A Report on the Financial Management and Accountability in the State's K-12 Public School System

-21- The State Controller's Office compiled information from school districts on the cost of the districts' contracts for audit services for the fiscal year 1985-86 audits. Exhibit 11.7 summarizes the results. EXHIBIT II. 7 SUMMARY OF THE COST OF K-12 SCHOOL DISTRICT ANNUAL AUDITS FISCAL YEAR 1985-86 District2Size in ADA Average 3ee Per ADA Range of F3es Per ADA More than 10,000 $0.77 $0.17 to $2.42 5,000 to 10,000 1.36 0.36 to 2.97 5,000 or less 3.51 0.62 to 140.91 NOTES: 1. Based on 947 school districts responding. 2. Based on fiscal year 1984-85 reported ADA. 3. Excludes county superintendents of schools. SOURCE: State Controller's Office Exhibit 11.7 shows that there is considerable variance in the average fee per unit of average daily attendance (ADA) among districts of varying size. For example, the average fee per ADA ranges from a low of $0.77 per ADA in districts of more than 10,000 ADA to a high of $3.51 per ADA in districts of 5,000 or less. While this difference may be partially attributable to fixed costs associated with performing annual aud'its, the fact that the cost of performing audits in districts of less than 5,000 ADA is more than four and one-half times greater per ADA than the cost in districts with more than 10,000 ADA is a cause for concern. In addition, the wide range of fees charged per ADA in each of the three different district size categories is large. For example, in the 5,000 to 10,000 ADA size category the range of fees per ADA was from a low of $0.36 per ADA to a high of $2.97 per ADA. What is of even greater concern is that on further examination, the State Controller's Office found that the high fee of $2.97 per ADA was in a district with 9,300 ADA, while the low fee of $0.36 per ADA was in a district with 8,500 ADA. Thus, although the size of the districts varied less than 10 percent, the audit fees charged per ADA were more than eight times greater in one district. Obviously. the scope and quality of the audit work performed will have an impact on the cost of school district financial audits. However, the great diffe~ences in the average fee per ADA and the range of fee per ADA in school districts raise questions about the business practices used by school districts to secure annual audit contracts. FINDING If3 - -22- The State Department of Education Receives Inadequate Information to Assess the Financial Condition and Performance of School Districts The State Department of Education has two major systems in place to collect management information used in assessing the financial condition and performance of school districts. These systems include a financial early warning system used to assess school districts' fiscal conditions and the California Basic Educational Data System (CBEDS) which is used to collect demographic data on school districts. While these systems have been designed to provide needed and useful information on school district financial conditions and activities, the data provided' to the State Department of Education from school districts is frequently inaccurate, incomplete or late. As a result, the usefulness of these systems as management tools at the state level is severely undermined. Early Warning System The Little Hoover Commission sponsored Assembly Bill 1366 (Hughes), Chapter 741, Statutes of 1985, which established an early warning system that would allow both local and state agencies to identify financially troubled school districts and county offices of education. Assembly Bill 2861 (O'Connell), Chapter 1150, Statutes of 1986, clarified provisions of Assembly Bill l366 and modified some of the ~" reporting requirements. As part of the early warning system, each school district and county office of education is required to submit to its governing board biennial reports on current financial and budgetary conditions within a district. The governing boards are required to certify these reports. If a district's report indicates that the district will have problems meeting its financial obligations, the report is submitted to the State Controller's Office and the State Department of Education for review. The State Controller's Office and the State Department of Education review the information submitted by districts and determine whether plans have been adopted to correct the financial problems identified in the districts' reports. If not, the State agencies contact the districts regarding the situation. Exhibit 11.8 presents a summary of the early warning system certifications submitted in fiscal year 1985-86 and the first reporting period of fiscal year 1986-87 by school districts. -23- EXHIBIT II.8 SUMMARY OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL'S REVIEW OF EARLY WARNING SYSTEM CERTIFICATIONS SUBMITTED TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FY 1985-86 AND FY 1986-87* Number of Percent of Category Certifications Certifications Certifications Submitted 51 100 Submitted Late 40 78.4 Submitted Incomplete 34 66.7 * FY 1986-87 includes information from only the first reporting period. SOURCE: Auditor General's Office Exhibit II.8 shows that 78.4 percent of the certifications filed by districts have financial problems were submitted late during the period reviewed. In addition, 66.7 percent of the certifications were submitted incomplete. Among the problems~~that the Auditor General identified with the incomplete certifications were: 0 Lack of cash balance projections; 0 Lack of fund balance projections; and 0 Lack of transmittal form describing financial problem and corrective action plan. The Auditor General's Office also conducted a review of 25 LEAs that face financial difficulties to learn if they had submitted the required certifications. The sample of 25 LEAs included 20 school districts and county offices of education. Of these, only 3 had submitted certifications. The Auditor General could not state whether some of the school districts and county offices of education which did not submit certifications should have submitted them because there are no uniform standards in place to determine which school district and county offices should submit certifications. As a result, their financial conditions are not comparable. Thus, there is some question whether or not current reports and certifications filed by school districts are an accurate representation of the true financial conditions of school districts and county offices of education. Due to the late, incomplete and potentially inaccurate filing of certifications by districts having financial problems, the State's ability to monitor the financial activities and conditions in school districts is impeded. -24- California Basic Educational Data System The State Department of Education administers the