These financial statements are the responsibility of the School District’s management. Our responsibility is to express opinions on these financial statements based on our audit.
So what prompted me to find the CAFR? A reader sent me this email concerning graduation rates:
Did you happen to read the spring edition of Pittsburgh Quarterly? In it, they list the top 5 and bottom several high school graduation rates by regional school district. Interestingly, Mt. Lebanon was not in the top five (Penn Trafford was #1 @ 99.71%). I went to the link -- www.pittsburghtoday.org to look at all of the regional districts. Mt. Lebanon is at 96.01% which is below Peters, USC, Char Valley, Franklin Regional, Peters Township and Pine Richland -- to name a few. Interestingly, on the Lebo High School report card, the graduation rate is listed as 97%. Still well below the higher performing districts, but higher than listed on the PA Department of Education's website. I thought you would find this interesting.I sent it on to a professional in the area for input. Here is the response:
I think that number is in the back of the CAFR each year.OK, so taxes are going up. I better take a look at a CAFR. Here is what stood out for me, at least what I was able to understand.
But when taxes increase, demographics will shift due to falling home prices. That means people of a lower socioeconomic status will replace people who were of higher socioeconomic stats and therefore graduation rates would tend to drop in kind.
- On page 115 of the pdf, we had only 8 buildings in 1998 with 5600 students. Today we only have 5200 students and yet have all 10 buildings open.
- On page 117 of the pdf, talk about a change in socioeconomics!! The number of free and reduced lunches has SKYROCKETED (doubled) from 2009 to 2011. To be fair, 2011 was the first year where all 10 schools participated in the National School Lunch Program. In 2002, there were 133 students who participated in the free or reduced lunch program. In 2011, there were 431.
- The CAFR does not show graduation rates though.
Still amazed at what was contained in this report, I went to yet another expert concerning bonds. Here is the expert's analysis:
Wow! Doesn't that just give you warm fuzzies?Going through the CAFR and on page 110, it shows that the Disrict total borrowing capacity is $25,000,000.Assuming they have $80,000,000 available (from previous bond issue and cash on hand) then that would leave them with being able to float $25,000,000 in debt to get the $113,000,000. A little addition and subtraction will tell you that $80,000,0000 plus $25,000,000 is only $105,000,000. Hence the need to wait an additional year to float the next round of bonds. If they floated them this year they would need to go to referendum because they would exceed the 225% Act 50 non-electoral debt limit. If they would have floated them last year, the gap would have been even higher. But with the combination of making $12,000,000 a year in debt payments to reduce outstanding debt, and the increase in taxes to create more revenue, the District will eventually be able to borrow all the money it needs and max out its credit card without a vote by the people.
15 comments:
And the $900,000 grievance is not included in your write-up. Those who filed that grievance are welcome to use any door in their building. Nobody is forcing them to stay here and run down our property values.
Here is what happened in other districts as of September 20, 2011"
Pennsylvania Survey Shows Schools Layoffs, Spending of Reserves
By Sean Cavanagh on September 20, 2011
Pennsylvania school districts began this academic year having eliminated more than 14,000 jobs, according to a new survey, which attempts to provide a state-level look at the damage caused by budget cuts and overall economic woes.
The survey by the Pennsylvania Association of School Business Officials and the Pennsylvania Association of School Administrators was conducted of 294 of Pennsylvania's 500 school districts, including Philadelphia. It found that school systems laid-off 5,106 employees and elected not to fill 3,259 openings created by retirements and resignations.
The survey projects job losses across the rest of the state's districts and comes up with an estimate of 14,159 positions in 2011-12 that have either been eliminated or left vacant.
Other findings in the survey aren't likely to surprise district leaders in other states. Seventy percent of Pennsylvania districts said they have increased class sizes above the 2010-2011 academic year; 44 percent have reduced electives; 35 percent have reduced or eliminated programs designed to provide extra help or tutoring to struggling students.
We've been reporting on the impact of state and local budget cuts on schools, in terms of layoffs and problems that personnel shakeups have created for teachers and others who stay on the job and are handed more responsibility.
The Pennsylvania survey found found that some districts have raised taxes to make up for lost revenue, while others have held the line.
More than seven in 10 districts said they tapped reserve funds to balance their budgets.
"These reserves are like family savings accounts," the authors of the survey say. "They set funds aside to pay for planned major expenses such as a school construction project or increased state pension costs or to address emergencies like replacing a broken boiler or replacing a leaky roof."
