Putting Hamilton Putting Hamilton County School County School

Finance into ContextFinance into ContextDavid EichenthalDavid Eichenthal

Ochs Center for Metropolitan StudiesOchs Center for Metropolitan StudiesFebruary 2009February 2009

OverviewOverview How does per pupil spending in Hamilton County How does per pupil spending in Hamilton County

compare to other school districts?compare to other school districts? Total per pupil spending in Tennessee districts Total per pupil spending in Tennessee districts

masks real differences by revenue source.masks real differences by revenue source. Low level of State funding for education is a Low level of State funding for education is a

significant contributor to the overall problem.significant contributor to the overall problem. HCDE per pupil spending has grown by 15.4% over HCDE per pupil spending has grown by 15.4% over

five years – compared to 19.3% statewide. Local five years – compared to 19.3% statewide. Local revenue has increased greater than State average, revenue has increased greater than State average, while federal and State revenue has lagged.while federal and State revenue has lagged.

Comparison to other County funds indicate that Comparison to other County funds indicate that HCDE spending has grown at comparable or lower HCDE spending has grown at comparable or lower rate.rate.

Figuring out the right amount of spending depends Figuring out the right amount of spending depends on what the ultimate goal is regarding outcomes.on what the ultimate goal is regarding outcomes.

Per Pupil Spending Per Pupil Spending in Hamilton Countyin Hamilton County

Per pupil spending is driven by many Per pupil spending is driven by many factors (e.g. student economic factors (e.g. student economic disadvantage/eligibility for federal disadvantage/eligibility for federal funding, transportation, number and funding, transportation, number and age of buildings, student/teacher age of buildings, student/teacher ratios, special education)ratios, special education)

Overall, Tennessee school districts Overall, Tennessee school districts spent $8,345 per student in 2007-spent $8,345 per student in 2007-20082008

Per Pupil SpendingPer Pupil Spending in Hamilton County in Hamilton County

Among nine Tennessee school Among nine Tennessee school districts with enrollment > $25,000, districts with enrollment > $25,000, Hamilton County had the third Hamilton County had the third highest per pupil spending -- $9,009 highest per pupil spending -- $9,009 per pupil, 8% higher than the State per pupil, 8% higher than the State averageaverage

Three school districts with highest Three school districts with highest per pupil spending had the three per pupil spending had the three highest percentages of economically highest percentages of economically disadvantaged studentsdisadvantaged students

Per Pupil Spending in Per Pupil Spending in TennesseeTennessee

District Per Pupil Spending ED StudentsState 8,345.00$ 54.5Memphis 10,336.00$ 79.6Davidson 10,228.00$ 72.8Hamilton 9,009.00$ 56.1Knox 8,241.00$ 42.8Shelby 7,908.00$ 30.1Williamson 7,756.00$ 9.3Montgomery 7,749.00$ 44.2Sumner 7,474.00$ 34.1Rutherford 7,347.00$ 35.2

Comparing Per Pupil Spending in Comparing Per Pupil Spending in Hamilton County to Districts in Other Hamilton County to Districts in Other

StatesStates While Hamilton County school spending was high While Hamilton County school spending was high

compared to the Tennessee average, it was lower that the compared to the Tennessee average, it was lower that the 2005-2006 statewide2005-2006 statewide averageaverage in 21 states in 21 states

Four school districts with enrollment closest to Hamilton Four school districts with enrollment closest to Hamilton County:County:

2005-6 Data Spending (millions) Enrollment Per Pupil SpendingElgin U46, Ill 383,613.00$ 39656 9,673.52$ Frederick, Md 446,983.00$ 39672 11,266.96$ Hamilton, Tn 324,749.00$ 40800 7,959.53$ Oklahoma City, Ok 297,330.00$ 40322 7,373.89$ St. Paul, Mn. 573,945.00$ 41274 13,905.73$

Differences by Source Differences by Source of School Fundingof School Funding

More than half – 53.7% -- of HCDE More than half – 53.7% -- of HCDE funding is local, 34.4% from the funding is local, 34.4% from the State and 12% Federal fundingState and 12% Federal funding

By comparison, statewide, 47.8% of By comparison, statewide, 47.8% of school funding is from the State, school funding is from the State, 41.3% is from local sources and 41.3% is from local sources and 10.9% Federal10.9% Federal

Differences by SourceDifferences by Source of School Funding of School Funding

Among nine school districts, in 2007-Among nine school districts, in 2007-8, Hamilton County ranked 8, Hamilton County ranked seventhseventh in in per pupil funding from the Stateper pupil funding from the State

