CHALLENGES IN DEMOGRAPHICS, FUNDING, AND POLICY INNOVATION DR. TERESA S. JORDAN DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP/UNLV BROOKINGS WEST CONFERENCE OCTOBER 8, 2010 Public Education Policy in the Intermountain West Region:
CHALLENGES IN DEMOGRAPHICS, FUNDING,
AND POLICY INNOVATION
DR. TERESA S. JORDANDEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL
LEADERSHIP /UNLVBROOKINGS WEST CONFERENCE
OCTOBER 8 , 2010
Public Education Policy in the Intermountain West
Region:
Purpose
Present comparative baseline education data for the six states in Intermountain West Region
Discuss current state funding allocation system
Look to future policy challenges
Are We Making Progress?
“ The root of the matter is that the public school system in the United States is not adequately efficient as an education force. For reasons of faulty administration, indifference of parents and children, lack of adequate motivation in instruction, and the hardship of economic times, the public school system does not reach and hold its children.”
-from 1910 education journal
INPUTSSTUDENT ENROLLMENT
ETHNICITYSPECIAL NEEDS
AVERAGE TEACHER SALARIES
OUTPUTSGRADUATION RATES
DROPOUT RATESSTUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
Demographics
INPUTS
Student Enrollment
STATE # Districts Student
Arizona 608 1,077,800Colorado 178 830,146Idaho 131 281,003Nevada 17 441,808New Mexico
89 328,882
Utah 41 490,377Regional Enrollment 3,450,016
State’s % of Regional Enrollment
31.25%
24.06%
8.14%
12.80%
9.53%
14.21%
7.04% of Total U.S. Enrollment
AZCOIDNVNMUT
Idaho Utah
Whi
te
Black
Hispa
nic
Asian
Am In
dian
0
20
40
60
8082.3
1.113.4
1.6 1.6
% Ethnicity
% Eth-nicity
Whi
te
Black
Hispa
nic
Asian
Am In
dian
0
20
40
60
8080.8
1.413.2
3.1 1.5
% Ethnicity
%Ethnic-ity
State Enrollment by Ethnicity
Colorado Arizona
Whi
te
Black
Hispa
nic
Asian
Am In
dian
0
20
40
6061.9
6
27.6
3.3 1.2
% Ethnicity
Whi
te
Black
Hispa
nic
Asian
0
10
20
30
40
50 45.4
5.4
41
2.6 5.6
% Ethnicity
State Enrollment by Ethnicity
Nevada New Mexico
Whi
te
Black
Hispa
nic
Asian
Am In
dian
0
10
20
30
40
50 44.4
11.1
35.4
7.61.6
% Ethnicity
% Eth-nicity
Whi
te
Black
Hispa
nic
Asian
Am In
dian
0102030405060
30.6
2.6
54.6
1.310.9
%. Ethnicity
%. Ethnic-ity
State Enrollment by Ethnicity
Children and Youth with Special Needs
State/Jurisdiction
Number Children At-risk(FRPL-
proxy for poverty)
Number of LEP/ELLChildren
Number Children with IEPs
Total Enrollment
Special Needs
(double counts)
AZ 412,305 149,721 122,314 684,340CO 275,475 85,323 83,076 443,874ID 103,202 16,671 27,989 147,862NV 169,144 46,667 47,672 263,483NM 199,302 61,207 46,404 306,913UT 172,576 46,770 76,273 295,619US
(avg.)390,07
350,235 115,082
States’ % Share in RegionStates’ % Need of Total Enrollment (Double Count)
32%
21%
7%
12%
14%
14%
%Total Enrollment Special Needs
(Double Counts)AZCOIDNVNMUT
AZ CO ID NVNM UT0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
63%
55%
54%61%
93%51%
Proportional Share of Special Needs Students
Average Teachers’ Salaries % Change 2007-08 to 2008-09
State Salaries 07-08
Rank Salaries 08-09
Rank Percent Change
(Constant $$)
AZ $45,772 35 $54,319 16 3.4
CO $47,490 25 $46,358 38 2.2
ID $44,099 41 $48,487 28 -2.0
NV $47,710 24 $45,178 41 1.2
NM $45,112 38 $50,067 22 -0.3
UT $41,615 49 $45,752 39 9.0
US $52,800 $42,335
-3.7
Average Classroom Teacher Salaries-Current and Constant Dollars 1990-2010
OUTPUTS
Graduation Rates
AZ CO ID NV NM UT U.S.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
19972007
Dropout Rates
AZ CO ID NV NM UT U.S.0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
6.7 6.4
2
5.1 5.2
4.2 4.1
% Dropout 2007
NAEP Scores 2009
AZ CO ID NV NM UT U.S.0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
4th Gr Math8th Gr Math4th Gr Reading8th Gr Reading
Consider
Being proactive in creating future policies that support elementary and secondary education yet do not create an unrealistic tax burden on the working age population.
