Richmond Heights CB of 0??

Mackinbiner

Well-known member
Not many places out there that aren't willing to accept some form of open enrollment up to their current capacity and staffing levels. It's pretty much free money if you have the space.
Sounds easy.

But, that "free money" is a state determined amount that turns out to be considerably less than what some districts spend on a per pupil basis. It doesn't make sense for a district to accept $6000 from the state to provide an education to a student that costs $8000.
 

winbypin

Well-known member
Sounds easy.

But, that "free money" is a state determined amount that turns out to be considerably less than what some districts spend on a per pupil basis. It doesn't make sense for a district to accept $6000 from the state to provide an education to a student that costs $8000.
Is that $8k in your scenario the current average for XYZ school district? Adding a student to a class that has empty seats isn't adding much in costs. You're not adding teachers, administrators, etc for that student. The addition of student(s) as long as it doesn't exceed current capacity isn't going to be at the current average per student for the district. The additional costs is negligible and the additional $6k in tax funding improves the bottom line.
 

Mackinbiner

Well-known member
Is that $8k in your scenario the current average for XYZ school district? Adding a student to a class that has empty seats isn't adding much in costs. You're not adding teachers, administrators, etc for that student. The addition of student(s) as long as it doesn't exceed current capacity isn't going to be at the current average per student for the district. The additional costs is negligible and the additional $6k in tax funding improves the bottom line.
If only it was just that easy.
 

braygatron4

Active member
West - I think you know why that terminology is used to describe certain teams. Note that nobody has described Mentor that way this year.

Nobody has described Mentor that way because they're D1, so who gives a crap? They can recruit & get transfers all they want, they're already at the highest level. It's the schools like Richmond & Lutheran East that recruit and pick their own rosters out of thin air, and then want to prey on all the D3/D4 teams where the kids on their roster have been working together for a state title since they were in youth smalls...If you want to recruit and get as many transfers as possible, great, thats fine. Go play D1 then. Shouldn't be that hard to single out the teams that do it. And SVSM not being D1 is laughable.
 

westa-k-ron1

Well-known member
Nobody has described Mentor that way because they're D1, so who gives a crap? They can recruit & get transfers all they want, they're already at the highest level. It's the schools like Richmond & Lutheran East that recruit and pick their own rosters out of thin air, and then want to prey on all the D3/D4 teams where the kids on their roster have been working together for a state title since they were in youth smalls...If you want to recruit and get as many transfers as possible, great, thats fine. Go play D1 then. Shouldn't be that hard to single out the teams that do it. And SVSM not being D1 is laughable.

So Div 1 schools don’t have teams where the players have been playing together since childhood?
 

Mr. Slippery

Well-known member
Sounds easy.

But, that "free money" is a state determined amount that turns out to be considerably less than what some districts spend on a per pupil basis. It doesn't make sense for a district to accept $6000 from the state to provide an education to a student that costs $8000.

To expand on winbypin's response:
Even if it costs $8000 to educate that student on average, it's still financially worth accepting that student and the $6000 if it exceeds the marginal cost of educating that student. The remainder of that $6000 is helping to cover overhead costs that exist whether that student is enrolled or not.
 

Mackinbiner

Well-known member
To expand on winbypin's response:
Even if it costs $8000 to educate that student on average, it's still financially worth accepting that student and the $6000 if it exceeds the marginal cost of educating that student. The remainder of that $6000 is helping to cover overhead costs that exist whether that student is enrolled or not.
I see that as a blind, general statement that doesn't fit all situations. "Just one more" doesn't always work.
 

D4fan

Well-known member
Sounds easy.

But, that "free money" is a state determined amount that turns out to be considerably less than what some districts spend on a per pupil basis. It doesn't make sense for a district to accept $6000 from the state to provide an education to a student that costs $8000.
Most schools know exactly what it costs to educate one student. The question generally is can we add one more without requiring more space (another classroom) or additional teachers ( more labor cost). Right now most schools are not at 100% of design capacity.

