Working paper #51

Yüklə 326,23 Kb.

Pdf görüntüsü

səhifə	12/12
tarix	24.02.2018
ölçüsü	326,23 Kb.
	#27946

1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Document Outline

Figure 2. Aggregate Fund Balance for All Michigan School Districts (2012$)

Sources: Michigan Center for Education Performance and Information; U.S. Department of Commerce, GDP price

deflator for state and local government purchases.

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

x $1,

000,

000

Figure 3. Fund Balance as Percent of General Fund Revenues by School District Racial

Composition, % Black.

Note: Composition of district groups is fixed over time period displayed in figure. District racial composition is

derived by %Black in (1995 + 2004 + 2013) /3.

17%

12%

11% 10%

-4%

-9%

-12%

-15%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

0-.9%

1-4.9%

5-19.9%

20-39.9%

40-100%

Table 2. Michigan School Districts with Deficit General Fund Balances, 1995-2013

Number of Districts

1995-

2004

2005-

2013

% of total

after 2005

In deficit at least:

(need not be consecutive years)

1 year

70.0%

2 years

71.8%

3 years

74.0%

4 years

77.5%

>4 years

79.4%

With deficits at least:

5% of general fund revenue

157

79.3%

10% of general fund revenue

102

85.7%

20% of general fund revenue

89.1%

Source: Michigan Center for Education Performance and Information

http://www.michigan.gov/cepi/0,4546,7-113-21423_35782_49874---,00.html

Districts with deficits for more years or higher percentages of revenue are included in the prior

(smaller) amounts. So districts in deficit for 2 years are also included among districts in deficit

for 1 year.

Table 3. Description of Variables

Variable

Description

Obs.

Mean

Std. Dev.

Fund balance per pupil

10484

1618

4383

Foundation

Per-pupil foundation

11049

6753

1179

Nonfoundation

Nonfoundation revenue per pupil

10489

862

2134

Enrollment

Full-time equivalent student

enrollment

10489

2901

6781

% Charter

% of students residing in a district

who attend charter schools

6576

2.39

4.60

% Net_IDC

Net gain or loss of students to

Inter-district school choice as % of

students residing in a district

6576

2.56

43.36

% Black

% of students who are black

10483

6.13

15.39

% FRL

% of students eligible for free and

reduced-priced lunch

9937

35.79

19.75

% Spec Ed

% of students who receive special

education services

9939

12.05

4.22

Teacher_Salary Average teacher salary ($)

10485

50164

9946

% Health

% of spending devoted to

employee health insurance

9905

10.86

2.98

P/T ratio

Average pupil-teacher ratio

10485

20.82

3.76

% Admin

% of spending devoted to

administration

9850

5.79

3.14

% Purchases

% of spending devoted to

contracted or purchased services

9935

6.35

4.22

Note: The descriptive statistics are based on data from year 1995 to 2012, with the exception of the two school

choice variables (% Charter and % Net_IDC), which are only available for the years 2001 to 2012.

Table 4. Fixed Effects Estimates of School District Fund Balances

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Model 4

Model 5

Model 6

Foundation

.376**

(.03)

.37**

(.03)

.363**

(.032)

.4**

(.044)

.63**

(.071)

.628**

(.071)

Nonfoundation

.283**

(.091)

.285**

(.092)

.266*

(.107)

.209+

(.107)

.3**

(.104)

.298**

(.105)

Enrollment

.034**

(.011)

.019*

(.008)

.027**

(.009)

.03**

(.008)

.031**

(.008)

% Charter

-60.329*

(24.068)

-50.571*

(25.275)

-47.684+

(25.265)

-43.35+

(24.475)

% Net_IDC

15.297**

(5.633)

11.559*

(5.575)

10.451*

(5.134)

10.195*

(5.039)

% FRL

6.368+

(3.422)

6.091+

(3.643)

6.828+

(3.583)

% SpecEd

-45.881**

(15.262)

-43.055**

(14.992)

-43.51**

(14.934)

Teachere_Salary

-.029**

(.006)

-.029**

(.006)

% Health

-36.141+

(19.051)

-36.494+

(19.11)

P/T ratio

79.335**

(15.496)

80.978**

(15.646)

% Admin

-111.557**

(34.058)

-112.996**

(33.801)

% Purchases

6.388

(7.144)

5.851

(7.256)

% Black

-9.975

(11.706)

Constant

-2077.45**

(286.051)

-2139.45**

(287.007)

-1847.13**

(342.147)

-1790.56**

(579.059)

-2734.32**

(781.056)

-2684.51**

(784.111)

9856

6217

5702

5695

R-squared

0.14

0.15

0.2

0.21

0.26

Huber-White robust standard errors are in parentheses.

