School Reform and School Reform and School Funding in School Funding in

ArkansasArkansas

Spring 2006Spring 2006

Office for Educational Policy

University of Arkansas

Gary Ritter May 2006

Overview

• What is OEP?• Overview of Education Policy• What is Lake View?

– Historically and Today

• How are schools funded?– Nationally and Arkansas

• Recent reforms in AR– Legislative Special Session

• What’s Next?

Who Are We?

• OEP = one of many research and service units in COEHP

• Housed in new Department of Education Reform

• OEP Mission– to serve as a resource to aid state legislators,

school board members, and other policymakers in thoughtful decision-making concerning K-12 education in the State of Arkansas.

– In light of this mission, naturally, OEP has been following AR Ed Reform and trying to track resulting changes in state education.

Office for Education Policy

For copies of our previous newsletters, working papers, and all other OEP

research, check out our website:

http://www.uark.edu/ua/oep/

202 Graduate Education Building

479.575.3773

AR Ed Policy Context

• Why is the state in constant reform?– Lake View Litigation and Decisions– 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005?

• What did the AR legislature enact?– District Governance (consolidation)– Increased funding ($650M in 2 yrs)– Increased accountability (Act 35)

• Always Hovering – NCLB!

History: Lake View Decision

• According to the Supreme Court Ruling:– Arkansas has neglected to ensure an

“adequate” education.– Neglected to ensure equitable

spending across the state

• Required major increases in state resources allocated to education– Funding must be based on need

rather than availability of funds

Lake View leads to a question

• What level of government is responsible for providing education?

• How much education funding is undertaken by ….– Federal ? ___ – State ? ___ – Local ? ___

• How much do you think we spend per student in Arkansas?

Funding Sources for US Schools

Percent of Revenue: Various Levels of Government, 1920-1995

% Local

% State

% Federal

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 1995

Education Policy

• Education is a … – State Responsibility (~ 45%)– Local Function (~ 45%)– Federal Interest (< 10%)

• In general, improved teaching and learning is at the heart of coherent education policy, but …

State Role

• Since the mid-19th Century, the role of the state was to maintain equity and set minimal level of access standards.

• States provide additional funds to compensate for an individual community’s ability to pay.

• States must also ensure that teacher education programs are adequate.

Local Role

• Organize, manage, hire & fire, and decide pedagogy and curriculum

• States are now trying to devolve power directly to schools rather than to districts for greater accountability

• Localities use school boards to make decisions (schools boards are non-partisan)– In cities, school boards are appointed. In rural

areas, they are elected. And education is the only service where voters vote on a budget.

Federal Role

• Historically, Federal role in education has been very small

• Federal government was forced to become involved due to … – Neglect of certain kinds of students – National issues such as defense and

manpower – Research, evaluation, and statistics needs

School Reform and Litigation in

Arkansas

The Lake View Case and the Special Legislative Session of 2003-04

EDFD 5683

Issues in Educational Policy

Timeline of School Reform

• 1979: Alma School District & 10 other districts file lawsuit over school-funding formula.

• 1983: Arkansas Supreme Court strikes down state's public school-funding formula.

• 1984: State raises sales tax by 1¢ to help fund public education.

• 1992: Lake View School District sues state over disparities in school funding.

• 1994: Pulaski County Chancery Court Judge rules in favor of Lake View, finding finance system violates education adequacy & equity provisions of state constitution.

1994 Findings of the Court

• No rational basis for the disparity among poor and wealthy school districts

• System violated Article 14, Sec. 1 (Education Article) of AR Constitution by failing to provide a “general, suitable and efficient system of free public schools.”

• System violated equal protection provisions

Timeline of School Reform

• 1995: State enacts bill giving money to districts equally on a per-student basis.

• 1996: Voters approve Amendment 74, requiring all districts to have at least 25 property tax mills for schools.

• 2000: State Supreme Court sends Lake View case back to Pulaski County Circuit Court.

