THE QEVELGPMENE’ Q? A wfifiifl'fii‘ ENNRUCTEGME. P’EEQfifiAMfi m5": MOfifié FGR 91-12 BESERICTS OF THE NATE Q? MECHEGAN Time“ foo Hie Dogma 0? Ed. D. MICHEGAN STATE UNIi'EEEETY Byron K. Lave 1968 :J “mum“ i " IBR AR Y 1n Sti lllellllllllllillllllllllllllllllllllllllHlllllllllllllllll LBJWW r! 3 1293 10456 7239 " 1 r1 12.515 .1” This is to certify that the thesis entitled The Development Of A Suggested Instructional Programs Cost Model For K-12 Districts Of The State Of Michigan presented by Byron K. Love has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for __E_d_._D_.__ degree in _Edncation MM 9- M Major ofessor Date e 6 8 0-169 ABSTRACT THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SUGGESTED INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS COST MODEL FOR K-lZ DISTRICTS OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN BY Byron K. Love Purpose of the Study The public school systems of the state of Michigan are being placed under increasing stress each year. Collective bargaining, increased inrollments, shortages of teachers, higher costs, and demands for better programs are major con- tributors to this stress. Boards of education and adminis- trators have reSponded by attempting to obtain more resources in the form of increased state aid and increased local prOperty taxes. The results are not encouraging. An in- creasing number of districts are faced with the likelihood of having sizable Operating deficits at the end of this fiscal year and with little hOpe of meeting the increased demands for the coming year. Legislators and others concerned with the problem of providing needed resources for support of school programs are demanding Specific information which will establish the Byron K. Love degree of cost-effectiveness of present school programs. To make such information available the state and local districts would have to implement a system of program ac— counting which would identify each instructional program, its objectives, what resources were committed to the program, who was served and how well. Many of the elements of such a system are now in exist- ence. However, at least one important link is missing-— cost information which relates directly to each individual instructional program. The financial accounting system in use is based upon the Michigan Public School Accounting Manual adOpted in 1962. The basis for identifying costs is object of eXpenditure. The objects are categorized accord- ing to function and level of difficulty (Special education, elementary, secondary, custodial services, tranSportation, etc.). It is not possible to determine easily and directly the costs related to, for example, Algebra I, or the third grade, or all English instruction in the high school. Neither is it possible to analyze the costs related to an individual pupil with a given schedule of classes and activi- ties. The model deveIOped and reported herein represents an attempt to provide a way of obtaining individualized program costs, and to do so without replacing the present accounting system. The model is also designed so that it can be used Byron K. Love by large or small districts with or without computer based data processing or sophisticated accounting systems. Once the costs have been determined the whole picture involving the instructional program, the personnel reSponsible for its implementation, the pupils served, the facilities used, and the costs (estimated or actual) related to that particular program will be known. Cost—effectiveness and other types of analysis important to planning and administrative decision making regarding the future of the program can then be performed. The results will provide a "data bank" over the years that will help facilitate performance budgeting and program change and will enable the district to obtain more "educational mileage" within the limitations of its resources . Procedure and Design Current practices and studies which related directly and indirectly to the study were reviewed. Interviews with officials of the state of Michigan, Michigan Department of Education, an accountant-author of the Accounting Manual For Public Community Colleges of the state of Michigan, officials charged with the instructional and finance sections of the Midwestern States Educational Information Project for the state of Michigan, and the senior analyst of the Integrated Educational Information System for Oakland, Wayne, and Macomb Counties were held. Byron K. Love Visitations were made to the Michigan Department of Edu- cation Data Processing Center, to the Oakland Data Processing Center, and other school units employing some form of program accounting. Books and publications from the United States Office of Education, the Midwestern States Educational Infor- mation Project, and other sources were reviewed to obtain ideas and material relative to the structuring of the model and developing a concept of program accounting. The model was field tested in a school district with an enrollment of approximately 5,200 pupils to determine whether or not it worked as planned. Major Findings and Conclusions I. The model, based upon the field test conducted in a third class district, represents a valid and workable way to determine and report the costs of instructional programs in K-12 districts of the state of Michigan. II. Most of the information needed to implement the model would be available from such routine sources as direc- tories, payroll records, class schedules, contracts, invoices, and blueprints. III. The model seems to be one which can be easily adapted to both large and small districts. IV. The results of the field test indicated a wide varia- tion in program costs and cost patterns. V. VI. Byron K. Love The cost center data sheets which were designed to be used to report program characteristics, costs, and cost patterns represent a potentially good method of summar- izing such information and communicating it to other districts including the district of the state of Michigan and the Michigan Department of Education. The model does not require highly SOphisticated tech- niques or a high degree of mechanization. THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SUGGESTED INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS COST MODEL FOR K-12 DISTRICTS OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN By (“q 0"“ I Byron K. Love A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION College of Education Department of Administration and Higher Education 1968 DEDICATION To my wife Margaret and our lovely children, Ellis, Margo, and Heather. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS If I were to acknowledge all those who contributed directly and indirectly to this effort this would be the longest section of all. I have chosen to be selective, therefore, and give a Special vote of appreciation to the following: Dr. Donald J. Leu, Chairman of my Doctoral Committee for his seemingly infinite patience and strong support throughout my program and for his helpful advice and counsel regarding my career planning. Dr. Stanley E. Hecker, Member of my Doctoral Committee, for many hours of personal attention and counsel and for having provided the idea and much of the incentive for the study. Dr. George R. Myers, Member of my Doctoral Committee, for his enthusiastic support of the study even though it was not directly related to his main area of interest. Dr. James B. McKee, Member of my Doctoral Committee, for his quiet vote of confidence regarding the study and the doctoral program. Dr. Stanley W. Ovaitt for his valuable insights and interpretations of the Midwestern Educational Information Project and for sharing many of the reports and information related thereto. Mr. Lee Kinney and members of the Business Office Staff of the East Lansing Public School System for the time, effort, information, and general support given in my behalf during the field test. Mrs. Patricia Spurr for her willingness to work over- time and weekends to help summarize the cost center data sheets after calculations were completed. My wife and family who somehow managed to keep their composure during this period of uncertainty. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. II. III. IV. VI. THE PROBLEM. . . . . . . . . . . . . Statement of the Problem. . . . . Purpose of the Study. . . . . . . Importance of the Study . . . . . Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . Scope and Delimitations of the Study Definition of Terms . . . . . . . RELATED LITERATURE AND RESOURCES . . Interviews with Resource Persons. DEVELOPING THE MODEL . . . . . . . . FIELD TESTING THE MODEL. . . . . . . Description of the District . . . Implementation of the Test. . . . Problems Encountered in the Field EVALUATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results of the Field Test . . . . Correlation of Results and Expectations SUMMARY. CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS. BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Page mqu H 10 15 58 42 7O 7O 71 81 85 85 157 140 149 TABLE 1. 2. 5. LIST OF TABLES Program Summaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total Cost Per Pupil Per Program-~Extended. . . . Cost Per Pupil Amounts for Sample Areas of Program 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O 0 Costs by Selected Staff Categories in Various Sized SChOOlS C O O O O O C O O O C O O O O O O 0 Rank Order of Schools and Comparison with Select- ed costs. 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Prorated Costs Per Pupil for Selected Elementary Schools for Consultants (Special Teachers). . . . Page 120 128 152 155 155 156 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Statement of the Problem The socialization of youth is the most important task of any society. To help accomplish this task effectively and efficiently societies organize and support schools and charge the personnel employed therein with the reSponSi- bility of develOping and implementing "instructional programs." Such programs may be defined as a cluster of activities designed to achieve Specific, immediate objec- tives as a direct result of those activities when performed over a designated period of time. The curriculum Specifies the instructional activities and is the planned interaction of pupils with instructional content, instructional resources, and instructional processes for the attainment of predetermined educational objectives. Instruction relates to the methods used to accomplish the objectives outlined in the curriculum. It is the reSponSibility of the administrators and school boards of districts to assess the resources available to the district, define in c00peration with staff and public the extent and nature of the needs of those to be served, establish the educational objectives, organize the resources to achieve the objectives and schedule the interaction between the pupils and the resources, content, and processes of instruction. The entire process can be visualized with the help of the following diagram:1 IDENTIFIED NEEDS EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES i I. II. Instructional Resources Instructional Content III. Instructional Processes The administration by scheduling a class commits a teacher, a teaching station, equipment, supplies and all things necessary so that the teacher can interact with a group of pupils (instruction) and achieve a Specific set of 1U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare Office of Education: Handbook VI, Standard Terminology For Instruction In Local and State School Systems, Washington, D. C.: United States Government Printing Office, May, 1967, p. 4. objectives (instructional content). The information avail- able concerning the class is usually sufficient to identify it as a cost center and to evaluate it educationally but not sufficient to determine the cost of the instructional RESOURCES expended. The decisions made regarding the class might have been very different had this cost factor been known, and possibly, at least, the program would have been better as a result. The challenge of meeting effectively all of the objec— tives established in the curriculum is usually made difficult by limited resources. The basic resource of a district is money which can be converted into a wide variety of services and things which are needed to implement programs. Each time a class or activity is scheduled a financial commitment is made. It is not logical or business-like to make such a commitment without knowing what the cost is likely to be. , The plan for commitment of financial resources, the budget, contains two subplans. The first is the revenue plan Specifying the sources and amounts of revenue to be received. The second is the expenditure plan Specifying what is to be purchased and the anticipated cost. The rela- tionship of the expenditure plan to the instructional program may be structured in a wide variety of ways. The basis for outlining the costs (actual or anticipated) is referred to as a dimension. .The grouping of costs along the dimension is referred to as categorization. Unless the costs are outlined and categorized according to the curriculum there is not likely to be any way whereby the financial commit- ment made by scheduling and implementing a class or activity can be determined. Administrators and board members work hard to prescribe a curriculum and administer the resulting program, but they do little to budget for each program, class or activity as an entity or to determine the cost for each once it is completed. The cost information, not having been determined, is not, therefore, available for planning and budgeting the -program, classes and activities of the next year. The loss of this valuable and relevant information makes it less likely that the pattern of commitment of the limited resources of the district for the coming year will be as effective and appropriate in meeting the declared objectives of the pro- gram as it could and Should be. This is the nature of the problem. Those reSponSible for the educational program should be able to set objectives, plan to fulfill those objectives by.means of a curriculum and instruction based upon it, budget for what is planned and account for what happens. There Should be a complete set of information for each program. If a physics class is con- sidered to be a program of the district, then information concerning the objectives of the course, who taught it, who attended the class, the nature of the instruction, materials used, location, time scheduled, amount of money budgeted for it and the cost, and the objects of expenditure that were involved should be available. With this set of infor- mation the program can be meaningfully evaluated both edu- cationally-—in terms of how well it met the objectives-- and in terms of the resources needed to implement it. When resources are limited the setting of priorities is essential. Sets of information which all relate to the same entity (program) help provide a sound basis for estab— lishing such priorities. One program that might be very effective educationally may, because of its high cost, tend to defeat other programs. Looking at the problem from a sense of fair play and from a desire to serve all students according to their needs such programs may or may not be defensible. With appr0priate sets of information available the administrator can quickly weigh the evidence for con— tinuing the program or making a change. One of the most difficult, and often the most neglected processes in school system management, is communication upward, downward, and laterally in the organization with the central purpose of improving quality. With "programs" identified, planned through staff involvement, budgeted for with an understanding of what is economically feasible, and accounted for in terms of all resources committed to the objectives, there is something to communicate about.1 The problem is, in sum, that a complete set of informa- tion for each instructional program defined in terms of 1"Program Planning, Budgeting, and Accounting in School System Operation," a position paper by Allan R. Lichtenberger, Chief, Terminology Compatibility Branch, U. S. Office of Education, September 20, 1967, p. 4. subject-matter courses of instruction, grade levels, or other activities is not possible at present in K-12 public school programs of the state of Michigan. The missing link is financial program accounting which relates the pro— gram and its costs directly. Purpose The purpose of the study is to develop a suggested model for costing K-12 instructional programs which is adapted to the budgeting and accounting codes of the school districts of the state of Michigan. The model will be de— signed to serve as a guide for determining and reporting the following information: A. Program identification including the name and content of the course or activity, who taught or directed the class or activity, school year and term, organi- zational unit, type of school, building, room, type of program, sequential year, level of difficulty, grade level, section, credit units, required or elective, number of male pupils, number of female pupils, type of pupil for whom class is oriented, number of days course is taught per year, number of minutes per week, percentage of laboratory time, texts used, teaching method, materials and media. B. Cost information per pupil, per class, per subject, per grade, per building, or per any item used in the program identification for each cost center (program) per apprOpriation number based upon the Michigan Public School Accounting Manual. The information noted above will be summarized for each program on a Specially designed cost center data sheet. The model will also be field tested in a medium-Sized school district in an effort to determine whether or not: (1) It provides the cost data required of it, (2) It represents a fast, efficient way of obtaining cost data and appears to be adaptable to both large districts and small districts with or without data processing and computer capability or SOphis- ticated accounting systems, and (5) What modifications of the model are recommended. Importance of the Study The educational enterprise at present has one key over- all problem--lack of sufficient resources. Those who control the resources have Shown great reluctance to increase the level of support of school programs in prOportion to the rate of increasing costs and demands for service. A major court test of the constitutionality of the present system of state aid has been initiated by the school board of the city of Detroit, Michigan. A prominent legislator has stated that educators of the state by demanding more funds from the legislature ". . . have cried 'wolf‘ once too often." The problem has many facets one of which is that of communicating cost information concerning Specific programs to the legislators, taxpayers, voters and others who help determine the level of support. Without this information the "cost picture" cannot be related to the quality of the program and a case developed for increasing support which is informed and Specific. Several factors which tend to aggravate the situation include: 1. The inadequacy and inequity of the prOperty tax as a basis for additional funds for school programs. 2. Collective bargaining and increasing demands for higher wages by school district employees. 5. Inflation. 4. The rapid escalation of costs for all educational services, facilities, supplies, and equipment. 5. Increasing demands for more service, greater variety of service, and better quality of service from schools. The study is, therefore, believed to be important for the following reasons: (a) It fulfills an immediate need for a method of obtaining data which is relevant and important to the decision-making process. It is not logical or business-like for a district to invest in instructional pro- grams for which it has insufficient cost data. (2) It will provide Specific cost information for individual programs defined by school district authorities in such formats that it will help facilitate both Program Planning and Budgeting Systems and studies in cost-effectiveness. (5) It will provide a way to help legislators, voters, researchers and others interested in the educational enterprise study the relative costs of various school programs on a class, depart- ment, school or school district scale. (4) It will provide the implementing districts with a way of sharing data about programs defined on a class or activity basis. Assumptions The study is based upon the following basic assump- tions: A. That the concept of program accounting has excellent potential for providing administrators and other decision-makers of the educational enterprise with relevant data which will aid them in designing more effective educational programs. B. That the need for developing a financial subsystem for costing educational programs is immediate and recognized by authorities at both the state and national level, thus increasing the likelihood that a suitable model for cost analysis will be imple- mented in districts of the state. C. That a model for cost analysis can be developed which can be adapted to all districts of the state (including intermediate districts and the district 10 of the state of Michigan) that will not require sophisticated accounting processes or computerized data processing but which will, nevertheless, be facilitated by both. D. That the Michigan Department of Education will not make any major changes in the Accounting Code cur- rently used within the next five years. Scope and Delimitations of the Study The concept of program accounting is very broad and inclusive. It can be broken down into five major areas; (a) pupils, (b) personnel, (c) finances, (d) facilities, and (e) instructional programs. In a total information sys- tem each of the subsystems represented by these areas would be integrated and associated with information from each and all of the other areas thus permitting summary and research along any desired dimension. The financial system currently used in the state is integrated with and associated with facilities and debt retirement and certain programs such as special education and tranSportation, but only in a limited way for programs that are defined on a subject-matter or grade level basis. The latter programs constitute the most important part of the total educational effort both educationally and financially. The model will be an attempt to establish a 11 relationship between costs and individual programs along a subject-matter dimension. A financial subsystem which would function within an integrated total information system consisting of the five areas noted above would involve both revenue and expendi- ture sections for each of the several funds including the general Operating fund, building and site fund, and debt retirement fund. Since the costs related to educational programs are mainly concerned with the Operation of schools the model will likewise be mainly concerned with the accounts of the general operating fund. Further, since costs relate only to the eXpenditure section of the fund the model will also be so restricted. A total information system implemented on a state wide basis would require strict adherence to a standard nomen- clature and codification system. It is not within the SCOpe of this study to attempt to develOp either a system of standard nomenclature or a uniform codification system. The model will rely on other systems that have been develOped as appropriate. Definition of Terms The following terms are used repeatedly in the study and have rather specific definitions as they relate to the study: Categories Cost Accounting Cost Center Dimension Effectiveness Efficiency Program Accounting Program of Instruction 12 A basis for clustering cost centers along a chosen dimension. Each cost center is placed in one cluster per dimension. A division of program accounting Specifically concerned with determin- ing and recording for analysis the costs of implementing a given program. A subdivision of the total instruc- tional program which for accounting purposes is treated as an entity. For example, Physics I could be so treated. A basis for classifying and codifying cost centers. Examples could include subject matter, level of instruction, funding plan, function, clientele, or longevity. The amount or degree of progress made toward stated objectives. Achieving without waste of resources. The process of classifying, recording, and reporting revenue and expenditures so that financial aSpectS of the in- structional program can be prOperly controlled, reported, and analyzed. An activity or group of activities designed to achieve specific, immedi- ate objectives as a result of those activities when performed over a desig- nated period of time such as a semes— ter, or school year. The benefits of program accounting are not being realized~ by districts primarily because cost accounting, an essential ingredient of program accounting, is not required by or facilitated by the Michigan Public School Accounting Manual and the system of accounting which is based upon it. Further background regarding the nature of this problem is provided in the next chapter on related literature and resources. CHAPTER II RELATED LITERATURE AND RESOURCES The suggested instructional programs cost model which is outlined in Chapter III was designed to serve a rather specific purpose, namely, to provide a means of determining and analyzing cost data related to instructional programs. The term instructional program as used herein may refer to any program or combination of programs ranging from the entire public elementary-secondary school program of the state of Michigan to the individual program of one pupil. The cost data, once determined, Should be useful in planning and decision-making at all levels of the education- al enterprise. Regarding planning and decision-making the following statements and recommendations were included in the Special report to the Board of Education of the state of Michigan which was prepared and submitted by Dr. J. Alan Thomas of the University of Chicago in December, 1967. Planning and Decision-Making If educational Opportunities in Michigan are to be expanded at a reasonable cost, careful short and long term planning is needed. This requires the improvement of data-gathering, storing, retrieving, and analyzing, Since decision-making for the present and planning for 15 14 the future rest on the availability of information and upon care projections of future requirements. . . . The state, in its role as an educational leader and coordinator of planning, also needs to im- prove its abilities in these area. Recommendation 1. The Michigan State Department of Education should eXpand and strengthen the Bureau of Research, Planning and DeveIOpment. . . . Recommendation 2. The Michigan State Department of Education should be provided with the staff and the computer facilities needed to gather and process inforh mation. A central information system, in which the interrelationships between programs, finance, and staff- ing may be examined, should be the goal of this depart— ment. Ongoing attempts should be made by school districts and the state to devise standards and means of assessing the effectiveness of educational programs. Recommendation 5. In view of the increased useful- ness of the computer as a tool in administration and instruction, strategically located computation facili- ties should eventually be provided throughout the state. The pilot project designed to serve Oakland, Wayne, and Macomb Counties is a possible prototype of these cen- ters. State advice and encouragement in the location and planning of these centers are essential. Recommendation 4. The State Department of Educa- tion should continue to evaluate and revise its data collection procedures. Particular attention Should be paid to the need for consolidating the wide variety of report forms. Attention Should also be given to the extent and usefulness of data which are gathered. Once collected, information should be processed electronical- ly, thus ensuring reporting and utilization. Recommendation 5. The State Department of Educa- tion should continue to make studies of the most appro- priate ways to sample student pOpulation, in the hope of determining whether there is a better method than the fourth Friday membership statistic now used. Recommendation 6. As part of the planning process, attempts should be made to determine the unit costs of educational programs. Efforts should be made, through apprOpriate accounting and statistical techniques (for example, program budgeting . . .), to determine the factors which are associated with the costs of educa- tional programs. 