California Basic Educational Data System to collect demographic and other descriptive information regarding staff and student characteristics in the State's K-12 school system. Each year in early fall every school district is required to complete CBEDS data collection forms on a wide range of indicators relating to district operations, services, and activities. The information from all school districts is then collected and analyzed at the State level to provide comparative and descriptive information about the K-12 school system for policy makers and administrators. While the CBEDS data is useful in providing general demographic information on school district activities, it frequently contains inaccurate or incomparable data on school district activities. As a result, although considerable time and effort goes into completing CBEDS forms and compiling information, the CBEDS data is not as useful as it could be as a management tool for state and local officials. For example, as part of the study on K-12 financial accountability, the Commission reviewed CBEDS data on the number of teachers and administrators in the K-12 school system. Exhibit II. 9 displays the results of this analysis. EXHIBIT II. 9 VARIATION IN DATA ON ADMINISTRATORS AND TEACHERS Cm~ILED FROM THE CALIFORNIA BASIC EDUCATIONAL DATA SYSTEM FISCAL YEAR 1985-86 Number Reported by Number Reported by Category Department of Education* Department of Finance** Difference Classroom Teachers 184,151 186,023 Administrators 23,360 23,288 Instructional Aides 50,409 50,269 Counselors and Librarians 6,007 6,121 Other Support Services Staff 109,708 119,391 TOTALS 373,635 385,732 * Common core CBEDS data ** Common core CBEDS data adjusted to count other support services staff as one-half of a full-time equivalent. Exhibit 11.9 shows that the Department of Education's common core CBEDS data differs from the numbers used by the Department of Finance for official purposes. This occurs because the Department of Finance adjusts the other support services staff numbers to reflect full-time 1,872 28 (140) 114 9,683 --- 12,097 -25- equivalent positions. The Department of Finance's rationale for doing this is that CBEDS common core data collected by the Department of Education counts all personnel as full-time equivalents and does not reflect the fact that some staff working in some areas do not work full-time. Thus, the Department of Finance adjusts the data that the Department of Education collects to compensate for part-time workers. CBEDS was originally designed to -26- The State of Illinois enacted a Better Schools Accountability Law in 1985 which mandates all school districts complete a School Report Card each year. Specifically, the School Report Card contains detailed information to assess the performance of each school and its students. The report card is an index of school performance measured against statewide and local standards. It provides information useful in comparing prior year performance to establish goals and setting future year performance targets. It also describes the performance of students and the use of financial resources. Among the information collected and presented in the report cards is the following: o Percent of students placed in top and bottom of nationally normed achievement tests; o Composite and subtest means for college bound students; o Student attendance rates; o Percent of students not promoted to next grade; o Graduation rate; o Student mobility and turnover rates; o Average class size; o Percent of enrollments and amount of time spent in certain types of classes; o Pupil-teacher ratio; o ,Pupil-administrator ratio; o Operating expenditure per pupil; o District expenditure by fund category; o Average administrator salary; and o Average teacher salary. The State of Texas passed educational reform measures in 1981 and 1984 aimed at improving performance and accountability in its K-12 public educational system. Texas has established an accreditation program in which each school district is reviewed at least every three years to determine whether its standards of quality are sufficient. The basic test is the Texas Educational Assessment of Minimum Skills which identifies school districts with performance deficiencies. The accreditation process also requires the collection of financial information for comparative purposes. The financial information on a school district ,'s use of its resources can then be compared to data from surrounding school districts, similar size school districts, or to statewide data. -27- In California, a similar application of performance and financial measures is used to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of operations in public transit agencies. In 1981, the State of California enacted legislation requiring triennial performance audits of each public transit agency in the State. The purpose of these audits is to evaluate the efficiency, effectiveness and economy of operation of the transit agencies. There performance audits collect information on a series of financial and performance indicators which are used as a yardstick to measure a transit agency's performance over a period of time and to compare its performance to that of other public transit agencies in the State. Each of the above-mentioned examples present methods of collecting information on financial condition and performance that could be useful to governing boards of school districts, state policy makers, and the general public. FINDING 114 - The State Superintendent of Public Instruction Has Insufficient Authority to Intervene in School Districts That Are Not Operating in a Financially Responsible Manner Under current law, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction has the authority to review and analyze the financial reports, proj ections and other information provided by school districts on their financial condition. However, the Superintendent does not have the authority to compel a school district to adopt or implement fiscally responsible corrective action plans. In addition, the Superintendent does not have the authority to provide technical assistance to school districts unless requested to do so by the districts. Moreover, while other states have provided their Superintendents the authority to intervene in school district financial affairs when the districts fail to be financially responsible, California has not done so. As a result, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction cannot intervene in school districts that do not have sound financial management practices, even though approximately two-thirds of the funding for the districts comes from the state level. Furthermore, the only time the Superintendent can intervene in the financial activities of a school district is when a district has received an emergency