Among nine school districts, in 2007-Among nine school districts, in 2007-8, Hamilton County ranked 8, Hamilton County ranked thirdthird in per in per pupil funding from the Federal pupil funding from the Federal governmentgovernment

Among nine school districts, in 2007-Among nine school districts, in 2007-8, Hamilton County ranked 8, Hamilton County ranked secondsecond in in per pupil funding from local fundingper pupil funding from local funding

Sources of School FundingSources of School Funding2007-82007-8

District Per Pupil Spending Federal State LocalState 8,345.00$ 909.61$ 3,988.91$ 3,446.49$ Memphis 10,336.00$ 1,509.06$ 4,237.76$ 4,578.85$ Davidson 10,228.00$ 1,114.85$ 2,884.30$ 6,239.08$ Hamilton 9,009.00$ 1,081.08$ 3,099.10$ 4,837.83$ Knox 8,241.00$ 758.17$ 2,645.36$ 4,837.47$ Shelby 7,908.00$ 474.48$ 3,780.02$ 3,653.50$ Williamson 7,756.00$ 325.75$ 3,234.25$ 4,196.00$ Montgomery 7,749.00$ 976.37$ 4,254.20$ 2,518.43$ Sumner 7,474.00$ 582.97$ 4,118.17$ 2,772.85$ Rutherford 7,347.00$ 462.86$ 3,835.13$ 3,049.01$

State Funding for EducationState Funding for Education

2005-2006 Census Bureau data 2005-2006 Census Bureau data suggests that Tennessee ranked 47suggests that Tennessee ranked 47thth among states in total per pupil among states in total per pupil spending -- $6,882.67 compared to a spending -- $6,882.67 compared to a national average of $9,138.89national average of $9,138.89

Tennessee ranks 44Tennessee ranks 44thth in State per in State per pupil spending -- $2,975.79 pupil spending -- $2,975.79 compared to a national average of compared to a national average of $4,536.59$4,536.59

Total Statewide Per Pupil Total Statewide Per Pupil Spending Spending

2005-62005-6Top FiveTop Five- New York - $14,884.31New York - $14,884.31- New Jersey - $14,629.86New Jersey - $14,629.86- Vermont - $12,613.70Vermont - $12,613.70- Connecticut - $12,322.63Connecticut - $12,322.63- Massachusetts - Massachusetts -

$11,980.91$11,980.91

Bottom FiveBottom Five- Oklahoma - Oklahoma -

$6,960.95$6,960.95- Tennessee - Tennessee -

$6,882.67$6,882.67- Arizona - $6,471.82Arizona - $6,471.82- Idaho - $6,440.40Idaho - $6,440.40- Utah - $5,436.67Utah - $5,436.67

Per Pupil State SpendingPer Pupil State Spending

1.1. Vermont - $10, 992.75Vermont - $10, 992.752.2. Hawaii - $8,874.62Hawaii - $8,874.623.3. Delaware - $7,505.53Delaware - $7,505.534.4. Alaska - $6,480.53Alaska - $6,480.535.5. Minnesota - $6,461.42Minnesota - $6,461.426.6. New York - $6,415.50New York - $6,415.507.7. New Jersey - $6,040.15New Jersey - $6,040.158.8. Arkansas - $5,820.24Arkansas - $5,820.249.9. New Mexico - $5,760.48New Mexico - $5,760.4810.10. Michigan - $5,674.36Michigan - $5,674.3644. Tennessee - $2,975.7944. Tennessee - $2,975.79

State Funding for EducationState Funding for Education

Tax policy may affect State funding levels Tax policy may affect State funding levels for education, but it is not dispositivefor education, but it is not dispositive

Among eight states without an income tax Among eight states without an income tax (not including Alaska), total per pupil (not including Alaska), total per pupil spending was $7,907.90 (compared to spending was $7,907.90 (compared to $9,138.89 national average) and State per $9,138.89 national average) and State per pupil spending was $4,102.63 (compared pupil spending was $4,102.63 (compared to $4,536.59 national average)to $4,536.59 national average)

Per pupil spending in Wyoming and New Per pupil spending in Wyoming and New Hampshire exceeded national averageHampshire exceeded national average

State Spending State Spending Adjusted for Cost of LivingAdjusted for Cost of Living

ACCRA data for metropolitan areas ACCRA data for metropolitan areas suggest that Tennessee may have lowest suggest that Tennessee may have lowest cost of living in U.S. cost of living in U.S.

