Revenues and Spending of Michigan's Urban, Suburban, Town and Rural School Districts

In the passionate debates over providing equal educational opportunity for all children, it’s frequently argued that large financial inequities create challenges for many public schools, particularly those in lower-income urban areas. This study compares the revenues and operating expenditures of Michigan’s urban, suburban, town and rural school districts. The study’s findings provide a new and unique perspective on Michigan’s school districts.

Executive Summary

In the passionate debates over providing equal educational opportunity for all children, it’s frequently argued that large financial inequities create challenges for many public schools, particularly those in lower-income urban areas. This study compares the revenues and operating expenditures of Michigan’s urban, suburban, town and rural school districts.

The study groups Michigan school districts using locale codes applied to public schools by the National Center for Education Statistics. The four major locale groups — city, suburb, town and rural — are divided into 12 subgroups: city-large, city-midsize, city-small, suburb-large, suburb-midsize, suburb-small, town-fringe, town-distant, town-remote, rural-fringe, rural-distant and rural-remote. The locale groups’ and subgroups’ financial data from fiscal 2004 to fiscal 2010 are analyzed. School districts’ revenues are divided into local, state and federal sources, while operating expenditures are divided into 10 categories, including instruction, general administration and student support services.

The study’s findings provide a new and unique perspective on Michigan’s school districts. For instance, the data show that on average, the districts comprising the city locale group received the largest total revenues per pupil and logged the largest operating expenditures per pupil from fiscal 2004 to fiscal 2010. In fiscal 2010, the city locale group received $12,906 per pupil in total revenues — 13 percent more than the next-highest locale group (the suburban) — and spent $13,115 per pupil on operations — 23 percent more than the next-highest locale group (again the suburban).

The analysis also indicates that the town and rural locale groups, which generally had lower per-pupil operating expenditures than the city and suburban locales, dedicated a slightly larger portion of their operating expenditures to instruction — about 63 percent each in 2010. The suburban and city locale groups devoted about 61 percent and 58 percent of their operational spending to instruction, respectively.

Several similarities among districts also emerged from the data. For example, from fiscal 2004 to fiscal 2010, per-pupil operating expenditures on instruction and food services increased by at least 14 percent and 13 percent, respectively, in all 12 locale subgroups. Additionally, in 2010, the four major locale groups dedicated a similar portion of their operational spending to school administration expenditures, ranging from 5.4 percent in the city locale group to 6.1 percent in the town.

This study does not attempt to deduce reasons for the differences between districts or determine the “appropriate” or “adequate” levels of district revenues and spending. Nor does it discuss the performance of districts on such measures as student achievement, parental satisfaction or school safety. Thus, this study does not provide specific policy recommendations. The data and findings should prove interesting to state officials, education researchers, education reporters, school officials and others interested in Michigan public school finance.

Introduction

A common complaint about public school funding is that large financial gaps exist between school districts. These charges are partly rooted in historical fact: For most of the 20th century, the majority of America’s school revenues came from local property taxes. In many states, including Michigan, large disparities between districts’ local property values and methods of assessing taxes led to substantial funding variations between urban, rural and suburban districts. With the growth of the suburbs, particularly in the latter half of the century, suburban districts could often raise more local revenue per pupil than rural and urban districts.

The view that large disparities exist between urban, rural and suburban school districts was most notably popularized by the work of author Jonathon Kozol, who primarily blamed a lack of resources for the struggles of urban schools. In his book “Savage Inequalities: Children in America’s Schools,” Kozol argues that unfair tax distribution systems led to enormous educational inequalities between urban and suburban districts.[1] His work has been required reading in education and social science schools in American universities for years, and it is heavily cited in popular literature.[2]

Even before Kozol’s book was published, many state governments had begun a process of centralizing school funding by increasing the use of state taxes in financing public schools. This increased reliance on state taxes provided a means for reducing the school district funding disparities that had arisen because of differences in districts’ ability to generate local property tax revenues.[3] Michigan’s Proposal A, passed by the state’s voters in 1994, was a notable example of the shift toward increased state funding and equalization of school district revenues.

Additionally, the federal government’s role in funding local school districts has grown dramatically over the past two decades. Federal revenue per student more than doubled in inflation-adjusted terms from 1988 to 2007.[4] A significant component of this federal money involves supplemental funding for children from low-income families, and this funding has tended to direct additional revenue to inner-city and rural school districts.

The following report compares the revenue streams and spending patterns of urban, suburban, town and rural school districts in Michigan. The analysis is meant to provide context for public education spending discussions; it is not meant to provide answers about the “correct” levels of spending and revenue.

The findings should be of interest to school officials, education researchers, education reporters and state residents monitoring the funding of the state’s public education system. The results should also provide a helpful perspective to state officials whenever they discuss changes to Michigan’s school funding model or to regulations of school district expenditures.

Definitions and Notes on the Data

This study analyzes financial data from fiscal 2004 through fiscal 2010 from the National Public Education Financial Survey, which is conducted annually by the federal government’s National Center for Education Statistics. The NCES receives the raw NPEFS data on Michigan school districts from the Michigan Department of Education. Neither the MDE nor the NCES makes district-level NPEFS data available online, but the data have been provided to Mackinac Center analysts by the MDE, and the figures are now part of the Mackinac Center’s publicly available Web database (see https://www.mackinac.org/depts/epi/fiscal.aspx).

Data from the NPEFS are used by the U.S. Department of Education to allocate federal funds to local school districts for a number of programs, such as those created under the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.[*] The NPEFS is an excellent resource for a comparative analysis, since it “provides the official revenue and expenditure statistics for public elementary and secondary education in the United States.”[5]

To categorize school districts by location, the author used locale codes developed by the U.S. Census Bureau and assigned by the NCES to determine a district’s geographic status.[6] There are 12 categories: city-large, city-midsize, city-small, suburb-large, suburb-midsize, suburb-small, town-fringe, town-distant, town-remote, rural-fringe, rural-distant and rural-remote. This study analyzes data from these 12 categories and data from four combined categories: city, suburb, town and rural.[†] These four categories will be referred to as the four major “locale groups,” while the constituent categories will be referred to as the 12 “locale subgroups.”

These locale designations are dynamic, not static. In other words, a particular district’s designation can shift from year to year, and each locale — city, rural, etc. — will typically include a different set of districts each year. The data in this study reflect this fact with the exception of one year. The NCES locale codes for 2010 have not been released as of this writing, even though the 2010 fiscal data are available. In order to include this financial data, this study assigns a district its 2009 locale code in 2010. (See Appendix C for a list of districts’ locale codes.)

The current methodology for assigning locales was developed by the U.S. Census Bureau in 2005.[7] The NCES adapted this approach for schools and school districts and applied it retroactively to school data, beginning with the 2003-2004 school year.[8] Thus, the data provided throughout this study begin with that earliest year and conclude with the 2009-2010 school year, the most recent year for which such data are available.[‡]

In general, this study adopts the convention of referring to a school year, which spans parts of two calendar years, by the latter of the two years. This convention corresponds to the standard fiscal year typically used by schools: For example, the 2009-2010 school year is usually referred to in school finance as fiscal 2010.