apportionment, or "bailout", from the Legislature. By then, it may be too late. Authority of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction The California K-12 public education system is predicated upon the control of school district activities by the governing boards of local school districts. In testimony before the Commission, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction stated that: "so long as districts live within their means and remain in compliance with the Education Code and other relevant statutes, I do not believe that it is the responsibility of my office to 'control' district spending. In fact, Education Code Section 41010 provides that state-prescribed accounting procedures shall not affect the content of any educational program or objective and that -28- such matters are expressly reserved to local districts. In this regard, education is not unlike other partially state-funded programs such as county health care or judicial services which have a common mode of delivery involving state and local partnerships. Control should, for the most part, be a function of local government with the state becoming involved only when local governance is inadequate. On the other hand, it is my firm belief that the individual members of local governing boards have and must exert a fiduciary duty in the management of district resources just as county supervisors or city council members do in their spheres of activity. As the result of AB 2861 (O'Connell), Chapter 1150, Statutes of 1986, school districts are required to make periodic reports of financial solvency to the Superintendent of Public Instruction. Qualified or negative reports that indicate a district may be having financial difficulty are reviewed by the State Controller and the Department of Education. Based upon their review of the reports, these agencies can engage in various monitoring activities to seek resolution of district problems, including: conducting on-site reviews; seeking the involvement of the county superintendent; or, requiring districts to prepare alternative plans to resolve their fiscal problems. The Superintendent of Public Instruction's role in the financial management of school districts is currently largely a monitoring and technical assistance role. The ·only enforcement power that the Superintendent of Public Instruction has in enforcing financial management activities in school districts is that he may direct county auditors to withhold payment of stipends, salaries, or expenses to the district superintendent, county superintendent or members of the governing board for those districts that fail to submit budget and audit reports. AB 1926 (Bader), which was recently signed by Governor Deukmej ian, provides the Superintendent of Public Instruction the authority to intervene directly in the management of a school district when a district is appropriated an emergency apportionment by the Legislature to bail it out of financial problems. Thus, the Superintendent does not have the authority to intervene in school district's that are having financial management problems until a district seeks an appropriation from the Legislature. Oftentimes, this is after a district has severely mismanaged its finances. In addition, the Superintendent of Public Instruction can direct the Department of Education to offer to provide financial management consultation to districts. Presently, the Department has staff resources to conduct 25 to 30 management reviews per year. It is important to note that the State Superintendent of Public Instruction does not have the authority to compel a troubled school district or county office of education to adopt and implement financial correction plans. Furthermore, according to department officials, the Department can assist districts and county offices only if the local agencies request assistance. -29- Authority of Superintendents of Public Instruction in Other States Other states have provided their Superintendents of Public Instruction more authority to intervene in the activities of school districts than California currently allows its Superintendent of Public Instruction. To compare the level of authority that Superintendents of Public Instruction have to intervene in school district financial management activities, the Commission reviewed the financial oversight and control activities in various major states, including New York, Illinois, Texas and New Jersey. Exhibit 11.10 compares the authority of California's Superintendent of Public Instruction with the authority of the Superintendent's in other states. State California New York Illinois Texas -30- EXHIBIT II.1 0 COMPARISON OF AUTHORITY OF SUPERINTENDENTS OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION IN SELECTED STATES TO INTERVENE IN SCHOOL DISTRICT FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT o Degree of Authority of Superintendent May direct the withholding of payment of stipends, salaries, or expenses of local superintendents, or members of governing boards, that fail to submit budget and audit reports. o May intervene directly in the management of school districts that receive emergency apportionments, or bailouts, from the Legislature. o May remove school boards for gross fiscal management. o May delay or withhold state payments if required financial reports are not filed or budgets are not followed. o o May require school districts having financial problems to submit three-year recovery plans and budgets for review and approval. May conduct on-site reviews of districts having financial problems. o May appoint a monitor to review the actions of a district superintendent or a school board. o May appoint a special master to replace a local board and superintendent that have flagrantly violated their fiscal responsibilities. New Jersey o May direct a systematic examination of a district's financial condition and direct local officials how to correct deficiencies. o May establish a state-operated school district to correct deficiencies if a district is unsuccessful in resolving its financial problems. Exhibit 11.10 shows that other states faced with similar problems have taken steps to strengthen financial accountability for state funds going to local school districts. For example, in New York, where -31- approximately 43 percent of school district funds are state generated, the State Superintendent has the authority to remove school boards for gross fiscal mismanagement. He or she also has the authority to delay or withhold state payments if required reports are not filed or budgets are not followed. Such authority has been used in the past by the Superintendent. In Illinois, state funding comprises approximately 40 percent of all K-12 school district revenues. School districts certified as "in trouble" by the State Department of Education are