15 An instructional programs cost model is clearly recom— mended by Dr. Thomas although not necessarily the one included in Chapter III. Speaking more generally the major purposes of any accounting system are: (A) To provide control over fiscal resources and (B) To provide relevant information for planning, decision-making, and evaluation of programs. The present system of accounting, based upon the Michigan Public School Accounting Manual, serves to provide the con- trol noted in (A) above very well, but fails in its infor- mation role rather badly. That this is a general problem not Specific to this state is obvious from the following. Cost analysis in public education is superficial-- we pretend to have a cost analysis system when we are able to compute the "total ADA per pUPil cost." Too Often local district cost analyses are designed for convenient comparisons with those of other districts and do not provide information in an apprOpriate form that can be utilized in local district management decisions. How many accounting systems provide the following data? 1. Cost per ADM for school district. 2. Cost per ADM by attendance centers. 5. Cost per ADM by grade or subject matter area. 4. Cost by attendance center and by grade or subject matter area for: A. Teachers' salaries. B. Supplies. C. Equipment. D. Other. Today educational literature strongly recommends program and/or performance budgeting, but little atten- tion is being given to changing the accounting system 16 which must provide financial data to help evaluate the "programs."1 It is the intent of this project to provide a means of doing all that is noted above in detail. Further, a summary system designed to facilitate reporting such information to any of the several important "audiences" which need the information including Federal Agencies, the State Legislature, the Michigan State Department of Education, Intermediate Boards of Education, the central administrative staff of the district, board of education, building and teaching staffs, citizen committees and others as appropriate will be included. The model is a suggested subsystem of a general program accounting system. It can be adapted to: (A) Either accrual or cash basis financial accounting, (B) Serve as a basis for performance budgeting, and (C) Depreciation accounting of capital outlay expenditures. Cost accounting, to be most effective, would serve as one of many subsystems of a general program accounting sys- tem. A general program accounting system is one possible form of a total information system. The Midwestern States Educational Information Project Financial Subsystem Sub- committee cites the following reason for moving to program accounting: 1George A. Chambers and E. Gordon Richardson, "Criti- cisms And Challenges to School District Financial Accounting Practice," School Business Affairs, July, 1967, p. 175. 17 Program accounting provides information and assists school administrators in making choices, regarding Optimum allocation of resources among alternative pro- grams or educational needs, based on an evaluation of effectiveness of individual programs. Program accounting describes desired accomplish— ments, rather than merely the objects of expenditure. Program accounting developes a cost—quality aware- ness among school administrators, school boards, and lay citizens. Program accounting will enable fiscal administra— tors to group all Operational units or programs together for individual or collective analysis according to comparative standards defined by the professional edu- cators. Program accounting will enable more uniform and accurate comparisons of both fiscal programs'—-and edu- cational programs'--effectiveness among the various educational agencies. Program accounting procedures will provide the type and degree of data specifically needed for intelligent predictions of future fiscal and educational programs through the budget preparation. Program accounting will help establish fiscal responsibility and accountability, thereby safeguarding the stewardship of public funds.1 The ratio of output to input in a system is Often called cost-effectiveness. The struggle to determine degrees of cost-effectiveness in regard to educational programs has been, and is likely to continue to be, filled with headaches just as it has been for business, industry, and government—é for many of the same reasons. Benson states, 1Midwestern States Educational Information Project, P. L. 89-10, Title V, Section 505, "Accounting Manual For Program Accounting," First Draft, December, 1967, p. 1. 18 . . . Possibly there will come a day when produc- tivity measures will exist in education, and we ought thus to see what kind of data are required in order that such a tool of research can be made available. We will want to examine the process of weighing altern- ative costs to accomplish given, specific ends. . . . (also) . . . from the economists's point of view, only as school systems go beyond the measurement of productivity to study the contribution of Specific in- puts (various types of human services and various types of physical goods) to educational ends, i.e., to ex- plore the interrelations between inputs and outputs can productivity advance in education be assured. . . .1 . . . While a strong case exists a priori for the statement that advances in productivity in the indus- trialized nations cannot continue unless a certain (somewhat undefined) level of schooling is maintained, it is exceedingly difficult to relate a given change in expenditure on public education to a corresponding quan- titative improvement in economic productivity. (Further) it is sometimes held that education is handi- capped by not being able to relate changes in dollar value to inputs to some series of outputs. We do not have any widely accepted index of productivity for the education industry itself. It would be well if we could measure the indirect contribution of education to pro- ductivity, i.e., the effects of changes in quality of schooling on changes in output in the private economy, say. But it would also be well if we could measure the direct contribution of change in expenditures to change in outputs of the education industry itself. The lack of these kinds of measurements does not place education in any unique position. (1) The identi- fication of the more basic kinds of causal relationships in productivity is at present an insuperable problem. In fact, the existing measures of productivity change for the private economy—-and even the measures for particular industries (including those whose products are tangible)--are known to have very serious defects Simply as descriptive instruments. (2) For broad sectors of the economy (the whole public sector and, in the private sector, trade and service activities general— ly), not just in education, no accepted productivity measures exist.2 1Charles S. Benson, The Economics of Public Education. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1961), p. 556. 21bid., p. 558. 19 There are many factors which are closely related to changes in productivity. Mills suggests the following list as being worthy of consideration in this regard. The quantity or quality of capital equipment used. The quality of effort input (This may be a change in intensity or a change in average degree of skill. Such a change in average skill may result from a change in the competence of individuals or groups or from a shift in the composition of the work force.). The ratio of effort input to productive instru- ments used or to natural resources used (A change in average productivity resulting from the play of diminishing returns would be included in this category.). The quality of natural resources or material used. The quantity Of materials or intermediate products used to produce a standard unit of final product. The amount of non-human power used or the manner of its use. The organization of productive units. Working conditions. The effectiveness of administration.1 The list is not as appropriate for education as for business or industry, but it does point out that there is a large number of factors involved and an even larger number of possible combinations of factors. The problem of cost-effectiveness is further complicated by the fact that it involves more than just dollar value .. - . . 1C. Wright Mills, quoted by Benson, ibid., p. 546. 20 costs. It includes direct and indirect costs, fixed and variable costs, foregone earnings of pupils, services by public agencies, costs due to loss of tax base when school districts buy property (imputed to be $51,210,000 in 1965- 66), and costs related to misuse and idleness of facilities. The problem is one of maximizing the flow of educational services from a fixed amount of resources. The resources involved have more than just dollar dimensions. Program accounting, in its complete sense, would include performance information, evaluation and testing permitting a more com- plete appraisal of the resources and facilitating the process of determining cost-effectiveness. The plan for utilization of resources includes the operating budget. Benson poses the problem of preparing such a budget as follows: To prepare an ideal educational budget is diffi- cult, more difficult than the corresponding process in a private business firm. The Objectives Of school systems are multiple, and there is not absolute agree- ment among parents, educators and taxpayers on the importance--or relative weighting--of these different objectives. More distressing, it is very hard to measure closely the effects of given change in school practice. It is thus, an imposing task to choose rationally among alternative means to accomplish stated ends.l However, educators must choose. The public schools will continue to operate in an economic system that has a scarcity of resources for many years to come. The competi- tion for those resources which are available will increase lBenson, ibid., p. 4. 21 in intensity as long as they continue to have alternate uses. The decisions ideally should be made to select the minimum-cost mix of resources to achieve organizational goals. Benson concludes, ". . . that a necessary condition for sustained progress in education is the accumulation of information on the particular outcomes that result from Specific combinations of inputs."1 The chief advantage of program accounting is that it relates a set of outcomes (progress toward stated and un— stated objectives) and a Specific set of inputs (and their related costs) in such a manner that it makes cost—effective- ness studies possible--if not easy. The two "sets" combine to form the basis for an educational program. Among the many reasons given for not wanting to imple- ment program accounting complete with cost accounting are these: A. It is Simply a device for increasing state and federal control of education. B. Even if the cost of English instruction (for example) were known it would still be included in the cur- riculum so why bother to cost it? C. If program accounting is used prorating of cost will become necessary and the data will become a bunch of "guesses"--it won't be "clean" like that which is 1Ibid., p. 561. 22 related to object of expenditure accounting. D. The amount of effort, confusion and mechanization required is too great considering the limited value of the information obtained. Regarding (A) this has been part of the rationale for preserving local control of education for decades. Local control has failed to solve the problems of education that exist nation-wide. (B) can be expressed as, ". . . since it will require use of a car anyway why not purchase a Rolls Royce? . . ." It may be that the district cannot afford a Rolls Royce and that the purchase of such a car would jeopardize other programs by depriving them of needed re- sources. In regard to (C) it is true, but there iS much more to the story that will be discussed in Chapter III. (D) is also true to the extent that there is no reason why a district should incur the trouble and expense of obtaining information that is not perceived to be important and rele- vant to the administration of the district. In regard to the general problem of relating cost and quality in education Clark states, Economists are interested in getting whatever it is society wants with less effort, or getting more of whatever it is society wants with the same effort. Surely no one in the field of education would Object seriously to getting more of whatever it wanted with the effort that is now being made. . . . The problem is further complicated in the schools by the widely held View that the concept of efficiency does not apply to education. Many persons are under the misapprehen- sion that the effort to increase efficiency necessarily 25 and ordinarily changes the goals of education. If it could be explained that what is involved is to get a greater output with the same input, it is difficult to see how anyone could object. There are two basic problems: One is to get a reasonable amount of interest in and attention to the problem of trying to increase the output of what each of us wants from education with any given input. The second part of the problem is to begin to get wide- spread understanding that more people are going to have a great deal more education, and that conse- quently more efficient methods will have to be found to provide the increased amount.1 There is much experimentation and research currently in education designed to find the best educational answers to educational problems. Most of the research is designed to test the educational effectiveness of various new ap- proaches. Very little is aimed at ways of providing detailed cost information on a program basis. The reason may, para- doxically, be one of cost. Individual researchers may not be able to do the job. Team approaches and bigger studies are required. One such study which is very pertinent to Michigan reports the following: . . . as the body of reliable program cost/benefit statistics accumulates, school administrators Should be able to configure with greater ease and reliability alternative mixes of course offerings to fit budget restraints. Along with this, the comparison of altern- ative instructional methods (team teaching, programmed learning, etc.) with similar programs, Should provide guides as to the Optimal method. . . . Efficiengy in EducationiprMeasuringgguality Efficiency in this context means the ability to "work smarter not harder" and does not necessarily 1Harold F Clark, Cost and Quality In Public Education. New York: Syracuse University Press, 1965, p. 11. 24 involve greater demands on individual teachers and administrators. On the contrary, the individual teacher stands to gain much from better measures of quality of education . . . (such as): . Curriculum . Class size . Qualification and allocation of teachers . Space . Instructional materials As more familiarity is gained in measuring these cost factors and with the widespread use of uniform achievement testing in the State, it should be possible to measure the relative importance of these cost factors. The use of Multiple Regression Analysis in associating variations in mean achievement test scores with such variables as teacher experience, class Size, age of building and teacher salaries, has already been demon- strated. The revised system Should accumulate a re- liable "data base" for such statistical analysis, the benefits of which could be of great use.1 It would also be possible and helpful to provide each teacher with a record of the itemized costs related to his particular classes and activities. This type of record is not now available and this fact negates a function of the teacher which is often talked about, but seldom accomplished-— involving the teacher in the budgeting process and the plan- ning process. If each teacher could review the costs of the program(s) for which he was mainly responsible his responses might include: (A) Helpful suggestions regarding priorities involved in the program which, in turn, would help facilitate a better budget, (B) An excellent opportunity for general relevant communication between the teacher and the 1Lybrand, Ross Bros. & Montgomery, School District Financial Reportinngor Resource Allocation, a report pre— pared for inclusion in the study of Financing of Elementary and Secondary Education in Michigan, November 15, 1967, pp. 54-55. 25 administrator regarding the evaluation of the program, its Objectives, etc., (C) A better attitude toward costs and their role in choosing alternatives, and (D) Less suspicion of the Board and the Administration regarding their position taken in collective bargaining. Teachers simply do not understand the financial programs and problems of school districts well enough to interpret budgets and audits based upon such programs and problems. Individual program cost analysis related to the item of ex- penditure dimension of the Michigan Public School Accounting Manual would provide each teacher with a cost summary for the programs for which he is responsible. It would also be pos- sible to codify each subject-matter based instructional program of the district and require that each teacher or em- ployee requisitioning goods or services record the code on the requisition. This would help to insure that the correct program was charged for the purchase if one were made thus permitting an accounting of the cost of the purchase on the final cost report. The "mystery" as to how much was spent for what for which program in a high school, for example, would be eliminated or at least reduced. This could have a very positive effect on the morale of the staff in buildings and systems where the budget and purchasing practices are kept secret and used for purposes of control and favoratism. Lybrand, Ross Bros. & Montgomery proposed a program accounting and budgeting system with the following important 26 characteristics and criteria for Michigan: a. Programs as described herein encompass a wide range of school activities including: . Instructional Programs .. Type of education (secondary) .. Subject area (science) .. Course of instruction (10th grade biology) .. Grade level (4th grade) . Service function (pupil transportation) . Administration . School plant b. All costs, revenues and operating statistics directly related to an instructional program, service or school plant are reported on the same report. c. Program costs include: . Normal Spending costs generally recorded in the General Fund. . Depreciation of Special equipment or facilities used exclusively or primarily in the program. . Pension and social security costs (paid for by the State) assignable on the basis of direct pay- roll costs. d. Service costs, such as pupil transportation, are assigned to instructional programs or to individual schools on the basis of the usage of the service. No flat or arbitrary allocations are made. e. Administrative and plant costs associated with each school plant, or with the district as a whole, are treated as a “program" and are not allocated to instructional programs. . . .1 Items (d) and (e) above should be reversed. Service costs such as transportation, food services, should NOT be charged to the instructional program, and administrative and 1Ibid., p. 8. 27 plant costs which must be incurred in any instructional pro- gram SHOULD be charged to the instructional program. Regarding transportation as an example of a service the following statement, which is repeated later in the study for emphasis, appears in the Thomas Report, However, under present circumstances, transportation services are not an ingredient in the provision of edu- cation. . . . The purposes of transportation are; (1) to make it possible for groups of students to be brought to one place for instruction, and (2) to bring about certain economies of scale.1 It is true that the economies of scale noted above tend to reduce the costs of instructional programs, the inclusion of these costs in the instructional program would tend to offset this reduction and, perhaps, more realistically repre- sent the actual cost of the program. However, the relationship is nebulous mathematically and Should be disregarded. In regard to administrative and plant costs it is diffi- cult to conceive of an instructional program in English, for example, conducted in a high school in Michigan that didn't require a building or classroom, or no administrative, custodial, or maintenance services. To omit such costs and others such as depreciation of physical plant is to distort the cost of the program. Later in their report Lybrand, Ross Bros. & Montgomery develOp a case for depreciation accounting and discredit the 1Alan J. Thomas, "Financing of Elementary and Secondary Education in Michigan," Special Report to the Board of Educa- tion of the State of Michigan, December, 1967, pp. 6-7. 28 present system which does not employ it. They also object to the position taken by the Association of School Business Officials of the United States and Canada which does not support depreciation accounting. They state: . . . Background: Depreciation accounting allo— cates the cost of facilities and equipment over their useful lives. Historically, depreciation has not been provided for in School District accounting since the determination of income through the matching of costs and revenues is not required. Under present accounting procedures, school facility costs may be charged to either the Building and Site Fund, the Capital Outlay account in the General Fund or a separate construction fund. At present, annual per pupil expenditure compu- tation includes the cost of capital asset replacements and ignores the cost of new or expended school facili- ties. Both treatments distort the actual cost of educa- tion. The arguments against recognizing depreciation ex- pense on school facilities are numerous and wide—ranging. They include the belief that depreciation accounting is: . Unnecessary since schools are not involved in recovering costs such as is the case in busi- ness and industry. . Unnecessary for administrative decision-making. . Would be difficult to establish and maintain. In addition, . . . (the) . . . Association of School Business Officials believes that depreciation on a capital asset basis should be recorded on the books only if the cash for replacement of those assets can legally be set aside. Need for Depreciation Accounting: The opponents of depreciation accounting for schools ignore the fact that: . The "using up" of facilities is a cost of edu- cation. . This element of cost can be expected to increase by the compounding of an increasing rate of con- struction and increasing unit costs of construc- tion. 29 . The facilities costs can vary widely by program. Clearly, depreciation accounting is required if: . An accurate cost Of education is to be calcu- lated by program areas on an annual basis. . The resources expended are to be related meaningfully to the services that are performed.1 Clearly too, administrative, custodial and maintenance costs which result from designing, scheduling, implementing and supporting instructional programs must be included if an accurate cost per program is to become known. Chambers and Richardson support the position taken by Lybrand, ROSS Bros. & Montgomery. They state: . . . The important facts are that assets do de- cline in value, must be replaced, and represent an eXpense over a period of time. Isn't the depreciation cost plus interest a more justifiable and realistic cost, in many cases, than the outright purchase price or principal and interest costs?2 Chambers and Richardson also noted the position taken by the Association of School Business Officials, but their reaction to it was opposite to that taken by Lybrand, Ross Bros. & Montgomery. The matter might be more clear if the A.S.B.O. position were more clearly defined. The official position statement appears below: lLybrand, Ross Bros. & Montgomery, School District Financial Reporting For Resource Allocation, a report pre- pared for inclusion in the study of Financing of Elementary and Secondary Education in Michigan, November 15, 1967, pp. 24-25. ' 2George A. Chambers and E. Gordon Richardson, "Why Not Depreciation?" School Business Affairs, August, 1967, pp. 208-209. 