• May 2001: Pulaski Chancery Court Judge declares funding system inequitable & inadequate and orders state to fund preschool.

• Nov. 2002: State Supreme Court upholds Pulaski Chancery Court's ruling & sets Jan. 1, 2004, deadline for Legislature to comply; overrules decision on preschool funding.

• Sept. 2003: Consultants issue school finance adequacy report calling for nearly $850 million in new spending.

Chancery Court – Lake View vs. Huckabee

• Trial lasted from September 18, 2000 to November 1, 2000

• 188 school districts intervened to support the State and present funding system

• They covered issues such as:– Equity – the funding issue– Adequacy – the compliance issue– New Facts

Called back into court

• 2000 - For 19 days in September and October, Pulaski County Chancellor Collins Kilgore conducts the Lake View trial at which 36 witnesses testified. The court record totaled 20,878 pages.

2001 Chancery Court Ruling (May 25)

• Judge Kilgore rules the state’s education system to be inadequate and inequitable. – Facilities: Provide substantially equal buildings

properly equipped and suitable for instruction of students.

– Teacher Salaries: No deficiency in our education system is in more urgent need of attention than teacher salaries.

– Pre-School Programs– Funding based on need not on available funds.

• Awards $9 million to the Lake View lawyers.

Highlights of the Supreme Court Ruling

• Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s ruling

• Exception - Pre-School Programs

• State has until January 1, 2004 to correct the problems

• Results – adequacy study and consolidation debate

Huckabee’s Response

• Although Huckabee opposed Kilgore’s ruling, he embraces the Supreme Court ruling, saying,

“The Supreme Court has clearly ruled that the education funding system in Arkansas I due for a total revamping. I think we’ve got our work cut out for us.”

Huckabee’s Plan for School Consolidation

• 2003 - JAN. 14: In his State of the State address, Huckabee announces his plan to:– Consolidate Arkansas’ 310 – now 308 –

school districts into between 107-116 districts.

• Districts fewer that 1,500 students would be consolidated unless they could meet standards.

• He would also make superintendents state employees, a provision he later drops.

Huckabee’s Pledge

“We should not, and I pledge to you we will not, accept a

second-class education for our children that will doom them to

permanent poverty in this state,” Huckabee tells

legislators

Heated Debate

• 2003 - FEB. 3: Huckabee releases a 103-page draft of his education bill. He says if the Legislature refuses to pass it, he may seek a petition drive to allow the people to vote on it.

• FEB. 5: About 700 anti-consolidation parents, educators, and students rally at the state Capitol. One speaker likens the consolidation to terrorism because

“it knocks out our nation a little bit at a time.”

Legislature Adjourns

• 2003 – APRIL 2: Rural educations reject a compromise from Huckabee, calling the offer insignificant because he didn’t move on the 1,500 enrollment figure.

• APRIL 16: The Legislature adjourns. The only significant education reform bill that passes is the Omnibus Quality Education Act.– It requires the state Board of Education to

annex, consolidate, or reconstitute any school district in fiscal distress for two consecutive years.

– Some rural legislators said they didn’t understand it when they voted for it.

Special Legislative Session

• 2003 – DEC. 3: Huckabee calls special legislative session to start Monday, Dec. 8th.

Main Focuses of Special Session

• Consolidation of Schools

• Student Assessment and Educational Accountability

• Equitable Funding Formula

Lawmakers’ Response

• Special Legislative Session 2003 on Education– Act 35 – student accountability and assessment – Act 60 – consolidation– Act 107, Act 94 – increase sales tax (5.125% -

6.000%)– Act 74 – teacher salaries

• $27,500 - bachelor's degree, no experience;

• $31,625 - master's degree, no experience

• Annual incremental pay increases for teaching experience, offered for at least 15 years:

– $450 annually for bachelor's level teachers, – $500 annually for master's level teachers.

Senate Bill 42

– Foundation funding amount will be equal to $5,400 times the average daily membership of the previous year.