required to submit three-year recovery plans and budgets to the Department for review and approval. However, the state currently has no authority to sanction school districts in the event that school districts subsequently fail to follow their recovery plans. In Texas, state funding comprises approximately 40 percent of all local education revenues. After a review of a district in trouble, the State Superintendent of Public Schools has the authority to appoint a "monitor" to review the actions of a district Superintendent or a school board. The monitor keeps the Superintendent appraised of the actions and progress of the district towards fiscal improvement. In severe cases, or where a school board has flagrantly violated rules of accountability and fiscal responsibility, the State Superintendent has the authority to appoint a "special master" to replace the local board and superintendent. The special master, in cooperation with the State Department of Education, then takes whatever measures are necessary to improve that district's financial condition. Such authority has been previously used by the State Superintendent. Finally, in New Jersey, the State Superintendent may direct a systematic examination of a district's financial condition and direct local officials .on how to correct problems and deficiencies. If this is not successful, a state-operated school district can be established, with the State Superintendent and State Board of Education taking over the functions of their local counterparts. Key school district administrators can be terminated, and a state district superintendent directs all operations and governs the district for five years. At the end of the five-year period, if all deficiencies are corrected, local control is reestablished. If all deficiencies have not been corrected, state control is maintained until they are. It also should be noted that, in each of the states discussed above, there is a fiscal monitoring system used by state education authorities to track school district financial health. FINDING #5 - Certain School Districts in the State are Potential Candidates for Consolidation The Commission's review of financial management and accountability in K-12 school districts indicated that there are a number of school districts which offer potential savings through consolidation. Specifically, the 275 school districts in the State that have student enrollment of less than 300 students are candidates for consolidation. In addition, the 114 school districts in the State that spend less than -32- the statutorily required percentage of expenditures on teachers' salaries also potentially offer some benefits through consolidation, such as cost savings or improved levels of service. School Districts With Less Than 300 Students The State of California's K-12 public school system is comprised of 1,028 local school districts. Many of these districts are relatively small, yet each must conduct certain mandated administrative activities, such as maintaining records, preparing annual budgets, and filing fiscal reports. To carry out these responsibilities, each school district has a locally-elected governing board and employs a Superintendent. In addition, other district administrative staff are employed, as necessary, to carry out the mandated responsibilities provided in the California Education Code and other requirements and guidelines prescribed by the State Board of Education. The Commission's review of the financial accountability and management of the State's K-12 public school system identified numerous small school districts that may offer potential savings through consolidation by reducing fixed overhead costs of operating districts, such as administrative costs. While each district's unique situation would require more detailed analysis to determine what cost savings and benefits may be attainable, the Commission identified school districts of less than 300 students that are potentially candidates for consolidation. Exhibit 11.11 shows the results of the Commission's analysis. EXHIBIT 11.11 SUMMARY OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN CALIFORNIA'S K-12 PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM WITH LESS THAN 300 STUDENTS Type of District Elementary Unified High School TOTAL Number of Districts 255 12 8 275 SOURCE: State Department of Education. Based on FY 1986-87, second reporting period data. Exhibit 11.11 shows that 275 of the State's 1,028 school districts, or approximately 27 percent, have less than 300 students. Appendix A provides a detailed listing identifying each of these districts. Since each of the districts having less than 300 students has certain fixed overhead costs and a relatively small student body, they may present opportunities for cost savings or benefits by consolidating with -33- other districts. Moreover, other districts of greater than 300 students may also offer similar opportunities for cost savings or benefits. School Districts that Spend Less than the Statutorily Required Percentage of Expenditures on Teacher Salaries Education Code Section 41372 requires school districts to expend a specified percentage of their current expense for education on teacher salaries during each fiscal year. Currently, elementary school districts are required to spend at least 60 percent of their current expense for education on teachers' salaries, unified school districts are required to spend at least 55 percent, and high school districts must spend at least 50 percent. The Legislative Analyst's Office prepared an analysis of school districts not spending the statutorily required percentage of expenditures on teacher salaries in fiscal year 1985-86. Exhibit 11.12 summarizes the results of this analysis. EXHIBIT 11.12 SUMMARY OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS SPENDING LESS THAN THE STATUTORILY REQUIRED PERCENTAGE OF EXPENDITURES ON TEACHER SALARIES FISCAL YEAR 1985-86 Type of District Elementary Unified High School TOTAL SOURCE: Legislative Analyst's Office Number of Districts 97 13 4 114 Exhibit 11.12 shows that 114 of the 1,028 school districts in the State, or 11 percent, spent less than they were statutorily required to spend on teacher salaries in fiscal year 1985-86. For example, the Taft City Elementary School District in Kern County, had $5,196,385 in current expenditures in fiscal year 1985-86. By law, the district was required to expend at least $3,117,831 on teacher salaries and benefits. However, the district spent only $2,882,380 on teacher salaries and benefits, which is $235,451 less than required. Thus, the district spent approximately 55 percent of its expenditures on teacher salaries and benefits as opposed to the 60 percent required by law. Similarly, the Taft Union High School District in Kern County had $5,121,325 in current expenditures. It