assessing the financial health of us k-12 public … the financial health of us k–12 public school...

Parthenon-EY Education practice

Assessing the financial health of US K–12 public school districtsSpring 2017

Assessing the financial health of US K–12 public school districts

Parthenon-EY

Parthenon-EY | 1

It’s no secret that funding for US public education has not recovered as fast as the US economy since the Great Recession. A number of publications have shown this1, and indeed our own analysis confirms that since the 2007–08 school year, close to 80% of the largest school districts in the US recorded per pupil revenue growth equal to or below inflation (~2%) (see Figure 1).

What has received less attention, however, is how individual school districts have fared throughout this historic period of financial instability. Funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) temporarily propped up school district budgets, protecting districts from the 2009 shock of sharp declines in local and state funding, which allowed for two additional years to plan for key fiscal changes, including the elimination of teaching positions and the increase of class sizes. However, once ARRA funding expired in 2011, the education system felt the impact. More than 100,000 teachers lost their jobs — the largest year-over-year decline since the US Government started tracking this data.

1. Michael Leachman, Nick Albares, Kathleen Masterson, Marlana Wallace, “Most States Have Cut School Funding, and Some Continue Cutting,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 25 January 2016. Charles J. Ogletree Jr., Kimberly Jenkins Robinson, “The K–12 Funding Crisis,” Education Week, 17 May 2016, ©2017 Editorial Projects in Education.

IntroductionFigure 1: Compounded annual growth rates of per pupil general fund revenue for US school districts, FY08–FY14.

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

100%

0% to 2%

-2% to 0%

2% to 5%

-5% to -2%

<-5%

>5%

0% to 2%

-2% to 0%

2% to 5%

-5% to -2%

<5%

>5%


2 | Parthenon-EY

During this time, the number of school districts recording an annual deficit more than doubled.2 Districts have managed these impacts differently, creating a wide variation in financial health across our nation’s school districts.

While funding levels and teacher headcount have shown signs of progress in recent years, school districts continue to make headlines regarding their lack of resources to adequately educate students. For many, enrollment, the main driver of funding, is declining or flat. And major expenditures, such as salaries and health care benefits, are often increasing at rates higher than inflation.

2. “Table 208.20, Public and private elementary and secondary teachers, enrollment, pupil/teacher ratios, and new teacher hires: Selected years, fall 1955 through fall 2025,” Digest of Education Statistics, February 2016, National Center for Education Statistics, 2016. “Financial Indicators Database for school districts,” Financial Indicators Database, October 2016, Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada, 2016.

This paper presents Parthenon-EY’s assessment of the key indicators of a district’s financial health and poses questions for districts to consider to help them develop strategies for improving their financial position.

These trends create precarious financial situations for up to 20% of school districts, representing as many as 10 million students, many of whom are among the most vulnerable in our country.

Parthenon-EY | 3

1 2 3 4 5

The general fund represents dollars used to pay for the core operations of a school district. If the change in the general fund is positive, the district likely recorded an operating surplus; if the change is negative, likely an operating deficit.

Unassigned general fund

balance

Change in unassigned

fund balance

Three-year growth in revenues vs.

three-year growth in expenditures

Three-year change in enrollment

Funded ratio of main teacher pension plan3

If expenditures are growing faster than revenues, the school district has a structural imbalance. School districts in this situation need to identify ways to reduce expenditure growth (i.e. “bend” the cost curve, not just remove one-time costs), increase revenue growth, or both.

If enrollment — typically the biggest driver of revenue — is declining, a school district will need to reduce its cost structure proportionately, while at the same time avoiding negatively impacting student achievement.

Pension contributions often represent one of the largest expense items in a school district’s budget. If a state plan is underfunded, a school district may be responsible for larger contributions down the road.

The unassigned general fund balance refers to the amount of fungible money a district has to fill future potential shortfalls. This is a proxy for the size of its “rainy day” fund.

3. The pension data used in our methodology is the funded ratio at the state level of the main teacher pension plan. Starting in 2016, school systems began to report their net pension liability (NPL) in their comprehensive annual financial reports (CAFRs) due to GASB Statement No. 68, which requires government entities to report the actuarial present value of projected pension benefits over the net resources to pay those benefits at the school district level. Parthenon-EY plans to use the NPL, in lieu of a state-level metric, in future years.

Parthenon-EY’s proprietary database: five indicators of fiscal health National-level conclusions about the financial health of school districts are helpful, but typically lack nuance. In many ways, the financial distress of US school districts is a local issue, with some states and cities having more favorable conditions: stronger local economy, enrollment stability or growth, or a more progressive funding formula.

Parthenon-EY sought to develop a systematic way to evaluate a district’s financial health that could be useful at the local level in both a diagnostic and actionable way. Our team assembled a database of more than 10,000 data points on ~360 of the nation’s largest school systems

from publicly available reports. We then analyzed trends in the data to assess which factors are the most predictive of financial health and developed a methodology for measuring how individual school districts are faring along those factors.

We identified five factors that, at a high level, have explanatory power in assessing a district’s financial health. Our methodology assigns a score from 0, representing little to no risk of financial distress, to 4, representing significant risk of financial distress, across the key factors:


4 | Parthenon-EY

The distribution of financial health across US school systemsFor each district, we created a composite score by summing the point values for each financial health factor. The aggregate score thus ranges from 0 to 20, and, when plotted, creates a distribution curve (see Figure 2) that shows the range of financial health of school districts across the US.

On a positive note, almost 40% of districts in our sample show almost no signs of financial risk. Slightly more

Figure 2: Distribution of US school systems. Composite financial health scores.

Low Low/ moderate

Moderate Moderate/ high

High

Risk level

Num

ber

of d

istr

icts

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20Percentage

of total 2% 11% 11% 12% 15% 11% 10% 8% 6% 5% 2% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0%3% 0% 0%

More immediate risk of financial distress

55504540353025202510

5 0

Distribution of US district financial health scores, 2015

concerning, an additional ~40% of districts exhibit some early warning signs of financial risk that, if not actively managed, could lead to more challenging situations within a few years.

That leaves ~70 districts, representing ~20% of the sample, that face either a moderate or high level of financial risk. In other words, 70 districts are exhibiting some

combination of expenditure growth outpacing revenue growth, budget deficits, declining reserves and significant pension obligations.

• Extrapolating this percentage to all districts across the country would suggest that ~10 million students in the US are at some risk of their district failing them financially.

• Furthermore, financially challenged districts disproportionately serve low-income students. Districts with greater than 75% of students receiving free or reduced lunch are twice as likely (~34%) to fall into the moderate- to high-risk category than districts with less than 75% of students receiving free or reduced lunch (~16%).

Parthenon-EY | 5

Among the 70 moderate- to high-risk districts, typically the best-case situation is that they are managing their way through a challenging annual budget process that likely involves some combination of limitations on wage growth, staff reductions and paring back on important school or student services. The most challenged districts among the 70 have entered a period of financial restructuring that brings with it more dire outcomes for students and staff.

Furthermore, the financial health of school districts often changes slowly, as evidenced by modest year-to-year volatility in ratings. From 2014 to 2015, 68% of school districts had a change in their overall financial health score of two or fewer points. This makes sense — enrollment

change typically happens over a long period of time; wages often have predictable adjustments each year; funding formulas are relatively stable, and when they change, are usually accompanied by a “hold harmless” period. Districts that experienced greater year-over-year change often had a significant one-time event that altered their financial standing (e.g., internal fund transfer, new levy, changes in funding formulas). This overall level of stability is either affirming or concerning depending on where a district is along the risk spectrum, though it is evident that there are often no quick fixes for districts facing moderate to high financial risk.

That said, districts can make progress if they develop a multiyear strategy for improving their financial position.


