1 / 25

Putting Hamilton County School Finance into Context

Putting Hamilton County School Finance into Context. David Eichenthal Ochs Center for Metropolitan Studies February 2009. Overview. How does per pupil spending in Hamilton County compare to other school districts?

garren
Télécharger la présentation

Putting Hamilton County School Finance into Context

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Putting Hamilton County School Finance into Context David Eichenthal Ochs Center for Metropolitan Studies February 2009

  2. Overview • How does per pupil spending in Hamilton County compare to other school districts? • Total per pupil spending in Tennessee districts masks real differences by revenue source. • Low level of State funding for education is a significant contributor to the overall problem. • HCDE per pupil spending has grown by 15.4% over five years – compared to 19.3% statewide. Local revenue has increased greater than State average, while federal and State revenue has lagged. • Comparison to other County funds indicate that HCDE spending has grown at comparable or lower rate. • Figuring out the right amount of spending depends on what the ultimate goal is regarding outcomes.

  3. Per Pupil Spending in Hamilton County • Per pupil spending is driven by many factors (e.g. student economic disadvantage/eligibility for federal funding, transportation, number and age of buildings, student/teacher ratios, special education) • Overall, Tennessee school districts spent $8,345 per student in 2007-2008

  4. Per Pupil Spending in Hamilton County • Among nine Tennessee school districts with enrollment > $25,000, Hamilton County had the third highest per pupil spending -- $9,009 per pupil, 8% higher than the State average • Three school districts with highest per pupil spending had the three highest percentages of economically disadvantaged students

  5. Per Pupil Spending in Tennessee

  6. Comparing Per Pupil Spending in Hamilton County to Districts in Other States • While Hamilton County school spending was high compared to the Tennessee average, it was lower that the 2005-2006 statewideaverage in 21 states • Four school districts with enrollment closest to Hamilton County:

  7. Differences by Source of School Funding • More than half – 53.7% -- of HCDE funding is local, 34.4% from the State and 12% Federal funding • By comparison, statewide, 47.8% of school funding is from the State, 41.3% is from local sources and 10.9% Federal

  8. Differences by Source of School Funding • Among nine school districts, in 2007-8, Hamilton County ranked seventh in per pupil funding from the State • Among nine school districts, in 2007-8, Hamilton County ranked third in per pupil funding from the Federal government • Among nine school districts, in 2007-8, Hamilton County ranked second in per pupil funding from local funding

  9. Sources of School Funding2007-8

  10. State Funding for Education • 2005-2006 Census Bureau data suggests that Tennessee ranked 47th among states in total per pupil spending -- $6,882.67 compared to a national average of $9,138.89 • Tennessee ranks 44th in State per pupil spending -- $2,975.79 compared to a national average of $4,536.59

  11. Top Five New York - $14,884.31 New Jersey - $14,629.86 Vermont - $12,613.70 Connecticut - $12,322.63 Massachusetts - $11,980.91 Bottom Five Oklahoma - $6,960.95 Tennessee - $6,882.67 Arizona - $6,471.82 Idaho - $6,440.40 Utah - $5,436.67 Total Statewide Per Pupil Spending 2005-6

  12. Per Pupil State Spending • Vermont - $10, 992.75 • Hawaii - $8,874.62 • Delaware - $7,505.53 • Alaska - $6,480.53 • Minnesota - $6,461.42 • New York - $6,415.50 • New Jersey - $6,040.15 • Arkansas - $5,820.24 • New Mexico - $5,760.48 • Michigan - $5,674.36 44. Tennessee - $2,975.79

  13. State Funding for Education • Tax policy may affect State funding levels for education, but it is not dispositive • Among eight states without an income tax (not including Alaska), total per pupil spending was $7,907.90 (compared to $9,138.89 national average) and State per pupil spending was $4,102.63 (compared to $4,536.59 national average) • Per pupil spending in Wyoming and New Hampshire exceeded national average

  14. State Spending Adjusted for Cost of Living • ACCRA data for metropolitan areas suggest that Tennessee may have lowest cost of living in U.S. • Using ACCRA data and adjusting for cost of living, Tennessee per pupil spending was $7,812.34 – 38th in the nation and lower than average of $8,768.01 per state • State per pupil spending in Tennessee is $3,377.74 – less than average of $4,339.36 – and 38th in nation

  15. Change in Per Pupil SpendingFY 2004 – FY 2008

  16. Changes in Per Pupil Spending Since 2003-2004 • Statewide, per pupil spending is up by 19.3%: HCDE per pupil spending is up 15.4% – 7th out of nine districts • Increase in Federal per pupil spending in Hamilton County (3.3%) was 8th among nine districts and lagged behind the statewide increase of 14% • Increase in State per pupil spending in Hamilton County (19.2%) was 6th among nine districts and lagged behind the statewide increase of 26.1% • Increase in local per pupil spending in Hamilton County (16.3%) was 3rd among nine districts, ahead of the statewide increase (13.5%) and trailing only Knox County (22.5%) and Memphis (16.8%)

  17. HCDE Spending Growth Compared to Other Hamilton County • Actual growth in HCDE spending has generally tracked other County funds. Part of General Fund growth is attributable to school construction debt.

  18. Increased Funding Scenarios: Effect on Per Pupil Spending

  19. Does Hamilton County Have Too Many Buildings or Too Many Teachers? • In 2006-7, there were 188 public school districts in U.S. with enrollment between 25,000 and 49,999 (NCES) • Students per building • Mean: 713.4 • Median: 676 with a range of 315.5 to 2282 • Students per teacher • Mean: 17.0 • Median: 16.3 with a range of 10.1 to 30.8

  20. Does Hamilton County Have Too Many Buildings or Too Many Teachers? • Hamilton County (based on 2006-7 NCES data) has 524 students per building, 26.6% less than national average • Hamilton County has 13.6 students per teacher, 20% less than national average

  21. Does Hamilton County Have Too Many Buildings or Too Many Teachers? • Center for Public Education summary of research on small schools: • Small schools work. Thirty-five years of research shows students in small schools were more satisfied, more academically productive, more likely to participate in school activities, better behaved, and less likely to drop out. Lee, Smith and Croninger found the optimal high school size to be 600 to 900 students. • However, small schools are “not the fail-safe magic bullet which reform seekers continue to hope for” (Raywid). There has to be accompanying changes in instruction in order to improve outcomes.

  22. Does Hamilton County Have Too Many Buildings or Too Many Teachers? • Center for Public Education summary of research found that: • Smaller classes in the early grades (K-3) can boost student academic achievement; • A class size of no more than 18 students per teacher is required to produce the greatest benefits and a program spanning grades K-3 will produce more benefits than a program that reaches students in only one or two of the primary grades; • Minority and low-income students show even greater gains when placed in small classes in the primary grades; • The experience and preparation of teachers is a critical factor in the success or failure of class size reduction programs and reducing class size will have little effect without enough classrooms and well-qualified teachers; and • Supports, such as professional development for teachers and a rigorous curriculum, enhance the effect of reduced class size on academic achievement.

  23. What are the Desired Outcomes?

  24. Elements of a School Closing Policy – Seattle Public Schools • Target: How do closures or program moves relate to our students’ academic needs and strengthen our fiscal health • Public Process: Website postings, public hearings at schools proposed for closure, school board hearings • Specific criteria for school closing decisions: • Geographic Need: Balance capacity across the district to ensure the appropriate number of seats in geographic areas • Building consolidation • Cost per pupil • Proximity: Whether other nearby schools serve same grade levels • Academic Performance

More Related