was required to spend $2,560,663 on teacher salaries and benefits, but spent $2,230,383 on them. Thus, it spent $330,280 less than required on teacher salaries and expenditures. Overall, it spent 44 percent of its current expenditures -34- on teacher salaries and expenditures. This is 6 percent less than the 50 percent required by law for high school districts. These district are examples of districts that are not meeting the statutory requirement for spending on teacher salaries and benefits. A complete listing of all school districts not meeting the statutory requirement are provided in Appendix B. While there may be sound financial reasons for some districts not spending the statutorily required percent of current expenditures on teacher salaries and benefits, districts that have high administrative and overhead costs relative to teacher salaries and benefits are potential candidates that may offer savings and other potential benefits, such as increased classroom funding or improved administration, through consolidation. -35- III. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This chapter presents the C01mnission' s overall conclusions and recommendations regarding its study of financial management and accountability in the State's K-12 public school system. CONCLUSIONS The financing of California's K-12 public school system 'has changed dramatically since the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978. More than two'-thirds of the funding for K-12 education now comes from the state. In addition, the total amount of funding for K-12 education has increased by more than 50 percent in the past five years to an estimated $19.5 billion in fiscal year 1986-87. While the method of funding K-12 education has changed and the overall level of funding has increased, financial management and accountability at the state level has improved somewhat, but the state continues to play a monitoring and oversight role and has only limited enforcement powers. The Commission's review indicated that a growing number of K-12 school districts are in poor financial health as attested to by recent studies performed by the State Controller's Office and the Auditor General's Office. The poor financial health of many school districts is partially due to inadequate financial management, such as districts having expenditures in excess of £evenues, or failing to maintain adequate financial reserves. As a result, an increasing number of school districts have sought and may need to seek bail-out loans from the Legislature. In addition, the lack of sound financial management practices may have contributed to the number of incidents of theft, fraud, and financial abuse in school districts. The study. also demonstrated that the annual financial and compliance audit reports prepared for school districts by public accounting firms frequently do not meet the minimum reporting standards established by the State Controller's Office. The Commission's review also revealed that these audit reports are routinely submitted late, even though audit report submission deadlines are quite generous. In addition, the study showed that the costs to school districts of performing annual audits vary greatly among school districts. As a result, there is a lack of assurance that the financial audit reports furnished by some school districts are accurate and that program funds are expended for their intended purpose. The Commission determined that the State Department of Education has two major system in place to collect management information used in assessing the financial condition and performance of school districts. Although these systems have been designed to provide needed and useful information on school district financial conditions and activities, the data provided to the State Department of Education from school districts is frequently inaccurate, incomplete or late. As a result, the usefulness of these systems as management tools at the state level is severely undermined. -36- The review showed that the State Superintendent of Public Instruction has the authority to review and analyze the financial reports, proj ections and other financial information provided by school districts. However, the Superintendent does not have the authority to compel a school district to adopt or implement fiscally responsible corrective action plans. In addition, the Superintendent does not have the authority to provide technical assistance to school districts unless requested to do so by the districts. Although other states have provided their Superintendent the authority to intervene in school district financial affairs when the districts fail to be financially responsible, California has not done so. As a result, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction cannot intervene in school districts that are not exercising sound financial management practices even though approximately two-thirds of the local districts' funding comes from the state. The only time the Superintendent can intervene in a district's financial management is after a district has received an emergency apportionment, or "bailout", from the Legislature. This may be too late and potentially could have been avoided by earlier state intervention. The Commission's review of financial management and accountability in K-12 school districts indicated that there are a number of school districts which offer potential savings through consolidation. Specifically, the 275 school districts in the State that have student enrollment of less than 300 students are candidates for consolidation. In addition, tffe 114 school districts in the State that spend less than the statutorily required percentage of expenditures on teachers' salaries also potentially offer some benefits through consolidation, such as cost savings or improved levels of service. Moreover, the Commission believes that other models of organization, such as regional or unitary systems of operation, may be worth reviewing in more detail in the fut,ure to reduce the administrative overhead in the State's K-12 public school system. RECOMMENDATIONS The Commission recommends that the Governor and the Legislature take the following actions to address the financial management and accountability problems in K-12 education identified in this report: 1. Provide the Superintendent of Public Instruction Greater Authority to Intervene in School Districts that Fail to Act in a Financially Responsible Manner. The Superintendent of Public Instruction should have the authority to impose increasingly stringent sanctions on local educational agencies that fail to adopt and adhere to responsible financial management plans. Specifically, this authority should include the authority to: o Conduct comprehensive management reviews of educational programs and financial conditions