6 | Parthenon-EY

Case study: two mid-sized Midwestern school districtsConsider a case study of two Midwestern school systems — Toledo Public Schools (TPS) and Grand Rapids Public Schools (GRPS)4. Both districts are roughly of equal size, serve a similar student demographic and have recently experienced the same disruptive decline in student enrollment. In 2011, both districts also exhibited signs of financial risk, with GRPS facing moderate risk and TPS approaching high risk. However, four years later, TPS had managed to reduce its financial risk in half, while GRPS has slipped further down the financial risk spectrum.

What accounts for the differences in outcomes between these two similar Midwestern districts?

Unbundling our risk analysis shows that the primary difference between the two districts over this period was TPS’s ability to develop a comprehensive, multiyear view of how to address its budget challenges,

specifically with respect to reducing costs and managing its fund balance.

This is not a straightforward task, particularly in the face of declining enrollment. School funding typically declines on a variable basis when enrollment declines, and districts in this situation often struggle to maneuver adeptly given the fixed or semi-fixed nature of many of its costs (e.g., maintenance of school buildings or built-in wage increases).

TPS tackled this challenge by taking a multiyear view to address both its costs and its revenue. After several failed attempts to raise additional funding, TPS pursuedan important step to build credibility with the community by conducting a detailed fiscal performance audit in which it identified 61 cost-savings opportunities, to be implemented over multiple years, amounting to $100m in net savings. These opportunities were simultaneously

Characteristic Toledo Public Schools Grand Rapids Public Schools

Enrollment in 2013–14 21,600 16,400

Six-year enrollment decline 23% 19%

FRL percentage 70% 78%

State contributions to budget 48% 41%

2011 financial risk rating 12 8

2015 financial risk rating 6 11

Change in risk rating -6 +3

4. National Center for Education Statistics Elementary/Secondary Information System, School District CAFR’s (2012-2015), and state retirement systems website, (2015).

Parthenon-EY | 7

shared with the Board of Education and the public, creating an environment of transparency and accountability. On a quarterly basis, TPS held public meetings to discuss progress toward achieving these savings. The goodwill established through this process led, in 2014, to the successful passage of a new tax levy that provided TPS with an incremental $13.3m in funding annually for five years. The district’s bold action and forward planning helped it manage through this financial challenge — an effort that brought TPS recognition locally, regionally and nationally.

Over the same period, GRPS also took steps to reduce expenditures while at the same time trying to stabilize

enrollment. However, its annual cost-cutting initiatives were not sufficient to offset the rate at which revenue was declining, and the district was unsuccessful in building a case with the community and with the state to draw additional revenue to the school system. Indeed, as recently as June 2016, the CFO of GRPS announced a $7.1m deficit that would be filled by short-term tactics of selling vacant buildings, additional cuts to the central office, eliminating vacancies and not backfilling positions. The net effect of this work has pushed GRPS to a higher level of financial risk, with fewer degrees of freedom to act moving forward.


8 | Parthenon-EY

Conclusion: the value of advanced planningIn both the private sector and government, financial distress typically occurs as a result of risk factors that build up over time without leaders taking action when the situation is not as dire. In K–12 education in particular, government and district leaders should be well-equipped to anticipate and manage the risk of financial distress. Enrollment changes occur slowly and compound over long periods. Pension challenges accrue from legacy contract and contribution decisions. Personnel turnover is high, so that where cost imbalances exist, leaders can manage them through gradual attrition rather than disruptive short-term changes. By contrast, we observe all too often that school districts (along with the local and state governments that fund them) approach budgeting on a year-by-year basis — robbing themselves of the flexibility and foresight that disciplined planning could enable. Similarly, districts at the other end of the spectrum — those enjoying an influx of resources — also miss out on the opportunity to invest those added funds in new and innovative ways.

The goal for any district or municipality should be to have a clear sense of its level of financial risk, to monitor key risk indicators and to develop a multiyear plan to manage the opportunities and challenges it faces.

No matter the level of financial risk a school system may have, key questions should be asked about its financial management practices:

• Are district resources aligned with its education goals and priorities?

• Are districts taking advantage of periods of financial health to make responsible investments for the future?

• Do districts have a multiyear view of how enrollment, revenue and costs will change, and a corresponding multiyear view to address this change?

• What financial shocks (e.g., changes in funding formulas, expirations of tax levies) might districts anticipate and plan for?

• What level of transparency does the district provide to build public support?

Our hope is that by sharing this analysis, it will ignite conversations about how school districts can better assess financial risks and improve internal planning functions to anticipate and proactively manage or improve their financial position. While it would be nice to imagine a world in which funding flows more freely to schools, the more likely outcome is that school districts will need to continue to operate with fiscal prudence through increasingly challenging budget environments.

Appendix:

1. Detailed description of methodology

2. School districts’ risk band and metric data

Parthenon-EY | 9


10 | Parthenon-EY

Appendix 1: Detailed description of methodologyFinancial analysis of school districts is a complex endeavor due to the lack of a common accounting taxonomy or common financial statements. That said, most school districts annually publish a CAFR that provides a comprehensive view of their finances. Mining historical CAFR data, and complementing it with enrollment and pension data from other sources, Parthenon-EY constructed a database of financial indicators that provided the basis for the analysis used for this report. Note: there were some school districts for which CAFR data was not available, most notably the New York City Department of Education. In such instances, those school districts have

been excluded from the analysis.

Once we assembled the financial database, we used various statistical techniques to select indicators that captured the current financial situation for each school district (unassigned general fund balance), historical trends in financial performance (change in unassigned general fund balance and change in revenues relative to expenditures), and future obligations (pension liabilities). Enrollment change was also included as an indicator as, in most school systems, it directly impacts revenues and expenditures.

Financial analysis was limited to the general fund as these

0 1 2 3 4

1Unassigned

general fund balance

Unassigned general fund balance

greater than 5% of expenditures


between 3.5% and 5% of expenditures


between 1.5% and 3.5% of expenditures


between 0% and 1.5% of expenditures

Negative unassigned general

fund balance

2Change in

unassigned fund balance

SurplusDeficit between

0% and -1%Deficit between

-1% and -3%Deficit between

-3% and -7%Deficit greater

than -7%

3Three-year growth in

revenues vs. three-year growth in expenditures

Revenue growth greater than

expenditure growth

Faster expenditure growth between

0 and 0.5 percentage points


0.5 and 1.5 percentage points


1.5 and 3 percentage points

Faster expenditure growth greater than 3 percentage points

4Three-year change

in enrollment

Increasing enrollment

Decreasing enrollment between

0% and -0.5% annually


-0.5% and -1% annually


-1% and -1.5% annually

Decreasing enrollment greater

than -1.5%

5Funded ratio of main teacher pension plan

Funded ratio at or above 85%

Funded ratio between

75% and 85%


65% and 75%


55% and 65%

Funded ratio below 55%

The cut scores that were used to convert financial indicators to points are included in the table below.

Parthenon-EY | 11

are the dollars that are least restricted in their potential usage by school districts. We chose not to include measures that include restricted dollars (e.g., Title funds) that typically are earmarked for specific purposes, can at times vary significantly from year to year due to special grants (e.g., Race to the Top), and which should not be used to plug gaps in a school district’s budget.

After assembling CAFR data for as many of the top 400 school districts (by enrollment) in the country as possible, we sought to translate the financial indicators into an overall financial health score. For each indicator, we determined the cut scores that roughly corresponded to quintiles of performance across the sample. For bottom quintile results for an indicator, we assigned a maximum

of 4 points, and for top quintile results for an indicator, we assigned a minimum of zero points. So, if a school district were in the top quintile for all five indicators, it would receive an overall score of zero, the lowest possible financial risk profile across districts. On the other end of the spectrum, if a school district were in the bottom quintile for all five indicators, it would receive an overall score of 20 (4 points times 5 indicators). As such, the lowest possible score that a school district could receive was zero (no evidence of financial risk), and the highest possible score was 20 (significant financial risk). In actuality, no school district received a score of 20, though several received scores in the teens, indicating very low financial health.