Using ACCRA data and adjusting for cost of Using ACCRA data and adjusting for cost of living, Tennessee per pupil spending was living, Tennessee per pupil spending was $7,812.34 – 38$7,812.34 – 38thth in the nation and lower in the nation and lower than average of $8,768.01 per statethan average of $8,768.01 per state

State per pupil spending in Tennessee is State per pupil spending in Tennessee is $3,377.74 – less than average of $3,377.74 – less than average of $4,339.36 – and 38$4,339.36 – and 38thth in nation in nation

Change in Per Pupil SpendingChange in Per Pupil SpendingFY 2004 – FY 2008FY 2004 – FY 2008

Change % Federal % State% Local %State 1,348.00$ 19.3 14.0 26.1 13.5Davidson 1,343.00$ 15.1 30.7 14.3 13.3Hamilton 1,202.00$ 15.4 3.3 19.2 16.3Knox 1,504.00$ 22.3 65.5 13.5 22.5Memphis 2,010.00$ 24.1 16.9 36.1 16.8Montgomery 1,518.00$ 24.4 32.8 33.6 8.9Rutherford 1,215.00$ 19.8 2.0 27.9 13.8Shelby 1,429.00$ 22.1 33.2 29.1 14.6Sumner 1,312.00$ 21.3 11.3 28.0 14.5Williamson 739.00$ 10.5 19.0 17.9 4.9

Changes in Per Pupil Spending Changes in Per Pupil Spending Since 2003-2004Since 2003-2004

Statewide, per pupil spending is up by 19.3%: HCDE Statewide, per pupil spending is up by 19.3%: HCDE per pupil spending is up 15.4% – per pupil spending is up 15.4% – 7th out of nine 7th out of nine districtsdistricts

Increase in Federal per pupil spending in Hamilton Increase in Federal per pupil spending in Hamilton County (3.3%) was County (3.3%) was 88thth among nine districts among nine districts and and lagged behind the statewide increase of 14%lagged behind the statewide increase of 14%

Increase in State per pupil spending in Hamilton Increase in State per pupil spending in Hamilton County (19.2%) was County (19.2%) was 66thth among nine districts among nine districts and and lagged behind the statewide increase of 26.1%lagged behind the statewide increase of 26.1%

Increase in local per pupil spending in Hamilton Increase in local per pupil spending in Hamilton County (16.3%) was County (16.3%) was 3rd among nine districts3rd among nine districts, ahead , ahead of the statewide increase (13.5%) and trailing only of the statewide increase (13.5%) and trailing only Knox County (22.5%) and Memphis (16.8%)Knox County (22.5%) and Memphis (16.8%)

HCDE Spending Growth HCDE Spending Growth Compared to Other Hamilton Compared to Other Hamilton

CountyCounty Actual growth in HCDE spending has generally Actual growth in HCDE spending has generally

tracked other County funds. Part of General Fund tracked other County funds. Part of General Fund growth is attributable to school construction debt.growth is attributable to school construction debt.

HCDE General Fund Sheriff2002 266.9 95.5 21.12004 292.8 104.5 23.52007 323.9 118.7 25.3

% since 2002 21.4 24.3 19.9% since 2004 10.6 13.6 7.7

Dollars are in millions.

Increased Funding Scenarios: Increased Funding Scenarios: Effect on Per Pupil SpendingEffect on Per Pupil Spending

2003-4 2007-8 Statewide Growth Avg. Statewide Max Average MaxFederal 1,046.14$ 1,081.08$ 1,192.60$ 1,509.06$ 111.52$ 427.98$ State 2,599.73$ 3,099.10$ 3,278.26$ 4,254.20$ 179.16$ 1,155.10$ Local 4,161.13$ 4,837.83$ 4,722.88$ 6,239.08$ (114.95)$ 1,401.25$

Does Hamilton County Have Too Does Hamilton County Have Too Many Buildings or Too Many Many Buildings or Too Many

Teachers?Teachers? In 2006-7, there were 188 public In 2006-7, there were 188 public

school districts in U.S. with enrollment school districts in U.S. with enrollment between 25,000 and 49,999 (NCES)between 25,000 and 49,999 (NCES)

Students per buildingStudents per building– Mean: 713.4Mean: 713.4– Median: 676 with a range of 315.5 to 2282Median: 676 with a range of 315.5 to 2282

Students per teacher Students per teacher – Mean: 17.0Mean: 17.0– Median: 16.3 with a range of 10.1 to 30.8Median: 16.3 with a range of 10.1 to 30.8

Does Hamilton County Have Too Does Hamilton County Have Too Many Buildings or Too Many Many Buildings or Too Many

