School Districts Play Fast And Loose with ‘Cost Per Student’ Metric

As Pennsylvania’s school districts approve budgets for the next year, talks about the ‘cost per student’ are frequent in school board meetings. Curious about its importance, I started looking into how it’s calculated, beginning with my local school district. Yet, the response from the district only raised more questions than answers, leading me to explore this topic further.

When people dive into school budgeting details, they often talk about figuring out the ‘cost per student.’ Even though this measure is important for making informed financial decisions, it’s not always clear how it’s calculated. People might wonder which budget items make up this figure.

Stakeholders often seek answers from important people in their school boards, like the board president or finance committee chairperson. But getting clear answers can be tough, as many people have experienced. Questions remain about which budget items are included in the calculation process and if there’s a standard method used by all districts.

Looking back at past board service experiences, understanding the cost-per-student calculation was always tricky. Despite repeated inquiries directed at district administrators, clarity on the matter remained elusive. The desire to undertake a logical approach, such as referencing enrollment figures reported to regulatory bodies like the Pennsylvania Department of Education, underscores the need for transparency and consistency in methodology.

Furthermore, considerations extend beyond the selection of line items to include in the calculation. Given the dynamic nature of student enrollment throughout the academic year, questions arise regarding the timing of cost-per-student assessments and adjustments.

In essence, unraveling the complexities surrounding the calculation of the cost-per-student metric illuminates broader discussions regarding accountability, transparency, and equitable resource allocation within educational systems. As stakeholders navigate these inquiries, the quest for clarity and standardization remains paramount in fostering informed decision-making and ensuring the optimal utilization of resources for the benefit of all students.

The board President said she would research the matter. She added “I know the account numbers change somewhat each year thanks to PDE. They probably do that to be sure no one can figure it out!” Is the formula altered by the PDE, or is it adjusted each year to align with specific narratives or agendas?

The new Business Administrator at UPSD replied “As far as what costs we use to determine per student cost, you are 100% correct that it is fluid. If I remember correctly, with the instructional cost-per-student earlier this year, I pulled the 1100 function from the budget and divided it by non-special education students. When the Finance Committee requested cost per student for special education students, I pulled the 1200 function and divided it by the number of special education students. Those are solid numbers, but not something that is reported to PDE.”

Follow-up inquiries were made, delving into the consistency of cost-per-student calculations across districts. Questions were raised regarding the existence of a standardized definition or formula guiding this process, particularly considering districts’ tendencies to compare themselves with neighboring counterparts. Concerns arose over the absence of uniformity, with suspicions confirmed that no such standardization exists. While the formula employed by UPSD seemed logical, comparisons with districts using different methods were akin to comparing apples to oranges.

In pursuit of greater clarity regarding the methodologies used by other districts in calculating instructional costs per student, several Right to Know requests were filed with several districts. The requests sought specific details about the formula utilized, including function codes and student enrollment figures, necessary for computing the total instructional cost per student. Furthermore, data spanning the last three school years was also requested to analyze and gain insight into any potential trends or fluctuations in instructional expenditures per student over time.

As anticipated, responses to the inquiries exhibited a range of attitudes and promptness. While certain districts promptly provided the requested information, others seemed to approach the matter with more caution, invoking the full 30-day period to process the request. Methacton school district, however, opted to deny the request outright, citing the absence of responsive records and invoking legal provisions exempting them from the obligation to create records that do not exist. Such varied responses underscore the complexities and nuances in navigating transparency and access to information within school districts.

Cheltenham School District requested more context as “there are variations to this calculation, so a little more context is required” and provided the following links for enrollment information [Enrollment Reports | Tuition Rates].

Following the initial request, additional clarification was provided to ensure specificity in the inquiry. Emphasizing the need for clarity, the specific details sought, including the function codes integral to cost-per-student calculations, alongside enrollment figures at the time of assessment. Furthermore, to facilitate comprehensive analysis, the period for data acquisition was outlined, spanning the last three complete school years: 2022/2023, 2021/2022, and 2020/2021. This additional clarification aimed to streamline the information-gathering process and ensure accuracy in comparative assessments across a designated period.

Despite the provided clarification, some districts continued to express resistance. Cheltenham SD, for instance, questioned the origin of the term “instructional cost per student,” suggesting it may not align with their internal documents. In response, clarification was offered, revealing the underlying intent of the inquiry: to ascertain the costs associated with student education, inclusive of all pertinent budget line items. This clarification aimed to simplify the request further, emphasizing the fundamental objective of understanding the total expenditure per student for educational purposes.