1 extra student is merely hundreds of dollars in actual net expenses and the acceptance of such a student will drive down the average cost not increase it, in most cases. Example school A has 100 students in grade 3 with 5 classrooms and 5 teachers. Classroom capacity is 25 per classroom. If all expenses added together for energy, building, materials ,labor etc. is $7,000 per student, you then know that the brake even point for grade 3 at this school is $700,000. There are 25 spots available for new students ( 25 design maximum -20 current enrolled =5 per classroom ×5 classrooms =25.). If my materials cost for each student is $200 / year ( books, depreciation for desk, etc) and the state is giving $6,000 per transfer student the school nets a $5,800 margin ($6,000 -$200=$5800) for each additional student they bring in even though the total gross recieved is less than the AVERAGE COST PER STUDENT. So if school A brings in 10 additional students raising each classroom to 22 students they simultaneously net an additional $58,000. This additional money will then demonstrate $6,000 received for each of the 10 new students when the average was $7,000 / student will actually make the new average drop to $6,381.82 per student ( $700,00 + $58,000 = $758,000 ÷ 110 students = $6,381.82)

I know it seems counter intuitive.
 

winbypin

Well-known member
But you can't say that about every situation.

Plus, what do the district's constituents think about that? How much of a tax decrease can they expect?
Yes, I can say that. The additional students that are filling excess capacity is not going to cost what the average cost is to educate students in that district.

Already paying the teachers, administration, janitors, cooks, bus drivers, coaches, etc. Already lighting, heating, and cooling the schools. Have available desks, lockers, equipment, and space for the additional students. It's really not different than when a larger than average class comes into the district. The school can absorb them because they generally are not at 100% capacity anyway.

Tax decrease? Take it up with the BOE. 🤷‍♂️
 

Mackinbiner

Well-known member
Tax decrease? Take it up with the BOE. 🤷‍♂️
I suspect this is at least part of the reason why some BOE's don't go to OE.
Yes, I can say that. The additional students that are filling excess capacity is not going to cost what the average cost is to educate students in that district......
The school can absorb them because they generally are not at 100% capacity anyway.
"Generally" but not in all situations.
 

winbypin

Well-known member
I suspect this is at least part of the reason why some BOE's don't go to OE.

"Generally" but not in all situations.
Only 17% aren't OE. In my area it's the larger, more affluent schools that don't have the room. Some want to keep some of the "riff raff" out too. They are a little upity.

Give me an example of where this wouldn't be the case.
 

Mackinbiner

Well-known member
Only 17% aren't OE. In my area it's the larger, more affluent schools that don't have the room. Some want to keep some of the "riff raff" out too. They are a little upity.

Give me an example of where this wouldn't be the case.
I can't answer a question based on your suppositions. I suspect you already know the kind of answer you want.
 

nwwarrior09

Well-known member
D4fan's correct. I can think of a couple smaller cash-strapped districts that I'm familiar with that definitely try to absorb as much OE as they can up to their capacity as each of those additional kids costs much less than the average kid to educate due to already having the space and staff for them, and it lets the school district pocket the difference to help pad their surplus.

If you're in a district that's hard-pressed to pass levies for new dollars this is a good strategy to employ to try to squeeze additional dollars elsewhere to help make ends make and to help keep the district in the black financially.
 

Mr. Slippery

Well-known member
I see that as a blind, general statement that doesn't fit all situations. "Just one more" doesn't always work.
Look up the economic definition of the term "marginal cost" and read my previous post again. You'll see that my answer/explanation is not a blind general statement. Better yet, take a microeconomics class.
 
Last edited:

winbypin

Well-known member
My point is that it doesn't work in ALL situations such as being at or near capacity.
We've all said a school has to be less than capacity for it to work. If they have to add teachers for open enrollment then it falls apart. Of course the schools manage that and don't accept more students that will put them over capacity.
 
.
Top