– Each district will receive additional funding for education categories including students enrolled in an alternative learning environment, secondary vocational areas, English language learners, national school lunch, other approved programs, and professional development.

New Funding Formula

• Act 69, Act 108, Act 57 – funding changes– $5,400 per student in base funding; – Supplementary funding for specialized needs:

• $3,250 per student - alternative learning programs ;• $195 per student - English language learner; • Low income students

– $480 per student in districts where less than 70% of students qualify for free and reduced school lunches;

– $960 per student in districts where 70% to 90% of students qualify for free and reduced school lunches;

– $1440 per student in districts where more than 90% of students qualify for free and reduced school lunches; and

• $50 per student for professional development

District Consolidation – Act 60

• Special Legislative Session of 2003-04:

– School districts with fewer than 350 total students for 2 consecutive years must merge (administrative)

– First option is voluntary merger– No school mergers in year 1

• Results:

– 57 districts targeted for consolidation– 2003-04 = 308 districts– 2004-05 = 254 districts– Post 2004-2005 = 11 high schools within merged

districts were closed

Student Assessment and Educational Accountability

• Senate Bill 33– Submitted by Senator Steve Bryles-D– Would increase standardized testing of students while comparing scores to

those of students nationwide.– Students not meeting proficiency standards would be identified for

intervention. – Schools would be required to publish annual reports containing school

performance and demographic information.

Accountability Regulations require:

• Both curriculum-based exams (ACTAAP) and nationally norm-referenced exams (ITBS)

• Schools rated for (1) Absolute performance level, (2) Score growth, and (3) Fiscal management

• Consequences for schools unable to meet standards (i.e., recent takeover in Helena)

• NCLB must be integrated with state-level rules• Too early to talk about results

Timeline of School Reform

• Dec. 2003: Legislature convenes special session to address school finance concerns.

• Jan. 2004: Lake View District asks state Supreme Court to hold state in contempt for failing to comply with Lake View ruling; Supreme Court agrees, retaking jurisdiction of case & appointing 2 Special Masters to evaluate compliance.

• Feb. 2004: Legislature increases school funding by more than $400 million for 2005, sets new funding formula, and consolidates districts that have fewer than 350 students for two consecutive years.

• June 2004: Supreme Court takes itself out of case, citing satisfaction with current work & concerns over separation of powers.

• Nov. 2004: Consultants assess over 6,000 school buildings in state and find $2.3 billion in immediate needs.

Understanding Education Funding … in US & AR

School Finance FormulasPolicy Goals

• Reduce disparity in expenditures• Compensate for variance in local

fiscal capacity• Allow for local fiscal decision-making• Constrain costs• Gain political support• Promote efficiency and effectiveness

State Equalization

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

A B C D E F G H I J

State ShareLocal Share

Cost of Education?

= amt. Legislature feels like giving/number of kids

Part 1: How is money generated?

• Before the 2003 Adequacy Report, Arkansas simply took the total amount of money for education and divided it by the number of students.– For example, the 2001-02 funding formula

was:• Total amount of local revenue, plus total amount

of state revenue, divided by number of students… – $584 million (local) + $1.5 billion (state) = $2 billion

– $2 billion / 446,000 students = $4,638.66 per student

Part 1: How is money generated?

• Local Revenue– Step 1: Assessed Valuation

• The property value of resident’s within the district (total assessed valuation) is computed.

– Step 2: Collection Rate• The state believes that not all of the money will be

collected, so only 98% of the assessed value is requested.

– Step 3: Tax Rate• The 98% assessed value is multiplied by the state

uniform tax (maintenance and operation) rate – 25 mills

– Step 4: Total Local Revenue• Assessed valuation * 98% * .025 = total local revenue

Part 1: How is money generated?

• State Revenue (pre Act 59):– Step 1: Miscellaneous Funds

• 75 % of the statewide miscellaneous funds for the previous year is allotted to education

– Step 2: Equalization Aid• Based on existing requirements the state

provides a certain amount of money for education.