Tim Eller, a spokesman for the Pennsylvania Department of Education, said that some of the cuts were caused by the end of federal stimulus funds, and that the state's districts had been warned to prepare for the loss of that money. In addition, the number of teaching personnel in the state has risen over the last decade, even as student enrollment has fallen, Eller explained in an email. (The state's secretary of education, Ron Tomalis, has made similar arguments recently.)
Gov. Tom Corbett has called for school districts and teachers to agree to salary freezes to help ease their budget woes. Eller said the department's preliminary research indicated relatively few districts had done so. (A recent, informal survey, released by the Pennsylvania School Boards Association, seems to back that up. It found that 161 of 500 districts had imposed some kind of wage freeze, with 152 school systems reporting that administrators have taken that step and 93 indicating that teachers have done so, by the organization's most recent count. The PSBA says the tally is changing as it gathers new information.)
"Ultimately, taxpayers are paying the bills and school districts across the Commonwealth must live within their means," Eller said in an e-mail.
John
A PSBA Survey shows cuts in other districts
ADMINISTRATORS, STAFF and TEACHERS
1. Abington
2. Altoona Area
3. Appalachia IU 8
4. Bellefonte Area
5. Bellwood-Antis
6. Blacklick Valley
7. Boyertown Area
8. Bristol Township
9. Brookville Area *Administrators, teachers and confidential secretaries
10. Burgettstown Area
11. Burrell SD
12. Canon-McMillan *Partial teacher freeze
13. Canton Area
14. Capitol Area IU
15. Carlisle Area
16. Catasauqua Area
17. Central Dauphin
18. Clarion-Limestone
19. Coatesville Area *Not including secretaries or aides
20. Columbia Borough
21. Conestoga Valley
22. Conewago Valley
23. Cornwall-Lebanon
24. Crawford Central
25. East Penn
26. Farrell Area
27. Fleetwood Area
28. General McLane
29. Glendale
30. Greater Altoona Career and Technology Center
31. Greencastle-Antrim
32. Greenwood SD
33. Harmony Area
34. Harrisburg
35. Haverford Twp.
36. Hempfield
37. Hermitage
38. Hollidaysburg Area
39. Huntingdon Area
40. Iriquois
41. Jamestown Area
42. Jenkintown
43. Keystone Central
44. Lackawanna Trail
45. Lakeview
46. Lebanon
47. Line Mountain
48. Lower Dauphin
49. Manheim Central
50. McKeesport Area
51. Mercer Area
52. Mifflin Co.
53. Millersburg Area
54. Muhlenberg
55. Muncy
56. North Allegheny
57. Pen Argyl Area
58. Penn Manor
59. Rochester Area
60. Selinsgrove Area
61. Sharon City
62. South Williamsport Area
63. Southern York
64. Spring Grove Area
65. Sto-Rox
66. Susquehanna Community
67. Towanda
68. Troy Area
69. Twin Valley
70. Upper Adams
71. Upper Dublin
72. Upper Merion Area
73. Warwick
74. West Chester
75. West Perry
76. Whitehall-Coplay
77. Wilson
78. Williamsport Area
79. Windber Area *Admin, Teachers and Central Office Staff
ADMINISTRATORS and TEACHERS
1. Bentworth SD
2. Blackhawk SD
3. Blue Mountain SD
4. Chambersburg Area SD
5. Council Rock
6. Crestwood SD
7. Cumberland Valley SD
8. Daniel Boone Area
9. Donegal
10. Easton Area SD
11. Elco SD
12. Franklin Area
13. Halifax Area SD
14. Hamburg Area
15. Hanover Area
16. Homer Center SD
17. Juniata County SD
18. Kiski Area SD
19. Lancaster-Lebanon IU13
20. Marple Newtown SD
21. Midd-West SD *Administrators and Act 93 employees)
22. Northeastern
23. Northern Tioga
24. Pine Grove Area SD
25. Pocono Mountain SD
26. Pottsgrove SD
27. Red Lion Area SD
28. SD of the City of York
29. South Eastern SD
30. Southern Tioga SD
31. Steelton-Highspire
32. Stroudsburg Area
33. Titusville SD
34. Union SD
35. West Middlesex SD
36. Westmont Hilltop SD
37. York City SD
ADMINISTRATORS and STAFF
1. Aliquippa