in local educational agencies; -37- o Direct local educational agencies to amend and readopt financial management plans based on the findings of comprehensive management reviews; o Review and monitor the implementation of financial management plans; o Propose any modifications to the fiscal and educational plans that the Superintendent deems necessary for a local educational agency to achieve of fiscal stability; o MOnitor and enforce the implementation of amended fiscal and educational plans; and o Reduce or withhold apportionments due educational agencies failing to amend, implement sound financial management plans. to local modify, or 2. Require the Superintendent of Public Instruction to Increase the Number of Financial Management Assistance Reviews Conducted in School Districts The Superintendent of Public Instruction should conduct more financial management assistance reviews in local educational agencies to ensure that they adhere to sound financial management practices. These reviews also provide the opportunity for the State Department of Education's staff to provide technical assistance to employees of local educational agencies that may be experiencing financial difficulties or have a lack of financial management skills. 3. Require that Annual Financial Audits of School Districts Provide Information on Financial and Performance Indicators The annual financial audits conducted by independent auditors for local educational agencies should include the collection and certification of information relating to the financial condi tion, use of resources, and performance of local educational agencies. Specifically, such information should include: o Student test scores; o Student attendance rates; o Percent of students not promoted to next grade; o Graduation rate; o Student mobility and turnover rate; o Average class size; o Percent of enrollments and amount of time spent in different subject areas; o Pupil-teacher ratio; o Pupil-administrator ratio; o Operating expenditure per pupil; o District expenditures by fund category; a Cost per operation of each school; -38- o Cost of operation of each classroom; o Average administrator salary; and o Average teacher salary. 4. Provide the Superintendent of Public Instruction Greater Authority to Enforce the On-Time Filing, Accuracy, and Completness of Early Warning Reports and Other Management Reports Received from School Districts The Superintendent of Public Instruction should have the authority to monitor and review the methods used by local educational agencies to collect and compile data provided to the State Department of Education on early warning reports and other management reports. If local educational agencies fail to provide timely. accurate, and complete reports, the Superintendent should have the authority to sanction districts by reducing or withholding apportionments. 5. Provide Increased Sanctions Against Certified Public Accounting Firms Whose Work Fails to Meet State Standards The State Controller's Office should continue to review the audit reports submitted by public accounting firms and the quality of the audit work performed by such firms. The State Controller's Office should refer incidents that it identifies of poor quality audit work that do not meet the State Board of Accountancy. The Accountancy should be required to take independent auditing firms whose work is sanctions should include: State standards to State Board of sanctions deficient. against These o Issuing letters of warning to firms not meeting state reporting requirements or failing to conduct audit work in accordance with general accepted industry standards; o Placing independent auditors on probation for serious or repeat violations; and o Precluding independent audit firms that show a pattern of poor performance from being awarded public contracts in California for a period of up to three years. 6. Require that School Districts Establish Audit Selection Committees The State of California should take a greater role in ensuring that local educational agencies select qualified independent auditors to conduct the annual financial and compliance audits. Specifically, local educational agencies should be required to establish and use an audit selection committee to solicft and review audit proposals and make recommendations to local governing boards regarding the selection of independent auditors. The audit selection committee should include; -39- o Governing board members; o Financial staff from the local educational agency; o Community and business representatives; o Representatives of the State Controller's Office; and o Representatives of County Offices of Education or the State Department of Education. 7. Expand the Fraud and Abuse Review Component of School District Annual Financial Audits The State Controller's Office should be required to expand the audit guide used by independent auditors of local educational agencies in conducting annual financial audits of school districts to include enhanced testing for potential fraud or abuse. 8. Conduct Expanded Training for Independent Auditors of School Districts The State Controller's Office should conduct expanded training of independent audit firms to ensure that public accounting firms have a thorough understanding of the State's audit standards for conducting annual financial and compliance audits in local educational agencies. APPENDIX A SCHOOL DISTRICTS WITH AN ENROLLMENT OF LESS THAN 300 STUDENTS -41- Elementary School Districts Base Revenue Limit ADA District Name 296 ALVIEW-DAIRYLAND UNION ELElL 295 FRESHWATER ELEM. 291 ROSS ELEM. LE GRAND UNION ELEM. 289 BLUE LAKE UNION ELEM. 288 ORCHARD ELEM. 284 SOMIS UNION ELEM. 283 SOUTH FORK UNION ELEM. 282 LAMMERSVILLE ELEM. 279 ARENA UNION ELEM. PIONEER UNION ELEM. MERCED RIVER UNION ELEM 277 NEWCASTLE ELEM. 274 ACKERMAN ELEM. 273 WASUMA UNION ELEM. TRAVER JT. ELEM CO. 16 272 PENRYN ELEM. 271 FRANKLIN ELEM. 267 ORANGE CENTER ELEM. SAN MIGUEL JT. UN. ELEM. CO 2 265 OAK VIEW UNION ELEM. 260 HAPPY CAMP UNION ELEM. 257 HART-RANSOM UNION ELEM. DRY CREEK JOINT ELEM. CO 34 256 MC CLOUD UNION ELEM. 254 GOLDEN FEATHER UNION ELEM. 251 WOODSIDE ELEM. 247 CINNABAR ELEM. 245 KNIGHTSEN ELEM. 242 SHASTA UNION ELEM. 240 TRANQUILLITY ELEM. 239 HERLONG ELEM. 238 HELENDALE ELEM. 234 ' \ . ,~ SEQUOIA UNION ELEM. Base Revenue Limi t ADA 233 231 228 224 223 222 219 217 215 214 212 211 209 204 203 200 198 196 191 189 187 186 182 179 176 174 171 169 164 163 161 160 159 154 151 150 149 District Name OAK VALLEY UNION ELEM. LOS OLIVOS ELE11. TRINIDAD UNION ELE11. WAUKENA JT. UNION ELE11. C NORTH COW CREEK ELE11. SCOTIA UNION ELE11. ISLAND UNION ELE11. BANTA ELE11. ROCKFORD ELE11. THREE RIVERS UNION ELE11. LUCERNE ELE11. BASS ELEM. BONNY DOON UNION ELEM. -42- KINGS RIVER-HARDWICK UNION EL CAYUCOS ELE11. SAN ANTONIO UNION ELE11. LAKESIDE