Toledo Public Schools Grand Rapids Public Schools

Value Points Value Points

1Unassigned

general fund balance

9.6% 0 5.7% 0

2Change in unassigned

fund balance3.1% 0 0% 1

3Three-year growth in revenues vs. three-year growth in expenditures

0.4% 0 -1.9% 3

4Three-year change

in enrollment

-1.9% 4 -2.7% 4

5Funded ratio of main teacher pension plan

69.3% 2 59.9% 3

Total 6 11

The table below shows how these cut scores were used to assign points for Toledo Public Schools and Grand Rapids Public Schools.

Financial indicator


12 | Parthenon-EY

Enrollment rank* District name State 2014–2015

Enrollment Fiscal risk 1 2 3 4 5

2 Los Angeles Unified CA 646.7k Low/moderate 3.0% 2.0% 0.9% -0.7% 68.5%

3 Chicago Public Schools IL 392.6k High -1.8% -1.8% -6.8% -0.9% 42.0%

4 Miami-Dade County Public Schools FL 357.0k Low 3.4% 2.4% 2.1% 0.6% 86.5%

5 Clark County School District NV 324.1k Low/moderate 1.8% 0.7% 0.8% 1.1% 70.8%

6 Broward County Public Schools FL 266.3k Low 3.0% 0.5% 1.2% 1.0% 86.5%

7 Houston Independent School District (ISD) TX 215.2k Low 16.8% 0.2% -0.9% 2.0% 80.2%

8 Hillsborough County Public Schools FL 207.5k Low 5.8% 0.1% -1.3% 1.7% 86.5%

9 Orange County Public Schools FL 191.6k Low/moderate 5.3% -1.1% -2.2% 2.1% 86.5%

10 School District of Palm Beach County FL 186.6k Low 3.3% 0.2% 0.8% 1.8% 86.5%

11 Fairfax County Public Schools VA 185.5k Low/moderate 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 73.3%

12 Hawaii Department of Education HI 182.4k Moderate -4.9% -3.6% 8.9% -0.1% 61.4%

13 Gwinnett County Public Schools GA 173.2k Low 9.5% 1.7% 2.2% 2.2% 81.9%

14 Dallas ISD TX 160.3k Low 12.6% 0.3% -0.5% 0.6% 80.2%

15 Wake County Public Schools NC 155.8k Low/moderate 4.1% 4.1% -5.1% 1.7% 94.8%

16 Montgomery County Public Schools MD 154.4k Low/moderate 1.0% -0.1% 122.1% 1.8% 71.9%

17 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools NC 145.6k Low 4.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.9% 94.8%

18 Philadelphia City School District PA 134.2k Moderate -0.4% 5.8% 4.4% -4.5% 60.5%

19 San Diego Unified CA 129.8k Low/moderate 3.2% -0.5% 1.1% -0.3% 68.5%

20 Duval County Public Schools FL 128.7k Low 8.6% -0.5% 1.2% 0.9% 86.5%

21 Prince George’s County Public Schools MD 127.6k Moderate 0.2% 0.1% -2.2% 1.0% 71.9%

22 Cypress-Fairbanks ISD TX 113.0k Low 43.2% 8.5% 0.8% 1.5% 80.2%

23 Cobb County School District GA 111.8k Low 10.1% 0.1% 1.1% 1.4% 81.9%

24 Baltimore County Public Schools MD 109.8k Moderate -1.7% -2.7% -0.1% 1.5% 71.9%

26 Pinellas County Schools FL 103.8k Low/moderate 0.9% 0.2% 1.3% 0.0% 86.5%

27 Northside ISD TX 103.6k Low 12.0% 6.6% -0.5% 1.8% 80.2%

28 DeKalb County School District GA 101.1k Moderate -6.6% -23.5% 1.8% 1.0% 81.9%

29 Jefferson County Public Schools KY 100.6k Low/moderate 5.7% -0.8% 0.6% 0.5% 55.3%

30 Polk County School District FL 99.7k Low 6.5% 0.0% 0.2% 1.3% 86.5%

31 Fulton County Schools GA 95.5k Low 5.6% 0.4% -0.9% 1.0% 81.9%

32 Albuquerque Public Schools NM 93.0k Low/moderate 1.1% 1.1% 0.3% -0.5% 63.7%

33 Lee County School District FL 89.4k Low 15.9% -0.2% 1.5% 2.1% 86.5%

34 Denver County 1 School District CO 88.8k Low/moderate 7.7% 1.0% -0.1% 3.2% 60.9%

35 Prince William County Public Schools VA 86.6k Low/moderate 2.3% 1.3% 0.5% 1.9% 73.3%

36 Jefferson County School District No. R-1 CO 86.6k Low 7.5% 1.9% 2.9% 0.3% 60.9%

Appendix 2: School districts’ risk band and metric data†

* Financial analysis was conducted for all districts for which there was available and comparable financial information. Districts without such information (e.g., New York City) are not included in the table.

† National Center for Education Statistics Elementary/Secondary Information System, School District CAFR’s (2012-2015), and state retirement systems website, (2015).

