Cost per pupil in Lyme

 

Comparing cost per pupil across all districts in the state of NH presents a challenge, as districts operate differently. Some are solo districts, many exist as Cooperatives, some tuition students of particular grades to one or more schools, etc.. In an effort to create an “apples to apples” comparison, I created a list of districts that operate a K-8 school and either tuition students to high schools or participate in a high school cooperative. I further limited this list to towns that have small populations comparable to Lyme’s. The towns on this list have populations within the range of 1500-3046 (data sourced from NH OSI, 2019).

 

The list is sorted (largest-smallest values) on column F. This column presents the % change in cost per pupil (CPP) between FY2012 and FY2019. You can link to the website I used to source the data presented in each column (last row, “Data Source”).

 

NH OSI = NH Office of Strategic Initiatives

NH DOE = NH Department of Education

RHNH = Reaching Higher NH

NHES = NH Employment Security

 

CPP = Cost per pupil – note that on this list, cost per pupil is limited to K-8 spending.

SPED = Special Education

HHI = Household income

EVPP = Equalized value per pupil – this value is calculated by dividing the town’s equalized assessed value by the total number of students. Total student number includes all students in the district (HS kids are here too), but only those that attend public school. A note about equalized: before completing the calculation, the assessed value is “corrected” with an equalization ratio, assigned by NH-DRA. The state expects each town/municipality in NH to assess property at 100% of market value. This objective is not met evenly across the state. The equalization ratio adjusts for differences, it is a normalization tool. The EVPP reflects a town’s capacity to raise funds to support schools with the property tax.

 

The presented state CPP is elementary school only and is actually an average, not a median. This is also true for the listed state EVPP values. Because, the state likes to calculate averages. The other values (calculated by me) are medians.

 

