./Instructional Assistants. Overall, A spends $1.1 million MORE on Other Teaching Services vs state average.
Overall – we are spending a lot MORE on employee benefits (insurance and retirement), building maintenance, Specialist teachers and Paras/Instructional assistants, Networking technology & its maintenance than state average.
Perhaps a town of our size does not need 3 HS buildings and 4 elementary school buildings (hence the combined high building maintenance/heating costs in excess of $1.5 million MORE than state average). AP and A have so many more teaching specialists and Other Teaching Services ($4 million more) that perhaps are what is causing our employee benefit costs to be much higher ($3.8 million MORE). Either that, or we have negotiated really SWEET employee benefit deals (sweet for the employees). Our administrative costs are in-line with the state average (but notice that we dedicate $230K MORE to Human Resources/Benefits in admin, probably to manage our perhaps larger staff of Teachers, Specialists, and Other Teaching Services.)
Keep in mind that our overall budget for FY08 was $22 million for A and $30 million for AP. Using the state average expenditure of 12,497 per pupil and multiply it by the number of our pupils says that IF we were average, A would spend $18 million and AP would spend $24 million, respectively. So we spend 4 million more for A and 6 million more for AP relative to state average. And here is where we spend it. For AP: Just for buildings ($1.2 million), paraprof/Ins. Assistants, ($.48 million), and Teacher, Specialists ($1.3 million), and Insurance Retirement ($2 million) we are spending $5 million MORE (of the excess of $6 million above state average). For A: Adding up the Building costs are minor ($300K more), paraprofs ($860K more), Teachers, Specialist ($1.3 million more), and Insurance/Retirement ($1.8 million) gets us up to $4.26 million MORE than state average.
So now you know where our “extra money” is spent relative to where other schools in the state spend their money.
If you look at MCAS 10th grade scores for English and Math you'll see that Hadley did GREAT.
http://www.boston.com/news/special/education/mcas/scores08/10th_top_districts.htm
Hadley ranked 2nd in Math (in the entire state! When this news gets out, we will be school choicing our kids to Hadley!) and 33rd in English. Amherst ranked 72nd and 81st, respectively.
Hadley teaches to the "test". All that proves is that they know how to play the game. Trust me, I know of which I speak. And is that really a "valid measure of success among our school districts"? But that is another topic for discussion, MCAS.
How We Spend and Summary: Thank you for breaking down further some of the costs for us. It is clear that there are some real discrepancies in how our districts allocate our money compared to how other districts do. Perhaps, as I have said, there is a well-thought-out reason for this but I, for one, would like to see this addressed specifically.
Anon 10:27 and 11:20: Yes, the MCAS issue is a tricky one. The reason I say it is "one of the standard ways to measure succes among our school districts" is that it is the same tests given to all students in all districts so they are all being measured on the same instrument at the same points in time. A lot like the SAT. That said, I realize there are many downsides to using MCAS (or the SAT for that matter) as a measure as well as the relative merits and drawbacks to "teaching to the test." But, in my experience, some teachers in Amherst also do "teach to the test" and we currently employ many intervention teachers whose job includes assisting children who have performed poorly on the MCAS.
Hey Larry,
Try and compare Amherst to Randolph. They closed a school and then stopped bussing and then refused children entry to the buildings before 8:30 a.m. or whatever the hour, and now people's jobs are at risk, childen are going unsupervised, and poorer people are struggling even more to keep their heads above water... Looks like a way great way to go Amherst... Screaming for social justice on the one hand and then not listening to the voice of the disenfranchised when it comes to Marks Meadow and a lot of other issues in the schools is a bit more contradictory than I can remain comfortable with.
Post a Comment