In the discussions below, district locale groups’ revenues and expenditures are frequently compared using per-pupil figures. These per-pupil calculations use NCES average daily attendance figures to represent pupil counts. These NCES daily attendance data for Michigan are supplied by state government, and by law, Michigan defines its average daily attendance as 92 percent of total pupil membership, which is based on the state’s two annual count days.[§] Also note that a locale group’s per-pupil revenues and expenditures are calculated by dividing the locale group’s total revenues and expenditures by its total average daily attendance; the figures do not represent an average of the individual districts’ per-pupil revenues and expenditures.

The dollar figures in this study are nominal; they are not adjusted for inflation. The purpose of this study is not to compare school district revenues and expenditures with price increases over time, but rather to compare different locale groups to each other using financial data. As noted earlier, this study does not attempt to determine what expenditures or revenues are “justified” or “appropriate.”[¶]

One final note: The districts discussed in this study are conventional local school districts; both intermediate school districts and public charter schools are omitted. Intermediate school districts generally provide support services to local districts, particularly for special and vocational education services. The ISDs’ revenues, spending and activities are therefore significantly different from those of conventional local school districts.

Charter schools, which are considered individual school districts under Michigan law,[**] are omitted for a somewhat similar reason. Charter schools’ revenue and expenditures differ substantially from those of conventional school districts, and these differences could confuse the analysis. For instance, Michigan’s charter schools, unlike Michigan’s conventional school districts, do not have the taxing authority to raise revenue through local millage elections. Compared to conventional districts, charter schools must therefore commit a larger portion of the revenue they receive from state government to spending on facilities and other capital assets.

Using the NPEFS data to compare charter schools is also challenging, since charter schools may report financial data differently. Some charter schools hire private “educational management organizations”[9] to supervise their day-to-day activities. Since many charter schools report expenditures related to EMOs in a lump-sum “purchased services” category, the charter schools’ reporting of expenditures in NCES categories is less uniform, and comparing data for specific types of expenditures among charter schools is difficult.

A Profile of Public School Locales Nationwide

The NCES provides aggregated data on public school attendance and expenditures by locale for the entire nation through the 2008-2009 and 2007-2008 school years, respectively.[*] Nationally, 64 percent of all students in the 2008-2009 school year attended a public school located in a city or suburb. About 35 percent of students attend suburban schools — more than any other major locale group. About 29 percent of all public school students nationwide attend schools in a large suburb — that is, schools outside a principal city, but within an urbanized area of 250,000 people or more (see Graphic 1).[10]

Graphic 1: Percentage of Public Schools and Enrollments by Locale Subgroup, United States, Fiscal 2009[11]

Source: Digest of Education Statistics, National Center for Education Statistics

Nationally, in the 2007-2008 school year, the city and suburban school districts spent an average of more than $10,000 per student on operating expenditures — $10,321 and $10,249, respectively. Meanwhile, the town and rural locale groups spent more than $9,000 per pupil on operating expenditures — $9,235 and $9,415, respectively. The largest disparity in per-pupil operating expenditures in 2008 among the four locale groups was between the city and town locale groups, with the city school districts spending 12 percent more on average than the town school districts. The average per-pupil operating expenditure for the entire country in 2008 was $9,992.[12]

Among the 12 locale subgroups, the large city subgroup spent the most per student on operating expenditures in 2008: $10,894 (see Graphic 2). Large suburban and remote rural subgroups also spent more than $10,000 per pupil that year. The remote town subgroup spent the least of the 12 — $9,108 per pupil, or 16 percent less than the large city subgroup.

There are other marked differences among locale subgroups, even within the same major locale category. For instance, the large suburban subgroup spent 12 percent more per pupil than the small suburban, and the remote rural subgroup spent 16 percent more per pupil than the fringe rural subgroup and 14 percent more per pupil than the distant rural subgroup.

Graphic 2: Operating Expenditures per Pupil by Locale Subgroup, United States, Fiscal 200813[13]

Source: Digest of Education Statistics, National Center for Education Statistics

A Profile of Michigan Public School Locales

The locale breakdown of districts, schools and students in Michigan differs in some ways from the rest of the United States. As with the nation as a whole, most students in Michigan go to suburban schools, and of those suburban students, most attend schools in large suburban areas (see Graphic 3). But in contrast to the nation as a whole, Michigan’s rural schools enroll the second-largest group of students in the state, with city schools enrolling the third-largest. Reflecting national figures, the fewest students were located in town schools.

A smaller proportion of students in Michigan than in the rest of the country attend city schools. About 29 percent of students around the country are educated in city schools, but in Michigan, less than one-quarter are. The most striking difference in locale composition between Michigan and the nation pertains to large cities. Nationally, about 15 percent of students attend public schools in large cities, but in Michigan, only about 6 percent do. In fact, these students attend the only Michigan school district — the Detroit Public Schools — that meets the NCES definition of a large city district.

Graphic 3: Number of Districts, Number of Schools and
School Enrollment by Locale Subgroup, Michigan, Fiscal 2009[14]

Source: Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey, 2008-2009, National Center for Education Statistics

School District Revenue in Michigan by Source and Locale

To compare district finances by locale group in Michigan, district revenue is subtotaled into three categories: local, state and federal. These revenues are compared through annual per-pupil averages using NCES average daily attendance figures. Total school district revenues per pupil are also discussed below.

Note that in Michigan, certain revenues, such as those from sinking fund millages, can be used only for various forms of capital spending — the construction and refurbishing of school buildings, the development of technology infrastructure and so forth. These revenues are included in the figures below, as are revenues more commonly used for operating purposes, such as teachers’ salaries, administration and transportation.

The only substantial revenues excluded from the discussion below are those received by schools from the sale of bonds.[*] These revenues are, however, accounted for anyway, since the revenue from debt-service millages, which are used to pay back bondholders, are included in the local revenues and total revenues reviewed below.

Local Revenue

Even though state government began shouldering a large portion of school funding after voters passed Proposal A in 1994, districts in Michigan still receive thousands of dollars per pupil from locally raised and distributed revenues. Major sources of this local revenue include nonhomestead property taxes (limited to 18 mills), primarily used for operating expenses; local property taxes for sinking funds and debt-service payments, exclusively used for capital expenses; and in certain districts, “hold-harmless” millages, primarily used for operating purposes.[*], [†]

From 2004 to 2010, Michigan school districts’ local revenue per pupil increased on average in each of the four major locales (see Graphic 4). City districts on average received about 35 percent more from local sources in 2010 than in 2004, while town and rural districts realized per-pupil local funding increases of 32 percent on average. In 2004, suburban districts on average received the most local revenue per pupil, but by 2008, city districts on average surpassed them and in 2010 received $3,771 per pupil — $187 more than suburban districts.