UNION ELEM. BOLINAS-STINSON UNION ELE11. WILMAR UNION ELE11. DUCOR UNION ELEM. MONTE RIO UNION ~LE11. LIBERTY ELE11. NEW HOPE ELEM. HICKMAN ELE11. BELLEVIEW ELE11. DELTA ISLAND UNION ELEM. SAN PASQUAL UNION ELE11. ORO LOMA ELE11. WARNER UNION ELEM. JOHNSTONVILLE ELE11. MOUNTAIN UNION COLD SPRING ELE11. HYDESVILLE ELE11. MIDWAY ELE11. BIG SPRINGS UNION ELE11. PARADISE ELEM. KENWOOD ELE11. SAN ARDO UNION ELEM. OPHIR ELEM. NEW JERUSALEM ELE11. MANZANITA ELE11. HOWELL MOUNTAIN ELE11. LOLETA UNION ELE11. FIELDBROOK ELE11. LEWISTON ELEM. ALTA-DUTCH FLAT liNION ELEM. GRENADA ELE11. IGO-ONO-PLATINA UNION ELE11. MONROE ELE11. VALLECITOS J::LE11. FORT JONES UNION ELE11. EL NIDO ELE11. TWO ROCK UNION ELEM. Base Revenue Limi t ADA 147 146 143 142 138 137 136 135 133 132 130 129 128 126 125 123 122 121 120 119 118 117 116 114 112 111 109 107 106 105 104 103 District Name 110UNTAIN ELEM. RICHMOND ELE11. DOUGLAS CITY ELEM. VALLEY H011E JOINT ELEM. CO 39 COLUMBINE ELE11. SUNOL GLEN ELEM. HAPPY VALLEY ELEM. SAN LUCAS UNION ELEX. PLEASANT GROVE JT. ELEX. CO 3 LOS ALAMOS ELEM. I LIBERTY ELE11. CANYON UNION ELEM. ROUND VALLEY JOINT ELEX. CO I BURREL UNION ELEM. CAMPTONVILLE ELE11. PIONEER UNION ELE11 ORO GRANDE ELE11. OUTSIDE CREEK ELL~. BLOCHMAN UNION ELEM. CAPAY JOINT UNION ELEM. CO 52 BROWNS ELEM. MAPLE ELE11. PLAZA ELE11. CHICAGO PARK ELE11. LONG VALLEY EL~l1 STONE CORRAL ELL~. BUENA VISTA ELE11. MARCUM-ILLINOIS ELL~. MONTGOMERY ELE11. SHILOH ELEM. PINE RIDGE ELE11. DEHESA ELEM. DI GIORGIO LAKESIDE JT. ELE11. CO 44 SEMITROPIC ELE11. RICHFIELD ELE11. LERDO ELE11. REEDS CREEK ELS~. LAKE ELE11. GENERAL SHAFTER ELL~. DELTA VIEW JT UNION ELE11. CO DUNHAM ELE11. 11ILL VILLE ELE11. CLAY JOINT ELE11. CO 54 POND UNION ELE11. ALVINA ELEM. BURNT RANCH ELEX. ALEXANDER VALLEY UNION ELE11. CUDDEBACK UNION ELEM. CLEAR CREEK ELEM. BASS LAKE ELEX. PENINSULA UNION ELEX. WEST SIDE UNION ELEK. Base Revenue Limit ADA 100 99 98 96 95 94 93 88 ·87 85 84 83 81 80 78 76 75 73 71 70 69 68 65 64 63 62 61 60 57 55 52 -43- District Name BANGOR' UNION ELEM. MOUNT BALDY JT. ELEM. CO. 19 MUPU ELEM. LINNS VALLEY-POSO FLAT UNION HORICON ELEM. LATROBE ELEM. BRIDGEVILLE ELEM. BIG CREEK ELEM. OAK RUN ELEM. HORNBROOK ELEM. HOLT UNION ELEM. BUTTEVILLE UNION ELEM. MATTOLE UNION ELEM GRATTON ELEM. CALIENTE UNION ELEM. ORICK ELEM. MANTON JOINT UNION ELEM. CO WHITMORE.ELEM. . SNELLING-MERCED FALLS UNION SOUTHSIDE ELEM. ELK HILLS ELEM. KNIGHTS FERRY ELEM. PLAINSBURG UNION ELEM. BIG LAGOON UNION ELEM. SEIAD ELEM. JUNCTION CITY ELEM. MULBERRY ELEM. RAYMOND-KNOWLES UNION ELEM. NUESTRO ELEM. HOPE ELEM. PACIF,IC ELEM. BEND ELEM. BELRIDGE ELEM. FRIANT UNION ELEM. SAUCELITO ELEM. FEATHER FALLS UNION ELEM. HELM ELEM. FORT ROSS ELEM. MISSION UNION ELEM. ROBERTS FERRY UNION ELEM. KLAMATH RIVER UNION ELEM. MERIDIAN ELEM. MAGNOLIA UNION ELEM. POPE VALLEY UNION ELEM. BONITA ELEM. VISTA DEL MAR UNION ELEM. GRAVES ELEM. FRENCH GULCH-WHISKEYTOWN UNIO GAZELLE UNION ELEM. INDIAN SPRINGS ELEM. GORMAN ELEM. HOT SPRINGS ELEM. MANCHESTER UNION ELEX. Base Revenue Limit ADA 51 49 48 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 36 35 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 23 22 21 20 18 17 15 District Name NICASIO ELEM. CASTLE ROCK UNION ELEM. MCKITTRICK ELEM. BALLARD ELEM. TRES PINOS UNION ELEM. FORKS OF SALMON ELEM WASHINGTON ELEM. QUARTZ VALLEY ELEM. . PHILLIPS ELEM. PLUMAS ELEM. JUNCTION ELEM. PLUM VALLEY ELEM. LAGUNITA ELEM. PACIFIC ELEM. HYAMPOM ELEM. ALLENSWORTH ELEM. MONTEBELLO ELE...li. CANYON ELEM. KNEELAND ELEM. WAUGH ELEM. COX BAR ELEM. PLEASANT VALLEY JT. UN. ELE1'1. GARFIELD ELEM. SAWYERS BAR ELEM. eBFFEE CRE~K ELL~. WILLOW CREEK ELE1'1. SANTA CLARA ELE1'1. BITTERWATER-TULLY UNION ELEM. ELKINS ELEM. KIRKWOOD ELEM. BUENA VISTA ELEM. CIENEGA UNION ELE...li. CHINESE CAMP ELL~. MOUNTAIN HOUSE ELE1'1. TRINITY CENTER ELE1'1. WILLOW GROVE UNION ELE1'1. CITRUS SOUTH TULE ELE1'1. SPENCER VALLEY ELEM. BRADLEY UNION ELE...li. WINSHIP ELEM. UNION JOINT ELE1'1. CO 49 RAVENDALE ELEM. DELPHIC ELE1'1. CASMALIA ELE1'1. BOGUS ELEM. MINERAL ELEM. INDIAN DIGGINGS ELEM. LA GRANGE ELEM. LAGUNA JOINT ELEM. CO 49 GREEN POINT ELEM. PANOCHE ELEI1. LITTLE SHASTA ELEM. EMIGRANT GAP ELEM. Base Revenue Limit ADA 14 13 12 11 6 District Name -44- .. Base Revenue Limi t ADA District Name SILVER FORK ELEH. RESERVATION ELEM. MAPLE CREEK ELEM. CHAWANAKEE ELEH. LINCOLN ELEM. FLOURNOY UNION ELEM. BLAKE ELEM. JEFFERSON ELEM. FALL CREEK ELEM. High School Districts Base Revenue Limit ADA -293 282 206 201 184 171 168 160 Unified School Districts Base Revenue Limit ADA 274 268 261 240 204 203 179 152 141 140 80 -45- District Name UPPER LAKE UNION HIGH COAST JOINT UNION HIGH CO 27 JULIAN UNION HIGH EAST NICOLAUS JT. UN. HIGH CO HAMILTON UNION HIGH POINT ARENA JT. UN. HIGH CO 4 DUNSMUIR JT. UN. HIGH CO 45 FERNDALE UNION HIGH District Name BAKER VALLEY UNIFIED SHANDON JT. UNIF. CO 27 CUYAMA JOINT UNIFIED SURPRISE VALLEY JT. UNIF. CO SOUTHERN TRINITY JT. UNIF. CO PRINCETON JOINT UNIF. CO 06 ALPAUGH UNIF. STONY CREEK JOINT UNIF CO 06 DEATH VALLEY UNIF. ALPINE COUNTY UNIF. OWENS VALLEY UNIF. DESERT CENTER UNIF. SOURCE: Department of Education - 1986-87 -- P-2 K-12 ADA Data APPENDIX B SCHOOL DISTRICTS EXPENDING LESS THAN THE STATUTORILY REQUIRED PERCENTAGE OF CURRENT EXPENSES ON TEACHER SALARIES '" OF CUR.EKP 59 .. 56 57 Elementary Districts Spending Less Than 60 Percent on Teacher Salaries Fiscal Year 1985/86 DISTRICT NAME SALARIES & UENEFITS CUR.EXP ·APPLE VALLEY •••••• "' I •••••• I 4,203,135 7,093,547 BASS LAKE ................... 167,062 283,327 BERRYESSA ................... 13,561,4U1 22,941,796 D \.,( I E ....................... 2,50U,79U 4,238,154 ELKINS ••••••• I •••••• •••••••• 6U. -155 ,117,736 HERMOSA BEACH •• , I ••• •••••••• 1,31 fi, 13U 2,2:12.159 KIRKWOOD • I •• • ••• •••••••••••• II 7. 'JO 2 00,221 MERCED RIVER UNION ELEMENTARY 378,668 642,503 MULBERRY ••••••••• I. I •••••••• 100,591 170,615 PORTOLA VALLEY .,. I.········· 1,039,430 1,764,562 SEMITRO(,IC .................. 191 ,79 I 32-1,371 SOLANA BEACH ••• I ••••••• I •••• 2.0!J4.008 3,552,341l wl5!::UURN • I ••••••••••••••• "" 2.225,477 3,769,711 WOODSIOE .................... 50U,Ulli 862,265 ~ON I T A I.' I ••••• I ••••••• ••••• 101,596 173,675 CALIENTE .................. "' 179,051 308,189 CHIN~SE CAMP ................ '1'1,8U2 77,428 HAPPY VALLEY UNION ELEM .....• 978,522 1,691,727 LINNS VALLEY-POSO FLAT ••••• I 153,109 263,479 'LUCERNE VALLEY .............. 7116,512 1,201,073 NEW HOPE ••• , I I •••••••• "" f •• 37:1,630 647,600 RAVMOND-KNOWLES ........ ", "" 126, 14 I 216,262 SAWYERS 8AR •• , ••• I •••• I •••• I 7U,561 134,421 VAL VERDE 2,119,366 3,676,096 ,. I ••••• ••••••••••• WAUGH •• I I .......... I ••••••••• U4,418 146,791 WESTSIDE I I ••••••••••••••••• • 3,216.036 5,550,533 BANGOR ••• ",. "" 1.1 •••••••• I 177,30:.1 313,370 BEND I I I •••• I ••• I •••••••• •••• 103,015 181,796 BRIDGEVILLE •••• I •••• •••••••• 197,421 345,400 BYRON •••••••••••• I •••• "" I •• 598,21l7 1,054,657 CASTLE ROCK • I "" I ••••••• I. "' 115,605 203,618 GENERAL SHAFTER • I.' I ••••••• " 155,409 274,Il57 PACIFIC •••••••••••• I ••• I I ••• 500.5UU 88 I ,<175 - RAVENSWOOD .................. 