1 Unassigned general fund balance 4 Three-year change in enrollment

2 Change in unassigned fund balance 5 Funded ratio of main teacher pension plan

3 Three-year growth in revenues vs. three-year growth in expenditures

Parthenon-EY | 13



37 Fort Worth ISD TX 86.0k Low 22.2% 2.4% 1.0% 1.1% 80.2%

38 Baltimore City Public Schools MD 85.0k Low 4.1% 1.6% 0.9% 0.3% 71.9%

39 Austin ISD TX 84.6k Low/moderate 21.0% 0.7% -1.8% -0.8% 80.2%

41 Long Beach Unified CA 79.7k Moderate 0.9% -2.6% 1.8% -1.6% 68.5%

42 Anne Arundel County Public Schools MD 79.5k Low/moderate 0.3% 0.1% -0.2% 1.4% 71.9%

43 Milwaukee School District WI 77.3k Low/moderate 4.0% -0.8% 0.1% -0.8% 100.0%

44 Greenville 01 School District SC 75.5k Low 19.2% 2.9% 0.9% 1.5% 62.0%

45 Alpine School District UT 75.2k Low/moderate 2.9% 0.0% -0.1% 2.6% 84.1%

46 Fresno Unified CA 73.5k Low/moderate 6.9% -0.3% -1.6% -0.3% 68.5%

47 Loudoun County Public Schools VA 73.4k Low/moderate 0.0% -0.1% 1.5% 3.8% 73.3%

48 Guilford County Schools NC 73.4k Low/moderate 1.5% -0.1% -1.6% -0.3% 94.8%

49 Brevard Public Schools FL 72.3k Low 8.4% -0.4% 1.0% 0.2% 86.5%

50 Fort Bend ISD TX 72.2k Low/moderate 17.7% -8.0% -1.4% 1.3% 80.2%

51 Davis School District UT 70.9k Low 4.5% 0.5% 0.1% 0.8% 84.1%

52 Katy ISD TX 70.3k Low 24.7% 3.5% -0.8% 4.1% 80.2%

53 Virginia Beach City Public Schools VA 70.1k Low/moderate 0.2% 0.2% 1.3% -0.4% 73.3%

54 Granite School District UT 70.0k Low/moderate 1.8% 0.1% -0.4% 0.4% 84.1%

55 Aldine ISD TX 69.7k Moderate 41.7% -5.2% -5.8% 2.7% 80.2%

56 Pasco County School District FL 69.3k Low 5.3% -1.4% 1.6% 1.3% 86.5%

57 North East ISD TX 68.0k Low/moderate 22.2% 0.2% -1.8% 0.3% 80.2%

58 Douglas County School District RE-1 CO 66.7k Moderate 0.1% 0.0% -0.8% 1.9% 60.9%

59 Seminole County Public Schools FL 66.1k Low 5.5% 0.0% 1.2% 0.9% 86.5%

61 Arlington ISD TX 63.9k Low/moderate 35.1% 4.3% -1.4% -0.4% 80.2%

62 Mesa Unified District AZ 63.8k Low 8.8% 0.2% 1.1% -0.5% 76.3%

63 Elk Grove Unified CA 62.9k Low/moderate 2.1% 0.3% -1.8% 0.4% 68.5%

64 Volusia County Schools FL 61.8k Low/moderate 3.2% -4.4% 1.1% 0.1% 86.5%

65 El Paso ISD TX 60.9k Low/moderate 20.1% 8.9% 0.0% -1.8% 80.2%

68 School District of Osceola County FL 59.3k Low 9.8% -0.7% 0.9% 2.7% 86.5%

69 San Francisco Unified CA 58.4k Low/moderate 3.3% 0.0% 0.2% 1.2% 68.5%

70 Mobile County Public Schools AL 57.9k Moderate/high -1.2% -1.2% -0.8% -2.0% 67.5%

71 Garland ISD TX 57.4k Low/moderate 34.7% 1.5% -1.2% -0.4% 80.2%

72 Santa Ana Unified CA 56.8k Low/moderate 2.1% 0.3% 1.6% -0.3% 68.5%

73 Conroe ISD TX 56.4k Low 28.8% 4.8% 0.6% 2.3% 80.2%

74 Pasadena ISD TX 55.6k Low 13.0% 0.9% 0.4% 1.6% 80.2%






14 | Parthenon-EY



75 Forsyth County Schools NC 54.8k Low 11.4% 0.0% -0.5% 0.9% 94.8%

76 Plano ISD TX 54.7k Low 35.5% 2.9% 1.1% -0.6% 80.2%

77 Cherry Creek Public Schools CO 54.5k Low/moderate 8.9% -0.1% 1.0% 1.2% 60.9%

78 Boston Public Schools MA 54.3k Moderate 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -0.4% 54.3%

79 Capistrano Unified CA 54.0k Low/moderate 3.1% -0.6% 0.9% 0.5% 68.5%

80 San Antonio ISD TX 53.8k Low/moderate 13.8% 0.3% -1.1% -0.4% 80.2%

81 Corona-Norco Unified CA 53.7k Low 9.8% 0.3% 0.0% 0.2% 68.5%

82 Howard County Public Schools MD 53.7k Low/moderate 0.7% -0.4% -0.4% 1.4% 71.9%

83 Clayton County Public Schools GA 53.4k Low/moderate 14.9% -4.9% -0.6% 1.5% 81.9%

84 San Bernardino City Unified CA 53.4k Moderate 2.7% -3.0% -0.8% -0.6% 68.5%

85 Lewisville ISD TX 53.4k Low 26.4% 2.7% -0.5% 0.9% 80.2%

86 Seattle Public Schools — District I WA 52.8k Low 0.5% 0.1% 0.2% 2.4% 94.0%

87 Jordan School District UT 52.3k Low 7.7% 4.0% 0.1% 0.9% 84.1%

88 Omaha Public Schools NE 51.9k Moderate 0.0% -9.7% -0.5% 1.0% 88.0%

89 Cumberland County Schools NC 51.6k Low/moderate 28.4% 0.9% -4.1% -0.9% 94.8%

90 Atlanta Public Schools GA 51.1k Low 10.6% 1.3% -0.6% 0.8% 81.9%

91 Henrico County Public Schools VA 51.0k Low 17.4% 17.2% 29.1% 0.9% 73.3%

92 Wichita Public Schools KS 50.9k Low/moderate 7.4% -1.0% -0.2% 1.0% 62.0%

93 Columbus City School District OH 50.4k Moderate 28.6% -3.7% -2.3% -0.1% 69.3%

94 Frisco ISD TX 49.6k Low/moderate 24.3% 1.9% -2.0% 7.4% 80.2%

95 Klein ISD TX 49.4k Low 16.0% 4.4% 0.0% 2.4% 80.2%

96 San Juan Unified CA 49.1k Low 6.8% 0.1% 0.4% 1.3% 68.5%

97 Tucson Unified District AZ 48.5k Moderate 9.5% -0.9% -0.6% -2.2% 76.3%

98 Brownsville ISD TX 48.4k Low 15.3% 0.9% 0.6% -0.9% 80.2%

99 Anchorage School District AK 48.1k Moderate 2.5% -0.7% 0.6% -0.5% 54.5%

101 Manatee County School District FL 47.9k Low 3.2% 0.3% 2.3% 2.1% 86.5%

102 Jefferson Parish Public Schools LA 47.8k Low 14.4% 3.2% 1.2% 1.5% 60.9%

103 Portland School District 1J OR 47.8k Low/moderate 6.9% -3.4% -0.2% 0.6% 83.6%

104 Detroit Public Schools MI 47.3k High -30.7% -6.6% -1.0% -11.0% 59.9%

105 Round Rock ISD TX 47.3k Low/moderate 49.9% 8.1% -2.0% 1.6% 80.2%

107 Alief ISD TX 47.2k Low 19.7% 19.7% -0.4% 1.3% 80.2%

108 Sacramento City Unified CA 46.9k Low/moderate 4.2% 0.0% 2.0% -0.8% 68.5%

109 Charleston County School District SC 46.8k Moderate 3.9% -5.6% -4.8% 2.0% 62.0%

110 Garden Grove Unified CA 46.2k Low/moderate 18.8% 6.6% 0.8% -1.3% 68.5%





Parthenon-EY | 15



112 Collier County Public Schools FL 45.2k Low 13.3% -0.9% 0.6% 1.5% 86.5%

113 Socorro ISD TX 44.6k Low 30.4% 0.5% -0.2% 0.7% 80.2%

114 Hamilton County Schools TN 43.8k Low/moderate 173.0% -28.0% 27.4% 0.4% 93.3%

