Wherein the DO and the DISD Have a Math-Off Concerning Per-Pupil Expenditures

On Tuesday of this week Dallas Independent School District spokesman Jon Dahlander responded to questions I had asked him last week for my column this week about per-pupil expenditures at high school campuses. Unfortunately, his response by e-mail reached me several days after my deadline had passed. Mr. Dahlander is a busy man these days and has a lot more to do in this world than answer questions for me, so I won’t hold it against him that he replied after my deadline.

I only regret that I wasn’t able to reflect his information in what I wrote, which is what I intend to do here.

I had sent Dahlander a sampling of results I was getting from my own study of per-pupil expenditures in the Dallas school system. This had to do with the battle over proposed budget cuts at magnet schools and the argument by Superintendent Michael Hinojosa and a majority of the school board that the magnet program is a playground for the children of effete white golf-playing nannycrats.

My findings indicated not.

In fact, the magnet budgets came out looking relatively modest next to per-pupil expenditures at the prison school, the pregnant school and even the superintendent’s family’s high school, Hillcrest.

I got my numbers by taking the total campus budget for each high school and dividing it by the total enrollment. I took those numbers from the Texas Education Agency in Austin, because the TEA collects data in a uniform fashion statewide from all school districts.

The budget pages on the Dallas Independent School District Web site, in
contrast, read like a brochure for a Russian cruise ship. Lots of
glowing faces, not much detail.

Why don’t I just go ahead and share with you all of my findings, which
I only summarized in the column. I apologize in advance, but the names of the schools
in this Excel file are somewhat abbreviated in my spreadsheet, since I was doing this for
my own purposes, not for publication. The columns are 1) name of school, 2)
total budget for school 3) total enrollment and 4) expenditure per
student (budget divided by enrollment).

And here you go.

Now, here is Dahlander’s response, in full:

“Using 2008 AEIS campus reports and dividing them by total enrollment
to come up with an average per pupil expenditure is not a valid
comparison of the way that the U.S. Department of Education requires
districts to submit campus comparability reports. There are a number of
factors involved and the guidelines are much more complex.

“Having said that, it is true that Maya Angelou High School has more
funding per student than most other campuses. The school serves
pregnant teens and new mothers. Its enrollment, which is currently
around 60 students, varies from month to month. Because of its unique
mission and low number of students that it serves, the school is
excluded from comparability calculations by the federal government.

“Madison High School’s per pupil expenditure is higher than that of
most high schools in the district. As a result, it will be subject to
funding reductions to bring it within the Title I guidelines which
require no school to be funded at more than 10% of the average
per-pupil expenditure in schools that serve similar grade spans — in this
case, at the high school level and serving less than 1,200 students.

“Using the Title I comparability manual, the average per pupil
expenditures for both the TAG Magnet and Science and Engineering Magnet
are above the 110% threshold. TAG’s per-pupil expenditure, using the
Title I criteria, is $9,430.14. Science/Engineering is $7,311.45. The
average for high schools with smaller student populations is $6,539.06.
Two schools that fall below the 90% criteria include Seagoville High
School at $5,496.72 and A. Maceo Smith High School at $5,564.93.

“Through continued conversations with the Texas Education Agency, the
district has determined that magnet schools must be included within the
comparability study but are not subject to the provisions of the
90-110% criteria. Even still, the current recommendation calls for the
Yvonne A. Ewell Townview Center to be funded next year at 125% of the
standard comprehensive formula and Booker T. Washington to be funded at
117% of the standard comprehensive formula. The district has been
working with principals at these campuses to minimize the impact so as
to maintain the quality of the programs as much as possible.”

My response to Dahlander’s response would be this:

I know full well
that my method of coming up with per-student expenditures is not the
same method used by DISD. Dahlander characterizes the DISD method as
“the way that the U.S. Department of Education requires districts to
submit campus comparability reports.” In fact, the USDE and TEA
requirements allow a good deal of creativity in devising comparability
numbers.

We know, of course, that fiscal creativity is a particular
skill or vice, as the case may be, of the Dallas school district. I
just thought my much simpler method might give us all a kind of
touchstone for comparison’s sake.

But notice this: Even Dahlander’s substantially higher per-pupil
expenditure at Booker T. — his $9,430.14 versus my $8,542 — wouldn’t
budge its position in the table. It’s still No. 5, lower than
four non-magnet high schools.

Just thought it was interesting is all.