Local revenue for Detroit Public Schools (the only district in the large city subgroup) increased by 67 percent over this seven-year period, by far the largest of any of the 12 locale subgroups.[‡] However, DPS received the least ($2,555) of the subgroups in per-pupil local revenue in 2010, just as it had in 2004 ($1,531). The midsize suburban subgroup, which had the highest per-pupil local revenue ($3,765) in 2004, was the only locale subgroup where this funding decreased from 2004 to 2010, falling by 3 percent.[§]

Overall, differences in per-pupil local revenue between the four major locales decreased from 2004 to 2010. In 2004, the per-pupil local funding gap between the highest and lowest groups — suburban and rural, respectively — was $696; by 2010, the local funding gap between the highest and lowest groups — city and rural, respectively — was $480 per pupil.[¶]

Interestingly, these findings “reverse” when the 12 subgroups are considered. The remote rural subgroup received the most per-pupil local funding ($5,036) in 2010, and DPS, the large city school district, the least ($2,555). Moreover, the local funding gap between highest and lowest subgroups actually increased from $2,234 per pupil in 2004 to $2,481 per pupil in 2010.

Graphic 4: School District Revenue per Pupil From Local Sources by
Locale Group, Michigan, Fiscal Years 2004-2010

Source: Local Education Agency Universe Survey; Michigan Department of Education, Data for National Public Education Financial Survey

State Revenue

The per-pupil state revenue considered here is not equivalent to Michigan’s frequently discussed “state foundation allowance.” Only part of the state foundation allowance is composed of state revenues; the remainder of the allowance is composed of local revenues.[15] The local revenues that are part of the foundation allowance were included in the figures provided in the previous section, while the state revenues that comprise the remainder of the foundation allowance are included in the figures presented below. Also included are state education grants and other state revenue that is provided independent of the foundation allowance. State revenues are raised primarily through the state sales tax, use tax, income tax and 6 mill property tax.[*]

Unlike per-pupil local funding, state funding per student from 2004 to 2010 did not change much for any locale group (see Graphic 5). The suburban group received more per-pupil state funding in 2010 than in 2004, an increase from $6,767 to $6,943, or about 3 percent. City, towns and rural locale groups all experienced slight declines. Remote town and remote rural subgroups experienced the largest percentage decrease in state funding per pupil among the 12 subgroups from 2004 to 2010. Per-pupil money from the state dropped by 9 percent for remote town subgroups and 11 percent for remote rural subgroups.[†]

As noted above, Michigan’s foundation allowance is comprised of both state and local tax revenue. The foundation allowance is designed so that a relative decline in the local revenue generated for a particular district’s foundation allowance corresponds to a relative increase in the state revenue provided for that district’s foundation allowance. Inversely, a relative increase in the local-source revenue for a district’s foundation allowance corresponds to a relative decline in the state-source revenue for the district’s foundation allowance.

Since large portions of a district’s total local revenue (discussed in the previous section) and total state revenue (discussed here) are dedicated to a district’s foundation allowance, relative increases in a district’s overall local revenue will tend to correspond to relative decreases in the district’s overall state revenue. For instance, the remote rural subgroup saw its per-pupil local funding increase by 54 percent from 2004 to 2010 (the second highest of the 12 subgroups, behind DPS), but also had the largest per-pupil state revenue decline (11 percent) over that time.[‡]

Among the four major locale groups, the city locale group received the most state revenue per pupil in 2010 ($7,082). Among the 12 subgroups in 2010, DPS received the most state revenue per pupil ($8,056), and the remote town subgroup received the least ($5,114).[§]

Graphic 5: School District Revenue per Pupil From State Sources by
Locale Group, Michigan, Fiscal Years 2004-2010

Source: Local Education Agency Universe Survey; Michigan Department of Education, Data for National Public Education Financial Survey

Federal Revenue

All four school district locale groups received significantly more money from the federal government in 2010 than they did in 2004 (see Graphic 6). On average, suburban, town and rural districts saw their per-pupil federal revenue double. In city districts, federal funds grew by 71 percent on average. Among the 12 subgroups, per-pupil federal revenue increases ranged from 58 percent (the small city subgroup) to 192 percent (the fringe town subgroup).[*] These considerable increases were largely due to the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, which distributed an unprecedented amount of federal money to school districts around the country starting in 2009.[16]

From 2004 to 2008, per-pupil federal revenue grew modestly, though it increased more quickly in suburban and rural locale groups than in the town locale group, while the city locale group actually saw a slight decline. Through this period, though, the city locale group still averaged about twice as much federal revenue per pupil as any other. Since many federal revenues are apportioned based on the enrollment of low-income students, it is not surprising that city and rural locale groups were the largest and second-largest recipients, respectively, of federal funding per pupil.

It is also interesting to note DPS’ unique position among the 12 locale subgroups: It is the only subgroup that has generally received more per-pupil federal revenue than it has per-pupil local revenue. DPS’ per-pupil federal revenue exceeded its per-pupil local revenue in six of the seven years from 2004 to 2010 (the exception is 2008).[†]

Graphic 6: School District Revenue per Pupil From Federal Sources by
Locale Subgroup, Michigan, Fiscal Years 2004-2010

Source: Local Education Agency Universe Survey; Michigan Department of Education, Data for National Public Education Financial Survey

Total Revenue

The NPEFS’ total revenues include not just local, state and federal revenue, but also revenue that school districts receive from “intermediate” sources.[17] Intermediate per-pupil revenues for Michigan school districts are very small compared to the other three revenue sources and have little impact on overall levels of school funding, so they were not discussed above.[*] They are included in the total revenue figures presented here, however.

Not surprisingly, since the city locale group in 2010 received more local, state and federal revenue per pupil than the suburban, town and rural groups did, the city locale group received the most total revenue per student:  $12,906 (see Graphic 7). This amount was 21 percent and 20 percent more than the town and rural locales, respectively. These two locale groups had the lowest total revenues per pupil in 2010.

Per-pupil total revenue for the city locale group also increased more quickly than that for the other three locale groups, growing by 15 percent from 2004 to 2010. This was largely due to a 25 percent increase in per-pupil total revenue for DPS, however; the other two city locale subgroups — midsize city and small city —increased by 13 percent, slightly less than the rural group (14 percent) and about the same as the town group (13 percent). The suburban locale group had the smallest growth over this period, with total per-pupil revenues increasing by 10 percent.

Among the 12 locale subgroups in 2010, DPS received the largest amount of total revenue per student: $14,407.[†] In fact, the midsize and small city subgroups ranked second and third by this measure. Next highest was the remote rural subgroup, taking in $11,770 per pupil. The small suburban subgroup had the lowest total per-pupil revenues in 2010: $10,486.

From 2004 to 2010, per-pupil total revenues grew fastest in DPS (25 percent, as noted above), followed by the remote rural subgroup (18 percent). Total per-pupil revenues were least in the small suburban subgroup in 2010. All of the locale subgroups received at least 10 percent more per pupil in total revenues from 2004 to 2010, except for the midsize suburban subgroup, where total revenues per pupil grew by only 3 percent.