5,190,074 9,089,602 RIO BRAvO-GREELEY UNION ELEM. 006,271 1,'059,201 SUNOL' GLEN •.... , ............ 264,001 459,509 56 BuEtiA VISTA ................. 67,064 119,80 I CAtnUA ••••••••••••••• I •••• •• 517,01'1 920,10 I IGO-O~jQ-PLATINA • I ••••••• I ••• 233,104 415,766 MOUNTAIN UNION • I ••••••• , ••• 376,443 671,394 OAK RUN •• I •••••• I ••••••• "'" 171 ,U 19 304,721 WEST PARK I •••••••• I •• I •• • ••• 466,4<10 837,675 55 BIlISBANE I· ••• I.' I,. I I ••••••••• 900,0112 1,637,850 tlELM •••••••••••••• I. I •••••• • 11 O,7!:11 199,967 TAFT ••••••• I •••• I •••• I ••••• • 2,Oll2,3UO 5,196,385 54 DIG CREEK ................... 2\)0,259 536,393 (WADLEY ••• I I ••••••• ••••••••• 61,520 125,270 LArnOUE ..................... 152, I Illl 203,080 LEWISTON ••• I." I.·· ••••• •••• 270,211 499,378 LOliG VALLEV ................. n5,219 415,649 LOST HILLS •••••• I •••••• ••••• 592,512 1,096,774 MOIHEUELLO .•................ 9U,293 161,85 I SANTA CLARA •••• "' ••••••• I ••• 49, 106 90,109 STATUTORY % 't/- 4,256,128 -52,993 169,996 -2,934 13,765,078 -203,597 2,542,692 -33,094 70,642 -1 , 1 B 7 1,339,295 -23,156 48,133 -1,131 385,502 -6,B34 102,369 -1,778 1,058,737 -19,307 194,623 -2,832 2,131,409 -37,401 2,261,827 -36,350 517,359 -6,478 104,205 -2,609 184,913 -6,062 46,457 -1,575 1,015,036 -36,514 158,087 -4,918 768,644 -22,132 3118,560 -14,922 129,757·' -3,616 80,653 -2,092 1 2,206,856 -87,492 .j:;- -.....J 68,075 -3,657 ·1 3,330,320 -112,262 IB8,022 -10,719. 109,078 -6,063 207,240 -9,819 632,794 -34,507 122,207 -6,602 164,914 -9.425 528,885 -'28,297 5,453,761 -262,B87 ~1 635,521 -29,250 275,705 -11,704 71, BB 1 -4,B17 552,061 -34,247 249,460 -16,356 402,836 -26,393 IU2,833 -11,014 502,605 -36,157 962,710 -62,628 119,960 -9,199 3,117,831 -235,451 321,B36 -31,577 15, 162 -7,634 169,653 -17,665 299,627 -29,410 21\9,389 -24,170 65U,064 -65,552 109,111 -10,616 54,113 -5,007 % OF CUR.EXP 54 53 52 51 50 . 49 48 47 <116 4<11 43 !'lQ.. !'lll' E.lell1entary Districts Spending Less Than 60 Percent on Teacher Salar1es Fiscal Year 1985/86 DISTRICT NAME SALARIES & UENEFITS CUH.EXP TRINITY CENTER .............. 71l,914 14!i,705 BALLARD ...... , .............. 1211.25!i 23!l,8112 BIG LAGOON ••••• "" I ......... I 13H,4118 25H,!l67 FORT JONES .... , ... , ......... . 2ll0,723 48H,UOO FRIANT ...................... 136,800 257,290 GORMAN ,. I ••••••• • ••• •••••••• 111,1332 211,729 t-IERLDNG ••••••• I I •• I •••••• '" 3U5,OB3 739,590 MANTON CO 45 ••• I •••••••• t ••• 111,420 211,360 PACIFIC ..................... 140,414 263,621 WEST FRESNO •••• 1.1 •• •••••••• H7B,993 1,645,598 EDISON • """ I. I ..... I •••••••• 67!i,042 1,301,262 HUGHES-ELIlABETH LAKES ...... 4613,244 894,295 HyAMPOM •••• I ••••••••• I •••• I. 611,366 123,711 LAS LOMITAS ••.•••••..•.•.•.. 1,331,244 2,551,323 LOS ALAMOS , ........... , ... " 150,5U3 288,240 MIDWAY ••••••• t ••••• , I ••••••• 675,043 1,300,403 PACIFIC ...••..•............. 59,959 116,216 PINE RIDGE ••• I "" I ••••••••••• 2!J6,391 572,807 PLAINSBURG .................. 115,144 222,BOI FEATl~ER FALLS •••••• "' I •••••• 117,532 232,412 MAPLE • I ••••••••••••• •••••••• 20:.l,UOl 399,738 ORO LOMA ..•• ; •••.•••..•..•... 351,525 707,199 POND 163,446 328,155 • I •••••••••••••• I ••••••• RESERVATION '" I ••••••• I ••••• 42,942 B6.152 BLAKE ....................... 25,879 52,832 CHAWAHAKEE ., ................ 77,503 157,817 DEHESA • I •••••••••••• •••••••• lU3,407 330,232 GOLDEN FEATHER ••• I." I ••••• I 404,461 830,506 LAKESIDE .................... 34H,101 713,859 MAPLE CREEK ••••• I .......... •• 46,220 94,103 FALL CREEK .................. 32.430 67,358 INDIAN SPRINGS •••••••• 10 ••••• 195,56!J 40B,493 PLUMAS ., I ••••• •••••••••••••• 53,671 111,912 VISTA DEL MAR ••••••• I ••••••• 195,601 406,580 EL NioO ••••••••••••••• I •• • •• 195,649 419,361 ELK liILLS • I ••••••••• •••••••• 205,tHi7 439,393 MCKllTRICK .................. 167,713 401,626 SNELLING-MERCED FALLS ....... IIU,3U5 2'19,355 MOUNT BALDY ................. 165,511 357,H76 BELR lOGE .................... 233,1313 527,639 SILVER FORK ................. 34.126 7H,237 01 GIORGIO • I ••••••• J. •••••••• IU8,735 443,n91 FLOURNOY • •••• I I I ••••••••• • •• 2!J,3BIi 76,289 MOUNTAIN HOUSE ., I I •••••••••• 52,400 :\ 136,864 STATUTORY 14 +/- !l7.423 -8,509 143,905 -15,650 155,380 -16,932 292,800 -32,077 154,374 -17,574 127,037 -15,405 443,759 -46,676 126,616 -15,396 158,173 -17,759 987,359 -106,366 760,757 -105,715 536,577 -70,333 74,263 -9,897 ',530,794 -199,550 172,944 -22,361 780,242 -105,199 69,730 -9,171 343,6B4 -47,293 133,6Bl -18,537 139,447 -21,915 239,&43 -31',042 424,319 -72,794 I 196,893 -33,447 -I::" 51,691 -a,749 co I 31,699 -5,820 94,690 -17,187 196 ,139 -34,732 49B,304 -93,843 428,315 -80,114 5ti,462 -10,242 40,415 -7,985 245,OY6 -49,527 67,147 -13,476 243,948 -48,347 251,617 -55,96il 263,636 -57,969 240,976 -53,263 149.613 -33,228 214,726 -49,215 316,583 -82,970 <116.942 -12,816 21l6,3:J5 -77,600 45.773 -16,387 82,118 -29,656 High School Districts Spending Less Than 50 Percent on Teacher Salaries Fiscal Year 1985/86 SALARIES % OF CUR.EXP DISTHICT NAME 8. BENEFITS CUR.EXP STATUTORY" 49 46 44 % OF CUR.EXP 54 53 52 51 49 48 44 DOS PALOS COS 10-20 ","" 995,015 2,046,597 SAN BENITO CO 3 •... ' •.. ,' 2.859,903 5.818.495 TRANQUILLITY ••• I •••••••••• 1.236.483 2,673,341 TAFT •••••••••• t ••••••••••• 2,230.383 5.121,325 Unified School Districts Spending Less Than 55 Percent on Teacher Salaries Fiscal Year 1985/86 SALARIES DISTRICT NAME 8. BENEF ITS CUR.EXP ALPINE UNIFIED .............. 465,421 891,351 MODOC JOINT UNIFIED .......... 2,O06.601l 3.6!l4,770 SIERRA-PLUMAS UNIFIED CO 32 1,610,0\:11 2,9!l6,548 BORREGO SPRINGS UNIFIED ..... 662,755 1,284,093 TRONA UNIFIED CO 14 ......... 2,236,802 4,220,805 BAKER UNIFIED ... , ... , ...•.••. 551,018 1,069,022 COALINGA/HURON JOINT .... . .. 4,515,077 8,686,510 WILLIAMS UNIFIED ............ 861.635 1,661,882 OWENS VALLEY UNIFIED ..•....•. 398.7136 776,145 MARICOPA UNIFIED ............. 892.180 1.836.717 TEHACHAPI UNIFIED ........... 4,077.663 8,294.451 DESERT CENTER UNIFIED ....... 280,935 588,918 EMERY UNIFIED ••• I •••••• ••••• 775,931 1,764,079 SOURCE: Legislative Analyst's Office and the Department of Education 1,023,299 2,909,248 1.336,671 2,560,663 STATUTORY'" 490,243 2,026,624 1,642,601 706,251 2,321,443 587,962 4,777,581 914,035 426.880 _ 1,0 lQ, 194 47561,948 323,905 970,243 ... /- -28,284 -49,345 -100,186 -3~O,280 ... /- -4,622 -20,D16 -32,510 -23,496 -84,641 -36,944 -262,504 -52,400 -28,094 -118,014 -484,285 -42.970 -19'1.31~ , .j::- \ . .0 ,