2. Belle Vernon Area
3. Benton Area
4. Berks County I U
5. Chichester
6. Conemaugh Twp.
7. Cornell
8. Delaware Valley
9. East Pennsboro
10. Erie City
11. Jeannette City
12. Mahneim Township
13. Northern Tioga *Admin. and professional staff
14. North Penn
15. Owen J. Roberts
16. Palmerton Area *Admin. and confidential secretaries
17. Saucon Valley
18. Souderton Area
19. Southern Huntingdon Co. *Admin. and confidential secretaries
20. Tussey Mountain
21. Unionville-Chadds Ford
22. York County School of Technology *Admin. and support staff
TEACHERS AND STAFF
1. Bedford Area
2. Northampton Area
TEACHERS ONLY
1. Annville Cleona
2. Beaver Area
3. Cambria Heights
4. Central Bucks
5. Central Fulton
6. Fairview
7. Gettysburg Area
8. Hatboro-Horsham
9. Hazleton Area
10. Millcreek Township
11. Montoursville Area
12. Moon Area SD Teachers and support staff
13. Northeast Bradford
14. Palisades
15. Riverview
16. Tredyffrin Easttown
17. Weatherly Area
Continued
Continued
ADMINISTRATORS ONLY
1. Albert Gallatin
2. Allentown
3. Beaver Area
4. Bethel Park
5. Big Beaver Falls Area
6. Central York
7. Cheltenham
8. Clarion Area
9. Cocalico
10. Delaware Co. IU 25 *Admin. and non-bargaining-unit employees
11. Derry Township
12. Downingtown Area *Admin and confidential secretaries
13. Eastern Lancaster Co. *Admin and supervisors
14. Elizabethtown Area
15. Ellwood City Area
16. Ephrata Area
17. Garnet Valley
18. Great Valley *supt., asst. supt., bus. mgr. and HR director
19. Kutztown Area
20. Lake-Lehman
21. Lampeter-Strasburg
22. Lancaster Co. Career & Tech Center
23. Lebanon Co. Career and Tech Center
24. Ligonier Valley
25. Meyersdale Area
26. Middletown Area
27. Mountain View
28. Northeastern
29. Northgate
30. Northern Bedford Co.
31. North Star
32. Oley Valley
33. Parkland
34. Phoenixville
35. Pottstown
36. Richland
37. Lancaster
38. Seneca Valley SD *Admin, supervisors and confidential secretaries
39. Sharpsville Area SD *Superintendent
40. Slippery Rock
41. Solanco
42. Somerset Area
43. Southern Lehigh
44. Shanksville-Stoneycreek
45. Tuscarora IU 11
46. Tuscarora
47. Tyrone Area
48. West Shore Area
49. Williams Valley
50. Wilmington Area
51. Wyoming Area
52. York Suburban
53. Wage freezes adopted in other years (as noted)
Antietam -- FY 2010-11 (teachers and administrators)
Beaver Area -- FY 2012-13 (teachers)
Boyertown -- FY 2012-13 (teachers)
Centennial ( -- FY 2010-11 (teachers)
Charleroi -- FY 2012-13 (teachers)
Colonial IU 20 -- FY 2012-13 (ALL staff)
Coudersport -- FY 2010-11 (teachers)
Delaware Valley FY 2012-13 (administrators and staff)
Jim Thorpe Area FY 2012-13 (administrators)
Lower Moreland (Montgomery Co.) -- FY 2012-13 (administrators)
Marple Newtown -- FY 2009-10 (administrators)
Moon Area SD -- FY 2011-12 (administrators and staff)
North East -- FY 2013-14 (all employee groups)
North Penn SD -- FY 2009-10 (administrators)
Palmyra -- FY 2012-13 (administrators)
Quakertown Community -- FY 2010-11 (administrators and teachers)
Upper Perkiomen -- FY 2012-13 (teachers and administrators)
Williams Valley -- FY 2010-11 (teachers)
I would be cautious about using the free and reduced school lunch numbers as signaling a change in Lebo's socio-economic demographics (wealthier people moving out and less wealthy people moving in). Two things I would want to know are 1) did the state or federal government change the qualification standards for free/reduced lunches within the survey's time frame, and 2) how much of the increase in free/reduced lunches is attributed to families who lived in the district prior to survey and to families who moved into the district since 2009. My guess is that the increase has a lot to do with long time Lebo families suffering through a job loss or other economic loss due to the recession.
