7.01.2015

Challenges in Urban School Education

The chronic low performance of the nation's urban school systems is one of the most challenging issues facing educators and policymakers today. Not only public authorities but also charitable foundations and businesses have poured their resources, ideas and talents into the task of improving urban schools. Despite these efforts, the future continues to appear bleak for many children in inner-city school districts across the country.

To be sure, urban schools over the past several decades have had to cope with extraordinary challenges. The students they serve are more than twice as likely to be living in poverty as other children, more likely to have difficulty speaking English, less likely to live in a two-parent family, almost twice as likely to be assigned to special education, far more likely to drop out and more likely to move frequently, disrupting their schooling. In addition, urban schools are subject to deteriorating school buildings, inadequate teaching materials and technology, dwindling financial resources, and shortages of qualified and committed teachers, principals and support staff.

States and districts have created and implemented a variety of new, and sometimes radical, approaches to how urban districts are organized and managed. These efforts include initiatives to break urban systems into smaller units, to privatize district operations, to redesign and/or privatize the district's top management and to establish private-school voucher programs. States also are using a variety of funding mechanisms to help induce change and improvement in urban schools districts, including financial incentives, new accounting systems, support for restructuring, and increased support for Head Start and other school readiness programs. In addition, nearly half of the states have established accountability mechanisms that allow state officials to monitor more closely school district performance and to intervene directly in the operation of low-performing districts.

VIA: HERE

6.30.2015

Tennessee Public Schools:Funding

Funding

Funding for Tennessee SchoolsTennessee schools are funded through the Basic Education Plan (BEP). This formula generates a total amount of dollars needed per school system and it also determines the percentages of responsibilities between the state and local funding bodies.

Student enrollment, or Average Daily Membership (ADM), is the main factor in the BEP. The enrollment drives most components of the formula to generate funds (e.g., number of teachers, principals, nurses, and counselors needed per system).

The BEP is a very complex formula which consists of 45 individually calculated components. For more information on the formula, please visithttp://www.tn.gov/sbe/bep.shtml.

Attendance is linked to fundingFamilies and community members want schools to have the funding necessary to provide a safe environment and a quality education for all children. Though details of attaining funding and use of the monies received may seem complicated to some people, there are two areas in which everyone can contribute to their district’s funding of schools.

Be aware of the details of property and sales tax discussions.
Vote in elections when these school funding topics are reflected on the ballot. When elections are held, the schools need voter approval to secure funding for needs such as new schools, remodeling of schools, and additional technology.
Make sure your child attends school.
Student attendance data directly impacts school funding. In Tennessee, districts receive some money based on the Average Daily Attendance (ADA) data. Basically, the figure is calculated by dividing the total number of days present by the number of days taught within the prescribed period of accountability (20 days).

Having a good attendance record helps not only with your child’s learning experiences, but also supports the financial elements of operating a school. Because state funding is based on student attendance, when students are absent, schools lose money! However, all of the costs of operating a school continue at the same rate. This includes items such as teacher and staff pay, utilities, building and grounds maintenance.

Additional information about student attendance is located at the following site:http://www.state.tn.us/tccy/tnchild/49/49-6-3007.htm

Rates of School Crime

(Last Updated: May 2015)

Through nearly two decades of decline, the nonfatal victimization rate for 12- to 18-year-old students at school fell from 181 crimes per 1,000 students in 1992 to 55 per 1,000 students in 2013. The nonfatal victimization rate away from school for these students also declined from 173 to 30 crimes per 1,000 students during the same period.

Between 1992 and 2013, the total nonfatal victimization rate for students ages 12–18 declined both at school¹ and away from school. Included in nonfatal victimizations are theft and all violent crime. Violent crime includes serious violent crime (rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault) and simple assault. Victimization rates for theft, violent crime, and for serious violent crime generally declined between 1992 and 2013 as well.

Figure 1. Rate of total nonfatal victimizations against students ages 12–18 per 1,000 students, by location: 1992–2013

NOTE: Due to methodological changes, use caution when comparing 2006 estimates to other years. "Total victimization" includes theft and violent crimes. "At school" includes inside the school building, on school property, or on the way to or from school.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), 1992–2013. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 228.20.

In 2013, students ages 12–18 reported more total nonfatal victimizations at school than away from school. Students ages 12–18 experienced 1,420,900 victimizations (theft and violent crime) at school, compared with 778,500 victimizations away from school. These data represent total victimization rates of 55 crimes per 1,000 students at school and 30 per 1,000 students away from school. From 1992 to 2013, the rate of crime against students at school declined from 181 to 55 crimes per 1,000 students. Away from school, the rate of crime against students also declined, from 173 to 30 crimes per 1,000 students. Between the two most recent survey years, 2012 and 2013, the total victimization rate for students ages 12–18 did not change measurably at or away from school.