A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I	J	K	L	M	N	O
School District	Pop. (2019)	% students (2019)	School operated	High School	% change in CPP, 2012 to 2019	% change SPED enrollment (2012-2017)	% change in median HHI (2006-2010) to (2012-2016)	% change in EVPP (2011 to 2018)	HHI (ACS 2015-19)	2020 CPP	2019 CPP	2012 CPP	EVPP (2018)	EVPP (2011)
Tamworth	2918	9.8%	K-8	Tuition	62.2%	49.5%	1%	43.3%	$ 51,354.00	$ 24,296.87	$ 28,174.61	$ 17,369.78	$ 1,352,704.00	$ 944,110.00
Unity	1605	9.3%	K-8	Tuition	56.2%	-61.0%	7%	14.2%	$ 69,702.00	$ 19,392.76	$ 18,816.94	$ 12,043.84	$ 933,881.00	$ 818,111.00
Hampton Falls	2428	9.1%	K-8	Cooperative	47.7%	7.2%	11%	36.7%	$ 85,549.00	$ 26,334.77	$ 25,031.93	$ 16,948.71	$ 1,568,984.00	$1,147,923.00
Lyme	1729	16.6%	K-8	Tuition	44.9%	67.0%	34.1%	14.1%	$112,625.00	$ 23,474.76	$ 23,185.35	$ 16,000.35	$ 1,291,344.00	$1,131,621.00
Cornish	1654	8.1%	K-8	Tuition	35.5%	-14.7%	16%	51.7%	$ 82,083.00	$ 25,461.85	$ 24,705.87	$ 18,230.85	$ 1,431,518.00	$ 943,870.00
Holderness	2131	7.0%	K-8	Cooperative	34.1%	-2.7%	1%	44.5%	$ 61,618.00	$ 24,688.56	$ 24,055.73	$ 17,939.01	$ 3,614,985.00	$2,501,183.00
Bartlett	2837	9.9%	K-8	Tuition	32.2%	-33.5%	28%	71.3%	$ 54,688.00	$ 23,555.77	$ 24,263.74	$ 18,353.37	$ 4,250,687.00	$2,480,873.00
Rumney	1498	8.3%	K-8	Cooperative	31.9%	-7.7%	-5%	0.1%	$ 55,625.00	$ 30,950.67	$ 25,167.63	$ 19,085.05	$ 1,000,413.00	$ 999,789.00
Marlborough	2143	12.4%	K-8	Tuition	28.3%	-38.2%	-16%	11.1%	$ 71,023.00	$ 20,571.66	$ 19,461.29	$ 15,172.04	$ 720,778.00	$ 648,947.00
Westmoreland	1748	11.9%	K-8	Tuition	27.8%	22.3%	13%	1.0%	$ 89,667.00	$ 17,676.73	$ 16,796.35	$ 13,138.17	$ 827,683.00	$ 819,852.00
Chichester	2630	12.5%	K-8	Tuition	25.6%	-4.6%	11%	33.8%	$ 95,398.00	$ 18,454.45	$ 18,525.56	$ 14,751.21	$ 964,060.00	$ 720,741.00
Plainfield	2443	11.8%	K-8	Tuition	23.6%	0.0%	-1%	18.2%	$ 85,313.00	$ 19,938.51	$ 21,714.13	$ 17,561.16	$ 1,036,903.00	$ 877,513.00
Thornton	2611	8.3%	K-8	Cooperative	18.2%	-38.7%	13%	-9.1%	$ 67,054.00	$ 20,492.77	$ 18,696.82	$ 15,818.51	$ 1,248,026.00	$1,373,594.00
Ashland	2099	7.6%	K-8	Cooperative	17.0%	-34.1%	23%	12.4%	$ 46,184.00	$ 19,712.61	$ 19,411.09	$ 16,590.19	$ 1,090,184.00	$ 970,230.00
Andover	2372	13.2%	K-8	Tuition	16.1%	-20.4%	11%	14.3%	$ 77,283.00	$ 14,881.86	$ 14,926.61	$ 12,858.30	$ 958,417.00	$ 838,554.00
Median (list)	2143	9.8%			31.9%	-7.7%	10.9%	14.3%	$ 71,023.00	$ 20,571.66	$ 21,714.13	$ 16,590.19	$ 1,090,184.00	$ 944,110.00
Median (state)		11%			24.2%	6.3%	8.2%	34.4%	$ 74,991.00	$ 17,188.40	$ 16,519.77	$ 13,413.70	$ 1,117,573.00	$ 831,256.00
Data Source	NH OSI				NH DOE	RHNH	RHNH	NH DOE	NHES	NH DOE	NH DOE	NH DOE	NH DOE	NH DOE

Some of my thoughts:

• Column F: The median % change in CPP (2012-2019) across the listed districts is 31.9%. Lyme % change is higher than median, but is not the highest.

• Column C: Lyme has a higher proportion of students relative to total population than any town on the list.
• Column G: Between 2012-2017 Lyme’s enrollment in SPED grew by 67%, a clear outlier on the list.
• Column H: The % change in Lyme’s median HHI is significantly higher than the median for listed towns and the state.
• Accordingly, column J shows that Lyme’s median HHI is higher than any other town on this list, and is significantly larger than median HHI in the state.
• Column I: here is where Lyme looks very average – % change in EVPP. Our town’s assessed value did not increase significantly between 2012-2019. We’re not developing, we are not growing. In FY2019, Lyme’s ADM (average daily membership = number students) was 287.52. In FY2012, ADM was 285.61. So, we increased by ~ 2 students. There is essentially no change to the denominator, but the numerator changes in ways that cannot be fully controlled by the district’s administrators or school board. They can only be managed.

 

There is no clear relationship between CPP and the variables on the chart. For example, if SPED enrollment increases are driving costs up, why is Unity’s % change so high? I don’t know. I would point out that Unity’s CPP in 2012 was very low, much lower than the median for K-8 schools on the list. I can tell you that Unity experiences significant year-year fluctuations in CPP. A possible theory is that Unity’s cost could reflect poor management of the budget that led to deficiencies that needed to be addressed. I don’t know.

 

I’m not suggesting that there is an answer to the crisis of school funding here. I just want to provide some context to the single point of data. The context I’ve provided here is so shallow relative to what is possible. But, this is an email not a thesis.

 

Thanks,
Jen