50 Depreciation on the general fixed assets of a school district should not be recorded in the accounts unless cash replacements can legally be set aside. Depreciation on such assets may be computed for unit cost purposes even if cash for replacement cannot legally be set aside providing these depreciation charges are used for memo- randum purposes only and are not reflected in the accounts. A.S.B.O. further states in the Recommended School Account— ing Principles and Procedures that: A school district's accounting system must make it possible to . . . reflect the financial condition and financial operation of the district.2 Chambers and Richardson regarded the above statements as reflecting good accounting procedures and asked, ". . . why, then, are the majority of school districts reporting cost data on a net Operating basis and not reflecting a total edu- cational cost including depreciation?"3 In sum, it is important to consider both cash and noncash costs of education and educational programs. Allan R. Lichtenberger, Chief, Terminology Compatibility Branch, U. S. Office of Education states that a school dis- trict which employs a system of program planning, budgeting and accounting should expect the following: Improved assessment of the efficiency of allocation of educational resources. lAd0pted by the 50th A.S.B.O. meeting in San Francisco, California, October 21, 1964. 2Ibid. 3George A. Chambers and E. Gordon Richardson, "Why Not Depreciation?" School Business Affairs, August, 1967, p. 208. 51 In plain words, this means that a better job can be done of assigning staff, plant use, equipment, supplies and funds to accomplish what is believed to be worth accomplishing. A more continuous and consistent consideration and review of educational objectives. The very fact of planning, budgeting, and ac- counting for the comparatively small "units of behavior" or "programs" geared to specific, expected accomplishment virtually forces attention to objec- tives. Sharper and more consistent examination of essential sequences of educational development. Education is a highly sequential process. These sequences both within and among "program" are much more easily observed, studied, and managed when there is a process Of deliberate planning, budgeting for, and accounting for each "program". More effective communication through all levels of management concerningjprocesses and Operations as they relate to achievement of objectives. One of the most difficult, and often the most neglected processes in school system management, is communication upward, downward, and laterally in the organization with the central purpose of improving quality. With "programs" identified, planned through staff involvement, budgeted for with an understanding of what is economically feasible, and accounted for in terms of all resources committed to the objectives there is something definite to communicate about. Better understandipg of how educational resources and effort relate to accomplishment. If more money and more effort do not result in more effective education, the educational enterprise is ironically unique. Still, education has seldom shown clearly that more resources result in improved accomplishment. With "programs" the Opportunities to clarify this relationship are at their best. Disclosure of the kinds of educational development foregone when resources are limited. Entirely too often the statement, "We have a good school system", implies that the school system is 52 meeting more needs than it really is. Frequently, too, a school system is criticized for not providing certain kinds of educational development when their provision is not possible in terms of available resources. When "programs" go through the process of planning, budgeting, and accounting, the kinds of educational develOpment they make possible show with clarity the kinds that are foregone. It is common sense to make such exclusions evident. . Better oppprtunity to set educational priorities. Seldom does a school system have sufficient re- sources to do all that needs to be done. Setting of priorities is essential. "Programs" bring these into focus, and the peOple who make decisions have a much better basis for determining orders of importance in view of resources available.1 Program cost accounting is thus seen to be part of the total process of program management. The advantages noted above, however, will not be fully realized unless program planning, program budgeting, and program accounting are all implemented. Lichtenberger offers the following brief, but adequate, definitions of these terms. The determination of what is to be done to achieve the objectives of a "program" is program planning. The process of carefully estimating the cost of doing what is to be done to achieve the objectives of a "program" is program budgeting. The recording of what is done in the Operation of a "program", of what is spent, and of what is accomplished is program accounting.2 1"Program Planning, Budgeting, and Accounting in School System Operation," a position paper by Allen R. Lichtenberger, Chief, Terminology Compatibility Branch, U. S. Office of Edu- cation, September 20, 1967, pp. 5-5. 21bid., p. 2. 55 The model will provide a way of determining "what is spent" for each program in each appropriation category. This information can be used for planning and budgeting as well as for cost analysis and evaluation. The model suggests a way of identifying the "program" which includes information about the nature of the program, who was effected, how many equated full-time teacher efforts were required for its im- plementation, what methods and facilities were used, what objectives were involved and what progress was made toward those objectives. The model is intended to be consistent with the concept of systems analysis. Systems analysis has been defined as: . . . inquiry to aid a decisionmaker choose a course of action by systematically investigating his prOper objectives, comparing quantitatively where pos- sible the costs, effectiveness, and risks associated with the alternative policies or strategies for achieving them, and formulating additional alternatives if those examined are found wanting. Systems analysis represents an approach to, or way of looking at, complex problems of choice under uncertainty, such as those associated with national security. In such problems, objectives are usually multiple, and possibly conflicting, and analysis designed to assist the decisionmaker must necessarily involve a large element of judgment.1 Systems analysis is primarily a managerial approach to decisionmaking wherein over-all system effectiveness analysis are two approaches to the task; other, more specific tools and techniques can be supplied where appropriate.2 1Richard A. Johnson, Fremont E. Kast, and James E. Rosenzweig, The Theory and Management of Systems (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1967), p. 144. 21bid., p. 291. 54 The model may be described as an example of one of the "specific tools and techniques" noted above. It is mainly concerned with obtaining cost data and relating that data to the objectives, evaluation, and selected characteristics of the programs. The resultant information "package" can then be used as relevant data for planning, and decision- making. The model is also concerned with analysis, the breaking down and distribution of costs, as an important prelude to synthesis of new and revised programs. A Planning-Programming-Budgeting System (PPBS) is another important set of tools and techniques for helping management make better decisions in regard to allocation of resources. The primary characteristics of PPBS are: 1. It identifies the fundamental Objectives of the school. 2. All activities, regardless of organizational place- ment, are related to these objectives. 5. Implication of programs in future years are con- sidered. 4. All related costs are considered. 5. Systematic analysis of alternatives is undertaken.1 Systems approaches tend to emphasize objectives, evalu- ation and the study of alternative ways to progress toward objectives, consideration of costs and use of resources, and 1Unpublished paper by J. A. Jungherr, Assistant Superin- tendent-Business, Pearl River School District, New York, "Planning-Programming-Budgeting System For Public School Districts," October 10, 1967, p. 2. 55 planning for the future. Stating the Objectives for each program is a difficult task. It is assumed that all instructional programs have objectives and that they are not so obscure, mysterious, or secret that they cannot be expressed in written form. Stat- ing the Objectives in behavioral terms may be the most difficult of all, but it offers the important advantage of producing something observable and testable. This tends to make evaluation of progress made toward the objectives more measurable and useful in terms of cost-effectiveness con- siderations. Indeed, it would be almost impossible to measure cost-effectiveness of programs for which the objec- tives are expressed as to know, to enjoy, to believe, to understand, to grasp the significance of, and so forth. Mager has defined the problems related to stating Objectives in behavioral terms and concludes that: 1. A Statement of instruction objectives is a collection of words or symbols describing one of your education- al intents. 2. An objective will communicate your intent to the degree you described what the learner will be DOING when demonstrating his achievement and how you will know when he is doing it. 5. To describe terminal behavior (what the learner will be DOING). a. Identify and name the over-all behavior act. b. Define the important conditions under which the behavior is to occur (givens or restrictions, or both). c. Define the criterion of acceptable performance. 56 4. write a separate statement for each objective; the more statements you have, the better chance you have of making clear your intent. 5. If you give each learner a copy of your objectives, you may not have to do much else.1 Regarding evaluation which is necessary to determine whether or not Objectives have been reached Mager states, It is not always possible to specify a criterion with as much detail as you would like, but this Should not prevent you from trying to communicate as fully as possible with the learner and with each other. But certainly you Should be able to find some way to evalu- ate anything you think important enough to spend a significant amount of time teaching. If you find some- thing you feel Sure you cannot measure, the place to put the effort is in trying to develop some way to measure it.2 Some examples of behavioral Objectives appear below. If we wish students to know and understand the process of osmosis, then it must be made clear what is to be accomplished as indicated by the behavior of the students. . . . The students should be able to: 1. Construct a definition of the word "osmosis". 2. Identify a situation involving the process of osmosis from a list of written Situations. 5. Describe in writing how the process of osmosis is involved in a particular experiment. 4. Construct an apparatus illustrating the process of osmosis when given the necessary equipment in the~‘ laboratory. 1Robert F. Mager, Preparing Educational Objectives (Palo Alto: Fearon Publishers, 1962), p. 55. 21bid., p. 50. 57 5. Construct a brief explanation of the process of - osmosis in living systems and give an example from the plant or animal world of osmosis as a process in the nutrition of the organism.1 If the objectives of a program or course were to be defined in the manner illustrated above the result would be a volume not a page or two. The process of evaluation re- garding such a large number of Objectives and reporting results would also involve voluminous records. Obviously, for the purposes of the model and for managerial decision- making regarding all of the programs of a district a much more simplified expression of the objectives and evaluation lmust be used. The "quality" of the program is simply an expression of its effectiveness. The important question regarding whether or not the class or activity is apprOpriate to the needs of the pupils enrolled is involved only peripherally. The model assumes that the objectives will be as apprOpriate as those who select them know how to make them and that the task of expressing them will force attention to this issue. The problem is to express the objectives in summary form, evalu- ate the progress made toward them by whatever means seems best, and compare the results with the costs. Progress toward inapprOpriate objectives may be of little educational value. 1Earl J. Montague, and David P. Butts, "Behavioral Objectives," The Science Teacher, March 1968, pp. 55-54. 58 However, that is the basis of another set of studies and is outside the limits set for the model. Interviews With Resource Persons The interviews are reported below. The purposes of the interviews were: A. Determine whether or not cost accounting by program was a necessary or desirable supplement to general accounting for accountability and control in govern- mental agencies especially schools. B. Determine what efforts were being made at the state level to design and implement program cost accounting. C. Obtain information and ideas regarding the best ap- proaches to cost accounting in school districts of this state. D. Obtain feedback regarding the parts of the model which were completed and available for review at the time of the interview. Not all of the interviews are reported herein. Indeed, perhaps the most important interviews will be held, if possible, after the completion of the study. These will be held for the purpose of introducing the model to a member of the Michigan Department of Education, the State Superintendent of Schools, or Dr. J. Allan Thomas with the hope that the model will be given consideration as an "alternate method" for costing educational programs of the state of Michigan. 59 Interview #1: The first interview to be reported was with Mr. James Wresinski, State Budget Director, Secretary of State Department, state of Michigan. Mr. Wresinski made the following points which are paraphrased and not direct quotations: The state does not have anything very sophisticated in the way of performance budgeting at present. It does not prorate costs since it takes time and to do a complete job would require much more data processing capability and more personnel than is now available. It is futility short of this. The state has four programs, each of which has compon- ents. Each component, in turn, has several subprograms. The main idea, were we to implement cost accounting, would be to identify the cost centers and code the requisitions and purchases according to the cost center(s) effected. The state refuses to prorate administrators salaries. Administration is considered to be a separate program. This causes trouble, because it is isolated and not being identified with the program--it is vulnerable. Program budgeting does make peOple cost conscious. Interview #2: The second interview was with Mr. Robert McKerr, Head of the Bureau of Administrative Services, Michigan Department of Education. Mr. McKerr made, among others, the following Significant comments: The state will go to some type of restructuring along instructional program lines within five years. The whole trend of thinking is to make the accounting information useful for planning both short and long—range. The present system is simply not good enough. HOwever, we must keep the present dimension or one like it for control of funds and accountability. We need an Object of expendi- ture code. I like the idea of more than one dimension. Interview #5: The third interview to be reported was with Mr. Casimir J. Wojcik, Auditor, Harris Reames & Ambrose, 40 Certified Public Accountants, Lansing, Michigan. Mr. Wojcik was the principle author of the Accounting Manual For Public Community Colleges of the state of Michigan, published in May, 1967. He reviewed the initial drafts of chapters II and III of the study and in a two and one-half hour conversa- tion at his home made the following suggestions among others: "Cost collection centers" should be used to collect cost information on the many items which, because of their nature, require prorating. The process of prorating should be approached with en- thusiasm, not pessimism. The use of engineering manuals, meter readings, use studies, and consultant help would help to increase the accuracy of the results and the confidence of those who use the data for planning and reporting. Emphasis Should be placed on the organization of the cost centers. An organization plan relating the cost centers must be carefully worked out and criteria established to measure the performance of the cost centers. The accounting practices used for the cost centers must be uniform to avoid unfair comparisons between centers. Instructional programs accounting is, in sum, a system whereby what is to be done (objectives) are carefully formu— lated, methods of evaluation defined, resources (personnel, facilities, supplies and equipment) assigned according to a plan and schedule, after which the program is implemented, evaluations made, and costs determined. A new cycle, based in part on the experiences with the last cycle, is then planned for and implemented. The implementation of the model will not fulfill all of the many requirements of instructional programs account- ing--it has not been designed to do so. It will, hopefully, 41 serve to move a district closer to that goal. Districts are presently performing many, perhaps most, of the acts required to relate costs to programs. Implementation of the model should help the district take the few remaining steps toward that goal. The next chapter includes a descrip— tion of the model and some suggestions concerning its implementation. CHAPTER III DEVELOPING THE MODEL The model is an assemblage of information, suggestions, and formats which is intended to help facilitate the process of cost accounting of instructional programs. It does not represent the only way for costing programs. Although it is adapted to the Michigan Public School Accounting System the model can be easily applied to any school accounting system which uses object of expenditure reporting. Appraisal of the cost-effectiveness of programs is a very worthwhile endeavor. However, it requires that the objectives of the programs so treated are stated, evaluation of progress made toward the objectives measured and reported, and that the costs of the program are determined and reported. The model treats costs, but assumes that the Objectives and evaluations are given. To begin the presentation of the model and its develop- ment several key terms which were introduced in Chapter I are further defined and clarified. The first term to be so treated is "cost center." 42 45 Cost center: A cost center may be regarded as the smallest segment of the total program for which separate records, budgets, and accounts are kept. It is a "sub— program," a part of the total program which, if it were further divided, would lose its identity. An Algebra class would qualify in this regard, but not half an Algebra class with half of the Objectives, assignments, pupils, teachers, or anything else usually associated with a complete set. A class of third graders taught by Mrs. Jones or an extra- curricular activity could also qualify since both represent a "programmed" activity. However, many programs qualify which , if considered cost centers,~tend to complicate and distort the instructional cost picture. Since it is the reSponSibility of the administrators of the district to define cost centers in such a manner so as to avoid this distortion the following statements are offered as guides: A. Define as many cost centers on the basis of curricu- lar (classes) and extra-curricular activities as possible. The basic role of the district is to provide instruction based upon the curriculum (Objectives) of the district. Classes and extra— curricular activities represent this instruction and costs should, therefore, be related to those classes and activities rather than such programs as transpor- tation, or custodial services. There are many other bases for defining cost centers within the overall 44 realm of instruction. Examples include subject- matter, grade levels or levels of instruction, level of difficulty (retarded, honors, tracks, etc.), among others. Classes and activities are recommended above all others partly because they represent dis— creet basic units of the total program and partly because many of the advantages Of the other bases can be realized by use of apprOpriate dimensions and categorizations which are discussed later. If the cost center records are to be grouped and categorized to represent larger programs within the total program of the district such as the math pro- gram of the high school or the fourth grade program of the district in order to facilitate planning, evaluation, or analysis each cost center record should be complete with the following information: 1. Identification of teacher 2. School year 5. Term 4. School Organization Unit by Grade Level 5. Type of School 6. Building 7. Room or Teaching Station 8. Type of Program for Special Funding (is appro— priate) 9. Course Title or Activity Title and Code 45 10. Sequential Year 11. Level of Difficulty 12. Year or Grade Level 15. Class or Activity Section 14. Units or Credits 15. Required or Elective 16. Number of Male Pupils in Class 17. Number of Female Pupils in Class 18. Type of Pupil for Whom Class is Oriented 19. Number of Days 20. Total Minutes Per Week, Including Labs 21. Percentage of Total Time in Lab 22. One-Text, Multi-Text, No Text 25. Other Teaching Media Used 24. Extent to Which Teaching Media are Used. 25. Content Descriptors. In addition to the items listed above a brief state- ment of the objectives of the course, and a brief statement of the methods of evaluation and results if known Should be prepared and attached to the cost center data sheet. Items 1-25 listed above are taken from the Manual For Reporting Instructional Programsl--A Subsystem in the Midwestern States 1Midwestern States Educational Information Project. P. L. 89—10, Title V, Section 505, Manual For Reporting In- structional Programs, A Subsystem in the MSEIP Operational System (State of Iowa, Department of Public Instruction, October 24, 1967). 46 Educational Information Project which is a system designed Specifically for this task. C. Avoid the temptation of identifying custodial serv— ices, maintenance and administrative services (including general administrative services) as cost centers. It is true that they can qualify as cost centers and often are used as such. However, the reason for having such services is to design, schedule, staff, facilitate, Operate and maintain the instructional program. These services support the program. Their existence depends upon the pro- gram and the costs which result from them should be included in the cost centers of the instructional program. To do otherwise would distort the cost picture of the instructional programs. D. There are exceptions to (C) above. Some services and programs are neither curricular or directly supportive. The most Obvious example is that of transportation. Others might include recreational activities, various community services, adult edu- cation, building programs, and some "management" activities related to such programs or services. These programs and services and others of the same type should be treated as separate cost centers. Dimension: The second term to be given expanded treat- ment is dimension. It is the basis for classifying and 47 codifying cost centers. It is also the basis for placing the cost centers in "order" such that they can be grouped by category. One of the many possible and useful dimensions which can be used is that of subject-matter. This base is excellent for several reasons. One is that as the instruc— tional program tends toward Specialization in the upper grades it does so along subject—matter lines. The math pro- gram becomes more specialized and departmentalized making it easy and appropriate to establish cost centers within the department. Another reason is that subject-matter areas have different requirements, objectives and cost patterns. Separating cost centers along a subject-matter dimension helps to identify and clarify these differences and make better planning and evaluation possible. Cost centers which are repeated year after year will build a performance and cost history which can be very helpful in planning. Subject-matter has one important disadvantage as a dimension. It does not work well in the elementary grades where specialization has not reached the stage which results in the assignment of a teaching station and a teacher per subject. It would be very difficult to isolate the cost of third grade social studies, for example, unless the exact amount of time devoted to the subject as well as the supplies and equipment involved were known. If such information were available the problem could be solved by prorating. 