PLACING ARKANSAS SCHOOL FUNDING DATA IN THE NATIONAL CONTEXT

1

School Reform and School Funding in
Arkansas Spring 2006
Office for Educational Policy University of
Arkansas
Gary Ritter May 2006
2
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
• Whats Next?

3
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.

4
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

5
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!

6
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

7
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?

8
Funding Sources for US Schools
9
Education Policy

• Education is a
• State Responsibility ( 45)
• Local Function ( 45)
• Federal Interest (lt 10)
• In general, improved teaching and learning is at
  the heart of coherent education policy, but

10
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 communitys ability to pay.
• States must also ensure that teacher education
  programs are adequate.

11
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.

12
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

13
School Reform and Litigation in Arkansas

• The Lake View Case and the Special Legislative
  Session of 2003-04
• EDFD 5683
• Issues in Educational Policy

14
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.

15
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

16
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.

17
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

18
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.

19
2001 Chancery Court Ruling (May 25)

• Judge Kilgore rules the states 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.

20
Highlights of the Supreme Court Ruling

• Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts ruling
• Exception - Pre-School Programs
• State has until January 1, 2004 to correct the
  problems
• Results adequacy study and consolidation debate

21
Huckabees Response

• Although Huckabee opposed Kilgores 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 weve got our work cut
out for us.
22
Huckabees 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.

23
Huckabees 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
24
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.

25
Legislature Adjourns

• 2003 APRIL 2 Rural educations reject a
  compromise from Huckabee, calling the offer
  insignificant because he didnt 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 didnt
  understand it when they voted for it.

26
Special Legislative Session

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

27
Main Focuses of Special Session

• Consolidation of Schools
• Student Assessment and Educational Accountability
• Equitable Funding Formula

28
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.

29
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.

30
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

31
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

32
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

33
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.

34
Understanding Education Funding in US AR
35
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

36
State Equalization
amt. Legislature feels like giving/number of
kids
37
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

38
Part 1 How is money generated?

• Local Revenue
• Step 1 Assessed Valuation
• The property value of residents 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

39
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.

40
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 (MO) 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
41
District Distribution (pre- and Post- Act 59)
Total Assessed Valuation 583,919,868
Times 98 Collections Rate 0.98
Assessments Collected 572,241,471
Uniform Tax Rate (MO) 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
Example Fayetteville 2001-2002
42
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.

43
Part 2 Costing Out an Adequate Education

• 3,415 per student is based on personnel factors
• Personnel ratios
• 201 Kindergarten
• 231 Grades 1-3
• 251 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

44
Part 2 What is the magic adequate number?

• More Assumptions School Size (n500)
• 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

45
Magic Number

• 3,415
• 789
• 1,152
• 5,356 per pupil
• Or, 5,400

46
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

47
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

48

Wheres the Money? An Evaluation of the Dramatic
Increases to School Funding in Arkansas
Joshua H. Barnett, University of Arkansas Gary
W. Ritter, University of Arkansas
American Educational Research Association, San
Francisco, CA April 2006
49
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

50
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

51
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

52
RO1 Adequacy - Expenditures
1959- 1960 1979- 1980 1999- 2000 2002-2003 Adjusted 2002-2003
Arkansas 225 1,574 5,628 6,482 7,333
Louisiana 372 1,792 6,256 6,922 7,700
Mississippi 206 1,664 5,356 5,792 6,612
Missouri 344 1,936 6,764 7,495 8,328
Oklahoma 311 1,926 5,770 6,092 6,978
Tennessee 238 1,635 5,521 6,118 6,859
Texas 332 1,916 6,161 7,136 8,027
US Average 375 2,272 7,392 8,044 8,044
US Avg. - AR -150 -698 -1,764 1,562 -711
AR Rank of 51 (high1) 49 51 48 42 35

53
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 40,733
Louisiana 26,411 28,347 36,328 40,390
Mississippi 24,368 27,662 33,295 38,025
Missouri 28,923 33,143 36,053 40,040
Oklahoma 26,514 30,187 32,870 37,646
Tennessee 28,621 34,267 38,515 43,172
Texas 29,719 32,426 39,230 44,110
US Average 34,213 38,436 44,367 44,367
US Avg. AR -7,045 7,449 -8,341 -3,634
AR Rank of 51 (high1) 42 44 46 35
54
RO1 Equity Measures
State Federal Range Ratio 2002-03 Gap between revenues available per student in the highest- and lowest- poverty districts 2002-03
Arkansas 0.62 24
Louisiana 0.40 -715
Mississippi 0.62 -37
Missouri 0.72 22
Oklahoma 0.99 121
Tennessee 0.49 530
Texas 1.02 -588
US Average 1.69 -907
AR Rank of 49 States (most equitable1) 23 18
55
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.

56
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?

57
RO2 Overall Per Pupil Revenue Change
Category 2003-04 Actual 2004-05 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
58
RO2 Overall Per Pupil Spending Change
Category 2003-04 Actual 2004-05 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
59
RO2 Disadvantaged Student Changes?
Current Expenditures Per Pupil (without
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
60
RO2 Where did the money go? Current
Expenditures (minus transportation) by Assessed
Valuation Per Pupil
The red line has flattened and resources
distributed more evenly by wealth
Low Wealth
High Wealth
61
RO2 Where did the money go? Current
Expenditures (minus transportation) by Percent of
NSLA Students
Districts with more NSLA students have more
resources and more new resources
Increase
27 NSLA
87 NSLA
62
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

63
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

64
Recent Litigation in Arkansas

• Update of Current Reforms

65
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.

66
After the Study The Magic 5,400

• After the adequacy study and the states 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.

67
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.

68
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.

69
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.

70
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.

71
Hot Topics in AR Education Reform
72
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?

73

• THANKS!

74
District Consolidation

• Which schools closed?

Receiving School (m366) School closed (m117)
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
75
High Schools Affected
76
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

77
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?

78
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
• Dont ask multiple-response questions!

79
Preliminary Results
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

• Potential problems with validity?

80
Qualified Applicants?

• Does this differ by discipline?

81
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?

82
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
83
Next Steps

• Adequacy re-calibration study underway
• Is more money appropriate or needed?
• Are schools spending money effectively?
• Arkansas Legislature is meeting now!