Payments pre- Act 59

Total State Equalization Aid $ State  

Total Assessed Valuation 23,849,287,688  

multiplied by  

98% Collections Rate 0.98  

Assessments Collected $ 23,372,301,934  

Uniform Tax Rate (M&O) 25 mills 0.0250  

Local Receipts Overall $ 584,307,548  

75% Statewide Miscellaneous  

Funds from Prior Year $ 5,689,596  

PLUS: State Equalization Aid $ 1,479,228,639  

TOTAL Funding Dollars $ 2,069,225,783  

Divided by: ADM 446,083  

Base Local Rev PP (Foundation) $ 4,638.66  

     

State Devised PP Funding Amount

District Distribution (pre- and Post- Act 59)

Example = Fayetteville 2001-2002

Total Assessed Valuation $583,919,868

Times: 98% Collections Rate 0.98

Assessments Collected $ 572,241,471

Uniform Tax Rate (M&O) 25 mills 0.0250

Local Receipts Overall $ 14,306,037

75% Statewide Miscellaneous

Funds from Prior Year $ 2,371,061

EQUALS: Total Local Revenue $ 16,677,098

Divided by: Local ADM 7,710

EQUALS: Local Revenue PP $ 2,163

Then: SEFPS = BLRPS - LRPS

$ 2,475.61

Part 2: How much money should be given to schools?

• According to the Adequacy Study, the amount of money needed to adequately educate a “regular” student is $5,356 per pupil

• The 2003 Arkansas General Assembly rounded this number and required regular student funding to be $5,400 per pupil

• This “adequate” amount is based on a set of assumptions and calculations regarding the personnel and size of the school district.

Part 2: Costing Out an Adequate Education

• $3,415 per student is based on personnel factors:– Personnel ratios

• 20:1 Kindergarten• 23:1 Grades 1-3• 25:1 Grades 4-12• 2.9 Special Education teachers per 500 students• 2.5 Instructional Facilitators per 500 students• 0.7 Librarian/Media Specialist per 500 students• 2.5 Guidance Counselors per 500 students• 1 Principal per school

– Salaries• Average rate for 25 teachers & 9 staff members is

$48,750, which is $1,635,675 per school.• Average principal salary is $71,837• Total School Salaries = $1,707,512 divided by 500 =

$3,415 per pupil

Part 2: What is the magic “adequate” number?

• More Assumptions: School Size (n=500)– 8% Kindergarten students (40 kids)– 23% Grade 1-3 students (115 kids)– 69% Grade 4-12 students (345 kids)

• Other school factors and costs per student = $789 per pupil– Teacher contract for 5 additional days ($101)– Technology ($250)– Instructional materials ($250)– Extra teacher duty ($60 middle school; $120 high school)– Supervisory Aids ($35)– Substitutes: 10 days/teacher * $121 per day / 500 students

($63)• Carry Forward: Administrative Costs, Equipment, Legal,

Athletics, Food, Operations, etc. = $1,152 per pupil

Magic Number

3,415 +789 +

1,152 +

= $5,356 per pupilOr, $5,400

Part 2: How should ADDITIONAL money be Distributed to schools?

• The Adequacy Report also outlined additional resources for students:– National School Lunch (NSLA) eligible students:

• 1 teacher per 100 NSLA students• Concentration funding:

– $480 for schools with less than 70%– $960 for schools with 70% - 90%– $1,440 for schools with more than 90%

– English Language Learners (ELL)• 0.4 teachers per 100 ELL students ($195 per student =

$48,750*.4/100)

– Alternative Learning Environment (ALE) students• 1 teacher per 15 ALE students ($3,250 per student =

$48,750/15)

– Professional Development• $50 per student

Arkansas Education Funding

• Previously, the Arkansas education funding formula relied on distributing existing local and state revenue to students.