48 Another important dimension is that of grade level or instructional level where no grades are designated. The cost centers for a given grade level such as the third grade could be grouped and summarized thus permitting the costing of the entire third grade "program." This would be appro- priate in most elementary programs, but not, necessarily, in secondary programs. Categories: The third key concept, categories, refers to bases for grouping cost centers along a dimension. Cate- gories are used as measuring points along the dimension much like street numbers or blocks of street numbers along a city street. If instructional level was chosen as a dimension, for example, appropriate categories might include; pre-school program, kindergarten program, early elementary (grades one through three) upper elementary program (grades four and five), middle school program (grades Six through eight), and the high school program. It is possible to "over-categorize" and atomize the program too much. However, since categori- zation is a relatively simple process whenever a given set of categories proves unsatisfactory changes can be made quickly to remedy the problem. Program: Reference to the key concept of program can now be expanded by use of the concept of cost centers. A program may be considered as any one or more cost centers that are perceived to be "alike" in terms of any rational basis for comparing them. Algebra I can simultaneously be 49 part of the mathematics program of the entire school or district and part of the ninth grade program, because it has "likeness" to both mathematics and the ninth grade. It would, however, appear as part of the mathematics program on one dimension and as part of the ninth grade program on another dimension. Once the cost centers have been defined and codified by name, number, or both the dimensions chosen and the cate- gorizations specified a chart showing the assignment of each cost center to a category per dimension can be prepared. It is very important that each cost center be assigned to one and only one category per dimension. If the cost centers were treated as pages of a book, for example, the basis for ordering the pages would be the dimension and the chapter headings would serve as categories. If the pages could be ordered in many different series each telling a different but true story the basis for each new order would be the new dimension and the categorizations (chapter headings) would be those the "author" (administrator) thought most appropriate. In every such "book" all of the pages or cost centers must appear once, and only once. Proratipg: The last key concept to be expanded is that of prorating. It is the basic tool for allocating costs to cost centers when more than one cost center is involved per cost item. Cost accounting is impossible without it. With- out effort and planning it is improbable with it. The initial 50 reaction to prorating is often negative primarily because it involves "judgments" and ratios which do not have the clear-cut exactness and accounting niceness that object of expenditure cost have. To those used to thinking in account- ing for costs "to the penny“ the idea of doing anything less exact is disturbing. It need not be. Especially if it -prevents the administration from getting relevant and valu- able information about the costS of what is being done program by program. Especially too, if it can be accom— plished without replacing the object of expenditure type accounting with all of its exactness, accountability, and Obntrol. Information supplied by this type of accounting is a necessary base for the prorating process. Confidence in cost data that has been accumulated by use of prorating wholly or in part will increase if some of the precautions listed below are observed: A. Choose the method of prorating that will produce results which seem to best represent the "reality" of the situation. The person in charge of the pro- gram of the cost center is in a unique position to give valuable assistance in structuring a concept of reality. The inability to prorate with confidence is usually an indication of lack of knowledge about the Operation of the cost centers within the program. B. Don't keep the problem bottled up in the superinten- dents' office or the business office. Inform the 51 instructional staff and others as apprOpriate of the nature of the instructional programs cost accounting process and what it can mean to staff members and their programs. They will be able to provide very valuable information regarding the Objectives and evaluation of the programs as well as information concerning methods, use of materials, etc. Solicite information from employees who commit dis- trict funds regarding what cost centers and what amounts are involved in each commitment. The Director of Personnel, for example, can routinely provide the prorated salaries and cost centers in- volved for all newly hired, released, and reassigned personnel. Maintenance personnel can keep logs on meter, repairs, and ether information which make cost allocations easier and more accurate. Establish procedures whereby all requisitions sub- mitted include a breakdown of what items are to be used in each cost center involved and for what school year or term. This permits grouping requisitions in a manner that may partially or totally eliminate the need for prorating for some appropriation numbers. It also provides important information that will serve as a basis for prorating when such is required. E. 52 Employ the expertise of auditors, architects, engi- neers and others outside the system whenever special problems arise. Prorating is not new. Business and industry have built up a reservoir of information and techniques which are known to the eXperts noted above and can be applied in school districts. Many items of information related to prorating such as the floor area of teaching stations and buildings can be used year after year with little or no re- vision. Much of the work required the first year will not have to be repeated. There is no point in skimping on the time and effort required by prorating. Like most tasks it requires certain skills which, when mastered, serve to reduce the time and effort required to do the job. The use of prorating will yield results accurate enough for planning and budgeting. The control and account- ability Of funds will not be effected by it. The difference will be that cost accounting with prorating may help produce better budgets and better programs for the same funds and Similar expenditures. The time and energy saved in budgeting and planning from a more detailed and apprOpriate base of information provided, in part, by program cost accounting will tend to Offset the time spent in prorating. 55 There are several methods for prorating.1 The follow- ing paragraphs are intended to identify some of the methods and provide suggestions as to their employment in school system instructional programs cost accounting. Time method: This method is perhaps the easiest and most important of all primarily because it can be used on salaries. It consists of dividing an employees' contract sum in the same proportion of his time commitment on the job. If a teacher, for example, teaches two periods of Physics I and three periods of Algebra I as his basic assignment for a salary of $7,500 per year 20% or 1/5 of his salary ($1,500) would be allocated to each physics cost center and a like amount to each algebra cost center. If an administrator works an average of 25% of his time in one activity, 60% in another, and the remaining 15% in another his salary can be prorated in like prOportion to the cost centers represented by each activity. If the depreciation costs of a movie projector are $100 per year and the projector is Shared equally in terms of time by four classrooms in an elementary school the sum of $25 can be prorated to each cost center. Hour-consumption method: A combination of the time method and the quantity consumed method of prorating the ‘1The methods reported herein are adapted or adopted from those listed in the U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Office of Education, State Educational Records and Reports Series: Handbook II OE-22017, Financial Accounting For Local and State School Systems, Standard Receipt and Expenditure Accounts. Washington, D.C.: United States Govern- ment Printing Office, 1957. A revised edition of this hand— book is currently being written. 54 hour-consumption method consists of charging a part of the total expenditure for some item for which a unit hourly cost is known according to the number of hours the item is consumed in the use of the facility. The charge is made to the cost center represented by the class or group using the facility. This method is usually restricted to utilities but can be applied to other items for which the hour rate is known. It is not an especially significant method, but does have advantages with respect to outside groups and situations involving occasional use of facilities. If a group uses the football field at night for example, meter readings or wattage ratings multiplied by the.cost per kilowatt-hour will provide a reasonably accurate estimate of the total cost or cost per hour for lights. Once a cost per hour figure is determined it can be used for years unless the rate for each kilowatt-hour is changed necessitating a like change in the cost per hour figure. The total cost of replacing all of the bulbs divided by the average life expectancy will yield the apprOpriate rate for depreciation of the bulbs or wear and tear. The operating costs per hour plus the depreciation cost per hour can be combined into one cost per hour rate. Once such rates have been determined for all of the items of expense involved in the use of a facility they can be used to calculate the apprOpriate charge for use of the facility. Number served method: This method consists of dividing the total cost of an object of expenditure by the total 55 number of pupils benefited by the Object of expenditure to obtain a per pupil cost. The method may be referred to as a per pupil method since those served are pupils of the district. The per pupil cost can be multiplied by the number of pupils in the cost center involved and the resulting amount charged to the center. This method is complicated by time factors and fluctuating enrollments. Both factors have to be considered whenever this method is used. For example, if the total allocation for salaries for the administrative staff of a high school was $72,000 and the enrollment Of the school totaled 1,200 pupils the per pupil cost for this service would be $60.00 per year. Assuming that the school schedule included a six period day this would yield $10.00 per pupil per period per year or $5.00 per pupil per period per semester. A cost center (class) with an average daily membership of 25 pupils would be charged $250 per year or $125 per semester for this item of expenditure. Once the cost per pupil per year or semester is known it is a routine task to determine the cost per cost center for each and all cost centers of the high school. Qppntity consumed method: This method is based upon the proportion of the given lot or supply of an item con- sumed by use in a cost center. The cost assigned to the cost center is in direct proportion to the total cost of the item involved. If, for example, an activity used eighteen (18) reams of paper out'of a total of 1,000 purchased in one lot 56 and for which an expenditure of $2,200 was made the amount charged to the cost center of the activity would be 18 x $2,200/1,000 or $59.60. Floor area-Time method: This is an important method for prorating most operational and some maintenance costs especial- ly those related to utilities. It is based on the assumption that these costs are in direct proportion to the floor area of the center and the time that this area is used. School districts are usually invoiced by utility companies on a.per building per period of time basis. The breakdown Of these costs by classroom and period can be accomplished by use of apprOpriate unit costs such as a Square-foot-period cost. This unit can be calculated by dividing the appropriate cost by the total square footage involved (which may or may not be the total for the building) and by the number of periods of the schedule. Other adjustments such as required for a semester can be made as apprOpriate. The objective is to use area and time data to develOp a unit such as the square-foot- period unit that can be multiplied by the area occupied by the cost center to determine the amount of cost to be dis- tributed to it. There are two basic factors involved in the implementa- tion of this method as suggested in the title--floor area and time. The floor area which is assigned to instruction is the only area which should normally be used for prorating by this method. The costs related to areas of the building 57 which are for non-instructional use such as hallways, furnace rooms, auditoriums, offices, libraries, etc., should be pro- rated on a per pupil basis since they benefit the pupils equally. To do otherwise will reduce the discriminating power Of the prorating process.1 To determine the fraction of the total cost which is to be prorated by the floor area-time method and that which is to be prorated by the per pupil method the instructional square footage is divided by the total building square footage. The resulting fraction is then multiplied by the total cost which is to be distributed. The result represents the amount to be distributed by the floor area-time method and the remainder (total cost less the floor area-time amount) is to be distributed by the number served or per pupil method. Implementing the floor area—time method in secondary schools is facilitated by use of the square foot-period unit noted above. The unit may be expressed ft.2—p where p repre- sents the appropriate period Of time--day, half day, team teaching period, elective period, or regular period. This unit, as the name implies, represents the costs related to the assignment of one square foot of floor area for one period. If a class meets in a roOm with a floor area of 850 ft.2 for one period it is assigned 850 ft.2-p for prorating purposes. A program including 8 classes would be assigned 1A likely exception would be the elementary school where classroom size and enrollment tend to be more uniform and the costs can simply be divided by the number of classrooms to produce a cost per classroom per year. 58 the sum of the products of the square footage of the teaching stations (rooms) and the number of periods used. The grand total of the ft.2-p for the building will be the product of the total square footage of the instructional program and the number of periods in the schedule1--regard1ess of whether or not all scheduled classes meet every day. For example, a schedule which employs a five period day with a floating sixth period and requires each student to enroll in a total of six courses is considered to be a six period schedule. The distribution ratio which is used for prorating by the time—floor area method is determined by dividing the appropriate fraction of the total cost which is to be pro- rated by this method by the grand total of the square foot periods for the instructional area of the building. The re- sulting ratio will be small and should be eXpressed with at least five Significant digits. The product of the ratio and the number of the square foot periods for the cost center will equal the amount to be prorated to the cost center for a given appropriation number by this method. The amount can be added to the amounts prorated to the same apprOpriation number by all other methods to determine the final sum. If the floor area of a given cost center such as a pool or a gymnasium does not fairly represent the fraction of cost 1An exception will result if some classrooms are vacant during some periods. The total ft.2-p for these can be divid- ed by the number Of periods in the schedule to reconvert them to ft.2 and the area added to the non-instructional area for prorating on a per pupil basis. 59 which should be assigned to it when compared to the total instructional program area, the area of the cost center may be increased by a factor which is believed to represent a closer approximation to the realities of the situation. This will produce an additional square footage for pro- rating purposes which should be added tO the total square footage of the instructional area and the total square foot- age of the building. Thus it is quite possible that the total area used for prorating will exceed the actual floor area of the building. Care should be taken to include all of the area assigned to a class. If a physics lab/classroom has an attached work- storage room which is for use of physics and no other class or activity the area of the physics cost center should in- clude the area of the work-storage room. The areas used in this type of prorating can be easily obtained from the blue- prints of the building. A list Of the teaching stations and the area assigned to each can be prepared and used year after year unless the building or pattern of use of the building are changed. With this list and the sub-totals and the grand total related to it one can quickly distribute the costs for a given appropriation number by this method, or estimate the costs based on a total estimate (new budget). Mileage Method: This method consists of distributing to each cost center effected a fraction of the yearly cost of operation of the vehicles according to the number of trip 60 miles the vehicles served the cost center program and the cost per mile per appropriation number for each vehicle. The total cost of operation for a given appropriation number for a given period (usually a year) divided by the number of trip miles yields the cost per mile for the vehicle. This rate can be multiplied by the number Of miles the vehicle is used for each cost center to produce the required amount to be distributed. Not all costs related to Operation of vehicles can be prorated in this manner. The major excep- tion is salaries of drivers for field trips. However, items such as fuel costs, maintenance, insurance, and depreciation costs can be prorated by the mileage method. The overall challenge, as stated previously, is to approximate reality regarding costs. Whatever can be done to relate requisitions, purchase orders, contracts, encum- berances, payments and other cost records directly to the individual cost centers thus obviating the need for prorating should be given careful consideration. The nature of the cost information which is available together with the situa- tions involved determine the need for prorating or the lack of it. The state of Michigan requires that school districts account for expenditures on a report form entitled "The Annual Financial Report." This report is submitted each year approximately two months after the close of the fiscal year involved. The appropriation numbers used in the report and their associated titles are taken from the Michigan 61 Public School Accounting Manual. The system which appears below is designed to provide a suggested method and base for distributing the costs related to each apprOpriation area and title of the expenditure section of the Annual Financial Report. To simplify the communication problems related to this task a system of codes is used to designate the suggested method of prorating, if any, and the base to be used for prorating for each appropriation number and title. The first series of codes relate to the method suggested for distributing costs. The codes designate the type of ACTION suggested. Method Codes: T Refers to prorating according to the "Time" method. H Refers to prorating according to the "Hour- consumption" method. P Refers to prorating according to the "Number of pupils served or Per Pupil" method. Q Refers to prorating by the "Quantity consumed" method. A Refers to prorating costs by the "Floor area- time" method. M Refers to prorating according to the "Mileage“ method. D Refers to "Direct assignment" of costs to cost centers--no prorating involved. The second series of codes refers to the total quantity which is to serve as a base for determining the prorating 62 fraction or distribution ratio. The fraction or ratio multiplied by the apprOpriate characteristic of the cost center (number of pupils, feet squared--periods, etc.) will equal the amount to be distributed to the individual cost center. Base Codes: B Refers to the building which houses the cost center. If, for example, the floor-time area method is used the floor area assigned to instruction within the building would be used as the base or denominator. If the per pupil method were used the denominator would be the number of pupils (average daily attendance) of the building would serve as the base. Refers to the entire school district or system. If the salary of the superintendent is to be prorated by use of the number served method the number of pupils (ADA) of the entire system would be used to determine the per pupil per year amount. This would, in the case of the high school, be further divided by the number of periods in the schedule to produce a per pupil per period per year amount. The latter, when multiplied by the number of pupils in an instrumental music class, would produce the portion of the superintendents' salary to be charged to the class. Refers to the total of the contract or purchase order. If a teacher is to teach five sections the time spent on any one of them would consti- tute one-fifth of his assignment. This fraction would be multiplied by the amount of his total contract (base) to determine the amount to be charged to the cost centers in which he works. Refers to the appropriate administrative unit involved. This base is Similar to B and S . except that it may involve any combination of grades or buildings. Refers to no base or none. Whenever distributions are made directly no base for prorating is re- quired. 65 M Refers to the total mileage of a vehicle or fleet of vehicles. The trip mileage multiplied fly a cost per mile for the vehicle involved. ill,produce the appropriate amount to be dis- tributed. The method code in combination with the base code tells what action is recommended and upon what it is to be based. Code TC refers to prorating according to the time method based upon the appropriate contract. Code AB refers to pro- rating by the floor-time area method based upon the total floor area assigned to instruction or to the building, and to the time schedule of the program which uses the area. Code QC refers to prorating by the quantity-consumed method based upon the total amount of the purchase order or total cost of the item consumed. DN refers to distribution by direct assignment. PS refers to prorating by the number of pupils served method based upon the total enrollment of the system. .The combinationsreferred to above are used to suggest the action and base for action in distributing the costs identified by appropriation number and title. The Michigan Public School Accounting Manual uses a four digit code. The first two digits relate to function and the last two to the area or Object of expenditure. The function code appears below: 10__ Instruction: 11__ Elementary 12___ Intermediate and Secondary 15___ Special Education 14 Summer School 15 Adult Education 19 Unclassified 64 21___ Administration 22__ Attendance 25_* Health Services 24___ Pupil Transportation 25__ Operation of Plant 26__ Maintenance of Plant 27__ Fixed Charges 28__ Capital Outlay 29__ Community Services 50__. Student Services-~Food Services 51___ Student Services--Book Store 52__. Student Services--Student-body Activities The third and fourth digits of the code relate to the nature of the object of expenditure. For example, 1141 refers to 11___(elementary instruction) and 41 (textbooks). 2554 refers to 25__ (Operation) and __54 (custodial supplies). The third and fourth digits, representing an object of expendi- ture code, the method and base code referred to above, and the expenditure title are listed below. Expenditure Code Method-Base Code Expenditure Title giggles. __01 PE or PU Principals .__02 PU Consultants & Supervisors __05 TC Regular Teachers 04 TR Substitute Teachers 05 TC Librarians 06 O7 08 12 15 14 15 _16 18 19 21 22 25 28 29 Contracted Service 51 54 55 Supplies 41 42 45 44 45 TC or TC TC PS or PS P8 or PS or PU DN 65 TR PU PB PU PB or PU PB and AB PB or PU DN PU PU or DN DN, PS, PB PB DN or DN or PB or PB or PE or or PU QC or PU QC or PU PU PU PU Audio-Visual Guidance Psychological Superintendent & Assistants Business Administration Personnel Office Central Research Attendance Transportation Plant Engineers Custodians Maintenance Food Service Clerical Other Professional Plant Operation Plant Maintenance Textbooks Teaching Supplies Library Books Periodicals Audio-visual 66 p_47 DN Gas, Oil, and Grease __48 DN Tires, Tubes, and Batteries __51 DN TranSportation Supplies ‘__52 AB Heating Fuel __55 AB or PU Utilities (except fuel) .__54 AB Custodial Supplies __55 PB Grounds Supplies __56 DN Food __58 PB or PU Office Supplies 59 DN Miscellaneous Other Expenses '__61 DN or MM Travel and Mileage ‘__62 DN or PU or PS Equipment Rental .