DOCSLIB.ORG

Program Evaluation Division

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Program Evaluation Division This document is made available electronically by the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library as part of an ongoing digital archiving project. http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/lrl.asp Program Evaluation Division The Program Evaluation Division was established Topics for study are approved by the Legislative by the Legislature in 1975 as a center for Audit Commission (LAC), a 16-member bipartisan management and policy research within the Office oversight committee. The division's reports, of the Legislative Auditor. The division's mission, however; are solely the responsibility of the Legis­ as set forth in statute, is to determine the degree lative Auditor and his staff. Findings, conclusions, to which activities and programs entered into or and recommendations do not necessarily reflect funded by the state are accomplishing their goals the views of the LAC or any of its members. and objectives and utilizing resources efficiently. Reports published by the division describe state programs, analyze management problems, evaluate outcomes, and recommend alternative means of The Office of the Legislative Auditor also includes reaching program goals. A list of past reports a Financial Audit Division, which is responsible appears at the end of this document. for auditing state financial activities. Professional Staff Support Staff James Nobles, Legislative Auditor Jean Barnhill Mary Moser Roger Brooks. Deputy Legislative Auditor Theresa Wagner Joel Alter David Chein Mary Guerriero Marilyn Jackson-Beeck Daniel Jacobson Elliot Long Kathleen Vandemall Jo Vos Tom Walstrom Deborah Woodworth John Yunker SCHOOL DISTRICT SPENDING February 1990 Second Printing Program Evaluation Division Office of the Legislative Auditor State of Minnesota Veterans Service Building, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155 • 612/296-4708 Second printing, March 1990. Revisions: Pages ix, 19, labels clarified in figure. Page 3, note added to figure. Page 81, sentence deleted and percentage changed from 1 to 50. STATE OF MINNESOTA OFFICE OF THE LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR VETERANS SERVICE BUILDING. ST. PAUL. MN 55155.6121296-4708 JAMES R. NOBLES. LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR February 22, 1990 Senator John Brandl, Chairman Legislative Audit Commission Dear Senator Brandl: In June 1989, the Legislative Audit Commission directed the Program Evaluation Division to ex­ amine school district spending. Our evaluation has two parts. The first part reviews the quality of financial data submitted to the state by school districts. The second looks at patterns in education spending. We found problems with the data, at least at the state level. The state's data collection system is too complex and difficult to use, and statewide summaries of education spending are unreliable for analysis and policymaking. We recommend ways to improve the quality of financial data on schools at the state level. We also make several suggestions on how more cost-effectiveness may be achieved in some school districts. We are grateful for the assistance of the Department of Education, State Auditor's Office, and local school districts. We also thank numerous educators and administrators for their coopera­ tion. The report was researched and written by Marilyn Jackson-Beeck (project manager), Jo Vos, and Deborah Woodworth. Assistance was provided by Kathi Vanderwall, Jim Ahrens, and Lisa Griskey. Sincerely yours, .'No~L-- Roger Brooks Deputy Legislative Auditor TABLE OF CONTENTS ~ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iv INTRODUCTION 1 1. STATEWIDE SPENDING TRENDS 3 Minnesota's Commitment to Education National Comparisons State Spending Staffing 'fiends State Role School Districts' General