+

p <0.10,

*

p <0.05,

**

p <0.01

Table 5. Fixed Effects Models: District Fund Balance Models with Alternative Charter

Penetration Thresholds

% Charter

>5%

>10%

>15%

>20%

>25%

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Model 4

Model 5

Foundation

.624**

(.067)

.613**

(.066)

.609**

(.066)

.592**

(.065)

.606**

(.066)

Nonfoundation

.292**

(.103)

.287**

(.103)

.289**

(.103)

.292**

(.103)

.293**

(.103)

Enrollment

.034**

(.007)

.021**

(.008)

.011

(.01)

-.006

(.011)

-.001

(.012)

% Charter

-77.167**

(29.163)

-182.479**

(66.496)

-306.114**

(104.901)

-538.472**

(119.386)

-676.429**

(180.463)

% Net_IDC

9.737*

(4.738)

10.067*

(4.501)

11.552**

(4.358)

12.936**

(4.208)

13.267**

(4.111)

% FRL

6.191+

(3.615)

4.569

(3.437)

3.415

(3.391)

2.347

(3.448)

2.794

(3.466)

% Spec Ed

-48.956**

(16.674)

-49.483**

(16.433)

-50.138**

(16.068)

-49.663**

(14.738)

-49.081**

(14.291)

Teacher_Salary

-.03**

(.006)

-.029**

(.006)

-.028**

(.006)

-.026**

(.005)

-.027**

(.005)

% Health

-38.791*

(18.871)

-38.5*

(18.045)

-34.011+

(18.694)

-33.105+

(18.874)

-38.034*

(18.805)

P/T ratio

81.33**

(16.231)

79.993**

(15.908)

78.348**

(15.556)

74.233**

(14.505)

75.931**

(14.329)

% Admin

-114.6**

(33.807)

-110.443**

(33.828)

-106.317**

(34.162)

-100.657**

(34.624)

-108.078**

(33.988)

% Purchases

7.345

(7.126)

7.922

(6.836)

8.483

(6.727)

8.995

(6.711)

7.77

(6.732)

Constant

-2598.77**

(692.254)

-2463.74**

(664.068)

-2467.46**

(697.082)

-2337.54**

(713.286)

-2391.54**

(736.379)

5695

R-squared

0.255

0.268

0.277

0.295

0.289

Huber-White robust standard errors are in parentheses.

+

p <0.10,

*

p <0.05,

p <0.01

Table 6. Fixed Effects Estimates of Determinants of Special Education Enrollment as % of

District Enrollment

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Model 4

Model 5

% Charter

.119**

(.02)

.115**

(.021)

.114**

(.022)

.114**

(.022)

.107**

(.023)

% FRL

.003

(.005)

.003

(.006)

.003

(.006)

.003

(.006)

% Black

.002

(.015)

.002

(.014)

.003

(.015)

% Net_IDC

-.009

(.009)

-.009

(.009)

Enrollment

-0.000**

(0.000)

Constant

13.099**

(.048)

12.978**

(.205)

12.972**

(.208)

12.981**

(.207)

13.081**

(.212)

5702

R-squared

0.02

Huber-White robust standard errors are in parentheses.

+

p <0.10,

*

p <0.05,

p <0.01

Table 7. School Districts with State Intervention

Detroit

Highland

Park

Muskegon

Heights

Inkster

Buena

Vista

Pontiac

State

Intervention year

2009

2012

2013

Intervention type

(EMO

managed

(EMO

managed)

Dissolved Dissolved

Consent

agreement

Demographics (2012)

% Black

84.0

94.6

89.9

96.9

90.5

59.7

15.4

% FRL

81.6

81.8

88.2

88.3

95.0

75.6

46.3

% Spec Ed

16.9

19.0

18.5

12.1

24.8

16.7

13.6

Enrollment

67,969

1,024

1,425

2,680

637

5,685 1,440,995

% Change

enrollment

2002-2012

-58.3

-76.8%

-40.6

64.8

-55.5

-51.7

-13.5

% Charter

38.7

49.1

13.1

27.6

11.8

32.0

8.3

Financial (2002-2012)

% Change GF

revenue (nominal)

-17.4

-56.6

-33.9

67.2

-36.5

-33.3

4.7

% Change GF

revenue (real)

-44.1

-69.6

-54.8

15.4

-55.8

-53.5

-27.5

FB as % of GF

Revenue in

intervention year

-11.8

-75.2

-51.5

-4.5

-10.7

-86.7

Consecutive years

in deficit at time

of intervention

4

7

Sources: Michigan Department of Treasury (http://www.michigan.gov/treasury/0,1607,7-121-1751_51556-201116--

,00.html);

Table 8. Comparison of Financially Troubled Districts in Which the State

Did and Did Not Intervene

Districts in which

state intervened

Districts with

FB < 0 for 2

consecutive years,

but no intervention

Variable

Mean

t-value

Demographics

% Black

85.95

13.60

39.96

6.18

-3.41 **

% FRL

85.09

6.80

66.95

19.72

-2.20 *

% Charter

28.73

14.52

11.22

10.37

-3.50 **

Financial

% FB/Revenue

-40.46

26.78

-14.36

9.83

4.33 ***

Years in deficit

4.67

.72

4.25

.37

-.48

3-year deficit

trend

-26.79

11.60

-9.86

11.43

2.45 *

Observations

*

p <0.05,

p <0.01,

***

p <0.001

Document Outline

WP 51 Cover Sheet.pdf
- Which Districts Get Into Financial Trouble and Why: Michigan’s Story
  - Author Information
  - Abstract
  - Acknowledgments
WP 51 Cover Sheet.pdf
- Which Districts Get Into Financial Trouble and Why: Michigan’s Story
  - Author Information
  - Abstract
  - Acknowledgments

Yüklə 326,23 Kb.

Dostları ilə paylaş:

1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12