__65 PU or PB or PS Printing __64 DN or MU Vehicle Replacement __65 DN or MU Transportation Insurance __66 PB*Or PU*or PS* Equipment replacement __67 DN Food Service Expenses 69 DN Miscellaneous Fixed Charges __85 PB Building Insurance __85 DC or PS Employee Insurance __85 PS Fiedlity Bond __84 DN Rental of Land or Buildings 85 PS Interest 67 $586 DN Other __87 PU or PS Data Processing Equip- ment Capital Outlay __91 PS* Site Acquisition & Improvement __92 PS* or PU* Buildings and Additions __95 PS* Remodeling 94 DN* Furniture and Equipment Equipment replacement items and capital outlay items should be placed on inventory and depreciated according to any system which seems to represent the reality of the situ- ation. If the equipment item is assigned to a cost center the depreciation for the particular year can be charged to the center, but NOT the purchase price. Buildings can be depreciated on a linear basis over a period of 50 years and the amount divided by both floor-time area and per pupil methods among the cost centers housed in the building. Interest and maintenance charges on district debt can be prorated on a per pupil basis for the whole district. The combination of depreciation costs and interest and main- tenance charges will fairly represent the cost of facilities and equipment for the cost centers. To implement the model it will be necessary to accom- plish the following tasks although not necessarily in the *Costs which are usually best distributed by deprecia- tion schedules. 68 order given: A. B. Establish and codify cost centers. Prepare a statement of the objectives, methods of evaluation, and results of evaluation (if known) for each cost center. Supply all required information for each center on a cost center data sheet (top section). Choose the dimensions and categories for each which are desired. Prepare a chart of the cost centers distributed along the dimensions noted in (C) according to the chosen categories. Distribute all costs, encumberances, or appropria- tions as necessary to the cost centers depending on the time of the fiscal year and the nature of information available. Record the cost information on the cost center data sheets. Prepare duplicate copies of the complete set of cost center data Sheets and statements of Objectives and evaluations. Group the cost centers according to the categories along each dimension. A COMPLETE SET of cost center records will appear along each dimension. 69 J. Prepare a cost center record SUMMARY for each group of cost centers which are to be considered a larger segment of the program than one class or course. For example, all sections of History 10 can be grouped and a cost center record summary sheet pre- pared representing all sections. The amounts which were distributed to each appropriation category for each center can be added to produce one sum for each category and the sums recorded on the summary sheet. K. Assemble the sets of cost center records and summary sheets into complete sets for each dimension. The data is now in a form fOr study and comparisons. The nature of the study that will take place is Optional with those who have the data. Studies in patterns of expendi- ture, cost-effectiveness, maximum and minimum per pupil costs, means, modes, relationships to revenue, comparisons with other districts, and many other studies are possible. The next chapter is a report on an actual field study in a school district with an enrollment of approximately 5,200 pupils. The results of the study and the recommenda- tions and conclusions appear in the last two chapters. CHAPTER IV FIELD TESTING THE MODEL Description of the District The model was field tested in a third class district situated in a suburban community with above average wealth and educational aspiration. The district had an enrollment of 5,200 pupils in grades K-12 and was organized on a K-6. 7-8, and 9-12 basis. It had one high school, one junior high school, and nine elementary schools. The elementary program was ungraded through the seventh year (comparable to the sixth grade). Consultants in instru- mental and vocal music, art, foreign languages, physical education, reading, and speech assisted the regular classroom teachers. In addition, each school had at least one non- certified librarian, and the larger schools also had one instructional aide. Individualized instruction in reading and mathematics, and various types of grouping were used. The junior high school program combined team teaching in English, science, mathematics, and social studies, with an elective program in various other subjects. Each student chose three electives. 7O 71 The senior high school program featured a five 70 minute period day with no study halls and a rotating sixth period. All students were required to take six subjects. Each class met four times per week for a total of 280 minutes. The curriculum emphasized a wide variety of course Offerings which were designed, in most cases, to serve the needs of the college-bound student. Implementation of the Test The field test was begun March 18, and completed May 15, 1968. It included approximately 400 hours of effort to collect data, process it, and record the results. The data ‘was obtained from a variety of sources including interviews with school officials and clerical personnel, and printed matter such as directories, payroll records, budgets, con- tracts, insurance policies, class schedules, enrollment reports, budget balance reports, and blueprints. After the data had been collected the cost centers were defined and a cost center data Sheet prepared for each. The cost centers consisted of individual courses (as contrasted with individual classes) taught by each teacher in the high school and junior high and each grade level per building in the elementary. The elementary program was considered to be ungraded. However, the Official school directory listed the grades for each school and there seemed to be no inconsistency related to using grades per building as programs for cost 72 centers. This was due to the recency of the ungrading process in most schools and to the practice of grouping with grade levels. The cost center data sheets for each cost center were prepared listing the name of the teacher, school year and term, organizational unit, type of school, building, room number if appropriate (not used in elementary) grade level, credit units, whether required or elective, number of male pupils, number of female pupils, type of program number of days per year, and minutes per week. The remaining informa— tion which the sheets call for was not available. This was not considered to be a loss since the required information for cost analysis and basic identification of the program by name was available. The missing information would have served mainly to increase the number of dimensions along which the cost centers could have been organized and to further identify the nature of the instruction in the center. Teachers' salaries were prorated on a time method basis using the base salary of the teacher (total contract less additional salary for coaching, extra-curricular assignments, being head of a department, etc.). An amount prorated on a per pupil basis representing a portion of the sabbatical leave program was added to the amount noted above. The next task was to prepare a list of all of the dis- tribution ratios and methods to be used for each school. The ratios and methods were listed on a regular cost center 75 data sheet except for those appropriation numbers which required several ratios each. This phase of the process was the most crucial of all. Care was taken to insure that all of the costs which were related to any given cost center were known and that they were distributed by the most appro- priate method possible. After the lists were complete the distribution was begun. The task proved to be time-consuming but not especially dif- ficult. There were several ways in which the work could be accomplished. The best way seemed to be to place the dis— tribution ratio in the machine, lock the keyboard, and calcu- late the amounts by use of either the enrollment or the square footage as appropriate for each cost center. The calculation of the ratios involved several important stages including: A. Determining the total costs that were to be dis- tributed. B. Determining which cost centers were involved with the totals of (A) above. C. Deciding which method of distribution of costs best represented the reality of the situation. D. Calculating the ratios from the above data to at least 5 digit accuracy. The Michigan Public School Accounting Manual Accounting Code tends to separate like appropriation items by function. 74 For example, the secretarial distribution ratio for an elementary school might well include appropriation number 1128 (Secretarial Personnel--Elementary), 2128 (Secretarial Personnel--General Administration), and 2528 (Secretarial Personnel—-Health Services). The amount for the school for 1128 would be prorated on a per pupil basis using the full- time equivalent enrollment of the school as a base, and the 2128 and 2528 amounts would be prorated on a per pupil basis using the full-time equivalent enrollment of the entire district as a base. The final distribution ratio would be the Simple arithmetic sum of the individual ratios. There were several instances where this type of summing ratios was involved. However, in some instances the indi- vidual ratios differed in type and could not be summed. This required the use of two or more ratios and summing the resulting amounts to obtain the entry for the given appro- priation number on the cost center data sheet. An example of this concerned appropriation number 2521 (Custodial Salaries) for the high school. The total square footage of the building was determined to be 151,720 for prorating purposes. This amount included 7,255 ft.2 for general administration Offices, 79,299 ft.2 in instructional Spaces, and 65,166 ft.2 in other non-instructional Spaces. The total to be distributed for custodial salaries was approximately $61,000. The portion of this to be distributed for each category was calculated as follows: 75 General administration--to be distributed throughout the district on a per pupil basis. 42 ft'.2 151,738 ft.2 X $61'OOO = High School non-instructional spaces. 65,166 ft.2 151,720 ft.2 X $61,000 = High School instructional spaces. _p ft.2 153,336 fth X $61'OOO = The general administration portion was then divided by the full-time enrollment of the district to produce a per pupil figure for all pupils in the district including the high school. This figure was divided by six to convert it to a per pupil per period ratio for the high school. The high school non-instructional spaces portion was divided by the total number of pupil-periods for the high school (product of the total number of full-time equivalent pupils enrolled and the number of periods for which they are assigned classes) to convert it to a per pupil per period distribution ratio for the high school. The two per pupil per period ratios noted above were then summed to produce the final ratio which was used to determine the amounts to be distributed to the cost centers on a per pupil per period basis. The instructional space portion was divided by the square footage of the instructional space and the number of periods to convert it to a per square foot per period ratio. 76 The product of this ratio and the area of the instructional Space occupied by the activity of the cost center and the product of the combined per pupil per period ratio noted above were added to produce the amount distributed for 2521 for each high school cost center. To summarize and illustrate the process the calculations for an imaginary cost center having an enrollment of 25 pupils and using 1,000 ft.2 would be as follows: $5.4481/p x 25p = $85.20 $0.068024/ft.2 x 1,000 ft.2 = $68.02 $151.22 The junior high school posed a special problem because of the combination of team teaching and electives in the schedule. Each student attended classes taught by a team of teachers 262.5 minutes per week per subject for a total of four subjects. He also attended each of three elective classes 210 minutes per week per elective. The total number of minutes of instruction per week was 1.680. Each team- taught subject was 0.15625 of the total and each elective was 0.125 of the total. Whenever a per pupil amount (total amount for the appropriation number divided by the enrollment of 700 pupils) was used as a base it was multiplied by 0.15625 to determine the amount per pupil per period for team taught subjects and 0.125 to determine the amount per pupil per period for electives. This necessitated the preparation of two sets of ratios, one to be used for team subjects and the 77 other for electives. The two ratios for team-taught and elective classes were also used°to convert cost per square foot ratios to cost per square foot per period ratios. The school system employed department heads in the high school and charged them with the responsibility of coordi— nating the curriculum effort for their respective subject- matter area in grades 7 through 12. The department heads were given a 40% reduction in class load to provide them with time for coordination and were also given an additional stipend of 10% of their base salary. The prorated share of their salaries was added to their stipends and the sum distributed to all of the cost centers of the subject area on a per pupil basis. In addition to the department heads the system assigned coordinators and charged them with the same type of responsi- bility except that they were given no stipend and a 20% reduction in class load. The prorated portion of their salary was also distributed to all of the cost centers in their respective subject area. To effect the distributions noted above the total amount to be distributed was determined for each subject area and divided by the number of pupils from both the junior and senior high enrolled in courses in that subject area. The resulting distribution ratio was added to that which had been calculated for the guidance counsellors and reading improve- ment instructors (junior high only) to obtain a final 78 distribution ratio for apprOpriation number 1202 (Salaries-- Consultants) for all cost centers in the particular subject area. The product of this ratio and the enrollment in the cost center equalled the amount that was distributed. The task was similar to the above in the elementary schools for the elementary consultants except that it was more complex and involved more schools. The fact that like ratios are additive tended to Simplify the process by reduc- Iu an Inn:- .ux gala? ing the number of calculations needed for the final distribu— tion. The depreciation of buildings and built-in equipment was calculated on a linear basis Of two percent per year of replacement value. The replacement values were calculated by multiplying the appraisal value for insurance purposes by a factor of 10/9 to correct for the practice of insuring a building at 90% of replacement value. This value was multiplied by the depreciation ratio of 2% and the result divided by the full-time equivalent enrollment of the school and by whatever other fraction was apprOpriate to convert the per pupil amount to a per pupil per period amount if required. In regard to debt the total amount paid for interest during the school year on various bond issues plus the amount paid for maintenance charges related to the debt accounts was divided by the total full-time enrollment of the system. This per pupil distribution ratio was converted 79 when necessary to a per pupil per period ratio. The combi- nation of the depreciation of the buildings and built-in equipment, and the interest and maintenance charges repre— sented the costs related to having the facilities to use. There was no suitable equipment inventory with which to work so that item was not distributed. The alternative of distributing 2894 (Capital Outlay) was taken and this was distributed on a per pupil basis except for instrumental music which was known to be $7,222.00. A Friden Calculator and a ten key electric adding machine were used for all calculations. Five digit or more accuracy was maintained on all ratios. The ratios were summarized on cost center data sheets or notebook paper. When all of the ratios had been calculated the process of distributing was begun. It took 12 to 18 minutes to process 1 Approximately 50 calcu- One cost center in the "cost mode." lations were required producing approximately 55 cost figures. In addition to these calculations the following processes were accomplished in order: A. Salaries, contracted services, supplies, other ex- penses, fixed charges, capital outlay, and depreci- ation and debt were subtotalled. B. The subtotals of (A) were totalled providing a grand total. 1Multiple use of the cost center data Sheet by adapting it to any one of three modes (cost mode, per pUpil cost mode, and percentage mode) was the result of evaluation in the field test of the original format. 80 C. The grand total for each cost center was divided by the full-time equivalent enrollment for the cost center to yield a total per pupil amount.1 D. The individual cost center data sheets were combined into a few sample combinations to illustrate the flexibility of the model in this regard. A new summary cost center data sheet was prepared to repre- sent all of the cost centers included in the set. If five cost centers were combined into one the five amounts for each appropriation number were summed and recorded on the new summary cost center data sheet.2 E. A cost center data Sheet was prepared in the "percentage mode" for all summary cost centers and another in the "per pupil cost mode" for the same centers.3 F. Several sample apprOpriation numbers for different 1This was changed in the final format Of the cost center data sheet so this total appears only if the per pupil cost mode is reported. 2The cost center data sheet is designed to serve as a record of one cost center in any one of three modes or as a summary sheet for several other cost center data sheets. To indicate that the sheet is being used to summarize others an entry is made in the upper right hand corner that this is, for example, _1_ of _§_, or a summary of four other Sheets. 3Both modes are calculated from the cost mode and are reported in the same manner as the cost mode and on the same type cost center data sheets. 81 schools were totalled to determine whether or not the total equalled the amount that was to have been distributed. G. The cost center data Sheets were inspected to see whether or not the differences in cost per pupil were as great as expected and whether or not they 5% followed the expected pattern. Problems Encounted in the Field Test The problems that were encountered that served to compli- cate the field test were of three basic types: (A) Those due to the fact that the district was not prepared for this type of cost analysis; (B) Unusual circumstances; and (C) The lack Of experience with this type of activity on the part of both the experimentor and those from whom he attempted to obtain information. The first set of problems would confront any district which attempted to use the model without prior preparation. There was no system of cost centers and no accounting or purchasing by cost center. There was no up-to-date equipment inventory. There was no established system of depreciation for buildings and equipment. There was no system of filing purchase orders or other comparable records that would facili- tate relating costs to cost centers. Dialogue with employees was pleasant, but time-consuming in terms of collecting data. There was a general lack of understanding of what was wanted 82 and what was available that contained the information in some form. This made it impossible to assign many costs to cost centers directly and forced the use of prorating where pro- rating was inapprOpriate. The instructional supplies costs illustrated this. In both the elementary and senior high there was no way to assign the costs directly to the cost centers. However, there was an accounting of the costs by course and department for the junior high and this was used for cost distribution. The differences were marked and the discriminating ability of the direct assignment method was evident. In regard to unusual circumstances several problems were encountered. The most serious were those resulting from the systems' changing from an electro-mechanical to an electronic data processing system. This caused stresses in the system which delated posting, reduced the number of routine budget balance reports to one dated March 51, 1968, and prevented the business office staff from providing what would ordinarily be routine information. Another unusual circumstance related to the time of the field test. The fiscal year of the district had three months left when the data for which the test was run was reported. This forced the experimenter to make several estimates as to the probable expenditure for the entire year. Fortunately, most of the expense for the year could either be estimated 85 with a fair degree of certainty due to the exPerimenter's familiarity with the system and the budget, or was encumbered for the year and known with a high degree of certainty as a result. The entire junior high program was moved to a new loca— tion during the period of the test. This disruption of EH program and the resulting stress on the administrative and clerical personnel made cooperation difficult. However, in all cases including the junior high the level of c00peration considering the circumstances was very high. The lack of experience with this type of analysis caused the experimenter several extra trips to ask one last question that would clear up the answers to the many that had gone before, or to make errors due to omissions of data, or to choose a method of prorating only to discover that another method was more suitable. There were some machine errors due to a malfunctioning calculator, and others due to misuse of the machine. One error resulted a whole series of faulty ratios. This forced the experimenter to do the entire junior high program a second time. Aside from learning the high price of such an error.it.mas.also learned that the task could be done much more quickly when one was familiar with the data and the program. There were many other problems of a minor nature most of which were related to the fact that experimenter was work- ing from the outside of the district Operation and did not ‘ifiu: 84 have the freedom of access to people and data that someone who was a member of the staff would enjoy. ['2 R‘.," .5. a t CHAPTER V EVALUATION Results of the Field Test . 'v - . I Most of the costs determined in the field test were recorded on 258 cost center data sheets and represented the IW4‘ 1'.- .I - same number of instructional cost centers. The centers were defined on a subject-matter dimension for secondary instruc— tion and on a level of difficulty or grade level dimension for elementary instruction. Each cost center data sheet was as complete as avail- able information would permit. This included all costs and as much information concerning the characteristics of the program as it was possible to obtain without involving teachers or disrupting the program. The class/activity key and content descriptors, information regarding materials and teaching method, and percentage of laboratory time were not available. All costs related to the programs of the centers were distributed including those related to administration, Opera- tion, maintenance, debt, and depreciation of facilities. Transportation, food services, summer school, Federal programs, 85 86. and others of like consequence not considered to be part of the instructional program or directly supportive of same were excluded. There were approximately 56 costs, 7 sub-totals, one grand total and one cost per pupil total for each cost center data sheet. These totaled approximately 9,250 costs, 1,800 cost sub-totals, 258 grand totals, and 258 cost per pupil totals. In addition a few programs were summarized into larger programs and summary cost center data sheets prepared for each larger program in all three modes. In sum there were over 11,000 cost, sub-totals, grand totals, costs per pupil, and percentages which were made available for analysis, cost-effectiveness studies, synthesis, budget-making, decision—making, or other purposes as desired. It would take many days and possibly weeks to obtain the full value of the results. The number of possible combinations that could be summed to provide information concerning larger programs than those represented by the cost center data Sheets is not known, but is believed to be in the hundreds. The summary of individual programs into larger programs is best done pgip; to working out the costs, costs per pupil, and percentages if the total program is the only one of interest. If pppp the total program and the individual pro- grams are of interest it matters not which is done first. It would not be practical or desirable to list all of the costs and possible combinations of costs in this paper. 87 However, an attempt has been made as noted above to provide a few sample summaries of data which were made possible by the implementation of the model. These summaries appear in the following pages as tables. Other summaries can be de- signed and prepared at will. The limiting factors seem to be imagination and time. The basic format for summarizing the costs and other information related to an individual program is the cost center data sheet. A copy of the data sheets that were pre- pared during the field test for each of the ten programs selected for summary appear as the next thirty pages. There are three sheets for each program. The first is expressed in the total cost mode, the second in the cost per pupil mode, and the last in the percentage of total mode. If the codes which were used for the format of the sheets are known the sheets can be quickly read and understood. If not, these sheets will not be too helpful and it would be more appropriate to turn to the summary of the programs which ap- pears beginning with the introductory paragraphs on page 118. 