Financial Condition Summary 2. DATA COLLECTION 37 Financial Data Uniform Financial Accounting and Reporting Administration and Governance UFARS Structure and the Process of Reporting Summary 3. SCHOOL DISTRICT SPENDING DATA QUALITY 65 Validity and Reliability Others' Experience with UFARS Data Reasons for Problems Data from Independent Systems District Verification of UFARS Data Recommendations Summary 4. SCHOOL DISTRICT SPENDING 105 Total Operating Expenses Instruction Administration Operations and Maintenance Food Service 'fiansportation Summary SCHOOL DISTRICT SPENDING APPENDICES 145 Appendix A: Introduction to School District Spending Verification Report Appendix B: School District Spending SELECTED PROGRAM EVALUATIONS 161 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES TABLES 1.1 Nonpublic Pupil Aid Programs, 1987-88 5 1.2 General Measures of U.S. and Minnesota Education Spending, 1986-87 6 1.3 General Per Capita Expenditures of State and Local Governments for Elementary and Secondary Education, 1971 through 1987 7 1.4 Current Operating Expenditures Per Student, 1971 through 1987 9 1.5 State and Local Spending for Elementary and Secondary Education Per $1,000 of Personal Income, 1971 through 1987 9 1.6 Per Capita Expenditures of State and Local Governments for Educational Capital Outlay, 1971 through 1987 10 1.7 Full-Time Equivalent Staff Per 1,000 Students, 1986-87 11 1.8 Estimated Average Number of Students Per Instructional Staff Member, 1987-88 13 1.9 Average Number of Students Per Teacher by State, 1972 through 1988 14 1.10 Changes in Operating and Non-Operating Costs Per Student, 1980 through 1988 17 1.11 Trends in Objects of School District Spending, 1980 through 1988 19 1.12 Main Objects of School District Spending 20 1.13 Licensed Elementary-Secondary Staff (in full-time equivalents), 1975-76 through 1987-88 23 1.14 Special Education Students and Teachers, 1980 through 1988 24 1.15 Average Licensed Staff Salaries, 1974 through 1988 26 1.16 Effect of Local Referendum Levies on Total Operating Expenses, 1987-88 31 1.17 Financial Condition Trends, 1982 through 1988 33 2.1 How School District Administrators Use UFARS 39 2.2 ESV Regional Statistics 50 2.3 Evaluation of ESV Regions by District Size 51 2.4 Use of ESV Services by District Size 52 2.5 Active Codes by Dimension of the UFARS Reporting System, Fall 1989 59 2.6 Data Submittal Procedures to ESVs by District Size, 1988-89 62 2.7 Average Cost of UFARS Reporting by District Size, 1988-89 63 3.1 Age of Sections in the UFARS Manual, Fall 1989 70 3.2 UFARS Problems Cited by School District Administrators 71 3.3 Effort School District Administrators Devote to UFARS Coding Issues 75 3.4 Special Education Expenses Reported to the Department of Education Compared with UFARS 79 3.5 Secondary Vocational Expenses Reported to the Department of Education Compared with UFARS 80 3.6 Pupil Transportation Expenses Reported to the Department of Education Compared with UFARS 82 3.7 Categorical Aids Program Expenditures Reported by Districts, Compared with State Payment Records 83 3.8 Reliability of Regular Instruction Expense Figures 86 3.9 Secondary Subject Expenses Tested Separately 87 3.10 Results ofUFARS Item Testing 88 3.11 Reliability and Validity of Selected UFARS Fund Items 88 3.12 Reliability and Validity of Selected UFARS Program Items 89 3.13 Reliability and Validity of Selected UFARS Finance Items 90 3.14 Reliability and Validity of Selected UFARS Object Items 90 3.15 Difference in Expenses Due to Verification ofUFARS Fund Items 92 3.16 Difference in Expenses Due to Verification of UFARS Program Items 93 3.17 Difference in Expenses Due to Verification ofUFARS Finance Items 94 3.18 Difference in Expenses Due to Verification ofUFARS Object Items 94 SCHOOL DISTRICT SPENDING TABLES, continued 4.1 Meals Served in the National Hot Lunch Program, 1981 through 1988 123 4.2 Cost Per Student Meal