115 United ISD TX 43.4k Low 20.9% -0.3% 0.4% 1.0% 80.2%

116 Killeen ISD TX 42.6k Low 27.4% 2.1% -0.3% 1.3% 80.2%

117 Marion County Public Schools FL 42.5k Low 5.9% 2.2% 1.5% 0.2% 86.5%

118 Ysleta ISD TX 42.5k Low/moderate 14.5% 0.4% 1.0% -1.4% 80.2%

119 Forsyth County Schools GA 42.4k Low 9.1% 1.6% 0.4% 4.4% 81.9%

120 Riverside Unified CA 42.3k Low/moderate 4.2% -4.0% 0.1% -0.1% 68.5%

121 Chandler Unified School District AZ 42.3k Low 13.0% 4.8% 2.4% 2.2% 76.3%

122 Horry County Schools SC 42.2k Low/moderate 20.9% 13.3% -0.6% 2.7% 62.0%

123 Lake County Schools FL 42.2k Low 4.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.7% 86.5%

124 Sarasota County Schools FL 41.9k Low 8.2% -1.6% -0.2% 0.7% 86.5%

125 Rutherford County Schools TN 41.9k Moderate 0.4% -145.9% -1.2% 1.9% 93.3%

126 East Baton Rouge Parish Schools LA 41.9k Low/moderate 12.0% 1.4% 1.0% -0.8% 60.9%

127 Aurora, Joint District No. 28 CO 41.7k Low/moderate 8.2% -0.2% -0.6% 1.7% 60.9%

128 Union County Public Schools NC 41.7k Low/moderate 0.6% -0.2% -0.7% 1.3% 94.8%

129 Henry County Schools GA 41.3k Low 37.7% 3.2% 1.9% 1.1% 81.9%

130 Clovis Unified CA 41.2k Low/moderate 12.1% -1.2% -0.7% 1.8% 68.5%

131 Oklahoma City Public Schools OK 41.1k Moderate/high 14.4% -3.3% -1.5% -1.7% 66.6%

133 Clear Creek ISD TX 40.8k Low 18.0% 1.0% -0.7% 1.3% 80.2%

134 Salem-Keizer School District OR 40.8k Low 12.3% 3.1% 1.3% 0.0% 83.6%

135 Caddo Public Schools LA 40.8k Low/moderate 5.6% -2.0% 0.7% -0.7% 60.9%

136 Frederick County Public Schools MD 40.8k Low/moderate 0.1% 0.1% -0.1% 0.3% 71.9%

137 Escambia County School District FL 40.7k Low 4.9% 0.1% 1.2% 0.2% 86.5%

138 Cherokee County School District GA 40.7k Low 11.1% 3.9% 1.5% 1.6% 81.9%

139 Fayette County KY 40.6k Low 8.1% 6.7% 3.6% 1.7% 55.3%

140 School District U-46 IL 40.4k Moderate 41.6% 9.9% -2.0% -0.2% 42.0%

141 Mesquite ISD TX 40.3k Low 29.4% 0.0% -0.4% 1.7% 80.2%

142 St. Lucie County Public Schools FL 40.1k Low 6.1% 1.2% 1.4% 0.5% 86.5%

143 Stockton Unified CA 40.1k Low 15.1% 4.1% 2.0% 1.1% 68.5%

144 Tulsa Public Schools OK 40.0k Low/moderate 11.7% 0.0% -1.4% -1.0% 66.6%

145 Beaverton School District OR 39.9k Low 15.6% 6.8% 3.9% 0.2% 83.6%

147 Humble ISD TX 39.5k Low 25.0% 3.9% 3.4% 3.1% 80.2%






16 | Parthenon-EY



148 Fontana Unified School District CA 39.5k Low/moderate 15.2% 6.0% 1.2% -0.9% 68.5%

149 Cleveland Municipal School District OH 39.4k Moderate 7.9% -0.4% 0.0% -2.8% 69.3%

150 Lincoln Public Schools NE 39.0k Low 13.8% -0.2% 1.5% 2.2% 88.0%

151 Corpus Christi ISD TX 38.8k Low 21.0% 1.0% -0.1% 0.1% 80.2%

152 Adams 12 Five Star Schools CO 38.7k Moderate 2.0% -2.1% 1.3% -3.4% 60.9%

153 Richardson ISD TX 38.6k Low/moderate 29.0% 0.5% -1.6% 1.4% 80.2%

154 Savannah-Chatham County Public Schools GA 38.1k Low 3.9% 3.9% 0.9% 2.1% 81.9%

155 St. Paul Public School District MN 38.0k Low/moderate 5.6% -0.2% -1.8% -0.3% 77.1%

156 Anoka-Hennepin Public School District MN 38.0k Low/moderate 10.2% 1.6% -1.4% -0.7% 77.1%

157 St. Tammany Parish Public Schools LA 37.8k Low 94.1% 94.1% 0.6% 0.7% 60.9%

158 Harford County Public Schools MD 37.5k Low/moderate 1.3% 0.7% 0.2% -0.6% 71.9%

159 Kern High School District CA 37.3k Low/moderate 5.8% -1.6% 0.6% -0.2% 68.5%

160 Gilbert Unified District AZ 37.1k Low/moderate 8.8% 9.5% 7.6% -1.1% 76.3%

161 Minneapolis Public School District MN 37.0k Low/moderate 8.6% -6.6% -0.3% 1.8% 77.1%

162 Spring ISD TX 37.0k Low/moderate 16.0% -3.8% -2.0% 0.4% 80.2%

163 West Ada School District ID 36.8k Low/moderate 0.7% -0.4% 1.8% 0.5% 90.4%

164 Peoria Unified School District AZ 36.7k Low/moderate 0.9% 0.3% 2.4% 0.0% 76.3%

165 Leander ISD TX 36.2k Low 33.7% 1.1% -0.2% 2.8% 80.2%

166 Jefferson County Public Schools AL 36.0k Low/moderate 8.0% -1.7% -0.5% 0.0% 67.5%

167 School District of Clay County FL 35.8k Low/moderate 1.2% -0.7% 0.8% 0.2% 86.5%

168 Poway Unified CA 35.6k Low/moderate 8.4% -2.4% -2.6% 1.0% 68.5%

169 Williamson County Schools TN 35.6k Low 32.2% -3.7% 0.3% 2.6% 93.3%

170 St. Johns County School District FL 35.3k Low 2.2% 0.8% 18.8% 3.8% 86.5%

171 Buffalo City School District NY 35.2k Low 7.8% 0.0% 0.7% 2.5% 92.9%

172 Irving ISD TX 35.2k Low 31.1% -0.6% 0.2% 0.4% 80.2%

173 Spring Branch ISD TX 35.1k Low 13.3% 1.7% 0.6% 1.4% 80.2%

174 Newark Public Schools NJ 34.9k Moderate/high -4.5% -1.5% -1.3% -0.6% 54.0%

175 Johnston County Schools NC 34.6k Low/moderate 4.3% -0.4% -2.3% 1.4% 94.8%

176 Des Moines Public Schools IA 34.4k Low/moderate 11.0% -0.5% -2.4% 0.9% 83.6%

177 Edinburg CISD TX 34.3k Low 22.6% 1.2% -0.3% 0.9% 80.2%

178 Fremont Unified CA 34.2k Low 5.6% 0.3% 0.2% 1.4% 68.5%

180 Moreno Valley Unified CA 34.2k Low/moderate 15.6% 4.4% 0.8% -1.4% 68.5%

181 Deer Valley Unified District AZ 33.8k Moderate 3.8% -2.6% -1.1% -0.8% 76.3%

182 Leon County Schools FL 33.7k Low 4.4% 0.0% -0.1% 0.5% 86.5%





Parthenon-EY | 17



183 Keller ISD TX 33.6k Moderate 3.8% -3.6% -4.6% 0.5% 80.2%

184 Amarillo ISD TX 33.6k Low 31.3% 2.5% -0.1% 0.6% 80.2%

185 Mansfield ISD TX 33.4k Low/moderate 29.9% 3.0% -1.7% 0.9% 80.2%

186 Desoto County School District MS 33.3k Low/moderate 42.8% -0.7% -2.0% 1.0% 60.4%

188 San Jose Unified CA 32.9k Low/moderate 3.6% 3.6% 0.9% -0.4% 68.5%

189 Berkeley County School District SC 32.6k Low 20.8% 1.8% 0.3% 2.7% 62.0%

190 Paradise Valley Unified District AZ 32.5k Low/moderate 9.8% -3.1% 1.6% -0.5% 76.3%