88 COST CENTER DATA SHEET Summary of 428605 Ea 1::{4/ Program A of leg. School Program— Class/Activity Title— ' cc! NO. FTTE's -sch661- Org. Type Bldg Ft.2-P's Type Key Sq LvIGrd sec— Credit Req. Tchrs Y_r._ Term Unit Sch CC Total Prog , Yr Dif Lvl tion Units lec Ag : I , /l27ldsF4lmlgglngl+lHl THllH MI oL/J —— Pupils Data Time Materials Content Descriptors No. No. No. Minutes % Lab Txt Tch Use #1 .t2 . '3 #4 '5 '6 #7 Male Female Type Days Per Wk. Time Used Mpth Med . " 7 :. “1'— ’ ' zl 147lgl/ v 1 ’1 H H TotalC tMod -X- °5 e 2519 . 47 . Total x3: 27 Cost/pupil Mode —— — ‘— _ — 966116161 Mode 252' DEL-1.4. 2448 _____'_ W mics 2622 24291.2( 2449 . . 2781 . /01"w 2f _28 Q 250 .fl 2451 . 2782 _/_{02 2,0311% . _29 4 {32-1. 2552 4202.25: 2783 /‘ Zi/-_Z£ [103 24121.42; 16161 /M_Z§ 2553 la “fig 2784 ._ /_/04 4 (Q 2.2: Contracted Services 2554 ' ZZZ . 42 2785 517;? fl /_/05 fig .02 _31 /,z,5v.,yz 2555 ._ 2786 26/. Zé _06 . 2432 ._ _58 4ft 32 2787 . _07 ,_ 2433 . _59 . 16161 .7 743.5? _08 __.__ 2534 _Lfizs Tom! 43482.25 .D_e__i_ __09 ._____ _35 5532 . £52 Other Expenses Bldg. Z£7Z._1Q 2”] Total 42,22. If _6] £5°0. .15 Equip. £131. 70 2H2 7— 1 22 :3 Supplies _62 i .55 Total Z ZJ’fl £0 2113 4 5 2!. £1 /_/41- 4,221. (i _63 £55 .35’ Debt 2114 Z241 Z2 £42 .2122 9‘ 2464 . 1m. 2115 fizz. 2,2 /_/43 4,925. 45 2465 . Maint. 2216 ._ {£44 {fig 154% __69 4.2:. 4,2 16161 (gfiézeg i 2418 2346 . 3375 /7y 5:13 . 4.2. 89 COST CENTER DATA SHEET Summary of KIWcSMVf/u Program ,2 of /,2 School Frog"; Class/Activity Title— ' CC, No. FTTE's —Schoo|- Org. Type Bldg Ft.2-P's Type Key. Sq LvIGrd Sec-1 Credit Req. Tchrl Yr. Term Unit Sch CC Total Prog Yr if Lvl tion Units Elec le/vsa élf lg 64/ l-H—l { M Jr — Pupils Data Time Materials Content Descriptors No. No. No. Minutes % Lab Txt Tch Use '1 I’2 . #3 1’4 t5 '6 I’7 Male Female Type Days Per Wk. Time Used Mpth Med . 29’7Hvr7o‘o '- H 5 ill 1 T tal C tMod —— ° °5 8 2519 . 47 T6161 9‘5? X Cost/pupil Mode _ —"" — — —_ _— %l of Total Mode 252] __éféé 2448 __ M Salaries 2622 2 . 0,2 2449 278i L/Ol I41. I/ _28 fig. 72 2451 2782 . _402 “if! __29 ,2; 7/ 2552 I. .177 2783 4 . 72 £03 £45. 5; 16161 533 .yz 2553 2. /.2 2784 . £04 {LL 70 Contracted Services 2554 /.?Z 2785 ,1 . .311. 105 / .!Z _31 . 5’. a3 2555 2786 4 . ag _06 . 2432 _58 /_ w 2787 _07 2433 _59 16161 // . /.2 _08 2534 . 53 16161 517 . e Z Depreciation __09 _35 :2 . /5 Other Expenses Bldg. 50 . 537 2111 . Total Z -ZZ _61 5. 71 Equip. J". z] 2112 g. 55’ Supplies _62 . 0/ 16161 :52 34 2113 55.55 1541- 5.2; __63 '43 Debt 2114 3. (3 {142 /i. o? 2464 Int. 2115 3 . 52 443 5 .4/ 2465 Moint. 2216 __ 1’. 44 .52 __69 .2 53 16161 Z3. // 2317 £45 5 3'2 3374 ProgmmJGRAND TOTAL 2418 2346 3375 7 .21. 9’3 * . ((5/416 F4242 - 77mg scum/97,5415 90 COST CENTER DATA SHEET Summary of dzfl’déflflflflzafl Program 3 of /.2 ‘ Hy e— CC‘I No. FTTE' -Schoo|- . ype Bldg t.2-P's Type Key Lv Grd Sec it . Tc Yr. Term it Sch CC Total , i Lvl tion Units lec wig Pupils Data Time Materials Content Descriptors No. No. NO. Minutes %Lab m Tch Use 12. t3 #4 t5 '6 #7 le Female T Per Wk. Time Used th Med Z : 2:21:55 A£14333]; 2519 ._ _47 ._ 16161 d . £511 _L % of Tom. Mode 2521 fig“; 2448 ._ Fixed Charges - Salaries 2622 / .fli 2449 ._ 2781 _ E— 5 . 12% _28 3 .522 2451 .__ 2782 ._ 102 my; __29 3 .Q7 2552 /._.?_.z/ 2783 a. 1;; /_/03 543,11 ' 76161 zgzg 2553 4.374.? 2784 ._ £04 afi/ Contracted Services 2554 ' my 2785 AM {505 “L6! _31 . 4422 255.5 ._ 2786 p./_4_¢ __06 ._ 2432 .__ _58 2.1710 2787 ._ _07 ._ 2433 ._ _59 ._ 16161 / ..5_3j _08 ._ 2534 a .fi/ 161.11 Z. 32/ Depreciation _09 ._ _35 0' ._{Z/ Other Expenses Bldg. 2.12.3; 2111 ._ 16161 / £5; _61 59.1% Equip. /.£/_( 2112 51.23;,” 569911.. _62 a pg 16161 5.1g] 2113 fl._éé_0 /_/41 4E; _63 fig _De_bt_ 2114 4&3 /_/_42 4.2g 2464 ._ 1m. __ 2115 Z ._ng /_/43 p.154] 2465 ._ Maint. _ 2216 ._ /_/_44 Q m _69 p.151 16ml (Q 1% 2317 .__ [/_45 g. L0] 3374 ._ P'°9'°'" GRAND TOTAL 2418 2346 . 3375 . Maggz 91 cosr CENTER DATA SHEET Summary of .S'e'couo 6,2405 Program / of /2. School Progra; ‘ Cldss/Activity Title— ' ccl No. FTTE's -sch661- Org. Type Bldg Ft.2-P's Type Key Sq Llerd Sec- Credit Req. Tchr Yr. Term Unit Sch CC Total Prog ., Yr Dif Lvl tion Units lec l .__. T Z 7 I" 1 ' MI4 44 4 1542111» l—E—I ‘ l—l—H U1 412 + 44c , -— Pupils Data Time Materials Content Descriptors No. No. No. Minutes 9. Lab Txt Tch Use '1 .02. t3 #4 t5 t6 #7 Male Female Type Days Per Wk. Time Used thh Med . . l . r ’ i i I 25 .2 / 5 / 2/ 5w 1 1 1_ I E Total Cost Mode 2519 . 47 . T tal a . 7 Cost/pupil Mode —— — —- —— —— ° L22 __é. % of Total Mode 252l /4,3ZZ £3 2448 . Fixed Charges laries 2622 647/2. 2% 2449 . 278] cf ~ ' _. '— 110' M'ég _28 [4224. g; 2451 2782 . [£02 /Xfl.fi __29 /4 [22 ._L]; 2552 ZZZZ._£[£ 2783 £212.41. {/_ 03 442 £32.22 16161 1w. _52 2553 W {£2 2784 ._ {£04 & 232$ Contracted Services 2554 I 225.11 2785 .4 pfz 22:; {105 /: 953 22$; _31 :2 fl.fl_ 2555 ._ 2786 ,2; 2. if. __06 ._ 2432 __ _58 £32. _412 2787 ._ _07 ._ 2433 .. _ _59 ._ 16161 1/ zzf.§£ _08 ._ 2534 £Y1.L’i_ Total 4472 ?20_Z£ Depreciation __09 ._ _35 ?é& ,1]; Other Expenses Bldg. /_3 ZZt‘fl 2111 ._ Total 3 543 ._2_;_ _61 4151 Equip. 444241.15; 2H2 M112 Supplies __62 é £3— Total /,f:57l._é_£ 2113 Z450 ._Zé 'fl“ gaggég _63 sifiéi Debt 2114 / 1,2; .éz _/_/42 4;: /93 .3_5 2464 ._ 1m. __ 2115 m,_zp_ {443 Mg: 2465 ____.__ M61111. __ _ 2216 __._ /_/44 .4393: Ab: _69 17./£1541 70““ 351/222. 2317 4_ 145 / 30/12 3374 . Program GRAND TOTAL 2418 2346 . 3375 . 1 EM /f{._.§Z 92 cosr CENTER DATA SHEET Summary of tSecouo gov/ma Program 01 of A2- e- ‘ tY CC’ No. FTTE' . Type Bldg t.2-P's Type Key Lv Grd Sec . T it Sch CC Total 2 r i Lvl tion Units lec rLc Pupils Da Time Materials Content Descriptors No. No. No. Minutes % Lab Txt Tch Use 12. #3 #4 #5 ito #7 le Female T Per Wk . Time Used Med 2/ Total Cost Mode _" 25l9 . 47 . Total . 5 ‘ X Cost/ pupil Mode —— — — —— — ———£ _i %' of Total Mode 2521 if .40 2448 . Fixed Charges laries fl 2622 Z . Z/ 2449 . 278] /_/°‘ __‘Z’Z-LL _28 21 .62 2451 . 2782 {(02 22.14 _29 2.5122: 2552 2.21 2783 3.13 {/_03 ,flz,fl ' Total .572 ._45 2553 2.35 2784 ._ /_/04 $1.21; Contracted Services 2554 ' .2 -_0-_2 2785 .2 .1, a 05 .2 .._?z_ _3l 5.91 255; ._ 2786 . 5.; _oo ._ 2432 ._ _58 [Q 2787 ._ _07 ._ 2433 __ _59 ._ Total 10 .fi _08 ._ 2534 __4 Total 519. 73 Depreciation __09 ._ _35 07.32 Other Expenses Bldg. 2 .521 2TH __ Total Z ._7_fl_ _ol 1 ._4g Equip. /p g; 21 I2 fig: Supplies _62 .24 Total 99 .1; 2113 1.5.1 '_/14t J._/:_5’_ _63 1; _D£b_t_ 2H4 3.14 {142 /g ._fié 2464 ._ Int. __ zlls 3.22 443 1.112 2465 ._ Maint. _ 22lo ._ 444 2:4 _69 .2 ._51 Total 7.2 .5}, 23,7 ,_ 445 .2 ‘42 3374 ._ Program GRAND TOTAL 2418 234a . 3375 . A I7fl9’,_7_5_’ 95 COST CENTER DATA SHEET Summary of $560,110 63455 Program ,3 of /_z ‘ ity e— CC” No. FTTE' . Type Bldg t.2-P's Type Key. Lv Grd Sec redit T it Sch CC Total , i Lvl tion Units lec Pupils 00 Time Materials Content Descriptors No. No. No. Minutes % Lab Txt Tch Use #2. #3 #4 #5 to ll7 le Female T Per Wk. Time Used Med .2 : 2::l/SE'I '32: 25 t9 ._ _47 ._ Total 0. _égs’ _X_ % of Tom. Mode 252l jig 2448 ._ Fixed Charges garages 2o22 __Léfi? 2449 ___.__ 278] __ L701— 5.sz _28 3 .157 2451 ._ 2782 _ 102 5 ._‘4_7_/ __29 3.553 2552 / ._égg 2783 #25! [103 «sfli Total Z3 ._égf 2553 / ._qL/ 2784 ._ £04 a,_¢7_4 Contracted Services 2554 am 2785 £329 105 0&5 _31 _ AM 255.5 ._ 2786 0.9.31 _oo ._ 2432 __ _58 (I ;_5{ 2787 ._ _07 __ 2433 ._ _59 ._ Total C .2113 _08 ._ 2534 mg] Total 2. £92; Depreciation _09 ._ _35 #1214 Other Expenses Bldg. 4.311 2m ._ Total {£2} _ol am Equip, / _fi 2l12 aw Supplies _62 flggg Total .22] 2113 pig [141 4L3! _63 2 3;! fl 2114 & ~i’f/ _/_542 5 am 2464 ._ Int. _ 2115 Q92; £43 £4.32 2465 ._ Maint. _ 22lo ______.__ 144 __4 L1 _69 (2.52;; Total /0._32{ 2317 ._ 145 £510! 3374 __ Program GRAND TOTAL 0 2418 2346 . 3375 . /00. 006 94 COST CENTER DATA SHEET Summary of 5] [m éfll Q5 Program / of // School Program— CEss/Activity Title— ' CC” No. FTTE's -School- Org. Type Bldg Ft.2-P's Type Key Sq Llerd Sec- Credit Req. Tchr Yr__._ Term ‘Unit Sch CC Total Prog , Yr Dif Lvl tion Units Elec * lfl' L I I ' /5'l/3l? éfllflééfilll [Frlfi " Ll 46l 0M — Pupils Data Time Materials Content Descriptors No. No. No. Minutes % Lab Txt Tch Use #1 l‘2 . 4‘3 #4 #5 to #7 Male Female Type Days Per Wkr Time Used Meth Med 602 a 0 lgl v / 5 . _A l 7 x Total Cost Mode _ 2519 47 Total 5' 3 3 Cost/ pupil Mode _ — — '4';— _é— %' Of Total Made 252] Z; 12¢. Zz 2448 Fixed Charges —Sglaries 2622 m._ig 2449 _ 278] _ /_/01 w 5;; _28 z 44$ 5!. 2451 2782 . [102 215$:ng _29 £4 ZZ- 541 2552 3351 4% 2783 3432. z; {£03 /22{ 2,24, 35‘ Total m 255»— 05 2553 3 444,. 62 2784 . £04 Z ééa’, 33 Contracted Services 2554 ‘ Ifzif‘ f": 2785 g/éé Z /_/05 Z54? . DZ _3l 4 2. fl. zg 2555 2786 o2/5 . a0 _06 __ 2432 _ _58 _fl £1 2787 __ _— _07 2433 _59 Total _5’ é’Z 0 . 3f _08 2534 ZZZ. 33’ Total /Z pg, [25 Depreciation _09 _35 ZZI ZZ Other Expenses Bldg. Zfl .W- /9 2|” Total 2 ZZZ Z57 _6l fig 5 Z Equip. 1 ZZZ Aé 2112 4225. 2,2 Supplies _62 2,5. 29 Total (g Mg. ,75’ 2113 45ZZ . % [Z41 /512.ZZ _63 QZZ 5i Debt 2114 4 QZZ 24 £42 Z521. 5;} 2464 Int 2115 4250. ZE {/_43 Zézi. /,3 2465 Maint. 22l6 __ __ /_/44 ‘25:): .Q/.. _69 £20 . 3 " Total 222%. 23 2317 (£45 25 f iZZ 3374 Pyram GRAND TOTAL 2413 234a 3375 _ 276/: 75,2. of 95 COST CENTER DATA SHEET Summary of 5):: n/ 6}”; 05 Program ,2 of // . ty e— CC’ No. FTTE' -School- rg. Type Bldg t.2-P's Type Key Lv Grd it Tc Yr. Term it Sch CC Total , Lvl tion Units lec f Lg; . 4 Pupils Data Time Materials Content Descriptors No. No. No. Minutes °/o Lab Txt Tch Use #2 . #3 #4 #5 lll6 ' #7 le Female T Per Wk . Time Used Med ,2 0 0 T rol C tM d — ° °5 ° e 2519 . 47 . Total f 55’ a Cost/pupil Mode ————— — — —— — _— % of Tom. Mode 2521 32. 95’ 2448 . Fixed Charges alaries 2622 Z4 .3_/_ 2449 . 2781 11m W €1.15 _28 £Z~ ¢ 245l . 2782 L/oz 731$ . _29 151,; 2552 Zél 2783 z. 5"? [£03 35341 Total éo Z .Zg 2553 2 .24 2784 ._ £04 z m Contracted Services 2554 A Z .!_Q_ 2785 (,2 "if! /_/05 Z-AZ _3l ‘ 5% 2555 ._ 2786 ._é__ __oo ._ 2432 ._ _58 C 22 2787 __ __07 ,_ 2433 __ _59 ._ Total 40 .5_5 _08 __t_ 2534 __._z/_ Total _izfi M1 _09 __ _35 g 2; Other Expenses Bldg. 22.11 2m ._ Total __Zgz _61 £1.11 Equip. 1,2,12 2112 fig; Supplies _o2 fl Total $12.34 2113 £55; 1441 fig _63 A; _D_ek1 2114 iii [/_42 (3.4,; 2464 ._ Int. __ ms 3 .3‘2 443 {.34 2465 t___ Maint. __ 22lo _____.__ [£44 ________ 4Q _69 ,2 ,5__0_ Total Z3 . AL» 2317 ,__ 445 2 lg 3374 ‘ Program GRAND TOTAL _ fl 2418 2346 . 3375 . 7 7g}, _0_7 96 COST CENTER DATA SHEET Summary of SLX'TH GM 05 Program 3 of // ‘ _— ti ity i e— CC” No. FTTE' -Schoo|- . Type Bldg t.2-P's Type Key. Lv Grd Sec . Tc Yr. Term it Sch CC Total r i Lvl tion Units lec / air lei Pupils Data Time Materials Content Descriptors No. No. No. Minutes % Lab Txt Tch Use #1 #2. #3 #4 ll5 to #7 le Female T Per Wk Time Used th Med 0 tal t : Est/5:“ 7:“: 2519 __._ _47 __._ Total ___4 g __X_ % of Tom, Mode 2521 g jg 2448 ._ Fixed Charges works 2622 __LéZ. 2449 __.___ 278] ___._ 101 5,1121% _28 3.11 2451 _ 2782 ___ [102 2.22 _29 3.441 2552 C 3:; 2783 /._r/_"_4_ £03 4514 . Total 34.32 2553 1 .35 2784 __ Z104 flfl Contracted Services 2554 a .52 2785 Q oiQ. 105 a._.,_z__g _3l afi 2555 ._ 2786 a g1 _06 ._ 2432 __ __ _58 (7 _‘22/ 2787 __-___.__ __07 t___ 2433 _ _59 __ Total £ ._zrll _08 __ 2534 £1.22 Total Z .__Z Depreciation __09 __ _35 g L0 Other Expenses Bldg. __3_.ZZ 2lll .__ Total .__Léfi _ol __g /j Equip / o§_5_ 2112 4;: Mia: _o2 __Qfié’. Total 5' _31; 2113 a .fl [[41 fig _63 Q) .41 _Debt 2ll4 27 ,fl [142 1‘ ._éé 2464 ._ Int. __ 2H5 0.55 [143 A31 2465 ._ Maint. __ 22lo __ __ 1144 _____2 £71: _59 ______ 1,; Total Z ._..2_{ 2317 ._ [Z45 __fi §§ 3374 ._ Program GRAND TOTAL 24l8 ___ __ 234a __ 3375 ._ flan, Lag 97 COST CENTER DATA SHEET Summary of agzmaflfl ”a“: Program / of 7 ogram ‘ ctivity Ti e— CC” No. FTTE' -Schoo|- rg. Type Bldg t.2-P's Type Key Lv Grd Sec it . Tc Yr. Term it Sch CC Total P ,, r i Lvl tion Units lec mfg / 4 Pupils Data Time Materials Content Descriptors No. No, No. Minutes % Lab Txt Tch Use l’2. #3 #4 #5 llts #7 Ie Female T Per Wk Time Used th Med é/ —X— “ml CW M°de 2519 . 47 . Total 14 1 . L; _ Cost/pupil Mode —— — — _— _— %' of Tom. Mode 2521 22 2.445; 2448 ._ Fixed Charges Salaries 2622 ._ 2449 ._ 2781 _ 301 “i Zé {m _28 4 55¢ .12 2451 ._ 2782 ._ Q02 égz. . _29 570 g; 2552 £02.53; 2783 (£5fl {303 a w , g2 Total {é 255. 4% 2553 329 4,13 2784 . 204 ?1 5f Contracted Services 2554 S 40 . Z/ 2785 52: .52 Q05 ,25T_éL _3l 473511 255_5 ._ 2786 /£§Z _06 ._ 2432 _______ _58 {/i fl 2787 .__ _07 __ 2433 _ _59 314%; Total 25; ._44 _08 __ 2534 __i.£i Total Z £551fi’ De reciation _09 __ __ __35 915$; Other Expenses Bldg. 22 Z . £12 2m __ Total __[jifié __6l __{éjg Equip, [5'5 ._QZ 2112 ___/_/_c_ .22 Supplies _62 / E Total Zy24,_/L 2H3 (2? .fl 2“ 32g.& _63 /5‘ 01’ Debt 2114 25 114 /_._242 ZZZ .22 2464 ._ Int _ 2H5 XX.§_§_ /'_.z43 f; if. 2465 ._ Maint, _ 2216 ______ __ /_244 __aia; 534 _o9 1.22, if Total / Zé; 51$ 2317 ._ 4:345 3‘2 _AL 3374 .______ Program GRAND TOTAL 2418 _ 234a ____,___ 3375 ._ 2,2 325114 98 COST CENTER DATA SHEET 220‘? Summary of [Emfizgflfgl fl'égfld Program — Acti ity . Type Bldg t.2-P's Type Key. Lv Grd Sec it it Sch CC Total , r i Lvl tion Units cc” No. FTTE' Tc lec _n LI; / Time Minutes % Lab Txt Per Wk Time Used 2E Content Descriptors #2. #3 #4 t5 Pupils Data No. No. Ie Female T Materials TCl't Use th Med No. #1 #8 l‘7 é / Total Cost Mode I Cost/pupil Mode 2519 — _47 —— T°’°' iii __ % of Total Mode 252' __i-LZ 2448 __ 5131219992 [cries 2822 ._ 2449 __ 278l ._ /_2_01 fl 5.3g _28 4 .4; 2451 __ 2782 ._ /_,_z_ 02 3 :32 _29 $.21 2552 .22 2783 . 61' g 03 ég _._ZL . Total {2. 33 2553 1 AZ 2784 ._ £204 . _ZZ Contracted Services 2554 L352 2785 .22 /_.305 ._Q _31 .15 255:5 _____ __ 2788 E _08 _ 2432 ___ __58 gr; 2787 ._ _07 .4_ 2433 ._ _59 , Ly Total 1.15;; _08 __ 2534 .__45: Total /4'. £73 Depreciation _09 __ __35 3.3. Other Expenses Bldg. 3 .22 2111 __ Total ___Z_é’_[_ __81 -_._fli Equip; [_4 2112 .52 Supplies _82 £4 Total £31 2113 -£Z 341 {.22 _83 Q1 Debt 2114 .22 Q42 5ng 2484 __ Int __ 2115 .fi /__2_43 ._if 2485 _ Maint. _ 2218 _____ __ Q44 ____ “4,3 __89 __“_ a Total iii, 2317 __ /f_'(45 __, 2Q 3374 __ Program GRAND TOTAL 2418 __ 2348 _ 3375 __ ‘2’? {75.2% 99 COST CENTER DATA SHEET Summary ot lawn flag/c Program. 3 at 9 \ ty CC” No. FTTE' . Type Bldg t. s Type Keyt Lv Grd . T it Sch CC Total ., i Lvl tion Units Iec alt: la: J . 0 Pupils Time Materials Content Descriptors No. No. No. Minutes %Lab Txt Tch Use _32. #3 t4 l’5 '8 #7 le Female T Per Wk 1 Time Used Med é' / T tal C tMod —— ° °5 6 2519 . 47 . Total 0, 7.20 Cost/pupil Mode _"“— — — —— —- -—-—— -— X %' of Total Mode 252' 2 - #3 2448 . Fixed Charges la fies 2622 . 2449 ' . 278] _01 f. _3/ % _28 .s’ ._227 2451 . 2782 _02 2.24. __29 2.3g 2552 Q.£ 2783 2225 _03 £2,357 Total 25.14 2553 1. g 2784 ._ _04 p.127 Contracted Services 2554 4222 2785 a .isg _05 2.14% _31 ‘ 4M 2555 ._ 2788 am _08 ._ 2432 ._ _58 Q. £51 2787 ._ _07 t.__ 2433 ._ _59 (7 .137 Total / lg _08 ._ 2534 2.034 Total 2 . £23, Depreciation _09 ._ _35 g . 122 other Expenses Bldg. 3 .fis‘j 2111 ._ Total am __81 4 {g Equip. 4.523 2112 Q .fig Supplies _82 Q .93? Total 3 .M 2113 4,191 ,_4] l-i‘lfl _83 Q M E 2114 0 35,7 __42 1317,! 2484 ._ Int. _ 2115 Afl __43 a .flf 2485 ._ Maint. _ 2218 ._ __44 ______(_>_ {£4 __89 gm Total Zfig 2317 .._ ;_45 o 1 fl) 3374 t__ Pr09mlm GRAND TOTAL 2418 _ 2348 ._ 3375 -. (aaggfl 100 COST CENTER DATA SHEET Summary ot (Mo/e [7,88] Program / ot 9! . ty CC” No. FTTE's -Schoo|- rg. Type Bldg t.2-P's Type Keyl Lv Grd Sec it . Tc Yr. Term it Sch CC Total . Lvl tion Units lec / E If Pupils 00 Time Materials Content Descriptors No. No. No. Minutes % Lab Txt Tch Use #1 .02. #3 t4 #5 t8 #7 le Female T Per Wk Time Used th Med / / x Total Cost Mode 2519 47 T tal 3 45 . . o , Cost/pupil Mode _' — — —"— "— ‘22—'2— — % Of TOfOl Made 252] 32.2 . 22 2448 . Fixed Charges laries 2622 __.___ 2449 __.___ 2781 __ __ _01 3! 4295(24 _28 {(353.32 2451 . 2782 _02 2252: __29 ZjZ._Z; 2552 £3 2;; 2783 .52 ZZ'fi’ _03 ///12 ._Z)_ Total {ZZZZ .15 2553 322. ff 2784 .__ _04 [521 ii Contracted Services 2554 l 23.32 2785 jtflgi: __05 and _31 3243 .fi 2555 ._ 2788 214A _08 ._ 2432 ._ _58 4.2 _ZZ 2787 ._ _07 ._ 2433 __ _59 51.2.3; Total 3Xfl.é2 _08 ._ 2534 Z ._éL Total £425 éé Depreciation _09 t___ _35 éé AA Other Expenses Bldg. ffz. (z 2]” __ Total £2412 _61 12% .22 Equip, Q30._é_3_ 2112 (4 2 _fi Supplies _62 Kg Total 5 1/ z . 62 2113 {45 £2 _41 5£Z~fi _83 ,2 gig Debt 2114 a Z .41 _42 4224451 2484 ._ Int. _ 2115 (_31 .1Q _43 fiaf._[£ 2485 ._ Maint. _ 2218 _ __ _44 33 AZ _69 {22 _gé Total 3&4 . 2g 2317 _ ‘45 /33 a f 3374 A ._ Program GRAND TOTAL 2418 __ 2348 . 3375 . 075: 3 Z033- 101 cosr CENTER DATA SHEET Summary of 54,9”? ()7) Program 02 of 5/ School Program ‘ Class/Activity Title— ' CC” No. FTTE's -School- Org. Type Bldg Ft.2-P's Type Key Sq Llerd Sec- Credit Req. Tchr Yr. Term Unit Sch CC Total Prog Yr Dif Lvl tion Units Elec I __.-.41 \ a/l 0025157 141mm 11mm 4’1 H014 — Pupils Data Time A Materials Content Descriptors No. No. No. Minutes % Lab Txt Tch Use #1 #2 . *3 #4 #5 to #7 Male Female Type Days Per Wk Time Used Mgth Med / I / 7 0 U / 0,1 /0 *‘ -. U l Total Cost Mod I Cost/pup” Mod: 2519 __._ _47 ___._ Total 1.3 _ %* of Tom. Mode 2521 (15' 2448 ._ Fixed Charges 50.0,365 2a22 ._ 2449 ._ 2781 ._ £201 jfl _28 é ./_,2_ 2451 ._ 2782 ._ /_._202 '3 ._31 _29 21$ 2552 g 2783 .24 /_2_03 35’. f . Total 52.3 2553 1.51? 2784 ._ 204 Liz Contracted Services 2554 ..;T_¢ 2785 ,,2 _ /_2_05 ._[__§_ _31 ‘ -Zé_/ 255; . 2786 t i __06 ._ 2432 ._ _58 2’2 2787 ._ _07 ._ 2433 _ _59 . 1.5: Total {.33 _08 .__ 2534 ._05 Total [fl Depreciation __09 __ _35 .Lz__3 Other Expenses Bldg. 3 £2. 2111 1__ Total Z-QL _61 ._fli Equip; [i 2112 £71 Supplies _62 LEA Total 3-2L 2113 .éz /£4l 4.21 _63 Ag _l_3_e_bt_ 2114 .5172 4.242 315: 2464 ._ 1m. _ 2115 ._fi {343 .fi" 2465 ‘_ Maint. _ 221a __ __ Q44 __ {i _69 .a Total 2125 23,7 __ 4335 i 3374 __ Program GRAND TOTAL 2413 __ __ 234a __ 3375 ._ ffj/é 102 COST CENTER DATA SHEET Summary of eflfl/K 171%!) Program .3 of Z[ School Program ‘ Class/Activity Title— CC' No. FTTE's -Schoo|- Org. Type Bldg Ft.2-P's Type Key. q Llerd Sec- Credit IReq. Tchrs Yr. Term Unit Sch CC Total Prog . r Dif Lvl tion Units Elec 1 .__. ‘ 1 ml oaé BELL/17W @ls" THU 1 r EHQLET — Pupils Data Time Materials Content Descriptors No. No. No. Minutes % Lab Txt Tch Use '1 , #2 . #3 #4 #5 to #7 Male Female Type Days Per Wk. Time Used Meth Med r z T , - , /7bL,lVo,2/o‘ llll Total Cost Mode — 2519 . 47 . Total 0. V Cost/pupil Mode __ _" ‘_ —— —" —— '2'! lg 96 of Total Mode 252l é . £27 2448 . Fixed Charges lo ,3 es 2622 . 2449 . 278 1 gm 5.555%. __28 Q .24! 2451 . 2782 4,302 3 .m _29 3.221 2552 2.5322 2783 4.4%; Q03 fi39¢7 Total £1525 2553 4.55; 2784 ._ {.304 0.5—3] Contracted Services 2554 Q-iif 2785 fig (305 &._/.5_0 _31 , Q.M 255,5 ._ 2786 £243] {£06 ._ 2432 ._ _58 z) . £24 2787 ._ _07 __ 2433 ._ _59 415] Total 1.101 _08 ._ 2534 a.a_3§/ Total g2 M Depreciation _09 ._ _35 Q EM Other Expenses Bldg. 3.fi7 2111 ._ Total 1155/ _61 ago Equip. Q.M 2112 Q,éfi Me: _62 424! Total film 2113 a .éfi/ /_141 1.43.0 _63 y pf! Debt 2114 a .zgz 442 7525’ 2464 ._ 1m. _ 2115 42? Q43 4 .flj’ 2465 ._ Maint. __ 221a __.____ Q44 __1 Ag] _69 __dzég Total 4.2!] 2317 ,_ £45 3 £25” 3374 __ Program GRAND TOTAL 2418 _ 234a ._ 3375 _._ goaflz 105 COST CENTER DATA SHEET Summary of Six/AL 57220 as; (W)l>togtam / ofj — cti ty . Type Bldg t. 5 Type Key. Lv Grd it Sch CC Total . r i Lvl tion -Schoo| - Yr . Term ‘ — elf. No. CC” No. FTTE' Tc Units lec L6: Content Descriptors [/2 ‘ #3 #4 #5 Pupils Data No. No. le Female T Materials Tch Use Med Time Minutes % Lab Txt Per Wk Time Used #1 ’7 to / i :3le 11:: 2519 __._ _47 __ Total is: _g’z °/o of Total Mode 252 ‘ éiiLéi’ 2443 _ $399222 Glades 2622 ._ 2449 __ 2781 _ 4401 Zflé-ZL __28 519328.22. 2451 ._ 2782 __ /_.2_02 3.,215i12 __29 g“ /ZC £2 2552 133.3 2783 foi goa 5g 2% .fl ‘ Total 74?: 153.12 2553 4 ZZZ-£2 2784 ._ /3_04 gig ,fl Contracted Services 2554 ._ 2785 ayai {.305 153 .35 __31 a; ._415 2555 ._ 2786 53.3 _06 _ 2432 __ _ _58 15‘ fl 2787 ._ _o7 _ 2433 _ _59 gig -_ZZ Total 4032.132 _08 __ 2534 £311.12 Total .5”I 7412.152 Depreciation _09 __ __35 (5’2 . __gg Other Expenses Bldg. 3352541,; 2111 .__ Total _[3451 _61 521.1% Equip. éfi.fi’ 2112 #ng £2 Supplies _62 2.41 Total 35,4112 2113 £47: £4 /£4I 47/4522. _63 églg fl 2114 3JQ g 4342 43554.1 2464 __ Int. _ 2115 324 .g 42:13 34' ._71 2465 ._ Maint. _ 2216 ____ __ /_2_44 __zg z; _o9 fflfl Total Z5v¢._2£, 23,7 _ 4345 _ié’Z-ig 3374 __~__ Program GRAND TOTAL 2418 234a _ 3375 __ ’4 7f 5775122 104 COST CENTER DATA SHEET Summary of 335.,“ SM Program ,7 at 7 ‘ ity e-— CC, No. FTTE' -Schoo|- . Type Bldg t.2-P's Type Keyt Lv Grd Sec . T Yr. Term it Sch CC Total ,_ i Lvl tion Units lec __ £1016: Pupils Data Time Materials Content Descriptors No. No. No. Minutes °/o Lab Txt Tch Use 1'2. #3 #4 #5 to #7 le Female T Per Wk Time Used th Med 3 / Total Cost Mode Icon/pupal Mode 2519 __._ _47 __._ Total ___/_ £2 __ % of Tom. Mode 2521 gag 2448 ._ Fixed Charges Salaries $ 2622 ._ 2449 . ._ 2781 ._ /&01 {2.x __28 [£5 2451 ._ 2782 __ __ /_,_z_ 02 5521 _29 3 ._3_0_ 2552 .éi’ 2783 5 12¢ gos {2.24 I Total 35’. 14 2553 {.21 2784 ._ {£04 e .fi Contracted Services 2554 ' ._ 2785 .3 ,, Q05 __ __é: . 21—3 _31 .ZZ 2555 ._ 2786 .14 _oa ._ 2432 ._ _58 _7g 2787 _ _07 _ 2433 _ _59 ._g Total 1. a _08 ._ 2534 .5 Total 7. 2g Depreciation _09 __ __ _35 122 Other Expenses Bldg. 512 2111 ._ Total _£.& _81 :11. Equip. [a 2112 A Supplies _62 £4 Total 5.1.2 2113 ._Z_ /£4l __.gggé _63 ._fl Debt 2114 12 Q42 5 .?_5’ 2464 ._ Int. __ 2115 .572 4.343 .fl 2465 ._ Maint. _ 2216 .__ Q44 _[Z __o9 .g Total 51.1.; 23,7 .__ 4,345 _ 92: 3374 __ Program GRAND TOTAL 2418 _ 234a ._ 3375 _.__ /5'5'-_Zf 105 COST CENTER DATA SHEET Summary of‘fi/fl $77,: 222 47,42 Program 3 of 7 School Program- Class/Activity Title— CC’ No. FTTE's -School- Org. Type Bldg Ft.2-P's Type Key. Sq Llerd Sec- Credit Req. Tchr Yr. Term Unit Sch CC Total Prog Yr if Lvl tion Units Elec‘ , . I 1 4| Ala 43 lg: 74/ I1]. xx /l7lil7l/ j l l Ll 4“ l H0 El — Pupils Data Time Materials Content Descriptors No. No. No. Minutes %Lab Txt Tch Use #1 #2. #3 #4 #5 to #7 Male Female Type Days Per Wk Time Used Meth Med (wads/EAL: 4.3 H U l l Total Cost Mode 2519 47 T tal 6’ 5;? —_ . o Cost/pupil Mode —' — — —— J K % of Tom. Mode 2521 51.025; 2448 . Fixed Charges So la r i es 2622 2449 . 278] /& 01 1.43% __28 5.523 2451 2782 . [£02 3 .AKX _29 z *EZ/y 2552 / .l/ZZ 2783 &. EA! /__2_03 5’3 Eff Total 22. 72/ 2553 / .3/2 2784 . /‘_)__04 Q 32 _7 Contracted Services 2554 . 2785 4ng /_‘_J~05 a AS? _31 51 4,27 2555 . 2786 2. 2;; _06 2432 . _58 p m 12787 _07 2433 . _59 p ,2 /3 Total _/_. //_/_ _08 2534 Q’ . 525 Total 4' 045/ Depreciation _09 __ _35 0 A23 Other Expenses Bldg. 2 . 2&1 2111 __ Total a. {£2 _61 (3 41/ Equip. a .523 2112 _a 592’ Suppliei _62 g 00'] Total 3435’ 2113 (5.1ng Q41 (.fif‘ _63 a 4705’ Debt 2] 14 a .3917 4,342 l .23? 2464 Int. 2115 6’. .. 43.43 2 32¢ 2465 M°‘"'- .__— .__ 2216 _____.___ Q44 __g _02] __69 __.—25.5.3.5. Total __2. 11.32 2317 4:345 67 .2? 3374 Program GRAND TOTAL 2418 234a 3375 /y(). (22% 106 COST CENTER DATA SHEET Summary of fl/f’f 67) Program / of 5 » School l’rogm; Class/Activity Title— CC' No. FTTE's -Schoo|- Org. Type Bldg Ft.2-P's Type Key Eq Llerd Sec- Credit lReq. Tchr Yr. Term Unit Sch CC Total Prog , r Dif Lvl tion Units Elec lwa Imam lflfla [ll] 4 7i I 30 Bl —Pupils Data Time Materials Content Descriptors No. No. No. Minutes % Lab Txt Tch Use #1 #2 . #3 #4 #5 to #7 Male Female Type Days Per Wk Time Used Mgth Med t t . T i 5 El 2 / 0 * l_'_l l...l K Total Cost Mode 2519 . 47 Total . Cost/pupil Mode —— — — —' ._M i 0150f Total Mode 252l [,3 i z . E: 2448 Fixed Charges la ri es 3‘ 2622 . 2449 2781 QC“ _ZKAQ. _28 M'Zé 245' __ _ 2782 __. __ (£02 52332 _29 £Zé._ZZ 2552 flffi 2783 fl Z. 4 Z /_g03 @242, &3 Total 1; 25¢. 14 2553 £35. .21 2784 Q04 &2 . {.2 Contracted Services 2554 ‘ Z5 . Z; 2785 22.51 Q05 g2. 23 _31 £4. if 255,5 2786 /3 .45” __06 . 2432 . _58 10;). Q1 2787 _07 2433 _59 32. 2Q Total a 2%. K _08 2534 .5'. /{ Total é 72f}. 2.2 Depreciation _09 _35 £2 , 24 Other Expenses Bldg. ZZZ . Z Z 21 11 Total {'22, [A _61 (g. .22 Equip. [5’57 £er 2112 22 £2 Supplies _62 g . 52 Total 4: //3 . £2 2113 Zé. 12 Q4} 35:5. Z2 _63 45 21 Debt 2114 [A a: /_._242 £51.32 2464 Int. 2115 7.2- 55 {543 Z1392 2465 Maint. 2216 __ £244 (Z 5% _69 a 2.41 Total 454% 32 2317 /245 Z? 42 3374 Program GRAND TOTAL .__ .‘— —— I 2418 g 2346 3375 ,&€ 052/. g: 107 COST CENTER DATA SHEET Summary of k (237/) PrOgram J of 5’ C ty CC” No. FTTE's -School- . Type Bldg t. s Type Key Lv Grd Sec . T Yr. Term it Sch CC Total .. r i Lvl tion Units Iec — 4 la: Pupils 00 Time Materials Content Descriptors No. No. . Minutes % Lab Txt Tch Use ’2 . ll3 I"4 #5 #6 '7 le Female T Per Wk. Time Used Med Total Cost Mode I Cost/pup“ Mode 2519 ____._ _47 ___._ Total 1.5: _ %- of Tom. Mode 2521 Zia: 244a ._ Fixed Charges alaries 2622 ._ 2449 ._ 278] ._ /,_2_01 # 5.9g _28 4g 2451 ._ 2782 ._ g 02 3 _3_Z _29 4.51 2552 .[é 2783 .34 /3_ 03 ZZLZ ' Total ML 12 2553 .7._5_._? 2784 ._ /__,_2_04 ,fl Contracted Services 2554 S .1): 2785 .932 £05 ./_3_ _31 ( .é’ 255s ._ 2786 . _QZ __oo ._ 2432 ._ __58 _52 2787 ._ _07 _ 2433 ,_ _59 if Total 1. 52 _08 ._ 2534 ._fli Total {dééz Depreciation _09 __ _35 ii Other Expenses Bldg. 5112 2111 .__ Total la _61 __ggj Equip, .ZQ 2112 ._SZ Supplies _62 ._z’_/_ Total 452‘ 2113 .5; Q4] (‘12 _63 M th 2H4 .éz Q42 3.2a 2464 __ rm. _ 2115 ._i /_2_43 ._gf 2465 ._ Maint. _ 2216 ___.__ Q44 __ 142 _69 £4 Total 2 1:21, 2317 _ /_;_{_ 45 .154 3374 ._ ngmm RAND TOTAL 2418 _ 2346 ._ 3375 __ 41/4141 108 COST CENTER DATA SHEET Summary or 1% (M Program 3 or 5’ School Prograwrn— ‘ Class/Activity Title— CC’ No. FTTE's -Schoo|- Org. Type Bldg Ft.2-P's Type Key. Sq Llerd Sec- Credit Req. Tchr Yr. Term Unit Sch CC Total Prog . Yr Dif Lvl tion Units Elec l . woolly Lzlt' 7l L llm fl 0 — Pupils Data Time Materials Content Descriptors No. No. No. Minutes % Lab Txt Tch Use #1 l2 . #3 #4 #5 to #7 Male Female Type Days Per Wk, Time Used Meth Med } ftl/aowolwrt U l l Total Cost Mode 2519 . 