• Now, with court ordered reforms, Arkansas’ education funding formula must provide:– $5,450 per regular student (includes PD)– $5,930 - $6,890 per NSLA student– $5,745 per ELL student– $8,700 per ALE student

Where’s the Money? An Where’s the Money? An Evaluation of the Dramatic Evaluation of the Dramatic

Increases to School Funding Increases to School Funding in Arkansasin Arkansas

Joshua H. Barnett,

University of Arkansas

Gary W. Ritter,

University of Arkansas

American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA April 2006

History: Court Challenges

• According to the Arkansas Supreme Court Ruling in Lake View v Huckabee (2002):– Neglected to ensure an adequate

education for all students.– Neglected to ensure equitable spending

across the state.• Court required major increases in

state resources allocated to education– Funding must be based on need rather

than availability of funds– Make education a “top priority”

Research Objectives & Methods

• RO 1: Pre-reforms “How were we doing before the increase?”– What was the adequacy of school funding in

Arkansas and how did it compare to other states?– What was the equity of school funding in Arkansas

and how did it compare to other states?

• Method: Pre-reforms– Adequacy

• Examine per pupil expenditures and teacher salaries– Equity

• Examine the Federal Range Ratio and spending difference between highest-poverty and lowest-poverty districts

Research Objectives & Methods

• RO 2: Post-reforms “Where did the money go?”– Has funding increased overall?– Are funds changing in certain types of districts?

• Method: Post-reforms

– Divide districts into deciles based on district characteristics – size, wealth, percent NSLA, percent non-white, student performance

– Examine deciles with regard to expenditures, teacher salary, and categorical funding for students

RO1: Adequacy - Expenditures

1959-1960

1979-1980

1999-2000

2002-2003

Adjusted 2002-2003

Arkansas $225 $1,574 $5,628 $6,482 $7,333Louisiana $372 $1,792 $6,256 $6,922 $7,700Mississippi $206 $1,664 $5,356 $5,792 $6,612Missouri $344 $1,936 $6,764 $7,495 $8,328Oklahoma $311 $1,926 $5,770 $6,092 $6,978Tennessee $238 $1,635 $5,521 $6,118 $6,859Texas $332 $1,916 $6,161 $7,136 $8,027US Average $375 $2,272 $7,392 $8,044 $8,044US Avg. - AR $-150 $-698 $-1,764 $1,562 -$711AR Rank of 51

(high=1) 49 51 48 42 35

RO1: Adequacy – Teacher SalaryAmerican Federation of Teachers, Survey and Analysis of Teacher Salary Trends, 2002

State

Average Salary 1991-

92

Average Salary

1997-98

Average Salary 2002-

03

Adjusted Average

Salary 2002-03

Arkansas $27,168 $30,987 $36,026 $40,733Louisiana $26,411 $28,347 $36,328 $40,390Mississippi $24,368 $27,662 $33,295 $38,025Missouri $28,923 $33,143 $36,053 $40,040Oklahoma $26,514 $30,187 $32,870 $37,646Tennessee $28,621 $34,267 $38,515 $43,172Texas $29,719 $32,426 $39,230 $44,110US Average $34,213 $38,436 $44,367 $44,367US Avg. – AR -$7,045 $7,449 -$8,341 -$3,634AR Rank of 51 (high=1) 42 44 46 35

RO1: Equity Measures

StateFederal Range Ratio 2002-03

Gap between revenues available per student in the

highest- and lowest- poverty districts 2002-03

Arkansas 0.62 $24Louisiana 0.40 -$715Mississippi 0.62 -$37Missouri 0.72 $22Oklahoma 0.99 $121Tennessee 0.49 $530Texas 1.02 -$588US Average 1.69 -$907

AR Rank of 49 States (most equitable=1) 23 18

RO1: Equity Measures

• In 2004-05, the Federal Range Ratio was 0.597, a reduction from 0.62 in 2002-03.