Graphic 7: School District Total Revenue per Pupil From All Sources by
Locale Group, Michigan, Fiscal Years 2004-2010

Source: Local Education Agency Universe Survey; Michigan Department of Education, Data for National Public Education Financial Survey

School Operating Expenditures in Michigan by Type and Locale

NCES data were employed to compare district per-pupil operating expenditures by locale in Michigan. NCES refers to operating expenditures as “current expenditures,” which it defines as “[f]unds spent operating local public schools and local education agencies, including such expenses as salaries for school personnel, student transportation, school books and materials, and energy costs, but excluding capital outlay, interest on school debt, payments to private schools, and payments to public charter schools.”[*]

In the discussion below, total per-pupil operating expenditures are discussed first. Per-pupil operating expenditures are then divided into 10 categories used in the NPEFS: instruction, student support services, instructional staff support services, general administration, school administration, operations and maintenance, student transportation, other support services, all support services (a subtotal of the previous seven categories) and food services. As with the earlier discussion of revenues, per-pupil operational spending in each of these categories is calculated using NCES average daily attendance figures. Operating expenditures in each category will also be analyzed as a percentage of a locale group’s total operating expenditures.[†]

Readers may note that in some years, total per-pupil operating expenditures for large and midsize city subgroups actually exceeded the subgroups’ total per-pupil revenues. These exceptional instances occur at times when a district is either operating in deficit or spending down money carried over from previous years (i.e., fund balances).[18]

Total Operating Expenditures

As noted above, operating expenditures (or current expenditures) are those made by a district to carry on most of its daily activity. They include spending on personnel, materials, equipment, transportation and energy. It should be noted that spending on personnel involves all employee compensation, including wages, employee insurance benefits and employer contributions to employee pension plans.[19]

In 2010, the city locale group had an average operating expenditure of $13,115 per pupil, up nearly $2,000 per pupil from 2004 (see Graphic 8). Suburban districts generated the next-highest per-pupil operating expenditures on average: $10,662 in 2010, up about $1,300 from 2004. Town districts produced the lowest average per-pupil operating expenditures in 2010 — $9,569, up a little more than $1,000 from 2004. Thus, in 2010, Michigan city school districts’ average per-pupil operating expenditures significantly exceeded those of any other locale group — 23 percent more than suburban districts’, 35 percent more than rural districts’ and 37 percent more than town districts’.

DPS led all 12 locale subgroups, logging operating expenditures of about $15,570 per pupil in 2010. The fringe and distant town subgroups had the lowest operating expenditures, averaging about $9,500 per pupil in 2010.[*] Even excluding DPS from the city locale group, city districts on average still spent at least $1,600 more per pupil than the other three major locale groups in 2010.[†]

Per-pupil operating expenditures in the city locale group also grew more than any other of the four major locale groups, climbing by 18 percent from 2004 to 2010. DPS’ per-pupil operating expenditures increased faster than any of the other subgroups, yielding 30 percent growth. The midsize city, small suburban and remote rural subgroups were next, with between 18 percent and 20 percent growth.[‡] Operating expenditures increased by at least 11 percent in each of the 12 subgroups from 2004 to 2010.

Graphic 8: School District Operating Expenditures per Pupil by
Locale Group, Michigan, Fiscal Years 2004-2010

Source: Local Education Agency Universe Survey; Michigan Department of Education, Data for National Public Education Financial Survey

Instruction

Expenditures for instruction are defined as “activities directly associated with the interaction between teachers and students.”[20] These include total instructional employee compensation, textbooks and other supplies, and any other purchased instructional services. Compensation for state-certified regular, special, preschool, vocational, alternative and substitute teachers consumes the vast majority of this expense category.[21]

Since instruction expenditures are typically the largest single portion of a district’s operating budget, and since city school districts had the highest operating expenditures on average, it is not entirely surprising to find that the city locale group spent the most per pupil on instruction from 2004 to 2010 (see Graphic 9). In fact, city school districts had the highest average spending for many of the 10 spending categories discussed in this study.

Instructional spending per pupil grew by at least 15 percent in all four of the locale groups from 2004 to 2010. This per-pupil instructional spending increased the most in DPS, with almost 26 percent growth, while the distant town subgroup had the smallest increase (14 percent) among the 12 subgroups.[*] The city locale group spent at least $1,000 more per pupil on instruction expenditures than the other major locales in 2010.

Graphic 9: School District Instruction Expenditures
per Pupil by Locale Group, Michigan, Fiscal Years 2004-2010

Source: Local Education Agency Universe Survey; Michigan Department of Education, Data for National Public Education Financial Survey

Even though the city locale group spent more per pupil in absolute terms, it devoted a smaller share of operational spending to instruction. Among the four major locale groups, the town and rural groups allocated the largest share of their operating resources to instruction — about 63 percent in 2010 (see Graphic 10). In 2010, distant town districts allocated the most on average (63.2 percent), and DPS allocated the least (54.8 percent).[†] From 2004 to 2010, the suburban group produced the largest growth (3.5 percent) in the portion of its operational spending devoted to instruction, and the midsize suburban subgroup led all locale subgroups with a 4 percent increase. Only DPS decreased (3.4 percent) the share of its operating expenditures dedicated to instruction.[‡]

Graphic 10: School District Instruction Expenditures as a Percent of
Operating Expenditures by Locale Group, Michigan, Fiscal Years 2004-2010

Source: Local Education Agency Universe Survey; Michigan Department of Education, Data for National Public Education Financial Survey

Student Support Services

These expenditures involve functions like health services, guidance counseling, attendance monitoring, social work and psychological services. These would include spending for directly hiring or purchasing the services of doctors, nurses, social workers, psychologists, psychiatrists, guidance counselors, audiologists and other similar noninstructional employees.[22] These activities are “designed to improve student attendance, mental and physical health.”[23]

Unlike per-pupil spending on instruction, which was relatively similar among locale groups, per-pupil spending on student support services varies significantly. The city locale group’s per-pupil expenditure on student support approached three times that of the rural group in 2010 (see Graphic 11). Among the major groups, the city locale group produced the fastest growth in per-pupil student support expenditures, with an increase of 24 percent from 2004 to 2010. Ten of the 12 subgroups spent more per pupil in 2010 than they did in 2004, with fringe and remote town subgroups decreasing these expenditures by 1 percent and 7 percent, respectively.[*]

Graphic 11: School District Student Support Services Expenditures per Pupil by Locale Group, Michigan, Fiscal Years 2004-2010

Source: Local Education Agency Universe Survey; Michigan Department of Education, Data for National Public Education Financial Survey

There are also large disparities when comparing student support services spending as a percent of overall operational expenditures. For instance, in 2010, spending on student support services in the city locale group consumed about twice the portion of operating expenditures that it did in the rural group (see Graphic 12). Plus, from 2004 to 2010, this portion grew by 6 percent in the city locale group, but only because DPS’ share increased by 24 percent; the midsize and small city subgroups spent smaller shares at the end of the period. In fact, many of the locale subgroups dedicated a smaller portion of their operating expenditures to student support services in 2010 than they did in 2004.[†] The town locale group saw the largest decrease by this measure, dropping by about 10 percent, with the remote town subgroup decreasing by 17 percent.[‡]

Graphic 12: School District Student Support Services Expenditures as a Percent of Operating Expenditures by Locale Group, Michigan, Fiscal Years 2004-2010

Source: Local Education Agency Universe Survey; Michigan Department of Education, Data for National Public Education Financial Survey

Instructional Staff Support Services

Instructional staff support services include staff training, library staff, curriculum supervision and coordination, and audiovisual and computer-assisted instruction staff. Recorded here are expenditures for labor, purchased services and equipment, operating and supplying libraries, and tuition payments and other professional development for instructional staff.[24]