Figure 2. Rate of thefts against students ages 12–18 per 1,000 students, by location: 1992–2013

NOTE: Due to methodological changes, use caution when comparing 2006 estimates to other years. "Theft" includes purse-snatching, pickpocketing, and all attempted and completed thefts, with the exception of motor vehicle thefts. Theft does not include robbery, which involves the threat or use of force and is classified as a violent crime. "At school" includes inside the school building, on school property, or on the way to or from school.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), 1992–2013. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 228.20.

Theft declined both at and away from school between 1992 and 2013. During this period, theft rates declined from 114 to 18 thefts per 1,000 students at school and from 79 to 16 thefts per 1,000 students away from school. The difference between theft rates at school and away from school narrowed from 35 more thefts per 1,000 students at school than away from school in 1992 to no measurable difference in the theft rates per 1,000 students at school compared with away from school in 2013. The rate of theft at school was lower in 2013 (18 per 1,000 students) than in 2011 (26 per 1,000 students) and in 2012 (24 per 1,000 students). The theft rate away from school was lower in 2013 (16 per 1,000 students) than in 2011 (21 per 1,000 students).

Figure 3. Rate of all nonfatal violent victimizations against students ages 12–18 per 1,000 students, by location:
1992–2013

NOTE: Due to methodological changes, use caution when comparing 2006 estimates to other years. "All violent victimization" includes serious violent crimes and simple assault. "At school" includes inside the school building, on school property, or on the way to or from school.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), 1992–2013. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 228.20.

Between 1992 and 2013, nonfatal violent victimization rates decreased both at and away from school. During this period, violent crime declined from 68 to 37 violent victimizations per 1,000 students at school and from 94 to 15 violent victimizations per 1,000 students away from school. In 1992, more violent victimizations occurred away from school (94 per 1,000 students) than at school (68 per 1,000 students); by contrast, in 2013 more violent victimizations occurred at school (37 per 1,000 students) than away from school (15 per 1,000 students). The rate of violent victimization against students at school was higher in 2013 than in 2011 (37 vs. 24 per 1,000 students), although the 2013 rate away from school was not measurably different from the rate in 2011 or 2012.

Figure 4. Rate of nonfatal serious violent victimizations against students ages 12–18 per 1,000 students, by location: 1992–2013

NOTE: Due to methodological changes, use caution when comparing 2006 estimates to other years. "Serious violent victimization" includes rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault. "At school" includes inside the school building, on school property, or on the way to or from school.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), 1992–2013. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 228.20.

The nonfatal serious violent victimization rate at school in 2013 was not measurably different from the rate in 1992 (5 serious violent crimes at school per 1,000 students in 2013 compared with 8 per 1,000 students in 1992). The serious violent crime rate away from school decreased from 43 to 6 crimes per 1,000 students between 1992 and 2013. The difference between serious violent crime rates at school and away from school also narrowed over the past two decades from 35 more serious violent crimes per 1,000 students away from school than at school in 1992 to no measurable difference in the rates of serious violent crimes at school and away from school in 2013. The rates of serious violent victimization at and away from school in 2013 were not measurably different from the rates at and away from school in 2011 or 2012.

Figure 5. Rate of nonfatal victimizations against students ages 12–18 at and away from school per 1,000 students, by type of victimization and age: 2013

! Interpret with caution. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent.
¹ Serious violent victimization is also included in violent victimization.
NOTE: "Total victimization" includes theft and violent crimes. "Theft" includes purse-snatching, pickpocketing, and all attempted and completed thefts, with the exception of motor vehicle thefts. "Violent victimization" includes serious violent crimes and simple assault. "Serious violent victimization" includes rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault. "At school" includes inside the school building, on school property, or on the way to or from school. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), 2013. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 228.25.

Nonfatal victimization rates for students in 2013 varied according to student characteristics. At school, rates of violent victimization and serious violent victimization were higher for younger students (ages 12–14) than for older students (ages 15–18). For example, the rate of violent victimization at school was 52 per 1,000 students for those ages 12–14, compared with 24 per 1,000 students for those ages 15–18. No measurable differences were found by age group in the rates of theft at school. Away from school, no measurable differences were found by age group in the rates of theft, violent victimization, or serious violent victimization.

