Analysis of Expenditure Changes post-Act 59 – Initial Findings Prepared for the Arkansas Senate Office for Education Policy University of Arkansas March 21, 2006

Office for Education Policy Slide 2Gary Ritter & Joshua Barnett Note Regarding Initial Findings These findings are only preliminary and are based on the data available at the time of publication. We do have some concern with the revenue and expenditure categories. The bulk of the data presented here rely on current expenditures, and it is possible that the growth in current expenditures is overstated by as much as $300 per pupil (our original estimates revealed increases of $1,200 per pupil, which may be revised down to $900 per pupil). Overall the figures may be changed, however, we believe the trends found in the following tables, where the increases in funding were targeted towards more disadvantaged students, remain correct. We anticipate having corrected figures and resubmitting them to the Legislature by May 1, 2006.

Office for Education Policy Slide 3Gary Ritter & Joshua Barnett Motivating Questions Act 59 increased resources for education in Arkansas Two overarching questions: 1.Where did the $ go? 2.Did performance improve? First Set of Analyses: 1.Did overall funding increase? 2.Are funds targeted toward more disadvantaged districts? 3.Have teacher salaries increased? 4.Are there any early signs of performance improvement?

Office for Education Policy Slide 4Gary Ritter & Joshua Barnett Overview of Changes in Spending: Preliminary Results Property Tax Revenue up 9% State General Revenue up 23% Total Revenue up 26% Current Expenditures up 13%

Office for Education Policy Slide 5Gary Ritter & Joshua Barnett II. Composition of Revenue

Office for Education Policy Slide 6Gary Ritter & Joshua Barnett Questions Have funds been targeted to students who have been disadvantaged in the past in Arkansas? How are resources allocated to the average: High Poverty Student? Non-White Student?

Office for Education Policy Slide 7Gary Ritter & Joshua Barnett Current Expenditures per Pupil (no transportation) Student Group 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

Office for Education Policy Slide 8Gary Ritter & Joshua Barnett Targeted Spending Questions? Are more disadvantaged districts receiving more resources? Lowest wealth districts increased by 22% (High Wealth 10%) Highest poverty districts increased by 23% (Low Poverty 19%) Funds are targeted so that these districts receive higher levels of school funding: Districts with more NSLA students Districts with more non-white students Districts with more students struggling in ACTAAP Districts with declining enrollments

Office for Education Policy Slide 9Gary Ritter & Joshua Barnett Current Expenditures (minus transportation) by Assessed Valuation Per Pupil Low WealthHigh Wealth The red line has “flattened” and resources distributed more evenly by wealth

Office for Education Policy Slide 10Gary Ritter & Joshua Barnett Current Expenditures (minus transportation) by Percent of NSLA Students 87% NSLA27% NSLA Increase Districts with more NSLA students have more resources and more new resources

Office for Education Policy Slide 11Gary Ritter & Joshua Barnett Current Expenditures (minus transportation) by Percent of Non-White Students % non-white % non-white Districts with more minority students continue to have more resources

Office for Education Policy Slide 12Gary Ritter & Joshua Barnett Current Expenditures (minus transportation) by Percent Proficient or Above on ACTAAP 67% Pro+Adv27% Pro+Adv Districts with the most failing students are targeted with additional resources

Office for Education Policy Slide 13Gary Ritter & Joshua Barnett Current Expenditures (minus transportation) by District Growth Rate -22% enrollment+20% enrollment Districts with declining enrollment have more new resources Increase

Office for Education Policy Slide 14Gary Ritter & Joshua Barnett NSLA Targeted Funds NSLA funding is helping to drive the resources targeted toward more disadvantaged districts Patterns on each of the figures that follow show clear trends in which the neediest districts receive the most resources

Office for Education Policy Slide 15Gary Ritter & Joshua Barnett NSLA Categorical Funds per Pupil by District Growth Rate -22% enrollment+20% enrollment