47 . Total y 5" Cost/pupil Mode —_ — — —_ — — fl 1‘ % of Total Mode 252l __2-.52? 2448 . Fixed Charges Salaries 2622 . 2449 . 278l 4201 3. 5.1% _28 1.305] 245T . 2782 [$02 2 M _29 { ._fég 2552 Q” 2783 £.éz._5’ 42—03 52917.5( Total 25 .M 2553 1 £42 2784 ._ /_J_204 fl 335/ Contracted Services 2554 Q). -33; 2785 élfl Q05 5.93 _31 . ié’g' 255;; ._ 2786 a £114 _oa ._ 2432 ._ _58 QT :91 2787 ._ _07 ,_ 2433 l___ _59 a. 122/ Total 4113 _08 ._ 2534 £12.31 Total 222] Depreciation _09 __ _35 2.12; Other Expenses Bldg. 4 L71 2m __ Total am _6l 2 £57 Equip, (_r, .51 2112 0' gm; Supplies _62 age] Total ioééé' 2113 4, .fl Q41 (.21; _63 g 25;; __Dili 2114 Q m /_.g42 3.213 2464 ._ Int. _ 2115 0° ._'__:1,;_3 A343 aw 2465 T__ Maint. _ 2216 ____._ Q44 _g .4751 _69 (1&4 Total gig? 2317 a. £145 6" 3.27 3374 . Program GRAND TOTAL 2418 2346 3375 . 421m 70 109 COST CENTER DATA SHEET Summary or 5x,“ 3mm Dem: Program / of .24 School Prograwn—T' Class/Activity Title— CC' No. FTTE's -School- Org. Type Bldg Ft.2-P's Type Key Sq LvIGrd Sec- Credit Req. Tchrs Yr. Term Unit Sch CC Total Prog Dif Lvl tion Units Elec “Hawk LI; PL/J Elam jllllll /‘2 l lolo l3 -- Pupils Data—— Time Materials Content Descriptors No. No No. Minutes % Lab Txt Use #1 #2 r #3 #4 #5 la #7 Male Female Type Days Per Wk Time Used Meth Med ”$3.5 tallgl/ as?” . ll l l g Total Cost Mode 2519 47 Total 57.2 Cost/pupil Mode "' —_ — L— £2 %. of Total Mode 2521 z; 37!. (2.1 2448 Fixed Charges Salaries” 2622 M.& 2449 __ 278] _— Qol zféf. Z! _28 53511.24 2451 2782 4.2.02 we; __29 M12 2552 M152. 2783 #3434 43.03 [5321. L75 Total A73 Z0 2i .22 2553 3534. 4.! 2784 . 204 4 21. Z , fa} Contracted Services 2554 ' 5_-?_5' . 973 2785 4fz . 6’0. 4:505 Z 2/2 . 50 _31 Z Q33, Z 255,5 2786 /:?o of _06 __ __ 2432 __ __ _58 __é_~/_0_ éi 2787 __.—_— _07 2433 _59 Total / 4.6. Z. 7f _08 2534 é {122 Total /5" Z/Z ‘ 22 Depreciation _09 __ _35 £42": /2 Other Expenses Bldg. _X, 642.53 2111 Total /4QZ {2 _61 /__c{. 3Z' Equip. &;‘/¢6’- 6}? 2112 EA ;1 Supplies _62 (3‘2 50 Total /4 4’2 215:; 2H3 Qéz. ZZ /£4l 410252 _63 Za/ 5’2 Debt 2H4 é5 Z Z; 4342 g, ZZZ 4 Q4 2464 . Int 2] IS ‘22,? .Z} (._243 dzflj Ti . 52' 2465 Maint. 2216 __ {£44 92,714 (3 g _69 Z “2.3g Z 5’ Total Z5" 393.52? 23l7 {345 {,35’ 04: 3374 Pyram GRAND TOTAL 2418 2346 3375 /éf5'5'z .512 110 COST CENTER DATA SHEET Summary of 316/41. 5:15am flépvi Program ,3 of .2 £ School Progravm.‘ Class/Activity Title— CC” No.iFTTE's -Schoo|- Org. Type Bldg Ft.2-P's Type Key. Sq Lvl Grd Sec- Credit Req. Tchr Yr. Term Unit Sch CC Total Prog Yr bit Lvl tion Units Elec‘ MN 0.4? Li ”[4] DECLA Willi U m? l Ho / — Pupils Data Time Materials Content Descriptors No. No‘ No. Minutes % Lab Txt Tch Use #1 #2 . #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 Male Female Type Days Per Wk Time Used Meth Med L } T w; E. I l ’2‘? :5 E g / 0a f 0 I __.-1 Total Cost Mode 2519 47 T t I ‘2 — o a . K Cost/pupil Mode — — — __L J 0/0 of Total Mode 252] 5.32 2448 Fixed Charges alaries 2622 Z. 2%. 2449 . 278] . 43.1. 01 1. Q E _28 4,1. 5.4 2451 . 2782 _. Q 02 57¢ .Z _29 / .42 2552 / A? 2783 .yz Q03 é Z , a? Total ZZ 4,? 2553 2 . [3 2784 204 Z {Z Contracted Services 2554 . 2.3 2785 .32 a: 05 g ./4 _31 . Z& 255; . 2786 x /L' _06 2432 . _58 5 2787 _ . _07 2433 _59 Total C. 33 _08 2534 .gé’ Total Z6). {é Depreciation __09 __ __ __35 3,2 Other Expenses Bldg. 4 . if 2m Total 1.2; _61 __ 0'! Equip, .2 . 33’ 2112 _ZZ Supplies _62 i (6) Total 2 .£,? 2113 .11 £41 . X: _63 {5’ Debt 2114 T52 /_'.3_42 g. éZ 2464 Int. 2115 .4; /_._2_43 ._‘Zz/ 2465 Moint. 2216 __ /&44 __ (Z __69 __. 22 Total /';\7 1sz 2317 ”2‘45 Z‘sZ 3374 Program GRAND TOTAL 2418 2346 . 3375 ¢ {324% 111 COST CENTER DATA SHEET Summary of 3%.. figure, Law; Program 3 of .26 School Progrn; Class/Activity Title— CCAl No. FTTE's -School- Org. Type Bldg Ft.2-P's Type Key Sq Llerd Sec- Credit Req. Tchrs ‘Yr. Term Unit Sch CC Total Prog Yr if Lvl tion Units Elec MUéElfl PILL air jllll /.7l.lolo — Pupils Data Time Materials Content Descriptors No. No. No. Minutes % Lab Txt Tch Use #T #2. #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 Male Female Type Days Per Wk Time Used Meth Med .ms/rzllgl/ .250 1 HI I L] l l T talc tM d —— ° °5 ° 8 2519 47 Total 4 i2 Cost/pupil Mode _"—'“—" _ — _' .__—.__. X % of Total Mode 2521 __‘Zéi 2448 _ M Salaries 2622 l .22 2449 278] 4301 3. «547% _28 3.92 2451 2782 _ 4,302 77/, 1/Z _29 Z ,7; 2552 Z. 35/ 2783 2. £3 /_2_03 5'0 . g 5 Total Zia? 2553 ,2. /p 2784 . €04 _ Z. 14 Contracted Services 2554 i g .3; 2785 a fig /._205 Z . 4/ _3l . a. éz 255,5 . 2786 a! . (2f _06 2432 _58 4 y 2787 _07 _ 2433 __.___ _59 _._ Total __(2._ZZ _08 2534 [Lflz Total Z . Zé Depreciation _09 _ __ _35 -.22 Other Expenses Bldg. 5 . /,.'2 2m , Total Q25” _61 a. 0/ Equip, Z. 75’ 2112 fl lé’z Supplies _62 e QZ Total é f2 2113 5.5? /_:341 Q . 4'4 _63 E ”Z Debt 2114 Q 32 /-_.z42 62%. 2464 Int. 2115 5’. 7Q Q43 Q-éi’ 2465 . Maint, 2216 ___. Q44 .é’. /§ _69 y 2.3 Total 7. /.3 2317 @345 [7‘ 3E 3374 Program GRAND TOTAL 2418 2346 3375 {05’ . £07.? 112 COST CENTER DATA SHEET Summary of gpgA/cfi fl s/fl Program Z of Z School PrograwnT. ‘ Class/Activity Title— CC' No. FTTE's -School- Org. Type Bldg Ft.2-P's Type Key. Sq Llerd Sec- Credit Req. Tchr Yr. Term Unit Sch CC Total Prog V Yr Dif Lvl tion Units Elec | f .t 3] WAIZLZ p/ 633/1? . EléTolerU A? /0Ll1 — Pupils Data Time Materials Content Descriptors No. No. No. Minutes °/o Lab Txt Tch Use #1 #2 . t3 l’4 #5 to #7 Male Female Type Days Per Wk. Time Used Meth Med /'//fi=lrr)lgl 0,250 3 TL] U l l K Total Cost Mode 2519 . 47 . Total 3 02 Cast/pupil Mode -—————- ——- -— —— —— __Li Z— % of Total Mode 2521 éé‘ 3 . éz 2448 . Fixed Charges - 2622 (215:1 2449 . 278] . artes g .__— __ __. _— 20‘ _~5/étl/ _28 57g , 01 245T . 2782 . £2202 _éZZ..g a _29 {£4 .ZZZ 2552 (Z? 32 2783 25’. 74 9303 .Z.Z_3_9c/_/. 70“” 4 4.25- 41 2553 3.22. m 2784 , Q04 /22 fl Contracted Services 2554 A $.35 2785 ¢3o3 305 335 .fi _31 ZZZ ._45 255_5 ._ 2786 /Z ._5(_3 _06 ._ 2432 ._ _58 5% fl 2787 __.— _07 ._ 2433 ._ _59 .__ Total 1'50'_Z_5_/ _08 ._ 2534 é ._gz Total .4 1Z4 £17. Depreciation _09 __ __35 32/22: Other Expenses Bldg. fag .fi 2m .__ Total __/'_5¥_5’.~~:Z.Z _ol __Jgj Equip, £52» .fl 2112 {£14 Supplies _62 /Z.3_Z Total agggfi 2H3 gig 4.3“ ZZ-AZ. _63 4:22 _Qefl 2ll4 52.11 /_:2_42 gzztfl 2464 ._ Int. __ 2115 éZ-ZL @343 2,2 .55: 2465 ._ Maint. __ 2216 _____t____ I344 (‘Z 21 _69 (22.6.; Total / 51;; .fl‘ 23l7 ._ 4345 fig £4. 3374 ‘_ Program GRAND TOTAL i 45. 61/313; 2418 2346 . 3375 COST CENTER DATA SHEET 115 Summary of fmgfl E2 1 ZZZ Program .2 of7 School Progrn; Class/Activity Title-— CC” No. FTTE's -Schoo|- Org. Type Bldg Ft.2-P's Type Key. Sq Llerd Sec- Credit Req. Tchrs Yr. Term ‘Unit Sch CC Total Prog r Dif Lvl tion Units Elec 3] a at? Law 152W; molttltll a l LET —— Pupils Data Time Materials Content Descriptors No. No. No. Minutes °/o Lab Txt Tch Use #1 1’2 . #3 #4 '5 to #7 Male Female Type Days Per Wk Time Used Meth Med N / V l) kl 28‘0 l l l l Total Cost Mode _— 25l9 47 Total / . £10 5' Cost/ pupil Mode _ _ _" _ — % of Total Mode 2521 {ii 2448 Fixed Charges glories 2622 { ._Zi 2449 . 278] . Q0] 5f. 45’ _28 51.53 2451 ,. 2782 . £02 £152 _29 1 . ég 2552 1. (5 2783 .11; {£03 éZfl Total [2Q . as 2553 a . Zé 2784 £04 (.55 Contracted Services 2554 I {Z 2785 ,3 _L {£05 ,2. /,5’ _3l /. m 255_5 . 2786 t /0 _06 2432 T _58 _ 22 2787 . _07 2433 _59 . Total / . 3 _08 t 2534 . fié Total /fl .JZ Depreciation _09 _35 .522 Other Expenses Bldg. z. ,255 2111 . Total 43$ _61 .05 Eqatp, 2.33 2112 _ZQ Supplies _62 , (Q Total z .52 2113 LZZ /_2_4l .112 _63 {:7 Debt 21 14 g; 242 ,2. 52 2464 . Int. 2115 . [_/_ {£43 . [if 2465 Maint, 2216 . £44 __ a" _69 _ 22 Total /X. /Z 2317 ‘ Q45 . 5(2 3374 . Program GRAND TOTAL 2418 234a 3375 . £54“, ,21 114 COST CENTER DATA SHEET Summary of flax—l 222 £0 22 Program 3 of 7 School Program ‘ Class/Activity Title— CC” No. FTTE's -Schoo|- Org. Type Bldg Ft.2-P's Type Key q Llerd Sec- Credit Req. Tchrs Yr- Term Unit Sch CC Total Prog T Dif Lvl tion Units Elec‘ a Lew. pL/M LL Mallow 21 a — Pupils Data—a Time Materials Content Descriptors No. No. No. Minutes % Lab Txt Tch Use #1 #2 . #3 #4 #5 to #7 Male Female Type Days Per Wk Time Used Meth Med ‘Sfi Ll Ll l /r///vzl lgl/ Total Cost Mode — 2519 . 47 . Total Cost/pupil Mode —— —— -— —— — —4 @3/ x O/o~ Of Total Mode 252l 1.fl 2448 . Fixed Charges Salaries 2622 /.fl&é 2449 . 278l £201 5.1/1 74 _28 3,37? 2451 . 2782 /_.-2_02 g ~M_ _29 5.6131 2552 54242 2783 4415" /;2_03 izl_/3__5’ Total Lag] 2553 glzé 2784 /_2_04 1 Li Contracted Services 2554 Q.£{ 2785 p.32] /_.2_os 1 .17] _31 . aa/ 255_5 ._ 2786 a , 47¢ _06 ._ 2432 ._ _58 Q £57 2787 _____.__ _07 ._ 2433 L____ _59 Total 5.227 _08 \_ 2534 ; .ggg Total Z . 55‘ Depreciation _09 __ __35 2 27.31 Other Expenses Bldg. __i.§_/_4 2m __ Total -__.LQL‘Z‘ _ol __AQJ Equip (.15 2112 am Supplies _62 Q ,fly Total 1w 2113 a. gig {.341 4&2 _63 9 Q2" Debt 2114 0.5;; £42 42$; 2464 ._ Int. _ 21l5 Afi /_2_43 __£.é4’£/ 2465 ._ Maint. 2216 __ __ /_244 ___£ £712} _69 gm Total 37.22% 2317 ._ £45 #5312er 3374 ‘ Program GRAND TOTAL 2418 234a . 3375 . /&0.0J7o 115 COST CENTER DATA SHEET Summary at pfl5/Q14 5%m/Program / of 7 School Program- ‘ Class/Activity Title— CC” No. FTTE's -Schoo|- Org. Type Bldg Ft.2-P's Type Key. Sq Llerd Sec- Credit Req. Tchrs Yrs Term Unit Sch CC Total Prog , Yr bif Lvl tion Units lec‘ élréoaelglzu’kw 45 FTTHI rel lo —Pupils Data Time Materials Content Descriptors No. No. No. Minutes % Lab Txt Tch Use All #2 . #3 #4 #5 lll6 #7 Male Female Type Days Per Wk Time Used Mfth Med 551'45'7'1 / 28’0 “ ll [l l l X Total Cost Mode 2519 . 47 . Total :3 ' cost/pupal Mode —— — _ __ _ m _Z 0/0 of Total Mode 252l 4; {/fi ._ZZ 2448 . Fixed Charges Salaries 2622 4; ZZZ . 42 2449 . 278l , a I . /;_01 #53 £2 __28 25“ zfi 2451 ._ 2782 .__ 4102 ,56/3 ‘2; . __29 “fig ._éL 2552 3 at 222. 2783 éi’f. ‘1_3 /,_2_03 zZ4g£.ZZ Total Ma 2553 . é a 2 4:2 2784 ._ /£O4 45g 5 _59: Contracted Services 2554 25{ .fi 2785 373.1 605 Z 56‘:£._éi _31 égé-tggi 255; ._ 2786 /g)3 .22; __oo ._ 2432 ._ _58 £25 411 2787 ._ _07 _ 2433 _ _59 __ Total [342. Kb _08 ._ 2534 1 2 fl ._Zé Total /3 .232 22 Depreciation _09 ___.___ _35 4. ZS A Other Expenses Bldg. 71423.1 2lll ._ Total 4 ZlfiiéL _61 /Zé£ Equip agfgé’z 2112 ZZ AL Supplies _62 Cpl lL/ Total //= 795.21 2113 ZZZ'ZK 4341 £13.12 _63 5435 42’ Debt 2H4 jgfyL {.342 a; (Jazz 2464 ._ Int. /,7 3g; g1; 2l15 g/é .g 243 £13.42 2465 ._ Maint. ~———_ 2216 __ __ {344 2051 if _69 71%. 26L Total /;,2/z .ai 2317 __ £45 __.3 22 ‘35?— 3374 _ Pro ram GRAND TOTAL 2418 ____ 234a ._ 3375 ._ [367‘ £3214 116 COST CENTER DATA SHEET Summary or aim Q «“1201! Program 4 at ‘2 School Progncr? Class/Activity Title— CC” No. FTTE's -Schoo|- Org. Type Bldg Ft.2-P's Type Key Sq Llerd Sec- Credit Req. Tchr Yr. Term Unit Sch CC Total Prog , Yr bif Lvl tion Units Elec l l—‘F— 7 Al 45 L5: PL/Jl“ lll U ml looLE — Pupils Date Time Materials Content Descriptors No. No. No. Minutes % Lab Txt Tch Use #1 '2 . #3 #4 #5 t“a #7 Male Female Type Days Per Wk Time Used Meth Med 95 45’ 51L] Euro *‘ a l. ,l Ll __ Total Cost Mode 2519 47 T t I ‘2 . o a x Cost/pupil Mode _ — "_ _ —__Z' A % of Total Mode 252] -__Agfi 2448 __ M Salaries 2622 / . 23 2449 278] . /_;zol 4‘ f, 45’ __28 £43 2451 2782 . Q02 '5‘. SZ __29 g .é Z 2552 3 z; 2783 .53 /_:203 1725’ Total fig. 5; 2553 é .135’ 2784 /_’,'_7_04 Z 55 Contracted Services 2554 . 75/ 2785 .55" £205 .2. /5 _31 y /. 39 255;; 2786 l m _06 __.___ 2432 __.___ _58 __ fl 2787 __ __ _07 2433 , _59 a Total {./2 _08 . 2534 . £2 Total /2 ('42 Depreciation __09 _35 , £2 Other Expenses Bldg. 2 . 5 2 2] ll __ Total 4&7 __6l __. (91 Equip, 4.1. 33 21l2 é" Zéf Supplies _62 {4’ Total //12fl 2113 Q7. 25,2 /_1_41 . if _63 /g Debt 2114 Q 5:21 4.342 252 2464 Int. 2l15 é’ .é 62 @43.Z_14_/ 2465 . Maint. 2216 __ @244 __ 051 _69 __. 2'2 Total 1,). A? _ 2413 234a . 3375 /,;2 9 701 117 COST CENTER DATA SHEET Summary of aflg‘A‘ fflm: Program 3 of 7’ School Program Class/Activity Title— ' CC’ No. FTTE's -Schoo|- Org. Type Bldg Ft.2-P's Type Key. Sq LvIGrd Sec- Credit Req. Tchr Yr. Term Unit Sch CC Total Prog Yr Dif Lvl tion Units Elec édélelg ale? Li: MAST/Mash Tl TU U M lolo -— Pupils Data Time Materials Content Descriptors No. No. No. Minutes °/o Lab Txt Tab Use #1 1'2 . #3 #4 #5 to #7 Male Female Type Days Per Wl< Time Used Meth Med ¢'¥57‘l4l/ 2,2le HI I Ll l l Total Cost Mode — 2519 47 Total (I 9 Cost/pupil Mode —"" — "‘—‘ 4Z2 X 0/0 of Tom. Mode 2521 7. 753/ 2448 Fixed Charges Salaries 2622 /. 3,25 2449 2781 /3_o1 3.3% _28 3 our 2451 . 2782 _ ./_;_2_ 02 2 .‘fl __2? / . J20 2552 2 5'7 1 2783 a . if)” /g_ 03 fig .323 Total 45'. {27 2553 1. 00251 2784 /3_04 / . /‘/é Contracted Services 2554 47. 73,? 2785 fl 30/. 305 /. é5/‘ _31 a. 7Z0 2555 2786 Jazz _~_oo . 2432 I _58 Q 3Z5” 2787 . _07 2433 _59 Total 5 . 545’ _08 2534 4. £923 Total (_31 /g,Z De reciation _09 _____ _35 5" 5.31? Other Expenses Bldg. 2. iéé’ 2111 Total A 323 _61 a 0/0 Equipl 4 . 224 2ll2 j} , 5f? Supplies _62 fl 4’7f Total “2 .IL/ 2113 a .522 a.“ Q). {_Zy _63 C) (’55) Debt 2114 a 1510/ 342 4.22)” 2464 Int. 2 3M 2115 Q -ZZ/ {.343 é’éifi/ 2465 . Maint. 2216 __. 4244 __Q é‘é’! _69 £260 Total 7 . 35v 2418 2346 3375 /00_ 0090 118 The cost summary sheets which appear above are summar- ized, in part, in the table below. The table is intended to demonstrate how the costs Of selected programs can be summarized in such a manner that total costs, costs per pupil, and percentage Of total figures can be easily compared. When the data is arranged in this form a given item can be compared for ten programs in any appropriate mode in a matter Of seconds. Choosing the appropriate mode is not difficult. The programs vary in the percentage of the total program of a pupil that they represent and in the number Of pupils en- rolled in the program. Kindergarten, for instance, is a half day program. HOwever, for reporting purposes it is treated as a full day program in the sense that full-time equivalent pupils are used for the calculations. The second and sixth grade programs are full day programs and reported as such. It is appropriate, therefore, to compare these programs in either the cost per pupil or the percentage modes. The junior high program has both required and elective courses. The re- quired courses represent 15.625% Of the pupil's program and the electives 12.5% Of the pupils program. The percentage mode is most appropriate for comparisons Of electives and required courses and both cost per pupil and percentage modes for either required or electives when compared to the same type. The senior high courses represent 16.667% Of the total program of an individual pupil and all courses can be compared one to another. All courses and programs can be compared in 119 the percentage or in an "extended mode" where all programs are shown extended to full-time equivalent programs. The table appears on the next page. A sample comparison may prove helpful in getting started. TO compare the costs per pupil and percentage Of total costs for the three ele- mentary programs regarding Consultants and Supervisors one simply follows the line across tO the right noting the amounts beneath the appropriate program. There are three lines across for each apprOpriation number. The tOp line lists the total cost mode, the second the cost per pupil mode, and the third the percentage Of total cost mode. The total costs are $2,052.74 for kindergarten, $18,449.88 for 2nd grade, and $27,401.84 for 6th grade. The costs per pupil are $8.18 for kindergarten, $40.11 for 2nd grade, and $78.74 for 6th grade. The percentages Of total are 1.15% for kindergarten, 5.691% for 2nd grade and 9.97% for 6th grade. A more comprehensive, but less detailed summary Of the programs casted during the field test appears in Table 2. The cost per pupil is given for each program and extended tO a full-time program equivalent where necessary. The full- time equivalent tends tO place all programs on the same time basis and makes comparisons more meaningful. 120 oasafluaoo .mcoflumasoamo AHQSQ Ham umou Ham muamam>flsaa aEflulaazm m.m¢m Gama * \Mlal.fllkm.fllll \Mfll MNWHWl Mlele..wllt\QNN.l NW.N1l.wW.Nll GTNII \mw.W.lt.ntvt.wt mmell M4..l WWl MTV.l waswllt. NV..Nul «NJMI «NQl mg \.m.t.Ntalml AwwlwuuNamH Mlxwéfll \Mttfiumx NW.N..l \Nvflwfll NWNWNI NHNNWWMW Qfiwfil 23333 uwmflll \QQl wmflleTQIIINmNQ \MWNll gall mwd wwwfll \Wflfll Mlntfil ww.w\.l \WQl \N.l ww.l NN.l hwfll .wqwul \Hflll Navll aaaaaaaa .nalvwwa sash] News.» Nasal brawl nasal 1%.le nausea manhole. No.3 3333a NNMI.Olm.l\WWt.NN.II MAM...“ \mnltwlmll kw.ml NxNMNlleMrml “Mural MNwwle www.mfill WINNl uafiwll mywwll «VNRwl \lalNNlMNcle \Nfiwl \NJWNI wNNNul Hwfiwmnl nuanomaa is and; nag MNSJNN hearth mag swede Nag Nag mtg Ease, Seal \anlNfltllkmwol tomb; Islam awwfi NNN \Mb Dd Normal hrs, Nana «anal Natl banal NWWl «Newl Neal aflwlaaaaazaaao can “Noam. armada WaleN WNW macaw MNMNN @1wa \Nase. la. macaw Emma”: naaaaaaaoo Ewan .Ikwwtn can, No. Qfil amen \lmwll «Mam \Nwllmfifi \wmofil leowl Nasal Slam Modal much "Mawll «will wflxflxll VNQNMI leutwkfl N \N..m.\.tw. \Nlhwwwlw QfiNN Nm.u%\\\v «WMHWXV «aqvmmwm 3.3 «Wig \fl.§§mammfloaflum mawumHmm meat .QN. $3.1 9&1 haw. “3% abs 9wa QQWV lale xaazx. as: was“ Ex to was? max New Nasal Wax cos. 9% . as} Babe 4 >H a HHH mmaosum mwaSum Uamsz Dams: momma momma amuumm .m.m mm nucmum mm Hmfluom mm and mo Haauom mo Hmuo> mo .umaH mb Sum 0am THOOCHX EauH\wHuHB mo #0 no No do eaoo .mxm afiHm¢ZEDm dewomm H mamdfl 121 nmscfiu 3.1.11 mm... .wl mufll 3.4.11 3.3 3% 32$. «1M 44.3 WNN MN.“ N43 MNNN mlwwu NNNINWIIH mmmmmmmm 33v 433. WNW... N113 $34 $9.13. 3.43. N3 3.31% m... “4.13, 3.2.3 31 WNW. 41.34.... 4 mm...1\.l QIQ. Q .11.... a mud qIWNlI NW. \ NN1. Nl:mm.flll m..Nlm..NNlml.Nlm1.m 36 No.6 odd \.m1.u\ NNNINHNI .28qu NINNNNN mW.NIm1\l1 $93 .316 61.9% Mmfi www.mll WNWW NNWNNN Nahummawu mucmcmufimz mmwm \nwfill mMmJNlI WNcm NWWI QNMNMII mmmlel «fisNI mN.N.ll \Inlm. m. NWNNI mamul NNVII NNNI mle 13.4 \61 .\l 3.31-8.le 3...... .3le Ngawwwwwlmg Q.§mw.§fi.mlmwwflm§wwgwflfl we... oooooo 38 \N. 411 mfifil 3.31 MWINNWQII 331%.3MNQIINWWI $.31 \Iw.l NI.I~.1N.I .Imwn. wN.lNN.lml.... lmIwalI mmmmmmmm NNQNNI NNNI MN. NNNI Mm. NNI 1““. «mm mNQmINI NWNIKI NWNWM‘N QNQNNN NINWNNI H mmmmmm 3am $.31 U46 NWNII 1mm1§l|1 mm.» NNNNIII mm...w.l $4..“ \NNFNII MWNN WWI “W. WWI mw..l mN.l m1m.l .1 M45... NJ... WNW w a. vawMuWI WWNHI 3..me QNNNI \«NQWNI .444Nl $.va NNNWN mNNMNN NNNNNI 62:.“ mmmmm «SN wNmNI mwwdl Wm... afldl NNNNII $.43 \N. u .M... NN.l mIN.l NM. .m.l \I\....l NW. WWI m1w1.\.wl NIWNIMIWNII .522 NNNNNINIVININlNleNVNNIuNNINInwlNImWNINIQNENNINJNNJN $833 38 mwlm..wll\mm1 u manul MMNQIINNNN $3..» mmNQIII NW...II|§1.% M3... 3N.l NM. 1.. 2.. wN.lmW..Imw. W..\.l|\.1.le Mmflll mmmmmmmmmm NINNININNIIENINININIMINNHNINNNIAWNNJIWMHNNVNNNNWNNE .humsm NHS 5 0. HHH mmwwmam $3.5m 3mg: cams: mmmmm 3... w mmmmm m .m.m mm nocmum mm Hm mm ”.2 E. 2.38 mu 38> E. .35 an 4.5 cam .32... 53:3»; 1‘22 v.5...gou . mEEII Eamll E... EEIIREElEEII NEEl El EQluENl ENII Emil E; E.Nl “Mal Efil EEII Ewll E.N.l Eml $22.... EEG. EwEI EEE. Emu: Ema... EVE. ENEI EEE. «NEE. E.NEE§§MMMWOB “WEI Ewgl EEl Eu...“ MEEIIEE... EEl EEl EEleEl E.l E..l wwl E.l El m... EJl mel E.Nl \E.m.l 8.23 EmEI Ev... EMEI NEE... ENE: EEI NEE: EEEI EEEI ENE. -5... 2.: MEEl E E... EEleElEEl E.wl Efll Emwl EEl E.l El E. E.l E.l El E.l El El EEII 832.8 ENE: EEl Emmi. Ewl EEl EEI EWI ENE... ENE. EEI 2...: 3E.wl\wm.l E... mm?» «Emil “Emil Enmll E... Edl Em El Ednl E. \E. EEl E.l E.l E... Eaml E... H. MNEEm EEml EEEE MEEUNEEQl Exam. EEEI EEEE EEEW NEENN -stflem mmoH>Hlequomuucoo NEEl EEl EEI EEI \EEI. EEl EEl EEl ENNI NEEI WEN! NEE! EEl EEI EmEI Emfll ENE: ENEI EENI NEE... $22.... «NEE EENE EENmQ EEE EENE .EEIE EENE EEE EEEEEEEE 3.. 233 ..E.l El El ENlNNE. Ea. .EEII Ex... NEE NE... Evil El Efil Emll E... E.m..l Euwll EEI. EVE... EEM $223 EEE EEEI EEE EEN. EEE. EEEI EEN: EEE EEE Emma...» . .23 >H a HHH meUSum mmflcsum cams: mama: acmuw mcmuw :muumm .N.m mm Socmuh mm HMfluom mm uu¢ Eh Hawoom Sb HMUO> Eb .umCH Eb Sum UCN IHmUGHM EwUH\wHuHB mm Emmm Hm mm wUOU .mxm 123 UQDGHUCOU \Q. N www.cx NW. N \Mwwnmlii WNW..WIIII NWJVI NM cm miNcm. aiming MWQ um? WWII .iliil NW. «immil \Wmli mmmli www MANN “Mm mNNmiNW wWNNmI NW3 \nmmmml Qmmml muwmmmi “WNNNI mama \Ng MNNQMW mwmfimm $3 mmmé mmmfiil mmgm nmdli «Wm \mmimll mmmil Wmlmili \flm mm?“ mm. mm. mm. mm]! mm. m: .il mm] mmmil \me Ea mmmwmi 3mm| mmwmmi mmmml mmmmi lwmmmmi dmml \mmmml mmmwifllmmmmmm g 3| mmmmli “mmli mmm mmmll ammli mum mimiii mmmli mmmll «Naml mwrlllli NUTIIIII. NV. MHzlllli \Jiiiil. Mflnllll. NQKIIIIi quIIIII mmwnlllll NW?IIIII WMSIQNI MNNIII NYQWW m“? NWNNII NYWWII firfll \WQWIWIVIN.NNWI WWWQNVI 383033 «mil mmmli sill m3 mmmiii hmmlixmmmmilmmwmli dmli xmmli \mmil «mil mmil m. \mii .fl mmll . mmll Wmml mm “as mmmlmwl lwWfiNli \‘Nvmmmul mmmwwli NNmfi-i wwwmi mmdiywl MVMNNV Nimiéimfiwu. “VJNNNW >833 3| mmmli Nmmii Emil mwmil immmii \mlei N? mmmlfil “mmfii Miami aims. mmwfllm gmmm. mmémm mam“! wimdm mmfifli mmmml “mummm. mmwfim mmfimm 9:. mmmmm SI «Hm .. mmmii Mwmé lawmx mend. mmil mmlli mmli. mmmli mmmii mm; mmqil mgli mmmli «mm m Mmmwmlfi ~3le www.qul MNQWMI mm:§ $409 3&le wwmmflm wig mmmeiw «mill Wmil fig mnmmii . awn: Dawn: 0 w cmuum .m.m mm Socwum mm HMHUOm mm uufl mb Hafioom Eb HMUO> 3h .umCH Sh Sum GEN IHmUCHM 1‘24 Uwscwucoo mmmm Numl .3 q Nu. m, mm .\ m3. . Nimml mmmml hwml NWI. NI». NW. . fin. NQ. mmmmjz mml mmml mml mml mmmml mmmml mnml mmmmmixmvwmm mam a 32.: mmmcmaleumnuo \m..m|xmml mmlmmmlm .mlmmmlmml mm mmmlmml mml mml mml mi mml mml m .mlmml mmml mmml .235 \mmmm mmm mmm mmm mymmm mmmm. immmm mmmm‘m mmmm \mmmm . 233 ed; Q om...» ummll Nmm mmmmll Nmm 5mm 86 mm.“ as» mum m... mm Mml mul \m.l m. mm mm m... .822 mm... mm.“ mm Emmi ummmmi mamml Mmmml mam maml mid A82: MNmml NW. mmm \WQl mmmlli .mmml mwd Vim. ml mm. mil aim. m NM.l wM.l NH...l mil MN.l mfl NW. NN..i\ll Wmflll gnwli mmflmmsm mmmmi \mwwli Mmmmmi “mum mm. mm... mumml \wmml Mm. mmi NmNmmi Nimml 8E0 NWN.wliumm.l mm...» mm mm...» §um «NWwill Nwmil \lm mmlmm MWl NWl NW.l NWl mm...» mum. mW.l wwx «dd. N.\ 8335 NMNJWNIl WN.N.\~ll MM.W«M.WI .mN. Q .HVWl \..l.MNil NNXVV QEI Mfl.mle Mum/mum. Hmflmoumso mmHfi... “Nixivul wmm. Ni. \l:ml “Vim. Nil «MN. ml \Wmml \xlm..NlNNiw.m.\ \mximl mommll m3. find. in..l Niml le mle Mug. m “wwwmwv NM.§ um..mi-ml\fl..§ mwvlnwuwl NW.N.NmV NN.NM1 madam- NW§ MWWNWM mg 3333: >H um HHH mmdvdum mmfiudum UHmDE Unnmdz GUMHO wvmuw cmuummfi .N.m mm nucwum mm AMHoom mm uud mh. HMflUOm 3h. Hmoo> Eh. .umcH Eh. Sum USN IHmUCHM EmuH\mHuHB uouum .1. do mm mm mmmm mmmm mcoo 125 UQSCH UGOU 3% J... N6 S $MW.% mflw.m 036 mucus“ Mmm lam. miml .ml Mimv mm.» mm UN. . mmwm §.l mmw.\ mmflwwiiii 33 WNW? mmflm NW... mm. «Nl melle .mmxflml ..mflmlli wNwl mull ml\.l 3&3: Mm.\.\ NNWIQ \3. mm. mm.l >H fl HHH JR.“ mm Socmhh mm file...» 9m...» Fug UW.Nl SYN mum mel afil Qumml min...“ mwml ”mull muwl mmfimil mm mml Mmml \mml «mmlnmml mml m.l mml m.l ml Nmmllmx mmkm. .mwwm MVNNN Nwmxx mm... wam Mummm mm...» mmm ”WI:M|II well! mofll m.llllll mo! mmm... mmml W3 m.Nmmi mimmi «N. Wml WM.l ww..l ml \WMNWNV. MWNQWl NMfflWl winufifll MIWNWNI Mm... \mflm .3mil Na... Nmmli flammmi \m.m4l.. 3.3 . mmmm. mm.w..l. Nwm gull Nmmm Nimwll gml mmm. mml mml mmil will moacsum mwflcsum cams: Gama: Hwfluom mm and ED HMfloOm mb Hmoo> Eh .umCH Eb mil..u DWG mam mm. 9 sq...» mm 3:833 no mean ml...» lelfi as“ no Hmucmm wNN» % m MN. \ mmcom cam NN.mww Nu NWNxN w MN. um.“ .\ oquHSmcH mmdeno vwxfim MW...» \mml mmmm .wmwvw www$m mmmeIIII mmmcwmxm uwnuo WNHMNV u WNfiNQW AwNmeNN mamuoa mull m... \mmil mml mml mall msomcma MW.ka Mummy u\. WWNimml .3032 3m film. NW»; mm. mml mm. m...l.r..N\um. MWUMNN. \mwmanm mascaum mum mm. \«a 3% m. m.l m.l m 1.23 mu...» mm. m Mum. ... m 22%st mcmuo momuu cmuumm 5m mam 1.8058 ESESE mmbm mmNN mm mm mm moou 1236 3m mmmm mammm mmmlm mmmmlm m.mmm mmm. 333.3 m3 3% . 2. mwwl< ”3.x \mm.\ Mmmmlmwmml §.lm..®.mll .wvml 3.1Mmell mm”. mmmli Mmml cm. .mml mm mml 3.3 -mmml mm... 5-3%” mmmmmm mmmwmi vammmm «mm: 33 3.3m. mmwmiml 3.3 .mmmmm mmmmlmm “$53.5". mmml mmml mm... 3.x. mm". “mm Nmm|l N.” mmml mmml NWNl NWNlI $4le NMWllu NWNIl mNMll NN.m..|l NNmml Nmmimil NW3 umwwmflwm 3.3M .33 3.3mm 93le 3.3m. 3.3 mmmel mmmmmm 33mm 3.3.” 35: co um.omu mmmlkmml m... mmml mmllmml mmllm< mmmll mmml mml mm< mmml mmmil 3.x mil mmml mmmml ~33 mm $.36 mama. .mmml \mmmm mmlml m3 mmm| mmml mmimm. mmmm mmmm ”mm mm m. m... \mmmlmmml \mml mm.l mm mlml mmli m. m. m. mml 3. mm. mm. mml mml Wmmll www.mml mmm mmmlmml Mmmml WM.le mum... NW3 mmvmxml NWNNWl WW3: umfio \mwm mmm. Nd 3.3kmmxm \WM... mam. mwml 3.38323 NM. NM. NM. megl Nm. Wm.l Nautl NWMl Nmmll Mmm. N. mmmmml mm...» mmmi Wmml .mmmmi 3le «mmml mmvmmi «3.3 Nmém mmmmmmmm >H a. HHH .65 m mmmvsum cams: vans: mvmuo 0095 55.3% .m.m mm gunman mm ammoom mm uu< mm Homoom ma Hmuo> mu .umcH mb cum mam lummcmx uH\mH \mml m... mmwce. LHWIN me.N meJm mmw¢fi .mwdvmq U»&Wmn _wavw. Mamba Nmmnm. .umwnm NNWl mmimlll 3.3 \mlmm mvmmmwiii. wmvwmqul. meN 1137 mqvfi mlqdfi. .mw.§\ mmdlqml mucs. 36%| elmdlmml muddml umddulNNm.R\ \mmqfll mummx $.37 NYHQI MNHIQI SEN”. mNWmml $.qu Mmfifil mumqnm Qumwmmw mmmwmw. W.§\ fig flag 3% fig 3% mvmmuw .mflflnt m mHMuOB Ucmuo Enumoum $4.7 wNMIl Nm.N|l $.le mud. ENflmI| NHNNII vw.wlvflq.:wflfll wmanl Mud: NMLNNII NYNIl wwmml mel mm.ml .médll muflIl $.34 mmmefi fig hwmflm mmmwwm $me “.3331 Nflmm ”flaw 3%me swmfim‘ 232. unmo >H w HHH mwflUSuw mmflvsum UHmDE Uflmsz ovmuo wvmuo :muumm .m.m mm nucmum mm Hmfloom mm yum mu Hmwuom an Hmoo> mu .umcH mu cum cam numccflx smpH\mHuHa 0% 00 0 gm 128 TABLE 2 TOTAL COST PER PUPIL PER PROGRAM--EXTENDED ! Cost/pUpil Program ”Enrollment ggtalgCgst Costzpupil Extended Elementary Kindergarten 248.5* $179,525.62 $722.45 $722.43 First Grade 467 527,910.85 ' 702.16 702.16 Second Grade 460 524,185.57 704.75 704.75 Third Grade 587 284,752.75 755.80 755.80 Fourth Grade 546 266,801.27 771.10 771.10 Fifth Grade 541 255,462.78 745.29 745.29 Sixth Grade 460 274,952.08 790.09 790.09 Junior High (Required --15.625% of pupil's total program each) English Mathematics Science Social Studies Math-Science & -English Social Studies1 657 657 657 657 100 89,526.67 86,018.95 88,598.89 98,098.29 20,809.25 156.27 150.95 154.54 155.98 208.09 Junior High (Electives--12.5 of puPil's total Adventures in Appreciation Art French Homemaking Industrial Arts Music (Instru- mental) Music (Vocal) Physical Educa— tion Speech 1A special program for the slower pupils. 