191 Cincinnati Public Schools OH 32.4k Low/moderate 33.4% 3.4% -9.1% 0.3% 69.3%

192 Muscogee County School District GA 32.3k Low 16.1% 6.1% 1.5% 0.1% 81.9%

193 Norfolk City Public Schools VA 32.3k Moderate/high 0.4% -18.2% -0.4% -1.2% 73.3%

194 Pharr-San Juan-Alamo ISD TX 32.3k Low 8.7% -0.2% 0.4% 0.7% 80.2%

195 Nebo School District UT 32.1k Low 7.3% 0.9% 1.7% 1.8% 84.1%

196 Clarksville-Montgomery County School System TN 32.1k Low 8.1% -0.2% -1.0% 1.5% 93.3%

197 Calcasieu Parish Public Schools LA 32.0k Low/moderate 15.1% 0.7% -0.1% -0.6% 60.9%

198 Ector County ISD TX 32.0k Low/moderate 15.6% -5.9% -2.0% 3.9% 80.2%

199 San Ramon Valley Unified CA 32.0k Low 9.4% 1.9% 0.7% 2.3% 68.5%

200 Gaston County Schools NC 32.0k Low/moderate 13.4% -4.5% -4.5% 0.3% 94.8%

201 Mt. Diablo Unified CA 31.9k Moderate 13.5% -1.4% 1.2% -2.1% 68.5%

202 Richmond County School System GA 31.8k Low 7.4% 1.6% 1.3% 0.0% 81.9%

205 Anaheim Union High School District CA 31.7k Low/moderate 3.5% 1.7% 0.2% -1.1% 68.5%

206 Irvine Unified CA 31.4k Low/moderate 2.0% -0.8% 0.1% 3.7% 68.5%

207 Weber School District UT 31.4k Low 5.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 84.1%

208 St. Vrain Valley School District CO 31.1k Low 9.2% 4.4% 1.3% 3.4% 60.9%

209 Fort Wayne Community Schools IN 31.0k Low/moderate 12.1% 12.1% -1.0% 0.1% 61.4%

210 Boulder Valley School District CO 30.9k Low 7.0% 1.0% 0.3% 1.2% 60.9%

211 Jersey City Public Schools NJ 30.8k Moderate 0.0% 0.0% -0.7% 4.0% 54.0%

212 St. Louis Public Schools MO 30.8k Low/moderate 14.1% -5.1% 1.3% 7.7% 83.9%

213 Cabarrus County Schools NC 30.8k Low/moderate 13.2% -0.8% -4.9% 1.2% 94.8%

214 Spokane School District WA 30.6k Low 2.7% 0.7% -0.1% 1.8% 94.0%

215 West Contra Costa Unified CA 30.6k Low 7.3% -0.2% 7.7% 0.8% 68.5%

216 Baldwin County Public Schools AL 30.6k Low/moderate 29.0% 6.5% -0.7% 2.2% 67.5%

217 Okaloosa County School District FL 30.4k Low 5.9% 0.1% -1.6% 1.2% 86.5%

218 Lodi Unified CA 30.3k Low/moderate 5.3% -3.0% -1.4% 0.0% 68.5%

219 Bakersfield City School District CA 30.1k Low 17.6% 0.1% -0.1% 2.0% 68.5%






18 | Parthenon-EY



220 Paterson Public Schools NJ 30.1k Moderate/high -6.7% -0.5% -3.8% 7.3% 54.0%

221 Temecula Valley Unified CA 30.0k Low/moderate 3.0% 0.2% 0.5% -0.3% 68.5%

222 Rochester City School District NY 30.0k Moderate 1.7% -0.7% -0.5% -1.5% 92.9%

223 Lafayette Parish School System LA 29.9k Moderate 3.5% 0.5% -12.3% -0.6% 60.9%

224 Chino Valley Unified CA 29.9k Moderate 7.6% 7.3% -2.6% -1.5% 68.5%

225 Chula Vista Elementary School District CA 29.8k Low/moderate 17.8% -1.9% -2.2% 2.0% 68.5%

226 La Joya ISD TX 29.7k Low 9.5% 2.1% -0.7% 0.8% 80.2%

227 Newport News Public Schools VA 29.5k Moderate 0.0% 0.0% -0.7% -0.4% 73.3%

228 Orange Unified CA 29.5k Moderate 28.3% -0.1% -3.0% -0.7% 68.5%

229 Tacoma School District WA 29.4k Low 4.1% 4.1% 1.1% 1.0% 94.0%

230 Olathe School District KS 29.3k Low/moderate 0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 1.3% 62.0%

231 Lubbock ISD TX 29.3k Low/moderate 23.5% 1.1% -3.1% 0.5% 80.2%

232 Montebello Unified CA 29.1k Moderate 3.2% -0.8% 1.9% -2.5% 68.5%

233 Jackson Public School District MS 29.1k Low/moderate 7.7% 5.3% 0.4% -0.9% 60.4%

234 Poudre School District CO 29.1k Moderate 5.0% -1.4% -1.5% 1.8% 60.9%

235 Saddleback Valley Unified CA 29.0k Moderate/high 15.4% -4.6% -2.9% -2.0% 68.5%

236 Desert Sands Unified CA 29.0k Low 10.4% 6.6% 1.2% -0.2% 68.5%

237 Sumner County Schools TN 28.9k Low 52.2% 32.6% 2.9% 0.6% 93.3%

238 Alachua County Public Schools FL 28.7k Low 8.7% -3.4% 1.4% 1.4% 86.5%

239 Rockford School District 205 IL 28.7k Moderate 17.0% 0.2% -3.5% 0.6% 42.0%

240 Paulding County School District GA 28.5k Low 11.6% -1.5% 1.7% 0.3% 81.9%

241 Grand Prairie ISD TX 28.3k Low/moderate 26.3% 0.0% -1.5% 2.1% 80.2%

242 Colorado Springs School District 11 CO 28.3k Low/moderate 6.9% 4.0% 2.3% -1.4% 60.9%

244 Indian Prairie School District 204 IL 28.3k Low/moderate 20.9% 1.6% 0.4% -1.1% 42.0%

245 Visalia Unified CA 28.3k Low/moderate 11.2% -4.3% -1.4% 1.2% 68.5%

246 Washington School District UT 28.2k Low/moderate 2.3% 0.3% -0.2% 1.6% 84.1%

247 Houston County Schools GA 28.1k Low 7.2% 0.5% 0.0% 0.9% 81.9%

248 Plainfield School District 202 IL 28.1k Low/moderate 14.8% 3.5% 1.2% -0.9% 42.0%

249 Kanawha County Schools WV 27.9k Moderate 0.0% 0.0% -2.9% -0.6% 66.2%

250 Utica Community Schools MI 27.9k Moderate/high 2.9% -3.0% -1.7% -0.8% 59.9%

251 Kent School District WA 27.9k Low/moderate 3.6% 2.9% -1.8% 0.9% 94.0%

252 Bay District Schools FL 27.6k Low/moderate 3.7% -17.9% -0.5% 1.6% 86.5%

253 Stafford County Public Schools VA 27.6k Low/moderate 2.1% 0.9% 0.8% 0.3% 73.3%

254 ISD 196 (Rosemount-Apple Valley-Eagan) MN 27.5k Low 6.7% 0.7% -0.2% 0.0% 77.1%





Parthenon-EY | 19



255 Shawnee Mission Public Schools KS 27.5k Moderate 0.0% 0.0% -0.1% -0.3% 62.0%

256 Madison Metropolitan School District WI 27.3k Low 9.4% -0.3% -0.6% 0.6% 100.0%

257 Richland County School District Two SC 27.2k Low/moderate 17.0% 10.9% -0.6% 1.6% 62.0%

258 Elizabeth Public Schools NJ 27.2k Moderate -5.9% 0.8% -0.3% 5.2% 54.0%

259 Hall County Schools GA 27.2k Low 9.4% 2.6% 1.1% 1.1% 81.9%

260 Lake Washington School District WA 27.1k Low 7.9% 0.0% 0.3% 2.8% 94.0%

261 Denton ISD TX 27.0k Low/moderate 30.5% 2.1% -1.8% 2.8% 80.2%

263 William S. Hart Union High School District CA 27.0k Low/moderate 16.3% -1.3% -1.9% 0.7% 68.5%