Teachers?Teachers? Hamilton County (based on 2006-7 Hamilton County (based on 2006-7

NCES data) has 524 students per NCES data) has 524 students per building, 26.6% less than national building, 26.6% less than national averageaverage

Hamilton County has 13.6 students Hamilton County has 13.6 students per teacher, 20% less than national per teacher, 20% less than national averageaverage

Does Hamilton County Have Too Does Hamilton County Have Too Many Buildings or Too Many Many Buildings or Too Many

Teachers?Teachers? Center for Public Education summary Center for Public Education summary

of research on small schools:of research on small schools:– Small schools work.Small schools work. Thirty-five years of Thirty-five years of

research shows students in small schools were research shows students in small schools were more satisfied, more academically productive, more satisfied, more academically productive, more likely to participate in school activities, more likely to participate in school activities, better behaved, and less likely to drop out. better behaved, and less likely to drop out. Lee, Smith and Croninger found the optimal Lee, Smith and Croninger found the optimal high school size to be 600 to 900 students. high school size to be 600 to 900 students.

– However, However, small schools are “not the fail-small schools are “not the fail-safe magic bulletsafe magic bullet which reform seekers which reform seekers continue to hope for” (Raywid). There has to be continue to hope for” (Raywid). There has to be accompanying changes in instruction in order accompanying changes in instruction in order to improve outcomes. to improve outcomes.

Does Hamilton County Have Too Does Hamilton County Have Too Many Buildings or Too Many Many Buildings or Too Many

Teachers?Teachers? Center for Public Education summary of research found that:Center for Public Education summary of research found that:

– Smaller classes in the early grades (K-3) can boost Smaller classes in the early grades (K-3) can boost student academic achievementstudent academic achievement; ;

– A class size of no more than 18 students per teacher is A class size of no more than 18 students per teacher is required to produce the greatest benefits and a program required to produce the greatest benefits and a program spanning grades K-3 will produce more benefits than a spanning grades K-3 will produce more benefits than a program that reaches students in only one or two of the program that reaches students in only one or two of the primary grades; primary grades;

– Minority and low-income students show even greater gains Minority and low-income students show even greater gains when placed in small classes in the primary grades; when placed in small classes in the primary grades;

– The The experience and preparation of teachers is a critical experience and preparation of teachers is a critical factor in the success or failure of class size reduction factor in the success or failure of class size reduction programs and reducing class size will have little effect programs and reducing class size will have little effect without enough classrooms and well-qualified teacherswithout enough classrooms and well-qualified teachers; ; and and

– Supports, such as professional development for teachers and a Supports, such as professional development for teachers and a rigorous curriculum, enhance the effect of reduced class size rigorous curriculum, enhance the effect of reduced class size on academic achievement. on academic achievement.

What are the Desired What are the Desired Outcomes?Outcomes?

District Economically Composite ACT NCLB Graduation RateDisadvantaged All Math ED All RL ED

Williamson 9.3 73.3 46.5 73.2 48.9 22.5 93.8Shelby 30.1 59.4 36.1 58.5 34.3 21.5 96.1Sumner 34.1 53.3 35.2 55.4 36.0 20.9 88.1Rutherford 35.2 56.8 40.6 56.1 39.6 20.8 88.0Knox 42.8 51.8 30.9 52.5 30.6 21.9 79.3Montgomery 44.2 50.3 37.6 51.6 39.8 20.7 88.3Hamilton 56.1 45.3 29.8 42.6 26.3 19.7 72.6Davidson 72.8 32.8 22.8 35.3 24.2 19.1 72.6Memphis 79.6 26.9 22.2 28.1 23.1 17.5 66.9

K - 8 Advanced

Elements of a School Closing Elements of a School Closing Policy – Seattle Public SchoolsPolicy – Seattle Public Schools

Target: How do closures or program moves relate Target: How do closures or program moves relate to our to our students’ academic needsstudents’ academic needs and and strengthen strengthen our fiscal healthour fiscal health

Public Process: Website postings, public hearings at Public Process: Website postings, public hearings at schools proposed for closure, school board hearingsschools proposed for closure, school board hearings

Specific criteria for school closing decisions:Specific criteria for school closing decisions:– Geographic Need: Balance capacity across the district to Geographic Need: Balance capacity across the district to

ensure the appropriate number of seats in geographic ensure the appropriate number of seats in geographic areasareas

– Building consolidationBuilding consolidation– Cost per pupilCost per pupil– Proximity: Whether other nearby schools serve same Proximity: Whether other nearby schools serve same

grade levelsgrade levels– Academic PerformanceAcademic Performance