Like student support services, instructional staff support services spending differs significantly by locale group. From 2004 to 2010, the city locale group spent the most per pupil each year ($769 in 2010), and it also increased spending more quickly (51 percent) than any of the other locale groups (see Graphic 13). The city locale group’s increase was led by DPS, which in 2010 spent about three times per pupil what it did in 2004 in this category. After DPS, the midsize city and small suburban subgroups generated the largest increases — 27 percent  and 33 percent, respectively. Six of the 12 subgroups cut their per-pupil spending on instructional staff support from 2004 to 2010, with the largest decrease (10 percent) occurring in the fringe town subgroup.[*]

Graphic 13: School District Instructional Staff Support Expenditures per Pupil by Locale Group, Michigan, Fiscal Years 2004-2010

Source: Local Education Agency Universe Survey; Michigan Department of Education, Data for National Public Education Financial Survey

Of the four locale groups, the city group also spent the largest share of per-pupil operating expenditures on instructional staff support services (nearly 6 percent in 2010), and this amount grew by about 29 percent from 2004 to 2010 (see Graphic 14). In contrast, noncity locale groups reduced this proportion — in some cases significantly. The town and rural groups produced reductions of 15 percent and 16 percent, respectively.

Districts in the remote rural subgroup spent the smallest portion of per-pupil operating expenditures (1.9 percent) on instructional staff support in 2010, and this subgroup decreased this portion by the largest amount (24 percent) between 2004 and 2010. DPS, which led all subgroups in instructional staff support expenditures per pupil in 2010, also spent a larger portion of its per-pupil operating expenditures (6.3 percent) on this category than any of the other subgroups did. Among the 12 subgroups, DPS increased its portion the most: 132 percent.[†]

Graphic 14: School District Instructional Staff Support Expenditures as a Percent of Operating Expenditures by Locale Group, Michigan, Fiscal Years 2004-2010

Source: Local Education Agency Universe Survey; Michigan Department of Education, Data for National Public Education Financial Survey

General Administration

This category includes spending for district-level management, such as the expenses associated with boards of education, superintendents and other executive administrators, and community, state and federal relations services. Spending on legal services, union negotiations, elections, tax assessments, public relations and seeking and applying for state and federal grants are accounted for here.[25]

Per-pupil expenditures for general administration reverses the pattern seen with student support services and instructional staff support services. The rural locale group spent the most per pupil on general administration — about twice that of the city locale group (see Graphic 15). Additionally, per-pupil general administration spending grew for the town (9 percent) and rural groups (8 percent) from 2004 to 2010, while it fell for the suburban group (3 percent) and increased only slightly for the city group (2 percent). In fact, city districts on average spent the least in this area — $126 per pupil in 2010.

Graphic 15: School District General Administration Expenditures per Pupil by Locale Group, Michigan, Fiscal Years 2004-2010

Source: Local Education Agency Universe Survey; Michigan Department of Education, Data for National Public Education Financial Survey

Within the 12 subgroups, the midsize city subgroup reduced per-pupil spending on general administration the most from 2004 to 2010 — expenditures dropped from $128 to $102, a 20 percent decline. The midsize city subgroup also spent the least of the subgroups by this measure in 2010. DPS increased general administration spending per pupil by 46 percent from 2004 to 2010, the most of any subgroup. The fringe town and remote rural subgroups also significantly increased this per-pupil spending, by 13 percent and 16 percent, respectively. The remote rural subgroup spent more per pupil ($402) than any other locale subgroup.[*]

General administration makes up a relatively small portion of district operational spending in all locale groups — less than 3 percent for the four major locale types (see Graphic 16). The portion of districts’ operating expenditures consumed by general administration decreased for city, suburb, town and rural locale groups from 2004 to 2010. Suburban districts averaged the largest decrease — about 15 percent. Among the subgroups in 2010, the remote rural subgroup devoted the largest portion of operational spending to this category (3.8 percent), while the midsize city subgroup spent the least, at less than 1 percent. Only DPS increased the portion of its operating expenditures dedicated to general administration (12 percent) from 2004 to 2010.[†]

Graphic 16: School District General Administration Expenditures as a Percent of Operating Expenditures by Locale Group, Michigan, Fiscal Years 2004-2010

Source: Local Education Agency Universe Survey; Michigan Department of Education, Data for National Public Education Financial Survey

School Administration

School administration expenditures include compensation for school principals, principals’ staff, vice principals and academic department chairpersons. School administrators manage the operations of individual schools, as compared to general administrators, who manage districtwide operations. They perform such activities as evaluating staff, maintaining school records, coordinating instruction and assigning duties.[26]

There is much less difference among districts in school administration spending than in student support services, instructional staff support services and general administration. In 2010, the city locale group spent 23 percent more per pupil than the rural group did — $702 versus $571, respectively — but per-pupil spending in the city locale group decreased by 6 percent from 2004 to 2010 (see Graphic 17). Per-pupil school administration expenditures increased in the suburban (11 percent), town (11 percent) and rural groups (10 percent). DPS was the only locale subgroup to reduce such spending over this period, cutting per-pupil expenditures by 28 percent, primarily through a significant reduction from 2009 to 2010. Among the 12 subgroups, the midsize city subgroup increased per-pupil school administration spending the most — 18 percent from 2004 to 2010.[*]

Graphic 17: School District School Administration Expenditures per Pupil by Locale Group, Michigan, Fiscal Years 2004-2010

Source: Local Education Agency Universe Survey; Michigan Department of Education, Data for National Public Education Financial Survey

The four major locale groups assigned between 5.4 percent and 6.1 percent of their operational spending to school administration in 2010 — the smallest disparity among any of the spending categories (see Graphic 18). These percentages shrunk for districts in the four major locale groups, with the city locale group generating the largest decline from 2004 to 2010: 20 percent. For every year from 2004 to 2009, the suburban group spent the smallest portion of its operating expenditures on school administration; in 2010, the city locale group spent the smallest portion.

Among the 12 subgroups, only the midsize suburban and remote town subgroups spent a larger portion of their operating expenditures on school administration in 2010 than in 2004, but this was by less than 1 percent. DPS cut this proportion most dramatically (45 percent), followed by the remote rural subgroup (9 percent) and the small suburban subgroup (8 percent).[†]

Graphic 18: School District School Administration Expenditures as a Percent of Operating Expenditures by Locale Group, Michigan, Fiscal Years 2004-2010

Source: Local Education Agency Universe Survey; Michigan Department of Education, Data for National Public Education Financial Survey

Operations and Maintenance

Expenditures under this category include general building operations, such as heating, lighting, ventilation and upkeep of facilities.[27] Also included are building security, custodial, grounds maintenance, and vehicles and other maintenance equipment.[28] Utility expenses are included here, as are furniture and general supplies like cleaning equipment and paper towels.[29]

Operations and maintenance expenditures followed the same trend as student support and instructional staff support services: The city and suburban locale groups outspent the town and rural locale groups both in per-pupil terms (see Graphic 19) and as a percent of total operating expenditures per pupil (Graphic 20). In 2010, the city locale group spent about 53 percent more per pupil on operations and maintenance than the town group — $1,348 versus $879, respectively — and 48 percent more than the rural group, which spent $909 per pupil. Per-pupil spending in each of the four major locale groups increased from 2004 to 2010, with the city locale group producing the largest increase (9 percent).

