analysis of expenditure changes post-act 59 – initial findings prepared for the arkansas senate...

Analysis of Expenditure Changes post-Act 59 – Initial

Findings

Prepared for the Arkansas Senate

Office for Education PolicyUniversity of Arkansaswww.uark.edu/ua/oep/

March 21, 2006

Gary Ritter & Joshua Barnett

Office for Education

Policy

Note Regarding Initial Findings• These findings are only preliminary and are based on the data

available at the time of publication.• We do have some concern with the 2003-04 revenue and

expenditure categories.• The bulk of the data presented here rely on current

expenditures, and it is possible that the growth in current expenditures is overstated by as much as $300 per pupil (our original estimates revealed increases of $1,200 per pupil, which may be revised down to $900 per pupil).

• Overall the figures may be changed, however, we believe the trends found in the following tables, where the increases in funding were targeted towards more disadvantaged students, remain correct.

• We anticipate having corrected figures and resubmitting them to the Legislature by May 1, 2006.



Policy

Motivating Questions• Act 59 increased resources for education in

Arkansas• Two overarching questions:

1. Where did the $ go?2. Did performance improve?

• First Set of Analyses: 1. Did overall funding increase?2. Are funds targeted toward more disadvantaged districts?3. Have teacher salaries increased?4. Are there any early signs of performance improvement?



Policy

Overview of Changes in Spending: Preliminary Results

• Property Tax Revenue up 9%

• State General Revenue up 23%

• Total Revenue up 26%

• Current Expenditures up 13%



Policy

II. Composition of Revenue

30%

48%

4%

16%2%

2003-04 2004-05

28%

54%

6%

12% 0% Property TaxRevenue

State Revenue (equaid)

State Revenue (Cat& other)

Federal Revenue

Other



Policy

Questions

• Have funds been targeted to students who have been disadvantaged in the past in Arkansas?

• How are resources allocated to the average:• High Poverty Student?

• Non-White Student?



Policy

Current Expenditures per Pupil (no transportation)

Student Group

2003-04 2004-05 Change

All Students

$6,045 $7,218 + 1,173

NSLA Students

$5,893 $7,379 + 1,486

Non-White Students

$6,372 $7,912 + 1,540



Policy

Targeted Spending Questions?

• Are more disadvantaged districts receiving more resources?• Lowest wealth districts increased by 22% (High Wealth

10%)• Highest poverty districts increased by 23% (Low Poverty

19%)

• Funds are targeted so that these districts receive higher levels of school funding:• Districts with more NSLA students• Districts with more non-white students• Districts with more students struggling in ACTAAP• Districts with declining enrollments



Policy

Current Expenditures (minus transportation) by Assessed Valuation Per Pupil

$6,612

$5,715

$6,743

$7,484

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

$7,000

$8,000

$9,000

$10,000

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 G10

10 Decile Groups

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06 B

Low Wealth High Wealth

The red line has “flattened” and resources distributed more evenly by wealth



Policy

Current Expenditures (minus transportation) by Percent of NSLA Students

$6,493

$5,439

$6,457

$8,166

$4,000

$4,500

$5,000

$5,500

$6,000

$6,500

$7,000

$7,500

$8,000

$8,500

$9,000

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 G10

10 Decile Groups

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06 B

87% NSLA27% NSLA

Incr

ease Districts

with more NSLA students have more resources and more new resources



Policy

Current Expenditures (minus transportation) by Percent of Non-White Students

$6,933

$5,159

$6,809

$7,878

$4,000

$4,500

$5,000

$5,500

$6,000

$6,500

$7,000

$7,500

$8,000

$8,500

$9,000

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 G10

10 Decile Groups

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06 B

68 - 87% non-white1.5 - 3.5% non-white

Districts with more minority students continue to have more resources



Policy

Current Expenditures (minus transportation) by Percent Proficient or Above on ACTAAP

$5,532

$6,672

$7,895

$6,774

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

$7,000

$8,000

$9,000

$10,000

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 G10

10 Decile Groups

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06 B

67% Pro+Adv27% Pro+Adv

Districts with the most failing students are targeted with additional resources



Policy

Current Expenditures (minus transportation) by District Growth Rate

$5,729

$6,689

$8,115

$6,819

$4,000

$4,500

$5,000

$5,500

$6,000

$6,500

$7,000

$7,500

$8,000

$8,500

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 G10

10 Decile Groups

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06 B

-22% enrollment +20% enrollment

Districts with declining enrollment have more new resources

Incr

ease



Policy

NSLA Targeted Funds

NSLA funding is helping to drive the resources targeted toward more disadvantaged districts

