Great number crunching but we are talking about children here. Numbers can only show you so much. Reality is that you have to look at the children we teach and their needs as well as their behavior. I bet we could do with a lot fewer administration IF children were better behaved and there were more parents who taught children to behave better and have more respect for adults and their peers. I see the daily ins and outs of a school and what the administration does in one day. You might cut administration by the 11% it is over but the same amount of work is still there for less people to do. That would be interesting to see how that worked out.

So, classroom instruction is over 108%. Once again, if ALL students came to school ready and prepared to learn then it would work to cut classroom instruction to save money. However, that is not the case and Fayette County does a great job of providing extra support staff needed to help struggling students. That 8% is definitely not wasted.

Fayette County does receive Title I funds. I teach here and I know that for a fact. You can also drive by North Fayette Elementary and the old East Fayette Elementary and see the Title I Distinguished School signs they have out front if you need some proof.

The difference is found in the Weights for FTE Funding found on QBE Reports and the actual numbers of students enrolled.
Segments are weighted so that classes that require a lower student-teacher ratio, such as a special education class, receives more funding than a regular social studies class that has a higher maximum class size. All students are counted by the segments in which they are enrolled and then the system’s QBE earnings are calculated.

When I did the initial calculations above, I took the FCBOE at their word that there were 22,300 students attending their schools. I spent quite a bit of time trying to figure out how we could be underspending our peer groups yet still be in such a financial crunch, the funding shortfalls didn't make sense. Other schools have the same cost basis yet weren't struggling and making the nightly news!

...and then Melinda Berry-Dreisbach admitted we actually only had 21,300 students and a lightbulb went on over my head.

Plugging in the new revised attendance numbers, we get the following adjusted per capita student expenditures:
# Classroom instruction: 112% (WAY above average)
# Pupil Services: 98%
# Staff Services: 99%
# General Administration: 105% (NOW we are "top heavy")
# School Administration: 115% (WAY above average)
# Transportation: 99%
# Maintenance: 103%
TOTAL: 109% (Now 2nd highest in peer group)

NOW the funding model makes sense: we're right where we're supposed to be, more or less, in Pupil Services, Staff Services, Transportation and Maintenance.

With a base of 21,300 students, we have a huge surplus in both teaching positions (12%) and individual school administration (assistant principals, parapros, clerks) (15%). Additionally, only NOW can we see from a financial standpoint that we have more central office staff than we can reasonably be expected to support (5% overage being the minimum standard deviation for defining "significant").

What does this mean? Bottom line, we are well-stocked from a front-line personnel and facitilies standpoint for a huge growth boom.

But the growth boom hasn't materialized and is unlikely to do so anytime in the next 2 or 3 years, so the Fayette taxpayer is supporting a bloated school infrastructure it cannot afford.

Simply put, your school board gambled spectacularly on growth....and lost.

I'm not at all surprised that we're most out of line in the area of School Administration. I assume this is where Mr (I'm worth more than the Govenor) Decotis' salary is counted ?

Each county has a Training & Experience Factor that QBE uses in its salary calculations.

I haven't figured out how it calculates.

Fayette received $779,000 in Title I money in FY2007 according to the CAFR on the FCPS website page 74. I do not know how that compares to other systems. I do remember that East Fayette was a Title I school and this became an issue when EF was in the process of moving.
FY2008 CAFR has not been posted.

Sniffles

I believe we came to similar conclusions from my ranking methodology and your peer group method. The areas that FCPS is out of line compared the rest of the state (or peer districts) are Instruction and School Administration. Since Instruction is 75% or more of the total cost per student and School Administration the third largest portion (calculated from 2/9/08 Agenda Item from Cost Cutting Appendix B), these areas have a great effect on total cost per student. Yes, School Admin includes Assistant Principals.

There may be two other factors that need to be considered in the number crunching. QBE funding may not be quite a level playing field when accounting for the local 5 mill share and equalization. The QBE net funding is based on the QBE formula less the local government paying 5 mills of the local digest. This amount will very greatly depending on whether the county is in a high growth period or stagnate. There appears to be a lag on the digest year and the QBE funding year which means that Fayette will have to pay a greater 5 mill share in FY2010 which will equate to reduced state revenue.

For example, according to the QBE allotments on the GA DOE website, Fayette County FY08 QBE formula is $116.0 million less 5 mill share of $23.9 million meaning FCPS must fund 20.6% of the QBE in FY08. In total local revenue for FCPS has been around 50% of the total budget. There are a lot of things that QBE does not cover. In FY09 Fayette earned $116.1 million in QBE less the $25.8 million 5 mill share for 22.2% of the QBE revenue. The local fair share is increasing $2.0 million at a time when all other revenues are decreasing compounding the issue.

Now I compare the QBE earnings to a neighboring county that is growing (Coweta) and a county that have moderate growth (Bibb) from your peer group. These two systems show the difference that equalization grants make. This is where the state takes QBE funding from the wealthy systems and distributes them to the poorer districts. I am not clear on how this is calculated.

FY 2008
District QBE 5 mill Eq. Net Local %
Fayette $116.0 $23.9 $0 $23.9 20.6%
Coweta $103 $18.4 $1.98 $16.4 15.9%
Bibb $121.7 $21.7 $2.2 $19.5 17.6%

FY 2009
District QBE 5 mill Eq. Net Local %
Fayette $116.1 $25.8 $0 $25.8 22.2%
Coweta $104 $20.3 $3.6 $16.7 16.1%
Bibb $121.1 $23.8 $2.5 $21.3 17.6%

What I am concluding from this is that Fayette County has to fund a greater portion of the state required level of education (QBE) than other school districts. I think you may find similar results in Henry and Muscogee. In fact, Muscogee’s local 5 mill in FY2009 is $21.9 million and the equalization grant was $31.1 million. In other words, other counties completely subsidized Muscogee’s 5 mills.

Those are not big holes in your calculations but something to think about.

Special Education is accounted for in the Weights for FTE Funding Formula

http://techservices.doe.k12.ga.us/admin/reports/financial.htm

then go to QBE Reports.

Code Information

2100 - PUPIL SERVICES
Activities designed to assess and improve the well-being of students and to supplement the teaching process. Activities include guidance, counseling, testing, attendance, social work, health services, etc. Also include supplemental payments for additional duties such as coaching or supervising extracurricular activities.