Figure 6. Rate of nonfatal victimizations against students ages 12–18 at and away from school per 1,000 students, by type of victimization and sex: 2013

Both at school and away from school, the rate of total nonfatal victimization was not measurably different between males and females in 2013. In addition, no measurable differences were detected by sex for theft, violent victimization, or serious violent victimization rates, either at school or away from school.

¹ At school includes inside the school building, on school property, or on the way to or from school.

Data Source: National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)

PDF

Download/View the PDF containing this indicator and corresponding tables and figures. (224 KB)

Reference Tables

Table 228.20 (Digest 2014): Number of nonfatal victimizations against students ages 12-18 and rate of victimization per 1,000 students, by type of victimization, location, and year: 1992 through 2013
Table 228.25 (Digest 2014): Number of nonfatal victimizations against students ages 12-18 and rate of victimization per 1,000 students, by type of victimization, location, and selected student characteristics: 2013

Previous Versions of This Indicator

April 2014 - (585 KB)

May 2013 - (202 KB)

Reading and Mathematics Score Trends

(Last Updated: February 2014)

NAEP long-term trend results indicate that the average reading and mathematics achievement of 9- and 13-year-olds improved between the early 1970s and 2012; however, only 13-year-olds made score gains from 2008 to 2012, and they did so in both subject areas. Average reading and mathematics achievement for 17-year- olds did not change significantly between the early 1970s and 2012 or between 2008 and 2012.

Since the 1970s, the long-term trend National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) has collected periodic information on the reading and mathematics achievement of 9-, 13-, and 17-year-olds enrolled in public and private schools. Long-term trend NAEP results may differ from the main NAEP results presented in other National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) publications since the long-term trend assessment measures a consistent body of knowledge and skills over an extended period, while the main NAEP undergoes changes periodically to reflect current curricula and emerging standards.¹

Figure 1. Average reading scale scores on the long-term trend National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), by age: Selected years, 1971 through 2012

Average reading scale scores on the long-term trend National Assessment of Educational Progress(NAEP), by age: Selected years, 1971 through 2012

NOTE: Includes public and private schools. NAEP scores range from 0 to 500. Several administrative changes were initiated beginning with the 2004 assessment, including allowing accommodations for students with disabilities and for English language learners. To assess the impact of these revisions, two assessments were conducted in 2004, one based on the original assessment and one based on the revised assessment. In 2008 and 2012, only the revised assessment was used.
SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics (2013). The Nation’s Report Card: Trends in Academic Progress 2012 (NCES 2013-456). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C. See Digest of Education Statistics 2013, table 221.85.

The national trend in reading achievement shows improvement at ages 9 and 13, but not at age 17, between the early 1970s and 2012. The average scores for 9- and 13-year-olds in 2012 were higher than those in 1971 (13 and 8 points higher, respectively), but the average score for 17-year-olds in 2012 (287) was not measurably different from the score in 1971. For 9-year-olds, the average score did not change measurably between 2012 (221) and 2008, but it was higher in each of these years than in all previous assessment years. Thirteen-year-olds scored higher in 2012 (263) than in all previous assessment years, including 3 points higher than in 2008. The average score for 17-year-olds in 2012 was not measurably different from the score in 2008.

Figure 2. Average mathematics scale scores on the long-term trend National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), by age: Selected years, 1973 through 2012

Average mathematics scale scores on the long-term trend National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), by age: Selected years, 1973 through 2012

The national trend in mathematics achievement shows improvement at ages 9 and 13, but not at age 17, between the early 1970s and 2012. The average scores for 9- and 13-year-olds in 2012 were higher than those in 1973 (25 and 19 points higher, respectively), but the average score for 17-year-olds in 2012 (306) was not measurably different from the score in 1973. For 9-year-olds, the average score did not change measurably between 2012 (244) and 2008, but it was higher in each of these two years than in all previous assessment years. ² Thirteen-year-olds scored higher in 2012 (285) than in all previous assessment years, including 4 points higher than in 2008. The average score for 17-year-olds in 2012 was not measurably different from the score in 2008.

Closing achievement gaps is a goal of both national and state education policies. The results from the 2012 NAEP long-term trend assessments show some progress toward meeting that goal. For example, from the 1970s to 2012 the White-Black and White-Hispanic score gaps in reading and mathematics narrowed as a result of Black and Hispanic students making larger gains in achievement during that period than White students.

Figure 3. Average reading scale scores on the long-term trend National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) for 13-year-olds, by race/ethnicity: Selected years, 1971 through 2012

Average reading scale scores on the long-term trend National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) for 13-year-olds, by race/ethnicity: Selected years, 1971 through 2012

In reading, the White-Black and White-Hispanic reading gaps narrowed from the 1970s to 2012 at ages 9, 13, and 17, even though the average reading score of White students remained 21 or more points higher than the average scores for Black and Hispanic students in 2012. At age 13, Blacks and Hispanics both made larger gains in reading scores from the 1970s to 2012 than did White students, leading to a narrowing of the White-Black and White-Hispanic score gaps in 2012. From 1971 to 2012, White 13-year-olds had a 9-point gain, and Black 13-year-olds had a 24-point gain. Larger gains for Black than for White 13-year-olds during the period narrowed the White-Black gap from 39 points in 1971 to 23 points in 2012. Similarly, Hispanic students age 13 had a 17-point gain in reading from 1975 to 2012, which narrowed the White-Hispanic gap from 30 points in 1975 to 21 points in 2012. Hispanic 13-year-olds were the only racial/ethnic group to make reading score gains from 2008 to 2012. The White-Hispanic gap for 13-year-olds narrowed 5 points from 2008 to 2012.

Figure 4. Average mathematics scale scores on the long-term trend National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) for 17-year-olds, by race/ethnicity: Selected years, 1973 through 2012

Average mathematics scale scores on the long-term trend National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) for 17-year-olds, by race/ethnicity: Selected years, 1973 through 2012

In mathematics, the White-Black gap narrowed from the 1970s to 2012 at ages 9, 13, and 17, even though the average mathematics score of White students remained 25 or more points higher than the average score for Black students in 2012. The White-Hispanic mathematics gap also narrowed from 1973 to 2012 at ages 13 and 17, but it did not change significantly at age 9. For example, average mathematics scores for 17-year-olds increased 4 points for White students, 18 points for Black students, and 17 points for Hispanic students from 1973 to 2012. As a result, both the White-Black score gap and the White-Hispanic score gap for 17-year-olds narrowed 14 points during this period. For 17-year-old students, the White-Black score gap narrowed from 40 points in 1973 to 26 points in 2012, and the White-Hispanic score gap narrowed from 33 to 19 points over the same period. There were no significant changes, however, from 2008 to 2012 in the White-Black or White-Hispanic score gaps for 17-year-olds.

¹ Several administrative changes, including the addition of allowing accommodations for students with disabilities and for English language learners, were initiated in the 2004 long-term trend assessment and have been carried forward in more recent data collections. Despite these changes to the assessment, the trend analysis is still valid.
² Except in 2004 for the original unrevised assessment. Scores from the original and revised assessments are not directly comparable, and comparisons should be made with caution.

Glossary terms: Achievement gap
Data Source: National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)

PDF

Download/View the PDF containing this indicator and corresponding tables and figures. (154 KB)

Reference Tables

Table 221.85 (Digest 2013): Average National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading scale score, by age and selected student characteristics: Selected years, 1971 through 2012
Table 222.85 (Digest 2013): Average National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) mathematics scale score, by age and selected student characteristics: Selected years, 1973 through 2012

Related Indicators

Previous Versions of This Indicator

April 2013 - (130 KB)

Education Expenditures by Country

(Last Updated: May 2015)

In 2011, the United States spent $11,841 per full-time-equivalent (FTE) student on elementary and secondary education, an amount 35 percent higher than the OECD average of $8,789. At the postsecondary level, U.S. expenditures per FTE student were $26,021, almost twice as high as the OECD average of $13,619.

This indicator uses material from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) report Education at a Glance 2014 to compare countries' expenditures on education using the measures expenditures per full-time-equivalent (FTE) student from both public and private sources and total education expenditures as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP). The OECD is an organization of 34 countries whose purpose is to promote trade and economic growth. Education expenditures are from public revenue sources (governments) and private revenue sources, and include current and capital expenditures. Private sources include payments from households for school-based expenses such as tuition, transportation fees, book rentals, or food services, as well as public funding via subsidies to households, private fees for education services, or other private spending that goes through the educational institution. The total education expenditures as a percentage of GDP measure allows a comparison of countries' expenditures relative to their ability to finance education. Purchasing power parity (PPP) indexes are used to convert other currencies to U.S. dollars (i.e., absolute terms).

A country's wealth (defined as GDP per capita) is positively associated with expenditures per FTE student on education at the elementary and secondary level as well as at the postsecondary level. In terms of OECD countries that reported expenditures per FTE student in 2011 at both the elementary/secondary level and the postsecondary level, each of the 10 countries with the highest GDP per capita (Switzerland, the United States, Norway, Australia, the Netherlands, Austria, Ireland, Denmark, Sweden, and Germany) had education expenditures per FTE student higher than the OECD average at both the elementary/secondary level and the postsecondary level, and each of the 9 countries with the lowest GDP per capita (Mexico, Chile, Turkey, Poland, Hungary, Estonia, the Slovak Republic, Portugal, and the Czech Republic) had education expenditures per FTE student lower than the OECD average at both the elementary/secondary level and the postsecondary level.

Figure 1. Annual expenditures per full-time-equivalent (FTE) student for elementary and secondary education in selected Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, by gross domestic product (GDP) per capita: 2011

Linear relationship between spending and country wealth for 32 OECD countries reporting data (elementary/secondary): r2 = .89; slope = 0.29; intercept = -1264.
NOTE: Data for Luxembourg are excluded from the figure because of anomalies in that country's GDP per capita data. (Large revenues from international finance institutions in Luxembourg distort the wealth of that country's population.) Data for Greece are excluded because expenditure data are not available for 2008, 2009, 2010, or 2011. Expenditure and GDP data for Canada are for 2010. Expenditures for International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) level 4 (postsecondary non-higher-education) are included in elementary and secondary education unless otherwise noted. Expenditure data for Canada, France, Italy, Portugal, and the United States do not include postsecondary non-higher-education.
SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Center for Educational Research and Innovation. (2014). Education at a Glance 2014. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 605.10.

Expenditures per FTE student varied widely across OECD countries. At the elementary and secondary level, expenditures per FTE student in 2011 included low values such as $2,501 for Turkey, $2,765 for Mexico, and $3,203 for Chile. Switzerland had the highest value of $14,623. Expenditures per FTE student at the elementary/secondary level for the United States were $11,841, an amount 35 percent higher than the average of $8,789 for OECD member countries reporting data.

Figure 2. Annual expenditures per full-time-equivalent (FTE) student for postsecondary education in selected Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, by gross domestic product (GDP) per capita: 2011

Linear relationship between spending and country wealth for 32 OECD countries reporting data (postsecondary): r2 = .73; slope = 0.47;
intercept = -2071.
NOTE: Data for Luxembourg are excluded because that country does not report expenditure data for postsecondary institutions. Data for Greece are excluded because expenditure data are not available for 2008, 2009, 2010, or 2011. Expenditure and GDP data for Canada are for 2010.
SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Center for Educational Research and Innovation. (2014). Education at a Glance 2014. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 605.10.

At the postsecondary level, expenditures per FTE student in 2011 included low values such as $7,101 for Chile, $7,868 for Estonia, and $7,889 for Mexico. The United States had the highest postsecondary level expenditures per FTE student at $26,021, which were almost twice as high as the OECD average of $13,619.

Figure 3. Direct expenditures on education as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) for Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries with the highest percentages, by level of education: 2011

¹ Postsecondary non-higher-education included in both secondary and higher education.
NOTE: Postsecondary non-higher-education is included in elementary and secondary education unless otherwise noted. Expenditure data for the United States does not include postsecondary non-higher-education. All institutions total includes expenditures that could not be reported by level of education.
SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Center for Educational Research and Innovation. (2014). Education at a Glance 2014. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 605.20.

Among the OECD countries reporting data in 2011, five countries spent over 7 percent of their GDP on total education expenditures for all institutions combined: Denmark (7.9 percent), Iceland (7.7 percent), the Republic of Korea (7.6 percent), New Zealand (7.5 percent), and Israel (7.3 percent). The United States spent just under 7 percent (6.9 percent) of its GDP on total education expenditures.

In terms of countries' direct expenditures by education level, the percentage of GDP the United States spent on elementary and secondary education (3.7 percent) was slightly lower than the OECD average (3.8 percent). Eleven OECD countries spent less than 3.7 percent of their GDP on elementary/secondary education, 11 countries spent between 3.7 and 4.1 percent, and seven countries spent more than 4.1 percent. New Zealand (5.4 percent) was the OECD country that spent the highest percentage of GDP on elementary/secondary education. At the postsecondary level, spending as a percentage of GDP for the United States (2.7 percent) was higher than the OECD average (1.6 percent) and higher than spending as a percentage of GDP for any other OECD country reporting data. Only two other countries spent more than 2 percent of their GDP on postsecondary education: the Republic of Korea (2.6 percent) and Chile (2.4 percent).

Glossary terms: Expenditures per pupil, Full-time-equivalent (FTE) enrollment, Gross domestic product (GDP), Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Postsecondary education, Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) indexes
Data Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)

PDF

Download/View the PDF containing this indicator and corresponding tables and figures. (146 KB)

Reference Tables

Table 605.10 (Digest 2014): Gross domestic product per capita and public and private education expenditures per full-time-equivalent (FTE) student, by level of education and country: Selected years, 2005 through 2011
Table 605.20 (Digest 2014): Public and private direct expenditures on education institutions as a percentage of gross domestic product, by level of education and country: Selected years, 1995 through 2011

Related Indicators

International Educational Attainment

Previous Versions of This Indicator

January 2014 - (567 KB)

March 2013 - (160 KB)

Public School Expenditures

(Last Updated: May 2015)

From 2000–01 to 2011–12, current expenditures per student in public elementary and secondary schools increased by 11 percent, after adjusting for inflation. Current expenditures per student peaked in 2008–09 at $11,537 and have decreased each year since then. The amount for 2011–12 ($11,014) was 3 percent less than the amount for 2010–11 ($11,332).

Total expenditures for public elementary and secondary schools in the United States amounted to $621 billion in 2011–12, or $12,401 per public school student enrolled in the fall (in constant 2013–14 dollars, based on the Consumer Price Index). These expenditures include $11,014 per student in current expenditures for operation of schools; $1,018 for capital outlay (i.e., expenditures for property and for buildings and alterations completed by school district staff or contractors); and $370 for interest on school debt.

Figure 1. Total expenditures per student in fall enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools, by type of expenditure: 2000–01, 2005–06, 2010–11, and 2011–12

NOTE: Current expenditures, Capital outlay, and Interest on school debt are subcategories of Total expenditures. Capital outlay includes expenditures for property and for buildings and alterations completed by school district staff or contractors. Expenditures are reported in constant 2013–14 dollars, based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), "National Public Education Financial Survey," 2000–01, 2005–06, 2010–11, and 2011–12. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 236.60.

From 2000–01 to 2011–12, current expenditures per student enrolled in the fall in public elementary and secondary schools increased by 11 percent (from $9,904 to $11,014 in constant 2013–14 dollars). Current expenditures per student peaked in 2008–09 at $11,537 and have decreased each year since then. The amount for 2011–12 ($11,014) was 3 percent ($318) less than the amount for 2010–11 ($11,332).

Interest payments on school debt per student in fall enrollment increased by 28 percent (from $289 to $370 in constant 2013–14 dollars) during the period from 2000–01 to 2011–12. Capital outlay expenditures per student in 2011–12 ($1,018) were 22 percent lower than the 2000–01 amount ($1,310) and 7 percent lower than the 2010–11 amount ($1,094); however, there were some fluctuations during this period.

Figure 2. Current expenditures per student in fall enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools, by function of expenditure: 2000–01, 2005–06, 2010–11, and 2011–12

NOTE: Instruction, Student support, Instructional staff services, Operation and maintenance, Administration, Transportation, and Food services are subcategories of Current expenditures. Student support include expenditures for guidance, health, attendance, and speech pathology services. Instructional staff services include expenditures for curriculum development, staff training, libraries, and media and computer centers. Administration includes both general administration and school administration. Transportation refers to student transportation. Expenditures are reported in constant 2013–14 dollars, based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), "National Public Education Financial Survey," 2000–01, 2005–06, 2010–11, and 2011–12. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 236.60.

In addition to being reported by type, expenditures are also reported by function, which describes the activity for which a service or material object is acquired. Per student current expenditures (in constant 2013–14 dollars) increased for most functions between 2000–01 and 2011–12, though expenditures for most functions were lower in 2011–12 than in 2010–11. In 2011–12, instruction—the single largest component of current expenditures—was $6,706 per student, or about 61 percent of current expenditures. Instruction expenditures include salaries and benefits of teachers and teaching assistants as well as costs for instructional materials and instructional services provided under contract. Between 2000–01 and 2011–12, expenditures per student for instruction increased by 10 percent (from $6,093 to $6,706), though they peaked in 2009–10 at $7,059. Expenditures per pupil for instruction for 2011–12 ($6,706) were 3 percent lower than the amount in 2010–11 ($6,932). Expenditures between 2000–01 and 2011–12 for several other major school functions increased more rapidly. However, with the exception of food services, instructional staff services, and transportation services, all function categories peaked within a year of 2009–10. For example, expenditures per student for student support services, such as guidance and health personnel, increased by 25 percent from 2000–01 to 2011–12 (from $492 to $613), but peaked in 2009–10 at $640. Expenditures per student for instructional staff services, including curriculum development, staff training, libraries, and media and computer centers, increased by 13 percent from 2000–01 to 2011–12 (from $453 to $511), but peaked in 2008–09 at $556. The exception to this trend was food services where expenditures per student in 2011–12 were the highest ever reported ($443).

Figure 3. Percentage of current expenditures per student in fall enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools, by type of expenditure: 2000–01, 2005–06, 2010–11, and 2011–12

NOTE: Salaries and benefits, Salaries, Benefits, Purchased services, and Supplies are subcategories of Current expenditures. Purchased services includes expenditures for contracts for food, transportation, or janitorial services, or professional development for teachers. Supplies include expenditures for items ranging from books to heating oil. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), "National Public Education Financial Survey," 2000–01, 2005–06, 2010–11, and 2011–12. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 236.60.

Current expenditures for education can also be expressed in terms of the percentage of funds going toward salaries, benefits, purchased services, or supplies. On a national basis in 2011–12, approximately 80 percent of current expenditures were for salaries and benefits for staff. Approximately 10 percent of current expenditures were for purchased services, which include a wide variety of items, such as contracts for food, transportation, or janitorial services, or for professional development for teachers. Generally speaking, this expenditure distribution shifted only slightly from 2000–01 to 2011–12, when expenditures for purchased services increased from 9 to 10 percent. Eight percent of school expenditures in 2011–12 were for supplies, ranging from books to heating oil. The percentages of expenditures for supplies changed less than one percentage point over the period from 2000–01 to 2011–12. There were, however, shifts within the distribution of salaries and benefits for staff, as the proportion of school budgets for staff salaries decreased from 64 percent in 2000–01 to 59 percent in 2011–12, and the proportion of staff benefits increased from 17 to 22 percent during this period.

Glossary terms: Consumer Price Index (CPI), Current expenditures (elementary/secondary), Expenditures, Total, Public school or institution, Salary
Data Source: Common Core Data (CCD)

PDF

Download/View the PDF containing this indicator and corresponding tables and figures. (121 KB)

Reference Tables

Table 236.10 (Digest 2014): Summary of expenditures for public elementary and secondary education and other related programs, by purpose: Selected years, 1919-20 through 2011-12
Table 236.55 (Digest 2014): Total and current expenditures per pupil in public elementary and secondary schools: Selected years, 1919-20 through 2011-12
Table 236.60 (Digest 2014): Total and current expenditures per pupil in fall enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools, by function and subfunction: Selected years, 1990-91 through 2011-12

Related Indicators

Public School Revenue Sources

Previous Versions of This Indicator

April 2014 - (530 KB)

May 2013 - (137 KB)

Public School Revenue Sources

(Last Updated: May 2015)

From school years 2001–02 through 2011–12, total elementary and secondary public school revenues increased from $553 billion to $620 billion (in constant 2013–14 dollars). During the most recent period from 2010–11 through 2011–12, total revenues for public elementary and secondary schools decreased by about $22 billion, or more than 3 percent.

From school years 2001–02 through 2011–12, total elementary and secondary public school revenues increased from $553 billion to $620 billion (in constant 2013–14 dollars), a 12 percent increase, adjusting for inflation using the Consumer Price Index (CPI). This increase was accompanied by a 4 percent increase in total elementary and secondary public school enrollment, from 48 million students in 2001–02 to 50 million students in 2011–12. Federal revenues increased 89 percent from 2001–02 to 2009–10 (from $44 billion to $82 billion), but decreased by 3 percent from 2009–10 to 2010–11 (from $82 billion to $80 billion). These revenues then decreased by another 22 percent, to $63 billion in 2011–12. From 2001–02 through 2011–12, local revenues increased by 17 percent, to $277 billion in 2011–12. State revenues fluctuated between $272 billion and $314 billion during this period, and they were 3 percent higher in 2011–12 than in 2001–02 ($280 billion vs. $272 billion). During this period, federal revenues peaked in 2009–10 at $82 billion, while local revenues peaked in 2008–09 at $284 billion and state revenues peaked in 2007–08 at $314 billion.

Figure 1. Revenues for public elementary and secondary schools, by revenue source: School years 2001–02 through 2011–12

NOTE: Revenues are in constant 2013–14 dollars, adjusted using the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), "National Public Education Financial Survey," 2001–02 through 2011–12. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 235.10.

The percentage of total revenues for public elementary and secondary education that came from federal sources was 8 percent in school year 2001–02 and 10 percent in 2011–12. Between school years 2001–02 and 2011–12, the percentage coming from local sources fluctuated between 43 and 45 percent, accounting for 45 percent of total revenues in 2011–12. The percentage of total revenues from state sources decreased from 49 percent in school year 2001–02 to a low of 43 percent in school year 2009–10. The percentage of revenues from state sources was higher in 2011–12 (45 percent) than in 2009–10 (43 percent).

More recently, from school years 2010–11 through 2011–12, total revenues for public elementary and secondary schools decreased by about $22 billion in constant 2013–14 dollars (3 percent). During this period, federal revenue declined by $17 billion (22 percent) and state revenue declined by $3 billion (1 percent). Local revenues declined by $1.6 billion (1 percent), reflecting a $2.1 billion decrease in revenues from local property taxes, a $0.7 billion increase in other local public revenues, and a $0.2 billion decrease in private revenues (consisting of receipts from school lunches, student activities, and other fees from students). Other local public revenues were the only source that increased from 2010–11 through 2011–12.

In school year 2011–12, there were significant variations across the states in the percentages of public school revenues coming from state, local, and federal sources of revenue. In 20 states, at least half of education revenues came from state governments, while in 16 states and the District of Columbia at least half came from local revenues. In the remaining 14 states, no single revenue source made up more than half of education revenues: Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin.

Figure 2. State revenues for public elementary and secondary schools as a percentage of total public school revenues,
by state: School year 2011

NOTE: All 50 states and the District of Columbia are included in the U.S. average, even though the District of Columbia does not receive any state revenue. The District of Columbia and Hawaii have only one school district each; therefore, neither is comparable to the other states. Categorizations are based on unrounded percentages. Excludes revenues for state education agencies.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), "National Public Education Financial Survey," 2011–12. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 235.20.

In school year 2011–12, the percentages of public school revenues coming from state sources were highest in Vermont and Hawaii (88 and 85 percent, respectively), and lowest in South Dakota and Nebraska (31 percent each). The percentage of revenues coming from federal sources was highest in Mississippi (18 percent), followed by Louisiana and South Dakota (17 percent each); the percentage was lowest in Connecticut and New Jersey (5 percent each), followed by Maryland (6 percent). Among all states, the percentage of revenues coming from local sources was highest in Nebraska and Illinois (60 percent each), and lowest in Vermont and Hawaii (4 and 2 percent, respectively). Most of the revenues for the District of Columbia (90 percent) were from local sources; the remaining 10 percent of revenues were from federal sources.

Figure 3. Property tax revenues for public elementary and secondary schools as a percentage of total public school revenues, by state: School year 2011–12

NOTE: All 50 states and the District of Columbia are included in the U.S. average. The District of Columbia and Hawaii have only one school district each; therefore, neither is comparable to the other states. Categorizations are based on unrounded percentages.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), "National Public Education Financial Survey," 2011–12. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 235.20.

In school year 2011–12, local property taxes constituted 81 percent of total local revenues and 36 percent of total revenues for elementary and secondary schools. The percentages of total revenues from local property taxes differed by state. In 2011–12, New Hampshire and Connecticut had the highest percentage of revenues from property taxes, at 55 percent each. Five other states had percentages of revenues from property taxes of 50 percent or more (in descending order): Illinois, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Nebraska. Vermont and Hawaii¹ had the lowest percentages of revenues from property taxes (0.1 percent and 0 percent, respectively). In 14 other states, property taxes made up less than 25 percent of education revenues (in descending order): Montana, Delaware, California, Maryland, Indiana, Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, Idaho, Minnesota, Louisiana, Alabama, New Mexico, and Alaska.

¹ Hawaii has only one school district, which receives no funding from property taxes

Glossary terms: Consumer Price Index (CPI), Elementary school, Property tax, Public school or institution, Revenue, Secondary school
Data Source:Common Core of Data (CCD)

PDF

Download/View the PDF containing this indicator and corresponding tables and figures. (1906 KB)

Reference Tables

Table 203.20 (Digest 2013): Enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools, by region, state, and jurisdiction: Selected years, fall 1990 through fall 2023
Table 235.10 (Digest 2014): Revenues for public elementary and secondary schools, by source of funds: Selected years, 1919-20 through 2011-12
Table 235.20 (Digest 2014): Revenues for public elementary and secondary schools, by source of funds and state or jurisdiction: 2011-12

Related Indicators

Public School Expenditures

Previous Versions of This Indicator

April 2014 - (2332 KB)

May 2013 - (1936 KB)

Pages

7.01.2015

6.30.2015

PDF

Reference Tables

Previous Versions of This Indicator

PDF

Reference Tables

Related Indicators

Previous Versions of This Indicator

PDF

Reference Tables

Related Indicators

Previous Versions of This Indicator

PDF

Reference Tables

Related Indicators

Previous Versions of This Indicator

PDF

Reference Tables

Related Indicators

Previous Versions of This Indicator

HILARY DOW WARD

Connect

Search

Labels

Popular Posts

Blog Archive

Good Education Reads

`

`

`

`

Followers

Total Pageviews

Translate