According to the Elmbrook LINK, “There has never been a greater need than now to recruit all possible resident-student enrollments into our schools.”
I heard that only 30% of the households in the district have school age children. Of that potential pool of students, 25% of them DO NOT attend Elmbrook schools. (This 25% either attend private or other district schools or are homeschooled. If taxes keep rising, it will be more difficult for parents to choose any option other than Elmbrook schools.)
Elmbrook has about 7,000 students in the system now or 75% of the total school age population. I figured that meant the remaining 25% of non-attendees would number about 2333. Elmbrook wants them all to come into the fold.
What is the reasoning behind Elmbrook recruiting each and every one of these potential students? Is it because we think we do such an outstanding job of educating them? Not according to The LINK. It went on to state that we need the higher enrollment totals to add to our numbers, which boosts our state revenue cap. That means we get more money from the state the higher our enrollments are. It is to avoid $1.5M yearly budget shortfalls.
If you recall, that was one of the reasons the majority of the board implemented our 4K program. Elmbrook wanted those new students to give the budget a boost.
So how much do we get for this lucrative business of enrolling a student in our system?
In 2004-05, Elmbrook received $1,701 per full time student. The state average was $5,500. There are some other Federal and Local revenue gains, but seeing as the total cost paid by property tax (us) was $9,480/student ($5,339 above state average) I fail to see how recruiting extra students helps us. (The total cost per student that year was $12,768, which was $1,724 above state average.)
What about those open enrollment transfer students from other school districts or the Chapter 220 students? The district always makes it seem like those students are money makers. In 2005 we had 397 open enrollment students and 317 Chapter 220. How much money does our district receive for these “money maker” students?
Open enrollment students gave us $5,500/student, but the total cost per student is $12,768. That is a $7,268 shortfall the taxpayers must make up*. (There may be some other funding here, but it would not be that much.)
Chapter 220 students bring a better dowry. We receive about $10,000/Chapter 220 student. Remember though, these students tend to be heavy users of special services such as social workers and vice principals for discipline issues. Taxpayers still must make up for the $2,768 shortfall between reimbursement and actual per student cost.
Much like the shop-a-holic racking up credit card debt to gain the free points or offers on their credit card, this kind of enrollment does not make any sense to me. Enrolling a student to gain $1,701, $5,500, or even $10,000 when the actual cost is $12,768 is purely Lucy Ricardo math. (I don’t mean to be picking on Lucy today, but it follows the same logic.)
Now let’s discuss the real cost of recruiting every last student we possibly can from within or without the district.
We have this unprecedented $108.8 million dollar referendum before us. One of the main reasons for it is that the district tells us we are short of classroom space—even though enrollments are declining. Current high school enrollment is 1,413 at Central, and 1,391 at East. (Projections show this number will decrease about 10% by 2011.)
In 2005, JSOnline reported, “At Wednesday's meeting, committee members expressed concerns that continuing to allow an unlimited number of non-resident students into the district would crowd the new high schools.
‘Then we would have to look at whether we need to build bigger high schools to accommodate all the open enrollment students,’ board member Steve Schwei said.”
The total non resident number of students this year is 724. 724? That is more than Swanson or Brookfield El’s maximum capacity. It is also greater than 10% of our own resident student enrollment.
Translating that to the high schools, in a ratio of high school enrollment compared to total enrollment, I estimated that non-resident high school students number about 265. Dividing that between Central and East, and you have 135 for Central and 130 at East. Divide that by 4 grade levels, and it comes to 30 - 34 students per grade level. 30 – 34 students = one classroom (at least).
Some English classes are at 30 students; the chemistry lab had 24 desks and lab stations. If you have a class full every hour, you also need a TEACHER for these students, EVERY HOUR. One reason we are short of classroom space at the high school level is that we have these non resident students. How many excess teachers do we have because of non-resident student enrollments?
Why would the administration, led by Matt Gibson, want to recruit every possible student if this means greater expenses for district taxpayers and shortages of classroom space?
One reader commented, “He’s trying to build a for profit empire out of our wallet! The bigger the empire; the bigger the check.”
Well big empires justify big raises, and we just gave Dr. Matt Gibson a hefty one of $4,881 for a total of $142,230 this year.
I don’t think that is the districts main reason for recruitment. I think it is more the Lucy Ricardo math factor. They just see what they are getting and forget what it costs. Of course it is easier for them to ignore costs when it is not coming out of their pocket.
IT IS MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TUESDAY! Go vote!
WANT TO CONTACT ME ANONYMOUSLY? CLICK HERE
LINKS:Brookfield7 postings Betterbrookfield, Votenoapril3.com
*2008 note: The Non-resident student cost is still not known. Much depends on if there was a true vacancy or if that student's presence required splitting the class into two new classes.