264 Phoenix Union High School District AZ 26.9k Low 13.4% -0.4% 0.6% 1.3% 76.3%

265 Yonkers City School District NY 26.8k Low 1.3% 9.1% 1.1% 1.9% 92.9%

266 East Side Union High School District CA 26.8k Low/moderate 16.0% -0.2% -1.0% 1.4% 68.5%

267 Evergreen Public Schools WA 26.5k Low/moderate 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 94.0%

268 Dysart Unified District AZ 26.4k Low 15.5% 2.3% 4.3% 2.2% 76.3%

269 Santa Rosa County District Schools FL 26.3k Low 8.0% 2.7% 2.4% 0.6% 86.5%

270 Charles County Public Schools MD 26.3k Moderate 4.1% -1.3% -1.3% -0.7% 71.9%

271 Boise Independent District ID 26.2k Low/moderate 0.8% -0.3% -0.5% 1.0% 90.4%

272 Rialto Unified CA 26.2k Low/moderate 11.6% 8.6% 2.4% -0.7% 68.5%

273 Carrollton-Farmers Branch ISD TX 26.2k Low/moderate 29.0% 0.8% -1.5% -0.3% 80.2%

274 Glendale Unified CA 26.2k Low/moderate 7.1% -0.1% 1.4% -0.1% 68.5%

275 New Hanover County Schools NC 26.1k Low 32.4% 8.4% -0.5% 1.3% 94.8%

276 Douglas County School District GA 25.9k Low 7.3% 7.1% 2.6% 1.6% 81.9%

277 Carroll County Public Schools MD 25.9k Moderate/high 1.6% -1.8% -1.5% -1.5% 71.9%

278 Onslow County Schools NC 25.8k Low/moderate 15.8% 1.7% -14.4% 1.1% 94.8%

279 Springfield R-12 MO 25.8k Low 36.9% 0.3% 0.3% 0.8% 83.9%

280 Livingston Parish Public Schools LA 25.8k Low/moderate 4.6% -0.2% -0.2% 1.3% 60.9%

282 Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified CA 25.6k Low/moderate 5.0% 1.2% 1.3% -0.2% 68.5%

283 Columbia County School System GA 25.5k Low 14.2% 1.0% 1.3% 2.4% 81.9%

284 Vista Unified CA 25.4k Low/moderate 5.2% 0.6% -1.3% -0.5% 68.5%

287 Las Cruces Public Schools NM 25.1k Moderate/high 0.2% -4.2% -2.2% -0.3% 63.7%

289 Buncombe County Schools NC 25.0k Moderate 0.0% -1.6% -2.0% -0.9% 94.8%

290 McKinney ISD TX 24.8k Low 37.4% 6.3% 0.8% 0.1% 80.2%

291 Little Rock School District AR 24.8k Moderate 12.7% 2.3% -6.7% -1.0% 77.3%

292 Laredo ISD TX 24.7k Low/moderate 29.4% 0.0% -1.0% -0.1% 80.2%

293 Lexington County School District One SC 24.7k Moderate 13.3% -3.8% -1.6% 2.4% 62.0%






20 | Parthenon-EY



294 McAllen ISD TX 24.7k Low/moderate 22.6% 1.4% -1.9% -0.7% 80.2%

295 Pittsburgh Public Schools PA 24.7k Low/moderate 19.9% 3.2% 1.4% -2.6% 60.5%

296 Antelope Valley Union High School District CA 24.6k Moderate 2.8% -1.9% 1.8% -1.2% 68.5%

297 Chaffey Joint Union High School District CA 24.6k Low/moderate 21.7% 21.7% -1.1% -0.6% 68.5%

298 Academy District 20 CO 24.6k Low 13.3% 0.5% 0.0% 1.3% 60.9%

299 Arlington County Public Schools VA 24.6k Moderate 0.0% -0.3% -2.1% 3.9% 73.3%

300 Richland County School District One SC 24.6k Moderate 0.7% -2.3% -1.9% 0.8% 62.0%

301 Aiken County Public School District SC 24.5k Low/moderate 17.7% 2.9% 1.2% -0.3% 62.0%

302 Salt Lake School District UT 24.5k Low/moderate 4.8% -0.2% -0.1% -0.8% 84.1%

303 Birdville ISD TX 24.4k Low 7.9% -0.5% -0.3% 0.9% 80.2%

304 Midland ISD TX 24.4k Low/moderate 22.2% -0.4% -2.0% 2.5% 80.2%

305 Bibb County Public School District GA 24.4k Low/moderate 6.8% -0.6% -1.3% -0.5% 81.9%

306 Pitt County Schools NC 24.3k Low 4.9% 3.5% 0.7% 0.5% 94.8%

308 Tustin Unified CA 24.1k Low/moderate 12.7% 2.0% -0.7% 0.8% 68.5%

309 Sioux Falls School District SD 24.0k Low/moderate 6.9% -5.5% -2.4% 1.6% 100.0%

310 Richmond City Public Schools VA 24.0k Low/moderate 2.6% 1.1% 1.4% 0.9% 73.3%

311 Pflugerville ISD TX 23.9k Low 18.2% 0.4% -0.6% 1.3% 80.2%

312 Torrance Unified CA 23.9k Low/moderate 22.9% 22.9% -3.8% -0.4% 68.5%

314 Spotsylvania County Public Schools VA 23.9k Low/moderate 20.1% 1.5% -0.6% 0.1% 73.3%

315 Scottsdale Unified District AZ 23.9k Low/moderate 10.1% 0.0% 1.1% -2.5% 76.3%

316 Hesperia Unified CA 23.7k Low 9.8% 1.6% -0.2% 0.4% 68.5%

317 Millard Public Schools NE 23.7k Low 15.0% 1.2% 1.5% 0.9% 88.0%

318 Rapides Parish School District LA 23.7k Low/moderate 15.2% 0.7% -0.6% -0.5% 60.9%

319 Huntsville City School District AL 23.7k Moderate -3.7% -3.4% -0.9% 1.0% 67.5%

321 Edmond Public Schools OK 23.5k Low/moderate 23.1% 23.1% -0.8% 2.3% 66.6%

322 Vancouver School District WA 23.5k Low/moderate 1.5% -0.9% -0.6% 1.1% 94.0%

323 Washington Elementary School District AZ 23.4k Low 7.5% 0.5% -0.4% 1.4% 76.3%

324 Judson ISD TX 23.3k Low 23.3% 3.6% 0.2% 1.2% 80.2%

325 Palm Springs Unified CA 23.3k Moderate 5.2% -3.5% -3.6% -0.5% 68.5%

327 Manteca Unified CA 23.2k Moderate/high 1.4% -10.1% -3.4% -0.2% 68.5%

328 Goose Creek CISD TX 23.2k Low/moderate 34.7% -2.5% -4.3% 2.2% 80.2%

329 Alamance-Burlington Schools NC 23.0k Low 6.1% -1.9% 8.2% 0.3% 94.8%

330 Galena Park ISD TX 22.7k Low 41.9% 18.6% 2.6% 1.3% 80.2%

331 Murrieta Valley Unified CA 22.7k Low/moderate 1.6% 1.6% 1.4% 0.0% 68.5%





Parthenon-EY | 21



332 Downey Unified CA 22.7k Low/moderate 16.1% 3.7% -1.7% -0.1% 68.5%

333 Hayward Unified CA 22.6k Moderate 1.5% -1.9% -1.6% 1.4% 68.5%

334 Ontario-Montclair Elem CA 22.5k Moderate/high 3.0% -20.7% -2.2% -0.1% 68.5%

336 Federal Way School District WA 22.5k Low 7.3% 5.5% 0.8% 0.3% 94.0%

337 Kenosha School District WI 22.4k Low 15.6% 1.7% 0.8% -0.7% 100.0%

338 Hurst-Euless-Bedford ISD TX 22.4k Low/moderate 16.7% 0.0% -1.0% 1.3% 80.2%

339 Blue Valley Schools KS 22.4k Moderate 0.0% 0.0% -1.1% 0.7% 62.0%

340 Coweta County School System GA 22.4k Low/moderate 10.0% 0.0% -0.8% -0.2% 81.9%

341 Washington County Public Schools MD 22.3k Low/moderate 2.5% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% 71.9%