Patterns on each of the figures that follow show clear trends in which the neediest districts receive the most resources



Policy

NSLA Categorical Funds per Pupil by District Growth Rate

$0$0

$857

$249

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$800

$900

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 G10

10 Decile Groups

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06 B

-22% enrollment +20% enrollment



Policy

NSLA Categorical Funds per Pupil by Assessed Valuation Per Pupil

$0$0

$418

$201

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 G10

10 Decile Groups

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06 B

Low Wealth High Wealth



Policy

NSLA Categorical Funds per Pupil by Percent of NSLA Students

$0$0

$128

$1,049

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 G10

10 Decile Groups

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06 B

27% NSLA 87% NSLA



Policy

NSLA Categorical Funds per Pupil by Percent of Non-White Students

$0$0

$272

$1,141

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 G10

10 Decile Groups

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06 B

1.5 - 3.5% non-white 68 - 87% non-white



Policy

NSLA Categorical Funds per Pupil by Percent Proficient or Above on ACTAAP

$0$0

$921

$170

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$800

$900

$1,000

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 G10

10 Decile Groups

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06 B

27% Pro+Adv 67% Pro+Adv



Policy

NSLA Categorical Funds per Pupil by District Size

$0$0

$526

$286

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 G10

10 Decile Groups

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06 B

375 enrollment 7,800 enrollment



Policy

District Size Question ?

• How much was spent in the average “small” school district (or rural school district) before and after Act 59?

• Current Expenditures 2003-04 = $6,294

• Current Expenditures 2004-05 = $7,516



Policy

Current Expenditures (minus transportation) by District Size

$6,729$6,877

$7,836

$7,491

$4,000

$4,500

$5,000

$5,500

$6,000

$6,500

$7,000

$7,500

$8,000

$8,500

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 G10

10 Decile Groups

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06 B


Incr

ease

Biggest increases for small and mid-sized districts



Policy

Teacher Salary Questions ?

• Did beginning teacher salaries change?• New teacher salary 2003-04 = $27,218• New teacher salary 2004-05 = $30,070

• Did average teacher salaries change?• Average teacher salary 2003-04 = $39,409• Average teacher salary 2004-05 = $41,489

• In what type of districts have beginning teacher salaries changed? • Small Districts (10% in smallest, 5% overall)

• Poor Districts (7% in poorest, 5% overall)

10%

5%



Policy

Average Teacher Salary by District Size

$44,043

$31,858

$35,939

$45,174

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

$40,000

$45,000

$50,000

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 G10

10 Decile Groups

2003-04

2004-05


Biggest increases on the left side of the figure in the small districts



Policy

Average Teacher Salary by Assessed Valuation Per Pupil

$41,487

$37,051

$39,924

$43,540

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

$40,000

$45,000

$50,000

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 G10

10 Decile Groups

2003-04

2004-05

$32,000 per pupil $122,000 per pupil

Biggest increases on the left side of the figure in the less wealthy districts



Policy

Results of Spending

• Since Act 59 – expenditures increased overall (by 13%) and particularly in districts with high minority and high poverty students.

• Of course, the ultimate objective of these targeted increases is to improve student performance.



Policy

• Scored at or just below the national average on the 2005 4th and 8th grade math and literacy NAEP exams

• One of only two states to make significant improvement on 4th and 8th grade math and literacy NAEP exams (1992-2005 4th grade; 1998-2005 8th grade)

NAEP Advances



Policy

*

*

NAEP – Grade 4 Mathematics



Policy

*

NAEP – Grade 4 Reading



Policy

*

NAEP – Grade 8 Mathematics



Policy

NAEP – Grade 8 Reading



Policy

• 108% increase in Advanced Placement exam participation from 2003-04 to 2004-05.

• Highest yearly percent increase in AP exam participation rates in the 50-year history of AP.

Recognition for AP Offerings



Policy

• The resources appear to be in place, now what?

• Now, our challenge appears to finding effective and innovative ways to employ the additional resources to improve student performance.

Final Thoughts



Policy

How to Contact:

Gary W. RitterAssociate Professor of Education PolicyDirector, Office for Education PolicyDepartment of Education ReformUniversity of ArkansasFayetteville, AR 72701http://www.uark.edu/ua/oep/[email protected]

analysis of expenditure changes post-act 59 – initial findings prepared for the arkansas senate...

Documents

total revenue

total state revenue

deral revenue

state general revenue

state revenue ale

state revenue ell

total local revenue

local revenuelocal revenue