• In 2004-05, the gap between the lowest- and highest- poverty (based on FRL) districts was:– Highest-poverty quartile of districts = $7,794– Lowest-poverty quartile of districts = $6,548– Difference between highest- and lowest-

poverty districts indicates that the highest-poverty districts receive $1,246 more per pupil compared to the lowest-poverty districts.

RO1: Pre-Reform Summary

• Adequacy – comparatively spending fewer dollars than other states and paying teachers less.

• Equity – comparatively distributing our resources equally.

So… pre-reform there was reason for concern. The state made some changes, where did the money end up?

RO2: Overall Per Pupil Revenue Change

Category2003-04

Actual2004-05

Actual% Change

03-04 to 04-05

Average Daily Membership 447,872 450,910 1%

Revenue Per Pupil:   Local Revenue $2,245 $2,436 9% State Revenue (total) $3,869 $4,733 22% State Revenue (NSLA) $0 $383 NA State Revenue (ALE) $5 $42 740% State Revenue (ELL) $4 $8 100% Federal Revenue $997 $1,049 5% Total Per Pupil

Revenue: $7,110 $8,902 25%

RO2: Overall Per Pupil Spending Change

Category2003-04

Actual2004-05

Actual% Change

03-04 to 04-05

Expenditures Per Pupil: Instruction $3,706 $4,604 24% Instructional Support $242 $395 63% Pupil Support $240 $325 35% Site Administration $327 $414 27% Central Administration $310 $304 -2% Maintenance & Operations $567 $676 19% Food & Other $336 $388 15%

Total Current Expenditures $6,113 $7,489 23%

RO2: Disadvantaged Student Changes?

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

Current Expenditures Per Pupil (without transportation)

RO2: Where did the money go? 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

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

Low Wealth High Wealth

RO2: Where did the money go? 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

27% NSLA 87% NSLA

Districts with more NSLA students have more resources and more new resources

Incr

ease

RO2: Disadvantaged Student Changes?

• More disadvantaged districts receiving more– Lowest wealth districts increased by 22%

(High Wealth 10%) – measured by property value– Highest poverty districts increased by 23%

(Low Poverty 19%) – measured by percent FRL

• We find that targeted funds went to:– Districts with more NSLA students– Districts with more non-white students– Districts with more students struggling in ACTAAP– Districts with declining enrollments

Conclusions

• RO1: Pre-reforms– Even after adjusting for COL, Arkansas spends

among the lowest states on education per pupil and has low teacher salaries. Comments about inadequate funding may be valid.

– Arkansas appears to be in the top ½ of states with regard to equity. Comments regarding inequitable distribution may be unwarranted.

• RO2: Post-reforms– Overall funding increases– Targeted increases for disadvantaged students– Questions remain…

Recent Litigation in Arkansas

Update of Current Reforms

Timeline of School Reform

• April 2005: Legislature sets aside $104 million to improve facilities but delays an increase in base school funding level.

• April 2005: 49 districts request State Supreme Court to reopen Lake View case over lack of base funding increase.

• June 2005: State Supreme Court agrees and reappoints Special Masters to take testimony and issue report by October 1, 2005.

• Oct. 2005: Special Masters issue report calling for increased funding.

• Dec. 2005: Supreme Court concurs with Special Masters; demands that legislature make reparations by January 2007.

After the Study: The Magic $5,400

• After the adequacy study and the state’s reforms in 03-04 related to funding, accountability, and consolidation ….

• In January 2004, the Arkansas Supreme Court recalled its mandate in Lake View and appointed Special Masters to review what the Legislature had done.

• Both the Special Masters and the Court blessed the actions of the General Assembly and ended the case in June 2004.

2005 Update

• Some changes were made to the funding formulae, but the base amounts of funding remained the same (magic $5400 plus).

• On the day that the General Assembly recessed, multiple school districts petitioned the Arkansas Supreme Court to recall its mandate, reappoint the Special Masters, and hold the State in contempt for not following the mandate in Lake View 2002.

• The Court did the first two.