Creating funding allocation systems that support vertical
equity so that districts do not have to divert funds from one group of students to meet the needs of another group because of inadequate resources.
Developing policies that attract and hold the best and
brightest of our teaching force.
Consider
Examining whether or not the current “construct” for high school can meet the needs of 21st century students who will be navigating a global economy.
Examining the effectiveness of differentiated
instructional strategies, the extent to which schools engage their communities, and the degree to which community agencies coordinate and collaborate to address the needs of children in poverty.
BACKGROUND INFORMATIONSTATE FUNDING ALLOCATION SYSTEM
INTERMOUNTAIN WEST STATE FUNDING POLICYCHALLENGES
Financing K-12 Public Education
Complexities of Funding System
Development and maintenance of public school finance systems is a complex process
Requires continuous monitoring and updating due to changing economic and demographic conditions.
Public education is a major enterprise in the U.S. and the dominant employer in many communities. One person in five either attends or is employed in the nation’s public school systems.
Policy Questions
For all the complexity of school finance systems the policy questions are fairly simple
Who or what to fund What amount to fund
Where to get the moneyHow to share the responsibility among
the different levels of government
Overarching School Finance Goals
Equity- the equal treatment of persons in equal circumstances
Adequacy -achieved when programs and learning opportunities are sufficient for a particular purpose
Local District Choice -the local taxpayers and the school board have the authority to establish the budget and set the tax levy for the operation of schools.
State Funding Allocation Systems
5 basic funding formulas Minimum Foundation Program (40 States) District Power Equalizing (3 States) Combination-tiered Program (5 States) Flat Grant (1 State) Full state Funding (1 State)
All Developed in 1920s and 1930sModels antiquated and obsoleteFunding is not linked to state standards and goalsHave knowledge and tools to redesignDo policymakers have the will?
CURRENT OPERATING EXPENDITUREFISCAL CAPACITY
FISCAL EFFORTFORMULAS AND ADJUSTMENTS TO
FORMULASCHALLENGES
Intermountain West State Funding Policies
Current Expenditures*
State Current Expenditures Per Pupil
Arizona $5,932 (50)
Colorado $9,574 (30)
Idaho $7,730 (47)
Nevada $7,615 (48)
New Mexico $10,099 (25)
Utah $5,912 (51)
U.S. Median*Rankings in parentheses
$9,979
Federal, State and Local Share of K-12 Revenue
AZ CO ID NV NM UT U.S.0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
110%
7.80% 8.00% 9.70% 7.80% 13.60% 11.90% 8.90%
52.40%42.80%
67.10%
32.90%
70.40%
52.00%48.80%
39.80%49.20%
23.20%
59.30%
16.00%
36.10% 42.30%
Local
State
Federal
Fiscal Capacity
Capacity is the wealth of a state or the taxpayer ability to support governmental services.
