Abstract
Purpose. To determine which California public school districts with 10,000 + Average Daily Attendance (ADA) were successful in projecting ADA (+OR-)2% accuracy from 1978-81 and to determine factors and procedures used in comparison with unsuccessful districts. Methodology. Examined J-41 forms and questionnaires of studied districts. To determine whether the successful districts used certain factors and procedures to a statistically significant degree more or less than the unsuccessful districts, the statistical test of the significance of differences between uncorrelated percentages was used. The factors and procedures were rated according to the importance attached to them by each district. Persons responsible for ADA projections were interviewed. Findings. (1) Almost 40% of all districts in the study were considered successsful; (2) successful districts used (statistically significant degree) certain factors (pupil promotion policies, census of preschool children, birth rate trends, closing of businesses, number of servicemen, city/county growth policies, integration policies, and consideration of unusual circumstances); (3) one person in the central office was responsible for ADA projections, usually assisted by principals. Conclusions. (1) There were eight factors characterizing successful and not successful districts; four other factors--death rates, children not enrolled, city/county zoning changes, and School Attendance Review Board (SARB) participation--were given increased attention by successful districts; (2) Long Range Demographic Study of the California Local Allocations Board was the only procedure used only by successful districts; (3) computers were associated only with successful districts; (4) size of district (student population) did not affect accuracy of projections; (5) declining or increasing ADA did not affect accuracy; (6) current degrees of accuracy in projecting ADA are insufficient; (7) designating a person whose job description mandates particular attention to projecting ADA and dividing districts into areas of study appear helpful. Recommendations. (1) Consider the eight factors listed in findings; (2) designate one person responsible for ADA projections; (3) divide districts into areas for the study of enrollment; (4) computerize data relating to such forecasting; (5) additional studies should be made to consider (a) problems involved in forecasting ADA because of its financial importance; (b) whether or not ADA is the best method of distributing funds in California.