Is Fieldcrest inherently inefficent?

I reported this figure in my writeup on the school board meeting. However, I just couldn't believe our school district could be that expensive to operate. I contacted Fieldcrest Superintendent, Dr. Michael Stagliano about the numbers and he said that the numbers don't quite add up to the $2,000,000 I reported because you can't make a 1:1 comparsion of different schools. He said there are too many differences in the schools and their environment. He wrote a letter to this website explaining why our costs are high. He said that he would like to see Fieldcrest's operating cost per student reduced to $6500 per year.

I still had some reservations about the number so I called Dave Marshall who is the Regional Superintendent for our school district. Mr. Marshall's initial response was that he didn't think that Fieldcrest's operating cost were that out of line. To verify his thoughts, he pulled up operating cost per pupil for other schools from the internet for the year ending 2002. In fact, for the year ending 2002, Fieldcrest's operating cost per pupil were in line with other schools. The following figures show the comparison in ascending order of cost:

Eureka - $6452; Midland - $6940; Fieldcrest - $7108; Roanoke-Benson - $7436; El Paso - $7908; Lowpoint-Washburn - $8322; Flanagan - $9390.

The state wide average for all schools was $8100. Generally, schools north of I-80 have a higher operating cost per pupil but they also have significantly higher revenues than downstate schools.

The above figures show that Fieldcrest's operating costs did increase by $550 per pupil in 2003. However, none of the other schools shown above had per pupil cost in the $5700-$6000 range as specified by the auditor in his report to the school board. I think it highly unlikely that the operating cost per pupil declined significantly for the other schools in 2003. So I am wondering about the accuracy of the auditor's opinion that the average operating costs for other schools was $5700-$6000. I don't think there is any way to put a dollar value on the excessive costs per pupil, if any, for the Fieldcrest school district. Compared to Flanagan, EL Paso, and Wasburn we were relatively efficient in 2002.

Another interesting thing to note is that Eureka's school district is largely confined to Eureka itself. This is unlike Fieldcrest, which has buildings and personnel spread over three communities. Dr. Stagliano agreed that the Fieldcrest school district is inherently inefficent because of the wide dispersion of personnel and buildings over a large area and also because of some redundancy or duplication in services. That is why I contend that it is fiscally irresponsible for the Fieldcrest School Board to not create attendance centers - an act which could save the district up to $200,000 a year, every year.

Another interesting figure I gleaned from the auditor's report was the significant increase in tort immunity for the Fieldcrest school district. This figure increased from $126,819 in 1999 to $286,887 in 2002. Dr. Stagliano said that tort premiums have increased because of increased insurance costs, increased worker's compensation claims and costs of litagation including grievances. He stated that Fieldcrest's worker's compensation claims have been significantly higher than other similar size school districts. Some of them have been protracted over a long period of time.

Dr. Stagliano said that most worker compensation claims are justified and are a cost of doing business. However, I have heard that some of these claims have been based on shaky premises. Why else would Fieldcrest have significantly higher claims than other schools?

Fieldcrest's inefficiency is not due to management, it is due to its basic physical structure - a fact overlooked when the district was formed 12 years ago. Fieldcrest's financial situation will eventually improve when farmland values and EVA's start to rise in the next few years. In the meantime, it will behoove the school board to take whatever measures are needed to make Fieldcrest a more efficient school system. The school board has its work cut out for it. It doesn't help matters that the school has to also suffer from an unfair TIF district and excessive worker compensation claims.

Meanwhile, with the decline in the EVA for the Fieldcrest School District, it costs more per student to provide an education equivalent to schools with a higher EVA. Until farmland values start to rise again, Fieldcrest will be under the gun to keep costs down. We are the victim of an unfair funding scheme devised by the State of Illinois.