It is typically defined as per capita personal income
Fiscal Capacity
State 2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 2006 2009
Arizona 24,988 25,878 26,183 26,838 30,267 31,936 32,935
Colorado
32,434 33,455 33,276 34,283 37,946 39,491 41,344
Idaho 23,727 24,506 25,057 25,911 28,158 29,920 31,632
Nevada 29,506 30,128 30,180 31,266 35,883 38,994 38,578
New Mexico
21,931 23,081 23,941 25,541 27,644 29,929 32,992
Utah 23,436 24,033 24,306 24,977 28,061 29,406 30,875
United States
29,469 30,413 30,906 31,632 34,586 36,714 39,138
Revenue Sources and Tax Burden Per Capita
State State Income Tax Per Capita
State Corporate
Income Tax Per Capita
State/ Local
Property Tax Per Capita
State Sales Tax Per Capita
State/Local Tax Burden Per Capita
Arizona $530 $122 $991 $1000 $3244 (40)
Colorado $1037 $104 $1180 $473 $4359 (13)
Idaho $951 $126 $752 $890 $3670 (27)
Nevada $0 $0 $1136 $1187 $3245 (39)
New Mexico
$614 $179 $516 $986 $3114 (46)
Utah $962 $146 $777 $729 $3446 (35)
Regional Mean
$682 $113 $892 $876 $3513
U.S.Mean $918 $167 $1277 $794 $4283
Fiscal Effort
Effort is the proportion of per capita personal income spent for a governmental service such as schools
In education it is usually expressed as Per Pupil Expenditures per capita
Fiscal Effort In Intermountain West Per Capita Expenditures
State Public Welfare
Health & Hospital
s
Police & Fire
Protection
Corrections
K-12 Education
Arizona $1029 $447 $458 $244 $1271
Colorado $771 $541 $411 $242 $1592
Idaho $997 $614 $291 $180 $1264
Nevada $720 $437 $566 $258 $1523
New Mexico
$1626 $628 $424 $238 $1641
Utah $816 $478 $311 $180 $1268
U.S. Median
$1176
$508 $344 $189 $1622
Formula AdjustmentsFormulaAdjustments
Arizona Colorado Idaho Nevada New Mexico
Utah
Type of Formula
Foundation Program
Foundation Program
Foundation Program
Foundation Program
Foundation Program
Foundation Program
Density/Sparsity X X
By petitionX X X
Grade Level Weights X X X X X XDistrict/
School size X X X X XDeclining
Enrollment/Growth
X X X X X X
Capital Outlay/Debt Service X
Approved project grants
Equalized project grants
State bond guarantee approved
grants
Transportation Categorical density formula
Categorical density formula
X XCategorical
outside formula
Categorical outside formula
Revenue/Expenditure
LimitsX
Essentially
eliminated
State SupportNonpublic
SchoolsX
Formula Adjustments- Vertical Equity
Special Education
Adjustments by Type
Arizona Colorado
Idaho
Nevada
New Mexic
o
Utah
Per Pupil/Weighting X X X
Cost Reimbursement
UnitAllocation X X
Other XOther Needs Adjustments
Compensatory Education (At-Risk)
X X
English Language
Learner/Bilingual Funding
X Part of Comp Ed X X X
Gifted /Talented Part of Comp Ed X X Category-
ical aid
Challenging Issues
How are the overarching policy goals in school finance being balanced? What happens if one or more goals are ignored?
Support levels for variables within a state’s funding allocation
system appear to be idiosyncratic. Is the variation across systems valid?
Are there ways to better balance some states’ taxing systems to
make them less volatile in economic downturns? How do districts address the stressors to unfunded and
underfunded mandates? What impact, if any, do these have on attaining district accountability goals?
Challenging Issues Con’t
How could states link funding principles to state accountability and productivity goals?
What would a redesigned funding system look like? What
components would a state want to pay for that have a research based rationale for impacting state accountability goals?
These questions could focus a beginning discussion for collaborative dialogue among the region’s state education policymakers. Our antiquated funding mechanisms, designed for another time in history, are not serving us well.
In Summary
Overhaul the state funding allocation system
Link funding to state standards and school improvement efforts
Stop legislating unfunded & underfunded mandates
Stop paying for things that don’t matter; pay for things that impact student learning
Into The Future
Funding Closest to the Client
Performance-Based Pay Systems
Teacher’s Pension Plans
Differentiated Staffing