Graphic 19: School District Operations and Maintenance Expenditures per Pupil by Locale Group, Michigan, Fiscal Years 2004-2010

Source: Local Education Agency Universe Survey; Michigan Department of Education, Data for National Public Education Financial Survey

DPS led all locale subgroups with a 32 percent increase in per-pupil operations and maintenance spending, followed by the midsize city and remote rural subgroups at 12 percent and 11 percent, respectively. Districts in remote towns on average cut per-pupil spending on operations and maintenance by 2 percent over this seven-year period.[*]

Operations and maintenance spending as a percent of operating expenditures was relatively similar among the four major locale groups (see Graphic 20). In 2010, the town locale group spent the smallest portion at 9.2 percent, and the city locale group spent the largest at 10.3 percent. All four of the locale groups decreased spending by this measure from 2004 to 2010, with the suburban group producing the largest reduction (11 percent). Among the 12 subgroups in 2010, DPS devoted the largest portion of operating expenditures to operations and maintenance (11.5 percent), while the fringe town subgroup dedicated the least (9.1 percent).[†]

Graphic 20: School District Operations and Maintenance Expenditures as a Percent of Operating Expenditures by Locale Group, Michigan, Fiscal Years 2004-2010

Source: Local Education Agency Universe Survey; Michigan Department of Education, Data for National Public Education Financial Survey

Student Transportation

This includes all expenditures related to transporting students to and from school. Compensation for supervisors, bus drivers, monitors and mechanics fits here, as do expenses for vehicles, fuel and equipment. This category can also include subsidies that schools pay to parents to transport children to and from school.[30]

In 2010, as Graphic 21 shows, the rural locale group had the highest per-pupil transportation expenditures ($484), followed closely by the city locale group ($475). Per-pupil transportation spending was somewhat lower in both the town and suburban locales — $422 and $415, respectively, in 2010.

At $580 per pupil, the remote rural subgroup spent the most of the 12 subgroups on transportation, but DPS increased this per-pupil spending by the largest amount from 2004 to 2010 (40 percent).[*] Most of the 12 locale subgroups increased per-pupil transportation spending by more than 10 percent over this period. The fringe rural and fringe town subgroups increased per-pupil transportation expenditures by 5 percent and 2 percent, respectively, and the midsize city subgroup cut these expenditures by about 2 percent.[†]

Graphic 21: School District Student Transportation Expenditures per Pupil by Locale Group, Michigan, Fiscal Years 2004-2010

Source: Local Education Agency Universe Survey; Michigan Department of Education, Data for National Public Education Financial Survey

In 2010, the rural group devoted a larger part of its operational spending — 5 percent — to student transportation than did districts in the other locale groups (see Graphic 22). In three of the four major locale groups, the proportion of operational expenditures spent on student transportation decreased from 2004 to 2010; the portion in the town group remained essentially the same.

Among the subgroups, the midsize city subgroup decreased this transportation share the most — an 18 percent decline. The remote town subgroup increased the portion of operational expenditures dedicated to transportation by 9 percent between 2004 and 2010, the largest percentage increase of any locale subgroup.[‡]

Graphic 22: School District Student Transportation Expenditures as a Percent of Operating Expenditures by Locale Group, Michigan, Fiscal Years 2004-2010

Source: Local Education Agency Universe Survey; Michigan Department of Education, Data for National Public Education Financial Survey

Other Support Services

This category captures the expenditures for central financial and business operations, such as disbursements, budgeting, payroll, accounting, data processing, and planning and research of long-term goals. Also accounted for are such human resource functions as staff development, recruitment, evaluation and training.[31]

In 2010, the city locale group spent $692 per pupil on other support services — 74 percent more than the amount spent in the suburban locale group, which had the second-highest level of such spending (see Graphic 23). The rural locale group, however, produced the largest per-pupil spending increase on other support services from 2004 to 2010: 18 percent. The other three major locale groups also increased spending in this area over this period — by around 10 percent in the city and town locales, and by 2 percent in the suburban locale.

Of the 12 subgroups, the remote rural subgroup and DPS increased per-pupil spending on other support services the most, by 38 and 33 percent, respectively. These expenditures also increased significantly for the midsize city (29 percent), remote town (26 percent) and small suburban (24 percent) subgroups. Large suburban districts cut spending by 1 percent on average, and distant town districts did so by 4 percent on average. After generally declining since 2004, DPS’ expenditures in this category rose substantially in 2010, and that year DPS spent at least twice ($1,250) what any of the other 11 locale subgroups did in per-pupil expenditures on other support services.[*]

Graphic 23: School District Other Support Services Expenditures per Pupil by Locale Group, Michigan, Fiscal Years 2004-2010

Source: Local Education Agency Universe Survey; Michigan Department of Education, Data for National Public Education Financial Survey

These expenditures generally make up a similar portion of operational spending in the various locale groups. For the four main locale groups, as Graphic 24 shows, the portion of operating expenditures dedicated to other support services in 2010 was between 3.6 percent (town) and 5.3 percent (city). Average suburban district spending on other support services as a portion of operating expenditures decreased by about 11 percent from 2004 to 2010. This portion increased only in the rural locale group over this period — about 3 percent.

From 2004 to 2010, the greatest increase in spending on other support services as a portion of operational expenditures occurred in the remote rural subgroup: 15 percent. The distant town subgroup, in contrast, decreased this portion by 15 percent. Among the 12 locale subgroups, DPS spent the largest portion of operating expenditures on other support services in 2010 (8 percent), while the smallest portion was spent by the small suburban subgroup (3.5 percent).[†]

Graphic 24: School District Other Support Services Expenditures as a Percent of Operating Expenditures by Locale Group, Michigan, Fiscal Years 2004-2010

Source: Local Education Agency Universe Survey; Michigan Department of Education, Data for National Public Education Financial Survey

All Support Services

This category is a subtotal of the spending on student support, instructional staff support, general administration, school administration, operations and maintenance, student transportation and the “other support services” discussed in the previous section. This category does not include spending on instruction and food services.

Locale groups’ spending on all support services follows the trend prevalent in many of the individual expenditure categories: In 2010, the city locale group spent the most both in per-pupil terms (see Graphic 25) and as a percent of total operational spending (see Graphic 26). This group spent at least 35 percent more per pupil than any other major locale group in 2010. Per-pupil spending on all support services increased in all four locale groups, however. On average, city districts increased this spending the most (15 percent), followed by rural districts (9 percent).

Graphic 25: School District All Support Services Expenditures per Pupil by Locale Group, Michigan, Fiscal Years 2004-2010

Source: Local Education Agency Universe Survey; Michigan Department of Education, Data for National Public Education Financial Survey

Among the 12 subgroups in 2010, the distant town subgroup spent the least per pupil on support services, at $3,071, while DPS spent the most, at $6,571. The midsize suburb, remote town and fringe town subgroups generated the lowest per-pupil spending increases in this category from 2004 to 2010 — 6 percent, 6 percent and 4 percent, respectively. DPS increased spending per pupil on all support services by 36 percent, more than double the percentage increase of any other locale subgroup.[*]

The portion of operating expenditures devoted to all support services declined from 2004 to 2010 in all four major locales. The town and suburban locale groups  produced the largest decline by this measure, with 6 percent reductions, while the city locale group generated the smallest, a 2 percent decline. Among the 12 subgroups in 2010, the percentage of operational spending dedicated to support services ranged from 32 percent in the remote rural and distant town subgroups to 42 percent in DPS. From 2004 to 2010, the fringe town subgroup reduced the portion of operating expenditures for all support services by 8 percent, the most of any of the locale subgroups.[†]

Graphic 26: School District All Support Services Expenditures as a Percent of Operating Expenditures by Locale Group, Michigan, Fiscal Years 2004-2010

Source: Local Education Agency Universe Survey; Michigan Department of Education, Data for National Public Education Financial Survey

Food Services

This category includes operating expenditures for providing food to both students and staff. It includes compensation for cooks, servers, nutritionists, supervisors and other employees responsible for preparing and serving food.[32] It also includes equipment expenses and purchased food or food services from third-party providers.[33] Many districts use federal revenues to pay for a substantial portion of their food services, and this spending is included in the food services expenditure category.[*]

School districts typically budget food services separately from other operating expenditures (including spending on support services), because food services generate revenue from the sale of food items. In keeping with NPEFS practices, this income is not used to adjust the food services expenditures discussed here.[†] Thus, the food services expenditures reported below are gross expenditures.

Graphic 27: School District Food Services Expenditures per Pupil by Locale Group, Michigan, Fiscal Years 2004-2010

Source: Local Education Agency Universe Survey; Michigan Department of Education, Data for National Public Education Financial Survey

In per-pupil terms in 2010, as Graphic 27 shows, rural districts on average spent the most on food services ($435), followed by the city locale group ($429), with the suburban group spending the least ($337). All four of the major locales produced net increases in per-pupil food services expenditures from 2004 to 2010, ranging from a rise of 19 percent in the suburban locale group to 26 percent in the city and town locale groups. Similarly, during the same period, all 12 of the subgroups produced net increases in per-pupil food services expenditures. Midsize suburban districts on average had the smallest per-pupil spending increase in this category (13 percent), and they also spent the least in 2010 on average ($324 per pupil).[‡]

Food services expenditures grew as a portion of operating expenditures in all four major locale groups, with town districts on average increasing this portion the most — 12 percent — from 2004 to 2010 (see Graphic 28). The midsize city subgroup produced the largest increase in this portion of operational spending from 2004 to 2010, with a share growing from 2.9 percent to 3.4 percent, a 15 percent increase. The midsize suburban subgroup’s food services spending as a portion of operating expenditures increased by less than 0.5 percent from 2004 to 2010, the smallest of any of the locale subgroups.[§]

Graphic 28: School District Food Services Expenditures as a Percent of Operating Expenditures by Locale Group, Michigan, Fiscal Years 2004-2010

Source: Local Education Agency Universe Survey; Michigan Department of Education, Data for National Public Education Financial Survey

Conclusion and General Observations on the Data

This review of the finances of Michigan school districts based on locale groups should provide a useful new perspective on district revenues and expenditures. While this Policy Study is not designed to analyze the possible policy consequences of the data related here, a few general observations seem appropriate.

For example, the notion that districts located in cities generally do not have the same fiscal resources as suburban and other districts is not supported by recent data. In per-pupil terms, the city locale group received more revenue and spent more operating money than the suburban, town and rural locale groups. Of course, this fact does not answer the question of whether urban school districts’ revenues and expenditures are “too high,” “too low” or “just right”; it simply provides a clearer factual basis for that discussion.

This analysis also suggests that smaller districts and districts that spend less per pupil are more likely to devote a larger portion of their operating expenditures to instruction. In 2010, town and rural districts on average dedicated about 63 percent of their operating budgets to instruction, compared to averages of 61 percent for suburban districts and 58 percent for city districts. From 2004 to 2010, the town and rural locale groups also reduced the percentage of their operating expenditures dedicated to general administration, school administration, operations and maintenance, student support services and instructional staff support services.

It is also noteworthy that unlike other operational spending categories, per-pupil instruction and food services expenditures grew substantially in all 12 locale subgroups from 2004 to 2010 — for instruction, by at least 14 percent for each subgroup, and for food services, by at least 13 percent for each subgroup. In other basic operational spending categories, such as general administration or operations and maintenance, one or more of the locale subgroups decreased its per-pupil spending.[*]

Finally, it should also be remembered that the data above focus exclusively on revenue and expenditures — in other words, money. The data do not involve district performance in such areas as student achievement, school safety, parental satisfaction or employee retention. Hence, the revenue and spending data analyzed here, while valuable in illuminating differences between various locale groups, can do no more than provide perspective on school district operations and performance. They are simply part of the picture — not all of it.

Appendix A

The National Center for Education Statistics bases a particular district’s locale code on the locale codes assigned to individual schools within each district. To determine a district locale code, NCES applies two rules:

1. If 50 percent or more of the district’s students attend schools with the same locale code, the district is assigned that particular code;
2. If there is not a majority of students attending schools in one locale code, the district’s locale code is determined by plurality — that is, the district is assigned whichever school-based locale code contains the largest number of students.[*]

The “urban-centric” locale code categorizes urban and suburban areas into subgroups based on their size, and categorizes town and rural areas based on their distance from urbanized areas and urban clusters. Distances are determined using straight-line or “Euclidean” distance. Although this methodology “does not account for the presence or absence of road networks that may offer point-to-point drive time estimates,” NCES justifies it by pointing out that it is not affected by transportation infrastructure modifications that could produce “significant fluctuations,” and it “provides data users with a simple and familiar concept that is analytically useful and relatively easy to implement.”[†]

The verbatim definitions of the 12 different locale codes appear in Graphic 29.

Graphic 29: NCES Locale Code Definitions (Verbatim From Original)[‡]

Source: National Center for Education Statistics

NCES uses the following definitions to clarify the terms contained in Graphic 29 (verbatim from original):[§]

Principal City. Principal cities include the largest place (incorporated or unincorporated) and other relatively large places that serve as the primary population and employment centers within a CBSA. Principal cities replaced the older central city term defined by OMB’s 1990 metropolitan area standards, recognizing that many central cities have become much less central (functionally and structurally) within increasingly polynucleated urban areas. Although principal cities are present in both metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas, CCD City locale classifications are currently limited to principal cities of metropolitan statistical areas only.

Rural. The Census Bureau classifies all population and territory not included in an urbanized area or urban cluster as rural.

Urban (urbanized areas and urban clusters). The Census Bureau defines an urban area as a densely settled core of census block groups and census blocks that meet minimum population density requirements, along with adjacent densely settled surrounding census 10 blocks. When a core area contains a population of 50,000 or more, it is classified as an urbanized area (UA). Core areas with population between 2,500 and 50,000 are classified as urban clusters (UC).

Appendix B

The tables below provide the financial information for all 12 locale subgroups, the four major locale groups and a separate calculation for all city districts excluding Detroit Public Schools (“City: All (w/o DPS)”). DPS was the single school district in Michigan contained in the large city subgroup in fiscal years 2004-2010. Throughout this period, DPS accounted for about 29 percent of the total enrollment in the city locale group. Since the data for DPS often differed substantially from that of the small and midsize city subgroups, the separate calculation without DPS provides a clearer perspective on the average figures for these two subgroups.

