Putting Hamilton County School Finance into Context

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: • Student economic disadvantage • 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 SpendinginHamilton 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. Differences by Source of School Funding

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

8. Sources of School Funding2007-2008

9. 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:

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

11. Total Statewide Per Pupil Spending 2005-2006

12. Per Pupil State Spending 1. Vermont - $10, 992.75 2. Hawaii - $8,874.62 3. Delaware - $7,505.53 4. Alaska - $6,480.53 5. Minnesota - $6,461.42 6. New York - $6,415.50 7. New Jersey - $6,040.15 8. Arkansas - $5,820.24 9. New Mexico - $5,760.48 10. 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: • 3.3% - was 8th among nine districts and lagged behind the statewide increase of 14% • Increase in State per pupil spending: • 19.2% - was 6th among nine districts and lagged behind the statewide increase of 26.1% • Increase in local per pupil spending: • 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. Actual growth in HCDE spending has generally tracked other County funds. Part of General Fund growth is attributable to school construction debt. HCDE Spending Growth Compared to Other Hamilton County Dollars are in millions.

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% fewer than national average Hamilton County has 13.6 students per teacher, 20% fewer 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; • Theexperience 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. What are the Desired Outcomes? Whether Hamilton County has too many buildings or too many teachers depends on: the desired outcomes in student performance the degree to which small schools and low teacher:student ratio is an effective means of achieving those outcomes in Hamilton County the cost and benefit of alternative approaches Reducing government spending is actually relatively easy – doing it without impacting desired outcomes is hard

25. 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