342 Lake Elsinore Unified CA 22.3k Low/moderate 2.3% 2.9% 1.9% 0.1% 68.5%

343 Grossmont Union High CA 22.2k Moderate 3.8% -0.5% 0.1% -2.1% 68.5%

344 Kansas City Public Schools KS 22.1k Moderate 25.9% -3.8% -4.2% 2.6% 62.0%

345 Compton Unified CA 22.1k Moderate 3.1% 0.2% 1.1% -3.7% 68.5%

346 Hernando County School District FL 22.1k Moderate 1.1% -2.9% -0.7% -0.8% 86.5%

347 Springdale School District AR 22.1k Low/moderate 11.0% 0.0% -0.8% 3.4% 77.3%

348 Bossier Parish Schools LA 22.0k Low/moderate 11.4% -0.6% 4.0% 1.5% 60.9%

349 Palmdale School District CA 22.0k Low 16.5% -0.6% 3.2% 2.2% 68.5%

350 Newport-Mesa Unified CA 21.9k Low 12.1% 8.3% 1.4% 0.1% 68.5%

351 Toledo Public Schools OH 21.8k Low/moderate 9.6% 3.1% 0.4% -1.9% 69.3%

352 Mesa County Valley School District No. 51 CO 21.7k Low/moderate 5.9% 0.0% -0.1% -0.3% 60.9%

353 Puyallup School District WA 21.6k Low 1.5% -0.6% 1.6% 1.3% 94.0%

355 Ascension Parish Schools LA 21.6k Low/moderate 6.8% 0.0% -0.8% 1.8% 60.9%

356 Akron Public Schools OH 21.5k Low/moderate 9.7% 4.5% 3.5% -1.7% 69.3%

358 Hemet Unified CA 21.4k Low/moderate 5.1% 0.7% -2.4% -0.9% 68.5%

359 Fairfield-Suisun Unified CA 21.4k Low/moderate 9.4% 4.1% -0.7% -0.3% 68.5%

360 Beaufort County School District SC 21.4k Low 16.4% 2.4% 0.8% 2.2% 62.0%

361 Redlands Unified CA 21.3k Low 10.9% 4.1% 1.7% -0.1% 68.5%

362 South-Western City School District OH 21.3k Low/moderate 64.6% 9.8% -0.5% 0.6% 69.3%

363 Greeley-Evans School District 6 CO 21.2k Low/moderate 6.7% -0.3% -2.0% 2.3% 60.9%

364 Syracuse City School District NY 21.1k Low/moderate 3.7% -4.0% -1.2% 1.0% 92.9%

365 Iredell-Statesville Schools NC 21.1k Low/moderate 10.3% -6.3% -1.5% -0.6% 94.8%

367 Hillsboro School District OR 21.0k Low 9.3% 1.7% 1.2% -0.4% 83.6%

369 ABC Unified CA 21.0k Low/moderate 2.6% -2.7% 1.5% 0.5% 68.5%

370 Oceanside Unified CA 21.0k Low/moderate 5.8% 0.5% -1.5% 0.0% 68.5%






22 | Parthenon-EY



371 Hamilton Southeastern Schools IN 20.9k Low 7.8% 2.2% 1.7% 3.2% 61.4%

372 Northshore School District WA 20.9k Low/moderate 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 1.8% 94.0%

373 Community Unit School District 300 IL 20.9k Low/moderate 25.1% 6.3% 2.3% 0.1% 42.0%

374 Edmonds School District WA 20.8k Low/moderate 2.0% 2.0% -1.1% 0.4% 94.0%

375 Hampton City Public Schools VA 20.8k Low/moderate 20.2% -0.8% -0.4% -1.2% 73.3%

376 Osseo Public School District MN 20.6k Low 21.7% 4.6% 1.7% -0.4% 77.1%

377 Rockwood School District MO 20.6k Moderate 34.0% -7.0% 0.6% -3.0% 83.9%

378 Harnett County Schools NC 20.5k Low/moderate 14.2% -0.5% -4.1% 1.4% 94.8%

379 Fayette County GA 20.1k Low 15.8% 7.1% 2.5% -0.8% 81.9%

380 Shelby County Schools (AL) AL 19.9k Moderate/high 7.1% -8.0% -3.3% -11.0% 67.5%

381 Davidson County Schools NC 19.9k Moderate 31.5% -4.5% -14.3% -0.8% 94.8%

382 Racine Unified School District WI 19.8k Moderate 6.6% -3.6% -1.2% -1.6% 100.0%

383 Conejo Valley Unified CA 19.7k Moderate 0.1% -2.9% 0.6% -1.6% 68.5%

384 Hacienda La Puente Unified CA 19.6k Low/moderate 6.0% 6.0% 0.4% -2.0% 68.5%

385 Grand Rapids Public Schools MI 16.2k Moderate 5.7% 0.0% -1.9% -2.7% 59.9%

386 Dayton Public Schools OH 14.2k Moderate 0.5% 2.1% 0.1% -1.3% 69.3%

387 Orleans Parish School District LA 13.3k Low/Moderate 104.4% 0.8% -0.8% 6.8% 60.9%

388 Franklin-McKinley School District CA 11.2k Low/Moderate 7.7% 7.7% -2.0% 1.8% 68.5%





Parthenon-EY | 23


24 | Parthenon-EY

Parthenon-EY | 25

EY | Assurance | Tax | Transactions | AdvisoryAbout EY

EY is a global leader in assurance, tax, transaction and advisory services. The insights and quality services we deliver help build trust and confidence in the capital markets and in economies the world over. We develop outstanding leaders who team to deliver on our promises to all of our stakeholders. In so doing, we play a critical role in building a better working world for our people, for our clients and for our communities.

EY refers to the global organization, and may refer to one or more, of the member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Young Global Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, does not provide services to clients. For more information about our organization, please visit ey.com.

Ernst & Young LLP is a client-serving member firm of Ernst & Young Global Limited operating in the US.

Parthenon-EY refers to the combined group of Ernst & Young LLP and other EY member firm professionals providing strategy services worldwide. Visit parthenon.ey.com for more information.

©2017 Ernst & Young LLP. All Rights Reserved. SCORE No. 01777-171US ED None This material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as accounting, tax or other professional advice. Please refer to your advisors for specific advice.ey.com

About Parthenon-EYParthenon joined Ernst & Young LLP on 29 August 2014. Parthenon-EY is a strategy consultancy, committed to bringing unconventional yet pragmatic thinking together with our clients’ smarts to deliver actionable strategies for real impact in today’s complex business landscape. Innovation has become a necessary ingredient for sustained success. Critical to unlocking opportunities is Parthenon-EY’s ideal balance of strengths — specialized experience with broad executional capabilities — to help you optimize your portfolio of businesses, uncover industry insights to make investment decisions, find effective paths for strategic growth opportunities and make acquisitions more rewarding. Our proven methodologies along with a progressive spirit can deliver intelligent services for our clients, amplify the impact of our strategies and make us the global advisor of choice for business leaders.

About the Parthenon-EY Education practiceThe Parthenon-EY Education practice — the first of its kind across management consulting firms — has an explicit mission and vision to be the leading strategy advisor to the global education industry. To achieve this, we invest significantly in dedicated management and team resources so that our global experience extends across public sector and nonprofit education providers, foundations, for-profit companies and service providers, and investors. We have deep experience and a track record of consistent success in working closely with universities, colleges, states, districts, and leading educational reform and service organizations across the globe.

Parthenon-EY Education practice

For more information on our Education practice and our team, please visit parthenon.ey.com.

Phil VaccaroManaging Director, Parthenon-EY Ernst & Young LLP +1 617 478 [email protected]

Haven LaddManaging Director, Parthenon-EYErnst & Young LLP+1 617 478 7055 [email protected]

Authors Other Ernst & Young LLP contributors

• Daniel Jerneycic, Senior Manager, Restructuring

• Debra Kurshan, Vice President, Parthenon-EY

• Caroline Sallee, Manager, Quantitative Economics & Statistics (QUEST)

• Christopher Marsh, Consultant, Parthenon-EY

• Courtney O’Brien, Associate, Parthenon-EY

• Nata Kovalova, Associate, Parthenon-EY

http://www.ey.com

http://www.ey.com

http://www.parthenon.ey.com

mailto:[email protected]

assessing the financial health of us k-12 public … the financial health of us k–12 public school...

Documents