Please note that my attempt to contextualize the matter does not mean that I am in agreement or satisfied with the high level of taxation in Lebo. I just don't think the free/reduced lunch numbers mean what people want them to mean. The country suffered a huge economic downturn beginning in 2008. I would look at this a reason for the increase in numbers before blaming high taxes. Occam's razor and all that.
Additionally, comparing school districts based on one year's worth of graduations rates is meaningless. Show me five years worth and then we can think things through. Also, schools can game their grad rates. Some districts can siphon off troubled students and steer them to other places. Then those students no longer count against their graduation rates. No way you can tell me that 100% of Central Valley's freshmen in 2006-2007 (Central and Monaca High Schools at the time) graduated in 2010. Same with the Penn-Trafford's 99%. The troubled students in those districts are getting redirected to charter schools, cyber schools, tech schools, etc. Lebo does not have these resources to deal with the 3%-4% of our students who do not deal well with the traditional high school model of education.
What I would like to know is why are 3%-4% (approx. 13-18 students per year) of Lebo students dropping out? Pregnant, criminal issues, addictions, family problems, learning disabilities, dislike of school, etc. Once we know the why, then we can deal with the problem. A pregnant student has different needs that a student who needs to work to support their family due to economic hardship.
Also, given the fact the graduation rate in Lebo is 96% and there is the negative connotation of this rate in the post, I have to ask are we making the perfect the enemy of the pretty darn good?
Mr. Goodin, there is truth in what you say.
Your point that a district can "game" their graduation rates.
Say like MTL promoting their rate as 97% vs the CAFR published rate of 96.01%! Who ever heard of rounding up a number like that? Reads like "gaming" to me.
Wonder if the district has played games with any other numbers?
Let's see... the FAQ that the building will bid under $95 million. It'll only cost taxpayers $18 more a month.
Bet others can show more examples.
Dick Bachman
Michael, did you get a chance to look at the CAFR? It is 130 pages of finance and statistics. Even though it was thirty years ago for you, you have five more courses in this stuff than I do. (Loved what you wrote!) What stood out for you?
Elaine
The graduation rate is reported in the budget documents and is basically a copy and paste of the PA Annual Yearly Progress report that can be found at:
http://paayp.emetric.net/Content/reportcards/RC11S103026402000000254.PDF
This years budget will include the report linked above. Last years budget is at:
http://www.mtlsd.org/district/stuff/budget_2011-12.pdf
If I am reading it right, it will show the graduation rate in 2009-2010 was 99%. The graduation rate in the current report is 97%. The state average is 91%.
USC says it graduated 100% of its students. You can look up any school district at:
http://paayp.emetric.net
It's important to note that the Auditor is not hired to give an opinion on the overall health of the district. Their job is to only make sure that the district's bookeeping is being done in accordance with the law.
If you want someone to determine the actual health of the district's finances, you need to go somewhere else.
Albert Brennaman
Albert, I guess that is why it is recommended to switch auditors every five years, and not have the same one for decades.
Elaine
James, thanks for those links. According to the Mt.Lebanon Graduation Data, Mt. Lebanon's economically disadvantaged students are dropping out, if I have that right. But again, my background is not in statistics.
Elaine
P.S. I found the graduation data here:
Mt. Lebanon High School Graduation Data
Elaine
But we're doing far better than the State average for IEP students !
Bill Lewis
Interesting number, in MTL the disadvantage students grad rate is 83%. Why not much much higher?
Could it be that the district's administration/teachers aren't all that much better than the staffs in another district say Pittsburgh or Sto-Rox for example.
Could it be that MTL is such a stellar district simply because they are working with better stock? Offspring of high achievers that expect stellar academic performance and have the time, finances and interest to see their kids succeed. As compared to a economically depressed area's district where you may have uneducated, and under performing guardians?
The fact that economically stressed kids in Lebo graduate at a rate far less than the others indicates something.
Why wouldn't they have a grad rate as high as the rest of the student body, if the success is all due to the stellar teaching staff.
Just a thought.
Dick Bachman
Speaking as a former teacher: Mr. Bachman is right! It is easy to teach a kid when high aptitude for learning comes prepackaged in the DNA. The real test of a teacher's ability is to take a kid with potential but limited demonstrated aptitude and bring him or her up from there.
I will concede that any student has to have at least some desire to learn, and even the best teachers will have a tough time of it with a defiant kid.
But that said, the ultimate test of the Mt. Lebanon faculty would be to give them some "average" students from the Pittsburgh school system and see how they do. Learning starts at the level of the student, not the teacher.
Post a Comment