2005 Update

• In the summer of 2005, some 40 depositions were taken and two weeks of live testimony was done in front of the Special Masters.

• There were – among others – three main issues:– Non-compliance with Act 57– No increase in the basic levels of funding– New mandates on school districts that were

not funded.

2005 Update

• The Special Masters ruled for the Plaintiffs on all issues.

• The Supreme Court concurred on December 15, 2005. But . . .– The Court did not define what or where basic

funding levels should have been increased to,

– Nor did the Court define what was or was not an “unfunded mandate.”

– Nor did the Court explain how an Act 57 Study could be accomplished without sufficient data.

2005 Update

• The December 2005 Supreme Court ruling offers little to no guidance as to what the State is supposed to do, other than that the State did not do enough in the 2005 Regular Session.

Hot Topics in AR Education Reform

Key Questions

• Adequacy re-calibration study underway – Will we need to change funding every

year?

– Is this fair to other services?

• Are schools spending money effectively?

• How can we do this?

• THANKS!

District Consolidation• Which schools closed?

Receiving School (m=366) School closed (m=117)

Greenland Winslow High

Fouke McRae High

Beebe Cord-Charlotte High

August Holly Grove High

Clarendon Grady Campus

Star City Gould High

Dumas Lake View campus

Barton-Lexa Mt. Holly High

Smackover Arkansas City High

McGehee Bright Star High

Cedar Ridge Cotton Plant High

High Schools Affected

74

48 46

32 32 34

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

% Poor % Minority % Pass Lit G11

11 Closed HS 11 Receiving HS

District Consolidation

Challenges with data collection:

• Incomplete data from ADE

• Compiling lists through newspaper and online searches

Considerations:

• Only high school level data is currently available

Future work:

• New list of consolidated schools will be available October 1st from ADE

• Comparing the schools involved in consolidation with state-wide averages

• Policy brief on consolidation findings

Superintendent Survey

• How are districts using new funding increase? Is new categorical funding making a difference?

• Are superintendents satisfied with the quantity & quality of teachers hired over past 3 years? How impacted by NCLB?

Methods & Challenges

• Mailed surveys to 253 superintendents

• Mix of quantitative (scaled) & qualitative (open-response) questions

• Coded & analyzed qualitative data

• Survey Challenges– Low response rate: 34% (Representative? Short

turnaround? Bad timing? Mailed vs. e-mailed?)

– Still following-up with non-respondents via e-mail & re-mailing surveys

– Handling missing data & interpreting results

– Don’t ask multiple-response questions!

Preliminary Results

Potential problems with validity?

To what extent do you agree with the following statements?

Agree/ Strongly

Agree

Nearly all teachers who apply to work in my district are highly qualified.

85%

My district has adequate funding to attract enough highly-qualified teachers.

32%

The current funding level in my district is sufficient to provide an adequate education to all students.

31%

A performance-pay system would help attract more highly-qualified teachers to our district.

40%

The school from which teachers receive their degrees matters a great deal in our hiring.

25%

Qualified Applicants?

Does this differ by discipline?

8%

67%

40%

88%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Math & science Language & socialstudies

Special education Elementaryeducation

Our district is receiving an adequate number of qualified applicants for positions in the following subject areas:

Impact of NCLB?

How is the NCLB “highly-qualified teacher” requirement affecting teacher hiring in your district?

Positive 10%

Negative 32%

Mixed/Too soon to tell 13%

No impact 39%

• Is this surprising?

Superintendent Comments

How are you using new funding?

Professional development 38%

Hiring new teachers 33%

Increasing teacher salaries 31%

Instructional materials 24%

Hiring other staff (i.e., reading coaches) 20%

Other 14%

No new funding/Not enough provided 9%

Smaller class sizes 8%

New programs/classes 7%

Special needs students 5%

Next Steps

• Adequacy re-calibration study underway

• Is more money appropriate or needed?

• Are schools spending money effectively?

• Arkansas Legislature is meeting now!