Smithfield Public Schools -- Enrollment and Financial Analysis
The previous post provided an introduction to the 19-year analysis of the Smithfield Public Schools Enrollment and Financial Analysis. You can review the previous post by clicking here.
Here are some details and take-aways to note.
Enrollment Analysis
The analysis of total enrollment shows a decline of 318 students or 11.7%.
Looking at grades 1-12 over the 19 years, there has only been four increases from the previous years (FY 2014, 2018, 2020, 2022). The total of those increases are 87 students.
It should be noted that for the first three years of increasing enrollment ... the next year decreased. We will await for the 2023 enrollment census in a few months to determine if that trend continues.
For Pre-K, the enrollment changes from 2005-2022 were extremely erratic leading to 7 increases, 10 decreases and 1 no increase/decrease. There does not seem to be a trend to these unstable enrollment numbers.
For Kindergarten, the number of percent enrollment changes (positive or negative) are extremely similar; 10 increases and 8 decreases. However, the with the exception of three years (FY 2011, 2012, 2020), each of the percentage changes are greater than 10%. The most dramatic enrollment increase was in FY2013 (160, 63% increase). This increase was probably due to the Legislature and Governor approving H8049 for full-day kindergarten.
The analysis of total enrollment shows a decline of 318 students or 11.7%.
Looking at grades 1-12 over the 19 years, there has only been four increases from the previous years (FY 2014, 2018, 2020, 2022). The total of those increases are 87 students.
It should be noted that for the first three years of increasing enrollment ... the next year decreased. We will await for the 2023 enrollment census in a few months to determine if that trend continues.
For Pre-K, the enrollment changes from 2005-2022 were extremely erratic leading to 7 increases, 10 decreases and 1 no increase/decrease. There does not seem to be a trend to these unstable enrollment numbers.
For Kindergarten, the number of percent enrollment changes (positive or negative) are extremely similar; 10 increases and 8 decreases. However, the with the exception of three years (FY 2011, 2012, 2020), each of the percentage changes are greater than 10%. The most dramatic enrollment increase was in FY2013 (160, 63% increase). This increase was probably due to the Legislature and Governor approving H8049 for full-day kindergarten.
Financial Analysis
In the 19-year period of the analysis, the total appropriation from the Town increased from $19.2M to $32.8M; a 71% increase. Using simple math, a 3.9% increase each year coupled with an 11% decrease in enrollment over the same period.
Then, a discussion on the net surplus/loss and fund balance. Remember, that once funds are approved and allocated by the Town Council, any school department surplus appropriation for a fiscal year (by RI State Law) cannot be returned to the Town. This running balance remains in a restricted account governed by the local school committee.
Prior to FY 2004, the accumulated fund balance was $1.45M. The accumulated fund balance (similar to retained earnings by a business) depicts the sum total of surplus and losses over time.
Upon review of the analysis reporting period, the SPSS accumulated fund balance increased from $1.8M to $3.0M; a 66.4% increase. SPS did end six fiscal years with a loss. Conversely, the number of surplus fiscal years was 12. The total of surpluses and losses are $2.8M and $4.4M respectively. Clearly, combined with the $1.4M (pre-2004 balance) and the net $1.6M net surplus calculates the $3.0M accumulated fund balance.
Takeaway Points
Got that? Make sense? 🙂
Full Report
The full eight page enrollment, financial and statistical analysis can be viewed by clicking Enrollment Analysis.
It should be noted that the analysis does not include the final audited financial statement numbers for expenditures. When that data is provided, the analysis will be updated along with the new enrollment and budgeted numbers.
Analysis and Discussion
The report was provided to the Town Manager, Town Council and Superintendent of Schools prior to this post in February 2022.
Some takeway points:
The report was provided to the Town Manager, Town Council and Superintendent of Schools prior to this post in February 2022.
Some takeway points:
- To begin, appropriate budgeting and accounting principles should always be applied for the fiscal operations of the School Department in compliance with Federal, State, and governmental accounting principles and reporting.
- More importantly, to provide complete fiscal transparency to the Smithfield taxpayers for the value of their tax payments to school and municipal services.
- At the same time, with over 10 years of experiences observing, evaluating, and questioning budgets/fiscal number for SPSs, the narrative is the same.
- We need more funds, We cannot provide the quality education unless we receive $x. We need funds to upgrade, replace or maintain X.
- Even with recent State aid reductions or the previous Financial Town Meeting "theatrics" of cutting teachers, sports, activities or other initiatives AND with a positive accumulated fund balance over 19 years ... the pleas for additional funds continues.
- It will be interesting to see if the Legislature and/or Governor will reduce State Aid after the local budget is passed in Smithfield. And the reaction of SPS.
With a total budget of approximately $40M, many business people familiar with governments (Federal or state) as well as business budgets ... there is ALWAYS "slack" embedded in budgets. In fact, those additional funds, over time, become institutionalized into the budget structure.
Ultimately, if implemented per the definition and practice, you would not consider last year's appropriated budget. Effective budget managers would use factors to calculate and project the prospective budgeted value. For example:
- For vehicle fuel. There are several drivers for this budget: 1) anticipated fuel cost per gallon, 2) annual miles driven, 3) average (expected) miles per gallon. Simple!
- Cost-plus budgeting would use the $100,000 spent (or budgeted last year) and increase it by 2% (estimate). So the new FY budget would be $102,000.
- Zero Based Budgeting would consider the three factors above. Changes could be applied to ANY of the factors based on a thoughtful process. 1) More efficient cars being deployed. 2) More/less miles being driven due to changes in processes or activities, 3) Anticipated cost of fuel or if there is a contract for the next fiscal year, use that value.
When asked to provide the drivers and factors that they used to develop the budget, they were not provided to the BFRB. When the factors (or drivers) that are used to calculate projected budgets for each line item are not available or given, then the only rational thoughts are a) they do not wish to provide the factors or b) they are not implementing true zero-based budgeting.
It is called transparency!
It is hopeful that citizens and prospective elected officials review the analysis and these thoughts in order to question current officials/prospective candidates as well as casting their final vote in November.