Graphic 30: School District Revenue per Pupil From Local Sources by Locale Subgroup, Michigan, Fiscal Years 2004-2010

Source: Local Education Agency Universe Survey; Michigan Department of Education, Data for National Public Education Financial Survey

Graphic 31: School District Revenue per Pupil From State Sources by Locale Subgroup, Michigan, Fiscal Years 2004-2010

Source: Local Education Agency Universe Survey; Michigan Department of Education, Data for National Public Education Financial Survey

Graphic 32: School District Revenue per Pupil From Federal Sources by Locale Subgroup, Michigan, Fiscal Years 2004-2010

Source: Local Education Agency Universe Survey; Michigan Department of Education, Data for National Public Education Financial Survey

Graphic 33: School District Total Revenue per Pupil From All Sources by Locale Subgroup, Michigan, Fiscal Years 2004-2010

Source: Local Education Agency Universe Survey; Michigan Department of Education, Data for National Public Education Financial Survey

Graphic 34: School District Operating Expenditures per Pupil by Locale Subgroup, Michigan, Fiscal Years 2004-2010

Source: Local Education Agency Universe Survey; Michigan Department of Education, Data for National Public Education Financial Survey

Graphic 35: School District Instruction Expenditures per Pupil by Locale Subgroup, Michigan, Fiscal Years 2004-2010

Source: Local Education Agency Universe Survey; Michigan Department of Education, Data for National Public Education Financial Survey

Graphic 36: School District Instruction Expenditures as a Percent of Operating Expenditures by Locale Subgroup, Michigan, Fiscal Years 2004-2010

Source: Local Education Agency Universe Survey; Michigan Department of Education, Data for National Public Education Financial Survey

Graphic 37: School District Student Support Services Expenditures per Pupil by Locale Subgroup, Michigan, Fiscal Years 2004-2010

Source: Local Education Agency Universe Survey; Michigan Department of Education, Data for National Public Education Financial Survey

Graphic 38: School District Student Support Services Expenditures as a Percent of Operating Expenditures by Locale Subgroup, Michigan, Fiscal Years 2004-2010

Source: Local Education Agency Universe Survey; Michigan Department of Education, Data for National Public Education Financial Survey

Graphic 39: School District Instructional Staff Support Services Expenditures per Pupil by Locale Subgroup, Michigan, Fiscal Years 2004-2010

Source: Local Education Agency Universe Survey; Michigan Department of Education, Data for National Public Education Financial Survey

Graphic 40: School District Instructional Staff Support Services Expenditures as a Percent of Operating Expenditures by Locale Subgroup, Michigan, Fiscal Years 2004-2010

Source: Local Education Agency Universe Survey; Michigan Department of Education, Data for National Public Education Financial Survey

Graphic 41: School District General Administration Expenditures per Pupil by Locale Subgroup, Michigan, Fiscal Years 2004-2010

Source: Local Education Agency Universe Survey; Michigan Department of Education, Data for National Public Education Financial Survey

Graphic 42: School District General Administration Expenditures as a Percent of Operating Expenditures by Locale Subgroup, Michigan, Fiscal Years 2004-2010

Source: Local Education Agency Universe Survey; Michigan Department of Education, Data for National Public Education Financial Survey

Graphic 43: School District School Administration Expenditures per Pupil by Locale Subgroup, Michigan, Fiscal Years 2004-2010

Source: Local Education Agency Universe Survey; Michigan Department of Education, Data for National Public Education Financial Survey

Graphic 44: School District School Administration Expenditures as a Percent of Operating Expenditures by Locale Subgroup, Michigan, Fiscal Years 2004-2010

Source: Local Education Agency Universe Survey; Michigan Department of Education, Data for National Public Education Financial Survey

Graphic 45: School District Operations and Maintenance Expenditures per Pupil by Locale Subgroup, Michigan, Fiscal Years 2004-2010

Source: Local Education Agency Universe Survey; Michigan Department of Education, Data for National Public Education Financial Survey

Graphic 46: School District Operations and Maintenance Expenditures as a Percent of Operating Expenditures by Locale Subgroup, Michigan, Fiscal Years 2004-2010

Source: Local Education Agency Universe Survey; Michigan Department of Education, Data for National Public Education Financial Survey

Graphic 47: School District Student Transportation Expenditures per Pupil by Locale Subgroup, Michigan, Fiscal Years 2004-2010

Source: Local Education Agency Universe Survey; Michigan Department of Education, Data for National Public Education Financial Survey

Graphic 48: School District Student Transportation Expenditures as a Percent of Operating Expenditures by Locale Subgroup, Michigan, Fiscal Years 2004-2010

Source: Local Education Agency Universe Survey; Michigan Department of Education, Data for National Public Education Financial Survey

Graphic 49: School District Other Support Services Expenditures per Pupil by Locale Subgroup, Michigan, Fiscal Years 2004-2010

Source: Local Education Agency Universe Survey; Michigan Department of Education, Data for National Public Education Financial Survey

Graphic 50: School District Other Support Services Expenditures as a Percent of Operating Expenditures by Locale Subgroup, Michigan, Fiscal Years 2004-2010

Source: Local Education Agency Universe Survey; Michigan Department of Education, Data for National Public Education Financial Survey

Graphic 51: School District All Support Services Expenditures per Pupil by Locale Subgroup, Michigan, Fiscal Years 2004-2010

Source: Local Education Agency Universe Survey; Michigan Department of Education, Data for National Public Education Financial Survey

Graphic 52: School District All Support Services Expenditures as a Percent of Operating Expenditures by Locale Subgroup, Michigan, Fiscal Years 2004-2010

Source: Local Education Agency Universe Survey; Michigan Department of Education, Data for National Public Education Financial Survey

Graphic 53: School District Food Services Expenditures per Pupil by Locale Subgroup, Michigan, Fiscal Years 2004-2010

Source: Local Education Agency Universe Survey; Michigan Department of Education, Data for National Public Education Financial Survey

Graphic 54: School District Food Services Expenditures as a Percent of Operating Expenditures by Locale Subgroup, Michigan, Fiscal Years 2004-2010

Source: Local Education Agency Universe Survey; Michigan Department of Education, Data for National Public Education Financial Survey

Appendix C

Please click below to view a PDF version of Appendix C.

Appendix C

Acknowledgments

The author would like to acknowledge the following people for their assistance with this project:

• Glenda Rader, assistant director, Michigan Department of Education
• Michael Williamson, former deputy superintendent for the Michigan Department of Education
• Frank Johnson, statistician, National Center for Education Statistics
• Adam Schaeffer, Policy Analyst, Cato Institute
• James Guthrie, Senior Fellow and Director of Education Policy Studies, George W. Bush Institute
• Hannah Mead, assistant editor, Mackinac Center
• Jonathan VanDerhoof, Mackinac Center
• Elizabeth Tara Ryan, Mackinac Center
• Jarrett Dieterle, Mackinac Center

Although these individuals helped tremendously with this study, any errors in the report are the responsibility of the author alone.