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 What’s 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 (< 10%) In general, improved teaching and learning is at the heart of coherent education policy, but …

10. State Role Since the mid-19 th 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.

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 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.

20. 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

21. 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.”

22. 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.

23. 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

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 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.

26. Special Legislative Session 2003 – DEC. 3: Huckabee calls special legislative session to start Monday, Dec. 8 th.

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 Formulas Policy 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 Cost of Education? = 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 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

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 (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

41. 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

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 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

44. 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

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. Where’s 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$8,044 US Avg. - AR$-150$-698$-1,764$1,562-$711 AR Rank of 51 (high=1)4951484235

53. RO1: Adequacy – Teacher Salary American 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 US Avg. – AR -$7,045$7,449-$8,341-$3,634 AR Rank of 51 (high=1) 42444635

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 Arkansas0.62 $24 Louisiana0.40 -$715 Mississippi0.62 -$37 Missouri0.72 $22 Oklahoma0.99 $121 Tennessee0.49 $530 Texas1.02 -$588 US Average1.69-$907 AR Rank of 49 States (most equitable=1)2318

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 Membership447,872450,9101% Revenue Per Pupil: Local Revenue$2,245$2,4369% State Revenue (total)$3,869$4,73322% State Revenue (NSLA)$0$383NA State Revenue (ALE)$5$42740% State Revenue (ELL)$4$8100% Federal Revenue$997$1,0495% Total Per Pupil Revenue:$7,110$8,90225%

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$4,60424% Instructional Support$242$39563% Pupil Support$240$32535% Site Administration$327$41427% Central Administration$310$304-2% Maintenance & Operations$567$67619% Food & Other$336$38815% Total Current Expenditures$6,113$7,48923%

59. RO2: Disadvantaged Student Changes? Student Group2003-042004-05Change 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)

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 WealthHigh Wealth

61. RO2: Where did the money go? Current Expenditures (minus transportation) by Percent of NSLA Students 27% NSLA87% NSLA Districts with more NSLA students have more resources and more new resources Increase

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 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.

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 (m=366)School closed (m=117) GreenlandWinslow High FoukeMcRae High BeebeCord-Charlotte High AugustHolly Grove High ClarendonGrady Campus Star CityGould High DumasLake View campus Barton-LexaMt. Holly High SmackoverArkansas City High McGeheeBright Star High Cedar RidgeCotton 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 1 st 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 –Don’t ask multiple-response questions!

79. 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%

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? Positive10% Negative32% Mixed/Too soon to tell13% No impact39% Is this surprising?

82. Superintendent Comments How are you using new funding? Professional development38% Hiring new teachers33% Increasing teacher salaries31% Instructional materials24% Hiring other staff (i.e., reading coaches)20% Other14% No new funding/Not enough provided9% Smaller class sizes8% New programs/classes7% Special needs students5%

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