by Geographic Area, 1987-88 126 4.3 Hot Lunch Prices by Geographic Area, 1987-88 128 4.4 Hot Lunch Reimbursement Rates, 1987-88 130 4.5 Pupil Transportation Expenditures, 1987-88 136 4.6 Regular Transportation Costs by Bus Ownership, 1987-88 139 FIGURES 1.1 General Fund Expenditures, 1988-89 Biennium 3 1.2 Average Teacher Salaries, 1987-1988 15 1.3 Categories of Education Spending 16 1.4 Operating and Non-Operating Education Spending, 1987-88 16 1.5 Minnesota Public School Construction Contract Costs, 1950-88 18 1.6 Operating Expenditures Compared with Inflation, 1976-88 19 1.7 Licensed Staff Assignments, 1987-88 21 1.8 Percent Change in Licensed Staff and Enrollment, 1976-88 21 1.9 Change in Student-Teacher Ratios, 1975-88 22 1.10 Changes in Special Education by Disability, 1981-88 25 1.11 Public School Enrollment Trends, 1972-97 (projected) 28 1.12 District by Geographic Region 29 1.13 State Supreme Court Decisions on Education Finance Systems 32 2.1 Examples of the Range of Problems Cited by Auditors in Twenty School Districts 41 2.2 How UFARS Reporting is Governed 43 2.3 UFARS Fund Dimension (examples) 54 2.4 UFARS Organization Dimension (examples) 55 2.5 UFARS Program Dimension (examples) 55 2.6 UFARS Finance Dimension (examples) 56 2.7 UFARS Object Dimension (examples) 57 2.8 UFARS Operating Fund Expenditure Accounts 58 2.9 Example of Cross-Walking District-Defined Codes to UFARS Codes 60 3.1 Selected "Student Activity" Expense Items 73 3.2 Updates to 1987-88 UFARS Data, August 1988-November 1989 74 4.1 How Districts Spend Education Dollars, 1987-88 106 4.2 Factors Which Might Help to Explain School District Spending Variations 108 4.3 Minnesota School Districts 110 4.4 Total Operating Costs Per Student by District Size, 1987-88 112 4.5 How Districts Spend Education Dollars by District Size, 1987-88 112 4.6 Gifted-Talented Expenses Per Student by District Size, 1987-88 115 4.7 Administration Expenses Per Student by District Size, 1987-88 116 4.8 Percent of Administrators' Pay to Superintendent and Board, 1987-88 116 4.9 Excess Instruction
Load more

Recommended publications
  • HF1-HF20 This Document Is Made Available Electronically by The
    This document is made available electronically by the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library as part of an ongoing digital archiving project. http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/lrl.asp HF1-HF20 Session Weekly is a non-partisan publication of the Minnesota House of Representatives Public Information Of­ fice. During the 1995-96 Legislative " lv\innesofa Rouse of Rer:1resentatives • Januory 6, 1995 • Volume 12, NumBer 1 Session, each issue reports daily House action between Thursdays of each week, lists bill introductions and upcoming • committee meeting schedules, and pro­ vides other information. The publication is a service of the Minnesota House. There eekly is no charge for the publication. Welcome to the 79th Session of the Minnesota Legislature. To subscribe, contact: For the 12th consecutive year, the Session Weekly will bring you highlights of Minnesota House of Representatives committee and floor action from the Minnesota House of Representatives. Each Public Information Office week of coverage begins and ends on Thursdays at 2:30 p.m. 175 State Office Building In each issue of the Session Weekly you also will find the committee schedule St. Paul, MN 55155-1298 for the coming week. It contains the information you will need to attend (612) 296-2146 or committee hearings, all of which are open to the public. 1-800-657-3550 The section entitled "Bill Introductions" provides you with a continuing list of TDD (612) 296-9896 all the bills that are introduced in the House. Each entry includes the House File Director (HF) number, chief author's name, the name of the committee to which it was Grant Moos first referred, and a brief description of the content of the bill.
