Saturday, September 10, 2005

How much does open enrollment cost MPS?

This morning’s Journal Sentinel has an article headlined “MPS loses big in open enrollment.“ I find this a particularly annoying article.

One problem is the mixing of time periods. Most of the dollar figures and enrollment numbers are for a six year period, essentially inflating them by a factor of six compared to annual numbers. Most egregiously, the $32 million calculated as the lost revenue over six years is compared to the annual budget of about $1 billion. The more honest comparison would have divided the $32 million by six.

Likewise, the claim that MPS lost 6900 students to open enrollment is pretty misleading. The more honest figure is 1155 students, the annual number leaving. The 6900 figure does not even give a good picture of the number of students participating over the six year period since many of the same students would have been reported year after year.

Less serious, but still annoying is the lack of any discussion of how the state aid and spending cap formulas work (I used to understand the formula, but at this point, am reluctant to discuss them in detail, particularly because they may have changed over time), but it is not clear that MPS is hurt financially by the exodus of the students. The money transferred to other districts is likely to be less than the total money that MPS receives for those students leaving, some residual. The main problem, of course, is that MPS has yet to bring its capacity in line with reduced enrollment. But this problem is hardly limited to the loss due to open enrollment, which is small compared to combined effects of charter schools, choice schools, chapter 220, and, most particularly, an overall decline in the school-age population.

This article was not written by one of the regular Journal Sentinel education reporters, which may in part explain its problems. But even if the problems can be blamed on inexperience by the reporter, this article is another example of the increasingly questionable judgment of Journal editors that would put such an article on their front page.

No comments: