Education Adequacy and the Funding Matrix - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


PPT – Education Adequacy and the Funding Matrix PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 6fca78-ZjhlY


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation

Education Adequacy and the Funding Matrix


Title: Education Adequacy and the Funding Matrix Author: m.mertens Last modified by: Karen Dean Created Date: 10/15/2010 8:01:03 PM Document presentation format – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:38
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 42
Provided by: m1264


Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Education Adequacy and the Funding Matrix

Education Adequacy and the Funding Matrix
  • Foundation Funding for the Public Schools of

Kathy Hanlon Rogers Public Schools
Also know as.. The Matrix Reloaded
Background Information
  • May 25, 2001 Judge Collins Kilgore in Pulaski
    County Circuit Court found that the Arkansas
    system of public education was unconstitutional.
  • Commonly known as the Lake View Case.
  • Judge Kilgore declared that the school finance
    system was both inequitable and inadequate.

Background Information cont
  • November 21, 2002 The Arkansas State Supreme
    Court upheld Judge Kilgores ruling and agreed
    that the school finance system of Arkansas was
    both inequitable and inadequate.
  • State was not meeting its constitutional
    commitment to maintain a general, suitable and
    efficient system of free public schools.

Background Information cont
  • The Supreme Court held that as part of the
    remedy, the State must conduct a school finance
    adequacy study, pointing out that such a study
    had been requested in the Courts ruling
    beginning in 1994 and again by Judge Kilgore in
    his 2001 ruling.
  • 15 years of litigation.

Background Information cont
  • 2003 The General Assembly created the Joint
    Committee on Education Adequacy.
  • The newly-formed Joint Committee on Educational
    Adequacy contracted with Lawrence Picus and
    Associates (school funding experts) to assist the
  • in carrying out its charge to conduct an
    Adequacy Study.

Education Adequacy Study
  • Educational adequacy is defined as
  • The standards included in the states curriculum
    frameworks, which define what all Arkansas
    students are to be taught
  • The standards included in the states testing
    system. The goal is to have all, or all but the
    most severely disabled, students perform at or
    above proficiency on these tests and
  • Sufficient funding to provide adequate resources
    as identified by the General Assembly.

Education Adequacy Study cont
  • This definition of educational adequacy is
    consistent with the statutory language quoted by
    the Arkansas Supreme Court in the Lakeview Case.
  • The JC on Educational Adequacy together with
    Picus devoted 4 months to the study and review of
    AR school finance in adequacy issues to determine
    this definition and cost of an adequate education
    in AR. (2003)

Education Adequacy Study cont
  • September 1, 2003 An Evidence-Based Approach to
    School Finance Adequacy in Arkansas was filed
    with the General Assembly and the Governor.
  • evidenced-based.
  • ingredients needed to deliver quality
  • adequate expenditure level for each ingredient.
  • aggregating to a total cost.
  • based on existing models of comprehensive school
  • design rather than just making judgments.

Education Adequacy Study cont
  • The 2003 Picus Report including funding and
    staffing recommendation based on a school size of
    500 students.
  • Then Senator Dave Bisbee is widely credited with
    converting that school-based funding formula to a
    matrix used to determine the per-pupil level of
    foundation funding.
  • Actually called the Bisbee Matrix for awhile.

Education Adequacy Study cont
  • The Legislature adopted the Bisbee matrix during
    the 2nd Extraordinary Session of 2003.
  • Also passed Act 57 of 2003 which requires the
    legislature to conduct an adequacy study each
    biennium to assess needs related to providing an
    adequate education.
  • Not even close to being finished!!!

Supreme Court Special Masters
  • After the 2nd Extraordinary Session of 2003, four
    school districts (Rogers, Barton-Lexa, Little
    Rock, and Pulaski County) petitioned the Supreme
    Court to keep the Lakeview Case open for another
  • The Supreme Court appointed (Feb 2004) two
    special masters to examine and evaluate
    legislative and executive actions taken since Nov
    2002 to comply with the courts order and the
    constitutional mandate.

Special Masters Report
  • Funding for education had increased.
  • New special funding provided (NSLA).
  • Doomsday Clause.
  • New accountability requirements.
  • Not sure if the definition of adequacy
  • was what the Court was looking for.

Special Masters Report cont
  • Suggested the retention of small community
    elementary and middle schools and consolidated
    high schools for a greater variety of curricular
  • Noted the increased funding for Early Childhood
    Education was less than half recommended by the
    original Adequacy Study.

Special Masters Report cont
  • Commented on the undeniably substandard school
    buildings found in many school districts.
  • Concluded that much well-intentioned legislation
    is now in place in response to the Courts
    decision. No guarantee that the initiated plan
    will be followed beyond current appropriations.
  • Report filed April 2004.

Supreme Court Ruling
  • In June 2004, the Supreme Court rules that the
    actions of the AR legislature were adequate and
    further action in this matter should await
    implementation of the Acts passed by the
  • End of Lakeview??? Not even close!!!

Fast Forward
  • 2005 Legislative Session.
  • Lake View plaintiffs file motion to reopen the
    suit claiming that 2005 actions by the State were
  • Supreme Court reappoints the special masters.
  • Bradley Jesson and David Newbern, both former
    Arkansas Supreme Court Justices.

Fast Forward cont
  • In Oct 2005, special masters conclude
  • School funding was not adequate. Funding had not
    been increased to adjust for increased costs due
    to inflation.
  • State had not lived up to its promise to make
    education the States first priority.
  • Suggested that the determination of funding
    levels appeared to be a function of available
    resources and not the needs of school districts.

The Supreme Court..
  • Accepted most of the special masters findings
    and recommendations.
  • Held that the State had not conducted an
    appropriation recalibration of the adequacy
    study to ascertain what the funding levels for
    05-06 and 06-07 should be.
  • Established a deadline of December 1, 2006 for
    the Legislature to find a solution.
  • December 15, 2005 Ruling.

Fast Forward Phase 2
  • Special session convened April 2006.
  • Substantial increases in funding.
  • The legislature re-employed Picus and
    Associates, with aid from the BLR, to
    recalibrate the funding levels for AR schools
    for 06-07 and 07-08.
  • This report was submitted August 2006.

Lake View Final Ruling
  • In May 2007, the Arkansas Supreme Court held that
    the States system of funding public schools met
    the constitutional requirements of providing an
    adequate education and substantially equal
    educational opportunity for all public school
    children in Arkansas.

Review Steps to Adequacy
  • 2003 General Legislative Session.
  • JC on Education Adequacy established.
  • 1st Picus Report.
  • 2003 Special Legislative Session.
  • 1st Special Masters Report.
  • 2005 General Legislative Session.
  • 2nd Special Masters Report.
  • 2006 Special Legislative Session.
  • 2nd Picus Report (recalibration).

Behold.the MATRIX
Wait a Minute
  • Repeat after me
  • The Matrix is a Funding Model
  • The Matrix is a Funding Model

Whats the Goal?
  • A dollar amount per child

The Perfect 500 Student School
Its perfect
  • All students come in classroom size lots
  • Teachers are available in the exact FTE amount
    you need
  • No Assistant Principals are needed
  • 1 secretary can do everything

Funding Matrix - Staffing
  • K 40 201 ratio 2 teachers
  • 1-3 115 23 1 ratio 5 teachers
  • 4-12 345 251 ratio 13.8 teachers
  • PE, ART, Music 20 of classroom 4.14 teachers
  • K-12 500 24.94 teachers

Other Staff FTEs
  • Special Education Teachers 2.9
  • Instructional Facilitators 2.5
  • Media Specialist .86
  • Counselor Nurse 2.5
  • Principal 1
  • Secretary 1

Teacher Salaries
  • For 2013-14 used salary benefits 61839
  • So salary would be about 49,450
  • For 2014-15 used salary benefits 63130
  • So salary would be about 50,500

School Level Resources
  • Technology 221.50
  • Instructional Materials 179.90
  • Extra Duty Funds 56.20
  • Supervisory Aides 55.70
  • Substitutes 65.20
  • Total 578.50

Carry Forward
  • What is that?
  • Everything else
  • Operations Maintenance 640.30
  • Central Office 430.20
  • Transportation 315.50

  • Actual expenditures by district vary widely from
    district to district.
  • Much discussion the past several years about
    adding separate funding called high-cost or
    enhanced transportation funding.
  • Distribute this extra funding on a formula based
    on essential linear route miles.

Adequacy Revisited
  • Act 57 of 2003, as amended by Act 1204 of 2007,
    requires the Legislature to conduct an adequacy
    study each biennium to assess needs related to
    providing an adequate education for all Arkansas
    K-12 students.
  • Joint Subcommittee on Educational Adequacy
  • Joint House/Senate Education Committee
    Legislature by September 1st prior to the next
    regular Legislative Session.

Where are we today???
  • The Adequacy Committee has adopted the adequacy
    study and sent to Joint House and Senate
    Education Committees.
  • No decision yet on a recommended inflationary
    factor. Discussion continues on which
    inflationary index to use.
  • No decision yet on an enhanced transportation
    funding recommendation.

Results of Lake View
  • Increased teacher salaries.
  • First statewide plan to improve academic
  • Standardized and improved curriculum
  • School accountability measures.
  • Increased funding to school districts.

  • Continuing disparity of teacher salaries across
    the state.
  • Funding decisions are driven by available funds.
  • Adequacy is a process to be
  • revisited over and over again.

More Challenges
  • Decline of institutional memory as new
    legislators come to Little Rock due to term
  • Inclination to turn the funding matrix into an
    expenditure matrix.

Even More Challenges
  • Aligning the Adequacy Funding Matrix and APSCN
    coding requirements in such a way to create a
    clear picture of school district revenue and
    expenditures. Clear to school personnel and
    clear to legislators.

What can we do?
  • Code correctly
  • Be sure whoever fills out the Adequacy Survey
    understands it and its importance
  • Repeat After Me
  • The Matrix is ..