Lower Moreland SD provided a comprehensive response to the RTK inquiry, outlining their calculation method as the total budget divided by projected enrollment. This approach raised questions regarding the use of projected enrollment figures instead of the actual enrollment data reported to PDE. The use of projected figures could obscure transparency and verification of the cost per student, facilitating easier manipulation of the metric. Furthermore, the response shed light on the state’s role in calculating and approving elementary and secondary tuition rates, based on prior year actual data, and using a consistent formula across Pennsylvania public schools. This revelation prompted inquiries into the differences in cost-per-student calculation methods among districts, given the seemingly standardized tuition rate formula mandated by the state. The disparities in responses from various districts underscored the flexibility in approaches and interpretations. The districts’ responses varied as much as the formula used by the districts.

While Perkiomen Valley SD, Pottsgrove SD, Spring-Ford SD, and Souderton SD’s responses may not have fully addressed the inquiry, they nonetheless offered insights through the provision of the PDE-363 form for each of the three years under review. This form, titled “Calculation of Selected Expenditures Per Average Daily Membership,” serves as a tool for school districts in determining charter school rates. What’s intriguing is the existence of a designated form and formula for charter school rates, contrasting with the absence of a similar standard for public schools. The form comes complete with instructions for districts on how to report the information, shedding light on the systematic approach employed in the calculation process for charter school rates.

A surprising revelation emerges from the bottom of page 1 of the PDE-363 form: the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) states that they will not verify the information provided by school districts in this document. This raises pertinent questions about the practice of self-certification by school districts when reporting data to the state. The need for such a disclaimer in the instructions prompts further inquiry into the underlying rationale behind this approach.

It’s worth researching if the formula used to calculate the cost per student for charter schools matches that of public school budgets. Likewise, scrutiny of the line items used in the data shows a lack of consistency, with differences observed across all districts. This unevenness extends to comparisons within the same district across different years, emphasizing the absence of standardized practices in cost-per-student calculations.

Souderton also stated “There are a few different per student cost calculations. There are the tuition rates calculated by PDE, and there are the Charter School per-student costs.”

Southern Lehigh’s response to the RTK request differed from others, as they provided a link to the Pennsylvania Department of Education’s (PDE) website instead of addressing the specific questions. The link led to the Annual Financial Report (AFR), which outlines the district’s revenue and expenditure accounts as mandated by PDE regulations. Their response was brief, providing an explanation of the AFR publication requirements and providing the PDE website for access to the document. AFR Data Detailed (pa.gov)

The link provided included a comprehensive account codebook, offering detailed explanations of revenue and expenditure codes, including the instructional and function codes. Furthermore, the Annual Financial Report (AFR) contains information on instructional costs per student. It’s important to note that AFR data is accessible for the fiscal year 2021-22 and prior; the PDE reviews and publishes new AFRs in the spring.

Boyertown ASD asked for my mailing address as part of the RTK request process, which was not required by other districts. Although this may appear unnecessary, I provided the information to proceed with the request. However, their response, consisting of a 67-page report detailing instructional function codes for the specified years, did not include information on the formula used to determine the cost per student or enrollment figures. This tactic aims to provide extensive documentation without offering specific answers, which can be frustrating for individuals seeking clarity. Such an approach overwhelms requestors with information, deterring further inquiries.

The Colonial School District provided a large document, including the last three years of PDE 2057 reports spanning 462 pages, which detail their final self-certified budget submissions required by PDE. They also provided tuition rates submitted to PDE and enrollment figures. However, they didn’t include the formula used to determine these rates or specify the line-item function codes contributing to the tuition rates.

Abington School District’s response was notable in that they supplied Section 2561 of the 1949 school code, which was amended in June 1997. This section explains how tuition charges are calculated when a district educates a student from another district. It says the district needs to figure out the tuition charges for non-resident students at the beginning of each school year, based on expenses from the previous year.

The Abington School District also shared their tuition rates from the PDE Annual Financial Report, along with their enrollment numbers.

The Lower Merion School District’s response was especially disappointing. They just sent a link to the PDE tuition rate page and told me to ask the state for more information. This feels like they’re avoiding responsibility and shifting blame just like a politician. Also, stating they’ve answered the request when they haven’t just made the experience more frustrating.

As we investigated how ‘cost per student’ is calculated, it became clear that transparency and consistency are problems in Pennsylvania’s school districts. Some responses gave helpful information, but others didn’t give enough clarity. The different responses, from really detailed to avoiding the question, show how hard it is to obtain clear information.

The lack of standardized methods for calculating cost-per-student makes it impossible to compare schools and make informed decisions. Plus, schools certify their own data without oversight. How reliable is the data? There is a need for more accountability and standardization in how cost-per-student is calculated.

In the future, policymakers, educators, and community members need to push for clearer and more consistent school budgeting. This means setting up clear rules for calculating ‘cost per student’ and ways to audit the data. By making transparency and accountability a priority, Pennsylvania’s schools can better meet the needs of all students and make sure resources are distributed fairly across districts.

Appreciate what you’re reading? Be sure to share it!

Have a story? Break it at LibertyLens.News! Become a Contributor.

Support platforms, like The Liberty Lens, that enable independent grassroots journalism. Donate here.