|
|
|
Flagstaff Unified School
District (August 2008) |
| |
| |
Flagstaff USD’s administrative costs per pupil were 33
percent higher than comparable districts’ costs, primarily because it had more
administrative positions and paid higher salaries. The District’s transportation
program was self-supporting, with revenues exceeding expenditures by more than
$500,000. However, the District spent significantly more per rider and a larger
percentage of its available operating dollars on transportation than comparable
districts. Additionally, the District did not accurately report information for
state funding purposes, resulting in its likely being overfunded by about
$200,000. Flagstaff USD’s plant operations and maintenance costs per square foot
were about 13 percent lower than comparable districts’ because it employed fewer
plant employees and deferred maintenance on its buildings. The District spent
its Proposition 301 monies for purposes authorized by statute. However, the
District’s plan was incomplete, and the District did not always follow its plan
when disbursing Proposition 301 monies. Flagstaff USD’s fiscal year 2006
classroom dollar percentage of 55.2 percent was 3.1 points below the state
average. The District’s desegregation agreement with the U.S. Department of
Education, Office of Civil Rights, requires it to ensure equal educational
opportunities for its English Language Learners (ELL). Flagstaff USD spent about
$2.2 million, or $1,687 per ELL student, on its desegregation plan in fiscal
year 2006. The District’s desegregation expenditures have increased by 15
percent over the past 3 years even though its number of ELL students has
decreased by 25 percent during that same time period. The District identified
about 12 percent of its students as English language learners (ELL) and provided
instruction for them in several different types of programs, including
Structured English Immersion, bilingual education, mainstream, and Compensatory
Instruction. The District separately accounted for its ELL costs, but not all of
these costs were incremental.
|
|
|