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 EnrollmentSTATE # 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

Whit

eBlac

k

Hispan

icAsia

n

Am India

n0

20

40

60

8082.3

1.113.4

1.6 1.6

% Ethnicity

% Eth-nicity

Whit

eBlac

k

Hispan

icAsia

n

Am India

n0

20

40

60

8080.8

1.413.2

3.1 1.5

% Ethnicity

%Ethnic-ity

State Enrollment by Ethnicity

Colorado Arizona

Whit

eBlac

k

Hispan

icAsia

n

Am India

n0

20

40

6061.9

6

27.6

3.3 1.2

% Ethnicity

Whit

eBlac

k

Hispan

icAsia

n0

1020304050 45.4

5.4

41

2.6 5.6

% Ethnicity

State Enrollment by Ethnicity

Nevada New Mexico

Whit

eBlac

k

Hispan

icAsia

n

Am India

n0

1020304050 44.4

11.1

35.4

7.61.6

% Ethnicity

% Eth-nicity

Whit

e

Black

Hispan

icAsia

n

Am India

n0

102030405060

30.6

2.6

54.6

1.310.9

%. Ethnicity

%. Ethnic-ity

State Enrollment by Ethnicity

Children and Youth with Special NeedsState/

JurisdictionNumber 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 Region States’ % 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 3.4CO $47,490 25 $46,358 38 2.2ID $44,099 41 $48,487 28 -2.0NV $47,710 24 $45,178 41 1.2NM $45,112 38 $50,067 22 -0.3UT $41,615 49 $45,752 39 9.0US $52,800 $42,33

5-3.7

Average Classroom Teacher Salaries-Current and Constant Dollars 1990-2010

OUTPUTS

Graduation Rates

AZ CO ID NV NM UT U.S.

01020304050607080

19972007

Dropout Rates

AZ CO ID NV NM UT U.S.012345678

6.7 6.4

2

5.1 5.24.2 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 SystemDevelopment 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 $1271Colorado $771 $541 $411 $242 $1592

Idaho $997 $614 $291 $180 $1264Nevada $720 $437 $566 $258 $1523

New Mexico

$1626 $628 $424 $238 $1641Utah $816 $478 $311 $180 $1268U.S.

Median$117

6$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 petition X X XGrade 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

grantsTransportation Categorica

l density formula

Categorical density formula

X XCategorical

outside formula

Categorical outside formula

Revenue/Expenditure

Limits XEssentiall

y eliminate

dState Support

NonpublicSchools

X

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 XEnglish

Language Learner/Bilingu

al FundingX 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