    [Show full text]
  • Cs · · N Minnesota- Impacts
    Pl022 .· seal Constraints 6cs · ·· n Minnesota- <(} Impacts and Policies cu■a Economic Conditions and Changing Government Policies Coauthors: Thomas R. Peek and Douglas S. Wilson Center for Urban and Regional Affairs January 1983 A publication of the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs, 313 Walter Library, 117 Pleasant St. S.E., University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455. The content of this report is the responsibility of the authors and is not necessarily endorsed by CURA. 1983 Publication No. CURA 83-1 This report is not copyrighted. Permission is granted for reproduction of all or part of the material, except that reprinted with perm1ss1on from other sources. Acknowledgement would, however, be appreciated and CURA would like to receive two copies of any material thus reproduced. Edited by Susan M. Mundale Cover design by Phil Lundberg CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES iv LIST OF FIGURES V FORWARD vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS xi INTRODUCTION: MINNESOTA'S GOVERNMENTAL SYSTEM CHALLENGED BY NEW FISCAL CONSTRAINTS 1 CHAPTER I. MINNESOTA FACES REVENUE SHORTFALLS 5 THE STATE REVENUE LAG 7 The Slowdown in National and State Economies 8 Our Overcommitted State Budget 9 Over-Ambitious Indexing 9 Problems With Forecasting State Revenues 10 THE STATE'S RESPONSE TO REVENUE SHORTFALLS 10 The April 1981 Budget Projection 11 The November 1981 Budget Projection 12 The March 1982 Budget Projection 15 The November 1982 Budget Projection 17 Cumulative Effect of Budget Responses 19 PAST ACTIONS PRESENT DILEMMAS FOR THE NEXT LEGISLATURE 21 Temporary Tax Increases 21 Revenue and Expenditure Shifts 22 Other Legislative Actions 26 THE 1983 LEGISLATIVE SESSION--DIFFICUL T DECISIONS AHEAD 26 MINNESOTA NOT ALONE IN FACING NEW FISCAL CONSTRAINTS 27 CHAPTER II.
    [Show full text]
  • An Agenda for Reform
    An Agenda for Reform 1 Report Summary 5 Elements of Reform 17 Strategies for Change An Agenda for Reform: Competition, Community, Concen- tration proposes fundamental restructuring of Minnesota government to avoid a potential $8 billion financial crisis. At the request of Governor Arne H. Carlson, former state Senator John Brandl and former U.S. Representative Vin Weber, with assistance from many experts, offer major re- forms for meeting government’s responsibilities without raising taxes. John Brandl, founder of and professor at the University of Minnesota’s School of Public Affairs (now the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs), served 12 years in the Minnesota House of Representatives and Minnesota Senate. He has served in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and as a Deputy Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Vin Weber, a former six-term congressman who served on the House Appropriations Committee, is currently a partner in the Washington office of Clark and Weinstock Inc. He is vice chairman of Empower America and co-chair with former Congressman Tim Penny of the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey Institute’s Policy Forum. November 1995 The cover contains an excerpt from The Federalist writ- ten in 1788 by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay. For copies of An Agenda for Reform, call (612) 296-3985. Upon request, An Agenda for Reform will be made available in alternate formats, such as Braille, audio tape or large print. Printed on recycled paper with at least 10 percent post- consumer waste. ederal budget cuts, increased demand for services and slower economic growth are converging to Fproduce a cumulative fiscal gap of more than $8 billion in Minnesota by 2001.
    [Show full text]
  • And Others Minnesota K-12 Education: the Current Debate, the Present
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 255 619 UD 024 185 AUTHOR Peek, Thomas R.; And Others TITLE Minnesota K-12 Education: The Current Debate, the Present Condition. A Report of the CURA/College of Education Project on the Future of K-12 Public Education in Minnesota. INSTITUTION Minnesota Univ., Minneapolis. Center for Urban and Regional Affairs. REPORT NO CURA-85-3- PUB DATE 85 NOTE 170p.; For a related document see UD 024 193. PUB TYPE Reports - General (140) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC07 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Educational Change; Educational Finance; *Educational History; Educational Policy; *Educational Practices; *Educational Quality; *Elementary Secondary Education; *Public Education; St'ident Attitudes; Student Characteristics; Student Needs; Teacher Attitudes IDENTIFIERS *Minnesota ABSTRACT The purpose of this report is to provide an accurate picture of the nature and condition of Minnesota't K-12 public education system and the challenges it faces in the comingyears. Section I describes the major concerns about Minnesota education (centering on excellence and student performance, system accountability and responsiveness, and efficient and cost-effective school service), and 'reviews the major reform proposals. Section II provides an historical overview, from 1847 to the present. Section I1L discusses why the public school system contracted during the 1970s and 1980s and, at the smile time, took on additional responsibilities. Section IV considers the impact on the schools ofa changed student population (focusing on changes in family life, alcohol and drug use, sexual activity, reading habits, employment, and student attitudes and behavior), teacher dissatisfaction, continuing financial disparities, use of the new technology and adoption of school effectiveness research, and changes in the political climate.
    [Show full text]