74 169 145 169 217 195 287 700 125 8,092.11 24,021.21 18,419.69 20,444.19 27,905.02 22,575.66 25,570.52 69,625.58 15,945.58 109.55 142.14 120.70 120.97 128.59 115.74 88.40 99.46 127.56 872.15 857.95 861.06 998.27 1,551.78 program each) 874.80 1,157.12 965.60 967.76 1,050.72 927.52 707.20 795.68 1,020.48 continued The enrollment for each" period was 25 pupils. The total equivalent enrollment for the four subjects taken as a block was, therefore, 100. 129 Cost/pupil Program ggnrollment _Total Cost Cost/pupil Extended High School Art Department: . Art 288 57,595.51 150.55 785.18 Commercial Department: Bookkeeping and 71 10,856.55 152.62 915.72 Shorthand Typing 254.5 52,580.25 155.80 802.80 English Department: Debate/Drama 15 5,018.85 201.26 1,207.56 English 1,488.5 206,442.22 158.69 852.14 Reading Improvement 70 14,850.65 211.86 1,271.16 Speech 227 25,916.28 114.17 685.02 Home Economics Department: Home Economics 85 14,946.58 180.08 1,080.48 Industrial Arts Department: Mechanical Drawing 101 15,059.81 129.51 775.86 Shop 104 16,674.55 160.55 961.98 Language Department: French 205 50,185.61 148.70 892.20 German 124 20,251.41 165.52 979.92 Latin 42 7,021.55 167.18 1,005.08 Spanish 228 52,726.55 145.54 861.24 Mathematics Department: Algebra 527 75,445.24 159.26 856.16 Business Arithmetic 40 4,695.77 117.59 704.54 General Mathematics 75 10,090.55 154.60 807.60 Geometry 555 48,624.75 145.15 870.90 Senior Mathematics 68 7,694.76 115.16 678.96 Senior Math(honors) 68 10,919.95 160.58 965.48 continued 150 Costjpupil Enrollment pgotal Cost Program __‘ Music Department: Instrumental Music 182 28,052.60 Vocal Music 200 24,529.42 Physical Education Department: Physical 1,008 150,957.17 Education Science Department: Biology 279 42,257.47 Chemistry 189 28,008.10 General Science 40 7,142.65 Physical Science 152 22,087.52 Physics 106 14,785.06 Social Studies Department: 4 Social Sciences 1,255.5 168,559.29 154.14 121.65 129.90 151.46 148.19 178.56 145.51 159.48 154.47 Cost/pupil Egtended 924.84 729.90 779.40 908.76 889.14 1,071.56 871.86 856.88 806.82 The two tables (Table 1 and Table 2) which appear above tend to reveal and, paradoxically, to conceal important data at the same time. The cause of the concealment is very important and is one of the main roots from which the study grew. It is the act of combining large segments of the pro- gram and using this conglomerate to determine one cost per pupil figure. In most cases in most districts of the state there was only one such figure calculated for the entire program of the district once each year. The mean cost was determined, but the variations regarding support levels and support patterns for the many subprograms within the total program were never considered. Thus, in effect, for every 151 program that was over-budgeted and supported there was a comparable program equally under-budgeted and lacking in support. Since neither variation from the mean was known with any precision nothing was done in too many cases. To illustrate this variance or range of per pupil costs within a program a few examples are outlined in Table 5 on the following page. Variability among the various programs of a district is to be expected. Much of it can be explained by the dif- ferences in teachers salaries, and class enrollments. Other important factors are present a feW"of which relate to Operating costs of various sized schools. Table 4 which appears on page 155 is a testimonial to the high per pupil costs of smaller schools. The data is relevant to decision- making regarding staffing and Operational support for programs. Table 4 shows that if School M (a medium size elementary school) were supported at the same expenditure level as School C (the smallest elementary school) it would require approximately $56,500 more per year for these items alone. Conversely, if School C were supported comparably to School M in regard to these items it would involve a reduction of approximately $12,850. It is also interesting to compare the high school and junior high costs. To bring the level of support to the high school regarding these items up to the level of the junior high would require approximately $68,000 152 TABLE 5 COST PER PUPIL AMOUNTS FOR SAMPLE AREAS OF PROGRAM Cost/pupil Programs & Subprograms iEnrollment Cost/pupil Extended Third Grade: School B 48 $811.47 $811.47 School C 27 641.95 641.95 School D 26 855.86 855.86 School G 27 678.89 678.89 School M 82 625.05 625.05 School P 56 618.75 618.75 School RC 59 959.18 959.18 School SV 47 741.27 741.27 School WH 55 791.91 791.91 Instrumental Music--Junior High Strings 17 ' 185.76 1,470.08 Strings 20 141.96 1,155.68 Activity Band 67 155.69 1,069.52 Beginning Band 52 104.51 856.08 "C" Band 57 91.59 751.12 French--High School French I 85 140.96 845.76 French II 120 154.05 924.50 French III 51 121.25 727.50 French III 17 215.11 1,290.66 French IV 45 122.80 740.80 Home Economics--High School Home Economics I 58 148.41 890.46 Home Economics II 15 221.14 1,526.84 Home Economics III 10 502.16 1,812.96 155 mo.moa mo.oa mp.>N ww.mw mm.>m mo¢.a mm >¢.>ma Nd.dm mm.m¢ «$.5w 00.0w 00> mo oa.oma >¢.mm dd.mm mm.>m wm.¢¢ owm m3 >H.>Nd m>.mm mm.mm mm.am #m.ow mam >m. $®.Nma mm.dm mm.wm am.om ho.mw ¢>N om hm.moa mm.ma mo.mm wm.m¢ ma.>m mmm m >>.>m Hm.ma «m4mm 4m.mm do.¢m fimm 2 «H.mma >m.mm mm.om mo.m¢ mm.mm HNN w om.mma mo.¢m $4.0m fim.mm d>.wm mam a mm.mmd ¢«.ma «$.mm No.am m>.mm mad 0 mm.¢ma% m>.mmw mm.dmw mo.mmw mm.d¢w OHM m Hauoe HMUHHwHU Hague mmHHmumHUmm nonficoumso mammHUCflum unwEHHonam Hoonom mom umoo Mom umoo How umou How umou Hanan Mom demon mom Hausa mom Hamsm mom mnoomum QfiNHm mDOHm¢> ZH mmHmowmadu mmdfim QflBUMflflm Hm mBMOU d mflm49 154 more per year. This is roughly equivalent to two addition- al assistant principals, four additional custodians and four secretarial and clerical personnel. Continuing with the school comparisons a table of the schools placed in rank order according to enrollment and a comparison of this rank with that of a reverse rank of the costs appears on the following page. .The correlation was not calculated statistically but is obviously high. Eight out of eleven schools ranked within one position of being the same for both enrollment and cost. A sample question that might well be asked concerning this data is how reason- able is it to have the most complex and involved school program of the district supported at a level second from the lowest level of support of the entire district? One of the many difficult tasks of administration is to schedule consultants (special teachers in this case) for the various schools and programs of the district. Table 6, on page 156, outlines the costs for elementary consultants on a cost per pupil basis for two of the schools of the district. This data further emphasizes the difference in support levels of the small versus the large schools of the system. The differences in expenditures for consultive services noted in Table 6 range up to $46.81 per pupil at the sixth grade level. This is approximately three times the total money spent in the system for textbooks, instructional supplies, stockroom supplies, library books, library periodicals and 155 TABLE 5 RANK ORDER OF SCHOOLS AND COMPARISON WITH SELECTED COSTS Rank Order Rank Order Small to Large Total Costs Large to Small School Enrollments ' From Table 5 CoSts Per Pupil c 1 $165.55 1 D 2 158.80 5 G 5 159.14 2 RC 4 152.84 5 WH 5 150.10 6 SV 6 127.17 8 B 7 154.99 7 P 8 109.87 9 M 9 ‘ 97.77 11 JH 10 157.47 4 .SH 11 109.06 10 audio—visual supplies combined. Again the difference favors the smaller school. The basic question of how much support should be given to each program on a per pupil basis and in regard to what line items was not answered by the results of the field test but it was further clarified. The answer to the question cannot be made on the basis of cost data alone. It requires a combination of cost data, evaluation of objectives and progress made toward those objectives. The program which, on the basis of cost data alone, appears to be the most ex- pensive may appear within the total information package to 156 TABLE 6 PRORATED COSTS PER PUPIL FOR SELECTED ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS FOR CONSULTANTS(SPECIAL TEACHERS) Subject/Service Grades . K 1 2—4 5 6 SChool C (196 pupils) Art - $8.945 $8.945 $8.945 $8.945 French - 0.00 0.00 0.00 52.977 Music - 0.00 0.00 55.1526 55.1526 (Instrumental) Music - 15.5471 15.5471 15.5471 15.5471 (Vocal) Physical Education - 18.5504 18.5504 18.5504 18.5504 Remedial Reading - 5.0527 5.0527 5.0527 Speech 4.0925 4.0925 4.0925 4.0925 4.0925 E. I. P. 4.0550 4.0550 4.0550 4.0550 4.0550 Totals 8.1475 48.9678 52.0005 85.1551118.1501 School M (554 pupils) Art - 8.9450 8.945 8.945 8.945 French ’ 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.564 Music - 16.5726 16.5726 (Instrumental) Music - 15.855 15.855 (Vocal) Physical Education - 15.048 15.048 15.048 15.048 Remedial Reading - 5.0527 5.0527 5.0527 Speech 4.0925 4.0925 4.0925 4.0925 4.0925 E. I. P. 4.0550 4.0550 4.0550 4.0550 4.0550 Totals 8.1475 29.6255 52.6580 64.8656 71.2296 157 be the "best buy" of all. This makes the study of cost- effectiveness more interesting and worthy of more effort. Correlation of Results and Expectations It was expected that the results would reinforce "beliefs and intuitions" concerning the inequities of re- source allocation for various programs within the district. These were shared by the Board of Education, administration, many teachers, and many citizens. Some were supported and some were not. It was not shop, instrumental music, physical education, laboratory science, or art that proved to be the most expensive programs. The exPensive programs were those which combined low pupil-teacher ratios, highly paid teachers, large instructional space and a high demand for supplies and equipment. The impact of computer scheduling was evident. The high school class enrollments were uniform within subject areas although there was variation among subject areas. The vari- ations had a marked effect on cost patterns. Usually a pro- gram which would be expected to be very high in cost was accompanied by large enrollment per class and the net result was a very average per pupil cost. This was especially true in physical education and vocal music. The large number of calculations and the variety of ways that can be used to implement the system were surprising. Approximately 20,000 calculations were made although some of 158 them were results of simple errors which forced recalcula- tions. The failure of the per pupil or number served method of prorating costs to discriminate between programs was, at first, disappointing. However, the fact that many costs should be rather uniformly distributed on a per pupil basis makes this method valuable. It is also very easy to imple— ment and can be used both for costing and estimating costs such as required in budget making. A list of the distribution ratios and total amounts to be distributed for a school or program is as valuable in many respects as the completed cost distribution for the individual subprograms which result from it. It comprises much of the relevant data needed for comparisons and budgeting without demanding the labor, time and expense required to complete the cost center data sheets. The cost center data sheets were excellent forms for summarizing the distribution ratios and other information which was used in the actual distribution. The last expectation to be noted herein was that the availability of this type of data which was generated in the process of field testing the model would tend to place some of the problems and concerns of the district during the last five years in a different and better perSpective. The dif- ferent perspective was attained in detail. However, as to whether or not the perspective was better a word of caution should be observed. Costs alone are not enough. Objectives alone are not enough nor are evaluations alone sufficient. 159 It is the combination that represents the strong base for decision-making. .The model provides a way to distribute the costs thus providing a missing link in the combination. All things considered, the model passed the test. A summary of the problem.which gave impetus to the study of program accounting and the develOpment of the model, some conclusions, and some recommendations are reviewed in the next and final chapter of the study. CHAPTER IV SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS The competition for resources among governmental units within our society is such that it is very unlikely that most public school system will be able to fulfill their objectives without careful attention to planning. Good plan- ning necessitates the availability of relevant data. The breakdown of costs (cost analysis) for each program or sub- program constitutes one important area of relevant data. This data in combination with the objectives and evaluation of each program provides a logical and useful information "package." The model which was developed and reported herein repre- sents one way of providing one part of such a package--the cost analysis. It also provides a method of reporting the basic characteristics of the program which can be used as dimensions along which the cost centers can be ordered. The cost analysis can be expressed in three different modesmeach having its own set of advantages and disadvantages. All three have the same format and use the same form. This form can also be used to summarize several cost centers. 140 141 The identification of the cost centers for which costs are accumulated and reported.is determined by the authorities of the district. Once identified it is important that those costs which relate to the cost center and the program it represents and no others be charged directly to the cost center or prorated to it in some manner if this is not possible. For cost centers which continue from year to year a "cost history" can be develOped in the form of accumulated cost center data sheets for the years involved. The ultimate aim is to obtain an indication of the cost— effectiveness of each program. The model is an attempt to provide a way to bring together-the appropriate cost infor- mation which will help to make possible such an evaluation, and to suggest that the districts make a concerted effort to define the objectives and methods of evaluation of their pro- grams so that a meaningful cost-effectiveness evaluation is possible. The value of the system of cost analysis is increased by sharing the results with other districts. Many school districts in the state do this sort of thing presently on a voluntary basis, and other comparisons are being made pos- sible by the reports of the Michigan Association of School Boards, the Michigan Department of Education, and other agencies. Cost center data sheet summaries would add a new and important dimension to this process of exchange. 142 Conclusions and Recommendations: A. The model worked and worked very well. It supplied the cost analysis data required of it for each cost .center whether large or small with approximately 55 cost items and has the potential for providing many more The prorata methods of the model can be used indi- vidually or in combination providing they are of the same type without difficulty and represent several potentially good ways to distribute costs when it is not possible to assign costs directly. The mileage and quantity—consumed methods were not tested due to the unusual circumstances in which the test was con- ducted. Most of the information needed to conduct the test was available from regularly prepared reports or other routine printed information such as that con- tained in class schedules, directories, contracts, insurance policies, or blueprints. This information made it possible to distribute over 95% of the costs related to the cost centers although almost all of the costs had to be prorated. The problem of translating the information noted in (C) into the formulaes of the model was time- consuming and at times confusing. The task was not 145 especially difficult, however, and most of the dif- ficulties could be easily overcome by the implemen- tation of a program of cost analysis. E. Due to some of the problems noted in Chapter IV the discriminating power of the test was reduced. In several instances prorating was used as a substitute for the more desirable direct distribution of the costs. Whenever there is high variability in costs for a given appropriation number prorating is not recommended except as a last resort. The original format of the cost center data sheets was not adequate in several respects and needed revisions. The new suggested format appears in Chapter V. The major changes included: 1. Deletion of reference to teacher or social security number. If the teacher's social security is recorded on each cost center data sheet it creates a problem when several sheets are summarized into one. There is reason to doubt the need for listing the identification of the teacher(s) unless the information was to be used in an automated system which would per- form the prorating. Seemingly, a more logical method would be to cite the number of complete assignments or fractions thereof which were in- volved in the program. If one teacher taught 144 the class two periods out of five the entry 0.40 could be made indicating 2/5 of one teachers total effort. If several teachers were involved the grand total could be listed such as 5.50 or 9.55. The actual identification of the teachers could be obtained from a class schedule if desired. Further, it would not be obvious who taught the course if each teacher were represented by his social security number. The floor area assigned to the program and the number of periods it is occupied are valuable items of informatiOn for prorating. The orig- inal format called for listing the room number. This not only failed to indicate the desired information, but created problems whenever two or more rooms were involved or whenever several cost center data sheets were summarized. The expression square foot-periods overcomes the ob- jections noted above and provides the required information in capsule form. The following example illustrates the use of the eXpression. If a given program was assigned 1,000 ft.2 for each of three periods the total square foot- periods would be 5,000. This factor multiplied by the amount per square foot per period for a 145 given appropriation number would produce the cost.1 5. The course descriptors did not apply to the elementary programs and there-was no way to designate the type of program (graded or un- graded), the grouping, whether it is experimental, or other relevant information. This will require further development of the code. 4. Other Changes appeared necessary/desirable in the cost report section of the format. Most of these were minor except for the deletion of the capital outlay section. This was done to encourage the practice of depreciating capital assets to determine costs. G. The process of analysis of the costs of the programs representing the cost centers would be improved if the breakdown could be expressed in more than one way. Once the cost breakdown is available it is a simple task to convert it to a cost per pupil or percentage representation. This can be done by dividing all of the costs by full-time equivalent enrollment to pro- duce the cost per pupil representation, and by 1The items mentioned in (1) and (2) would require approxi— mately 15 digits. Nine are available from the teacher's social security block, four from the room number block and two more can be taken from the building block reducing the number of digits available in that block to two. 146 dividing the costs by the grand-total cost to produce the percentage of total representation. The three ways of representing the data may be referred to as modes. The cost center data sheet has been rede- signed to be used for any one of the three modes, that is, the "cost" mode, the "per pupil cost" mode, and the "percentage of total cost" mode. The use of too many cost centers tends to create more work and generate more reports than necessary or desirable. Too few makes analysis difficult and re- duces the usefulness of the data for planning and budgeting. A balance between these two extremes is recommended. One set of cost center data sheets per subject or grade level per building should be a reasonable point of beginning. These may be grouped and summarized into larger centers and reports as required. The completed cost center data sheets should be very useful in program planning and budgeting systems. The accumulation of data sheets over a period of years will provide a cost history which can be ex— tended and modified for budgeting.and planning purposes. Experience with the preparation of the data sheets, with their interpretation and distribu— tion along various dimensions should provide valuable background for budgeting. It should also provide 147 relevant data as to the probable costs of new pro— grams which the district may wish to consider. The completed cost center data sheets with accompany- ing statements of program objectives and reports of evaluation represent a very compact summary of the class or activity reported. The value of the information represented on the cost center data sheets would be increased if it were shared with other districts especially those offering similar programs. The compactness of the report would make it easy to transmit to other districts and the use of a.uniform fOrmat and code would make it easy to interpret the information contained in the report. It is recommended that the Michigan Department of Education initiate a pilot program whereby selected districts of the state implement the cost analysis program suggested herein modified as appropriate for data processing purposes and provide an amount per pupil to offset the costs of the program. The amount would not have to be large, perhaps $0.80 per pupil for those submitting the data on the cost analysis sheets and $1.20 per pupil for those districts sub- mitting the data on punched cards. The information could be used by the Department as a base for reports, 148 summaries, further analyses, research, and under- standing the many variations in need among school districts resulting from different curricular and instructional programs, local conditions, and other factors. It could well serve as one important source of data for studies of state support of pro- grams intended to equalize educational Opportunity in the state. The model should be easily adaptable to both large and small districts. The basic differencebetween its implementation in a large versus small district is the volume of the wOrk involved and not its nature. Larger systems will have a greater variety of programs and will have larger cost centers, but the techniques used to determine the costs and translate them to the cost per pupil and percentage modes will be the same. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Benson, Charles S., The Economics of Public Education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1961. Clark, Harold F., Cost and Quality in Public Education. New York: Syracuse University Press, 1965. Johnson, Richard A., Kast, Fremont E., and Rosenzweig, James E., The Theory and Management of Systems. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967. Mager, Robert F., PreparinggInstructional Objectives. Palo Alto: Fearon Publishers, 1962. Handbooks and Manuals Midwestern States Educational Information Project P. L. 89-10, Title V, Section 505, "Accounting Manual For Program Accounting--First Draft," December 4, 1967. Midwestern States Educational Information Project P. L. 89-10, Title V, Section 505, "Manual For Reporting Instructional Programs," October, 1967. U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare Office of Education, State Educational Records and Reports Series: Handbook II OE-22017, Financial Accounting for Local and State School Systems, Standard Receipt and Expenditure Accounts. Washington, D. C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1957. U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare Office of Education, State Educational Records and Reports Series: Handbook II-B OE-22025, Principles of Public School Accounting. Washington, D. C.: United States Govern- ‘ment Printing Office, 1967. 149 150 Articles and Reports Chambers, George A., and Richardson, E. Gordon, "Why Not Depreciation?" School Business Affairs, August, 1967, pp. 208—209. Friedman, Burton Dean, "Program-Oriented Information," Analysis and Proposals for A Management System Complex for State Education Agencies, submitted to Maryland State Department of Instruction, 1966. Lichtenberger, Allan R., "Program Planning, Budgeting, and Accounting in School System Operation-~A Position Paper." Chief, Terminology Compatibility Branch, U. S. Office of Education. Lybrand, Ross Bros. & Montgomery, "School District Financial Reporting For Resource Allocation and Control (for in- clusion in the study of Financing of Elementary and Secondary Education in Michigan," November 15, 1967. Montague, Earl J., and Butts, David P., "Behavioral Objectives," The Science Teacher, March 1968, pp. 55-54. Thomas, Alan J., "Financing of Elementary and Secondary Edu- cation in Michigan." Special Report to the Board of Education of the state of Michigan, December, 1967. "11111111117111.14411'“