Office for Education Policy Slide 16Gary Ritter & Joshua Barnett NSLA Categorical Funds per Pupil by Assessed Valuation Per Pupil Low WealthHigh Wealth

Office for Education Policy Slide 17Gary Ritter & Joshua Barnett NSLA Categorical Funds per Pupil by Percent of NSLA Students 27% NSLA87% NSLA

Office for Education Policy Slide 18Gary Ritter & Joshua Barnett NSLA Categorical Funds per Pupil by Percent of Non-White Students % non-white % non-white

Office for Education Policy Slide 19Gary Ritter & Joshua Barnett NSLA Categorical Funds per Pupil by Percent Proficient or Above on ACTAAP 27% Pro+Adv67% Pro+Adv

Office for Education Policy Slide 20Gary Ritter & Joshua Barnett NSLA Categorical Funds per Pupil by District Size 375 enrollment7,800 enrollment

Office for Education Policy Slide 21Gary Ritter & Joshua Barnett District Size Question ? How much was spent in the average “small” school district (or rural school district) before and after Act 59? Current Expenditures = $6,294 Current Expenditures = $7,516

Office for Education Policy Slide 22Gary Ritter & Joshua Barnett Current Expenditures (minus transportation) by District Size 375 enrollment7,800 enrollment Increase Biggest increases for small and mid- sized districts

Office for Education Policy Slide 23Gary Ritter & Joshua Barnett Teacher Salary Questions ? Did beginning teacher salaries change? New teacher salary = $27,218 New teacher salary = $30,070 Did average teacher salaries change? Average teacher salary = $39,409 Average teacher salary = $41,489 In what type of districts have beginning teacher salaries changed? Small Districts (10% in smallest, 5% overall) Poor Districts (7% in poorest, 5% overall) 10% 5%

Office for Education Policy Slide 24Gary Ritter & Joshua Barnett Average Teacher Salary by District Size 375 enrollment7,800 enrollment Biggest increases on the left side of the figure in the small districts

Office for Education Policy Slide 25Gary Ritter & Joshua Barnett Average Teacher Salary by Assessed Valuation Per Pupil $32,000 per pupil$122,000 per pupil Biggest increases on the left side of the figure in the less wealthy districts

Office for Education Policy Slide 26Gary Ritter & Joshua Barnett Results of Spending Since Act 59 – expenditures increased overall (by 13%) and particularly in districts with high minority and high poverty students. Of course, the ultimate objective of these targeted increases is to improve student performance.

Office for Education Policy Slide 27Gary Ritter & Joshua Barnett Scored at or just below the national average on the th and 8th grade math and literacy NAEP exams One of only two states to make significant improvement on 4th and 8th grade math and literacy NAEP exams ( th grade; th grade) NAEP Advances

Office for Education Policy Slide 28Gary Ritter & Joshua Barnett * * NAEP – Grade 4 Mathematics

Office for Education Policy Slide 29Gary Ritter & Joshua Barnett * NAEP – Grade 4 Reading

Office for Education Policy Slide 30Gary Ritter & Joshua Barnett * NAEP – Grade 8 Mathematics

Office for Education Policy Slide 31Gary Ritter & Joshua Barnett NAEP – Grade 8 Reading

Office for Education Policy Slide 32Gary Ritter & Joshua Barnett 108% increase in Advanced Placement exam participation from to Highest yearly percent increase in AP exam participation rates in the 50-year history of AP. Recognition for AP Offerings

Office for Education Policy Slide 33Gary Ritter & Joshua Barnett The resources appear to be in place, now what? Now, our challenge appears to finding effective and innovative ways to employ the additional resources to improve student performance. Final Thoughts

Office for Education Policy Slide 34Gary Ritter & Joshua Barnett How to Contact: Gary W. Ritter Associate Professor of Education Policy Director, Office for Education Policy Department of Education Reform University of Arkansas Fayetteville, AR