Did you know how the “academically acceptable” LTISD spends tax payers money, per student, compared to “recognized” districts?

I am skeptical of the LTISD’s data showing the dollar amount spent per pupil in our district and the comparison to several other districts in the area. They point out that the data is sourced from the TEA but they do not point out the specific report or web page.

• Where exactly did the LTISD obtain their data from the TEA?
• When did the LTISD obtain their data from the TEA?

As of November 2, 2007, the TEA web site for Standard Reports most current Financial Reports are from 2005-2006, and the data has not been updated since March 22, 2007. In addition, the TEA Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) web page says that “The AEIS Reports for 2006-07 will be online near the end of November 2007.”

• So, LTISD, where did these numbers come from?

Again, without a solid source for verification, any data presented by the LTISD should be treated with a great deal of skepticism.

Here is a picture of the chart from the LTISD posting of their August 27, 2007 BoardBook comparing LTISD spending per student to that of other select districts and the state average. (Also available in Acrobat (PDF) format):

Another issue is that the chart shows only “General Fund” expenditures per student. TEA data gives two sets of expenditures per student, “General Fund” and “All Funds.” The “All Funds” number is the greater of the two “expenditures.” (See this example page of the LTISD from the latest data available on the TEA web site: 2005-2006).

So, let’s apply some more appropriate “benchmarks” to the TEA expenditure data. I compared the LTISD to all of the “recognized” school districts of comparable size and created some graphs for you, the tax payer and parent to review.

If it were not for the fact that the TEA rated them as “recognized” rather than “academically acceptable” I would think that they would be considered “cohort” districts, but as it stands they certainly would qualify as “lighthouse districts.”

(See note below for the source of the data and the constraints used to define “comparable size.”):

Why does the LTISD spend more per student than these comparable sized “Recognized” districts and still only achieve a rating of “Academically Acceptable?”

The numbers tend to show that throwing more money at the problem is not the solution. We should remember that especially when the LTISD comes out begging for more bond money.

Data Sources and Constraints:

1. All financial data used is from the TEA web site, and can be obtained from the “2005-2006 Financial Budget Reports web page.”
2. All expenditures were Total Expenditures from All Funds Per Student as given from by the TEA “2005-2006 Financial Budget Reports web page.”
3. All TEA ratings were obtained from the TEA web site, and can be obtained from the “2007 Accountability Ratings web page.“
4. The TEA rated 217 districts as “Recognized” during the 2006-2007 school year, and of those:
   • 204 had enrollments of between 15-3544 students
   • 9 with enrollments of between 3884-7216 students
   • 4 districts with enrollments of between 9909-35378.

   I chose those districts closest to the LTISD enrollment of 5563 students to make comparison (3884-7216).

Did you know that the 2007-2008 LTISD Student Directory is now available? »« Did you read the latest “District Improvement Plan?”