Wallace's $19,827.14 Disconnect From Reality

Maine High School District 207's Website

Dr. Wallace is proudly displaying his newly projected $19,827.14 average revenue per student number.  

 

To drill home his point, our Superintendent points out that:

 

• Niles 219 students cost taxpayers $30,257 each 
• New Trier HSD 203, $25,662
• Dearfield/Highland Park D113, $25,520 and 
• Libertyville/Vernon Hills CHSD 128, $23,079.

 If only it were true!

The real revenue per student (RPS), based on D207's own revenue history and Business Manager Kalou's 2018-2019 projection as displayed below, does NOT match their latest LOWBALL forecast.

Revenue per student calculation is:

RPS = Total Revenue / Students.

School	Total
Year	Revenue	Students	Rev/Stu
2012-2013	$148,066,991	6733	$21,991
2013-2014	$148,077,337	6525	$22,694
2014-2015	$155,900,665	6394	$24,382
2015-2016	$163,217,465	6307	$25,879
2016-2017	$168,310,738	6374	$26,406
2017-2018	$191,268,091	6250	$30,603
2018-2019	$134,290,266	6329	$21,218

The Wallace Team, told our group, THEIR expected Total Revenue  for 2018-2019 would be $134,290,266.  They also told us their expected student population would be around 6,329. 

The fact that D207's RPS projection was $21,218 vs prior year $30,603 is striking enough, but at least the numbers for the two years were based in historical fact and recent accounting mumbo-jumbo. The "$19,827.14" , as far as we can tell, was plucked out of thin air!

If you averaged out D207's RPS numbers for school years 2015-2016 through 2017-2018, you'd be looking at a RPS figure of $27,600+/-. Second only to Niles 219's $30,257 and more than New Trier's $25,662.  We believe that $27.6k figure is going to be closer to reality once you factor the $50,000,000+/- State of Illinois "pass through" accounting trick back into the mix.

I don't like being lied to or manipulated.  Ken Wallace's "$19,827.14" attempted public insult to our intelligence, is troubling and does not bode well for D207 Students or Taxpayers, no matter the outcome. 

I keep asking myself. Why would Wallace, Owen & Co. publish an easily tested exaggeration when the real projection would have done the trick?