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.

1. 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.
2. 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

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)

The Significance of the Tennessee School Finance Decision.

The Supreme Court of Tennessee, in "Tennessee Small School Systems, Inc. v. McWherter," declared that Tennessee's method of financing its public schools violated the state constitution. The court's mode of analysis relies on the state equal protection clause rather than the state education clause. Examines implications for school finance cases in other states. (93 footnotes) (MLF)

Thro, William E.

West's Education Law Quarterly, v3 n1 p66-81 Jan 1994

Country v. Town: School Finance Reform in Tennessee.

Three conference papers on school finance reform in Tennessee are presented in this document, with a focus on the disparities between rural and urban public school funding. The first paper examines the nature and size of contributions of various funding sources to the per-pupil revenue in local school districts, analyzes specific problems of the Tennessee Foundation Program (TFP), and investigates state categorical support. The second paper presents an overview of state legislation challenging the TFP's constitutionality. The declaratory judgment handed down in "Tennessee Small School Systems v. McWherter" (1978) held that Tennessee school funding was not uniform and was therefore in violation of the equal protection provisions in the state constitution. The third paper determines the extent to which the TFP equalized funding for all districts and concludes that none of the 1979 Tennessee School Finance Equity Study's recommendations have been implemented. Problems of the TFP included inadequate appropriations, inadequate state funding, and failure to keep up with inflation. References and tables are included with each article. (LMI)

Hirth, Marilyn A.; And Others

Equalization of Financial Support for the Public Schools in Tennessee. A Summary Report.

This report briefly summarizes the background, the criteria and procedures for evaluation, the findings, and the recommendations of the Tennessee School Finance Equity Study that, during the two year period ending in November, 1979, examined Tennessee's present program for financing the public schools, kindergarten through grade 12. The purpose of the study was twofold: to review and analyze Tennessee's program of financial support for the public schools in the various local school districts of the state in terms of equity for children and equity for taxpayers and to recommend changes in the state program of financial support considered desirable and necessary to help achieve equality of educational opportunity for all pupils in the public schools. Aspects of financing public education reviewed by the study include access to educational resources; costs of educational programs; fiscal need factors in relation to financing public education in urban, suburban, and rural school systems; funding of school transportation; relative local government (county) ability in taxation; fiscal capacity and effort of counties to support public education; the state and local tax system; and plans for greater equalization of financial support for the public schools. (Author/IRT)

Gibbs, James E.; And Others

Tennessee: Public School Finance Program

To read this report in full, click on this link. 

TENNESSEE

Gary Peevely,
Research Director Research and Policy Center on Basic Skills Center of Excellence at Tennessee State University

Denise Kissane Dunbar,
Assistant Professor Department of Educational Administration Tennessee State University

I. GENERAL BACKGROUND State The state’s school funding formula is the Basic Education Program (BEP), a weighted regression formula that determines the full amount of funding needed by Tennessee’s K–12 schools. The BEP was part of Tennessee’s 1992 Education Improvement Act (TENN. CODE ANN. § 49-3-351) that addressed inadequacies and inequities in Tennessee’s school funding.

The purpose of Tennessee’s basic support program, the Basic Education Program (BEP), is to address the inadequacies and inequities in public education that were the driving force behind the landmark 1988 Tennessee Small Schools lawsuit.

Prior to the 1990s in Tennessee, public schools were funded using minimum foundation program mechanisms that were based on the weighted average daily attendance, but the level of equalization was small. The result was an inequitable distribution of learning resources to meet the needs of Tennessee’s children. The Education Improvement Act (EIA) of 1992 provided the following: Created the BEP, the Education Trust Fund, and the BEP account. Provided for a phase-in of full funding over a six-year period. Established that an unexpected balance of the BEP account would not revert to the General Fund, but rather remain in the Education Trust Fund. Required that the state provide 75% of funds generated by the BEP formula in classroom components and 50% in non-classroom components. Authorized the creation of a funding formula that provided unprecedented flexibility to school systems to determine how state funds should be spent to meet local needs. Required BEP funds earned in classroom components to be spent solely in the classroom. Authorized incentive grants for schools that exceed performance standards. Set out conditions and requirements for local education agencies to receive BEP funds. Mandated class size 2 reductions. Provided for education on a fair and equitable basis by recognizing the differences in the ability of local jurisdictions to raise local revenues. Tennessee has no state income tax and is dependent on sales and use taxes and property taxes to fund public education.

Tennessee’s system of funding with sales tax was found to be inadequate and inequitable by the state Supreme Court in Tennessee Small School Systems v. McWherter, 851 S.W. 2nd 139 (Tenn. 1993). The state is not wealthy; it has rural counties with child poverty rates among the highest in the nation. For example, Hancock County’s child poverty rate was 49.9% in the 1990 U.S. Census Report. Hancock County was used as an example in a small school system lawsuit against the state and subsequent ruling that the state’s method of funding education as unconstitutional paved the way for the BEP. The BEP was designed to embody the concepts of adequacy and equity of education funding. Adequacy of funding programs is determined through the annual application of inflation and reevaluation of unit costs based on actual expenditures. Equity in funding is established through fiscal equalization among the local education agencies. The BEP, including improvements, accounts for approximately 90.7% of the recommended state allocation for K–12 public education. The remaining K–12 education funds are designated for curriculum and instruction, driver education, adult and community education, technical assistance and administration, and special schools. After five years of graduated funding, full funding for the BEP was reached during the 1997–98 school year. Tennessee has provided more than $1 billion in new state funds for local school system budgets since the 1992 passage of the Education Improvement Act, including funds for teachers’ salaries, technology and other school improvements.

Funding Summary 1998–99

Total State School Aid (All Programs) $ 2,216.2 million
Grants in aid 1,919.5 million
Teacher retirement contributions 129.7 million
FICA 167.0 million

Total Local School Revenue $ 2,274.1 million
Property tax 1,846.2 million
Other local source tax revenue 193.9 million
Local source non-tax revenue 234.0 million

Total Combined State and Local School
Revenue $ 4,490.3 million
State Financed Property Tax Credits
Attributable to School Taxes 0

Tennessee School Finance Equity as Determined by Locally Funded Teaching Positions.

Peevely, Gary L.; Ray, John R.

The Tennessee School Finance Equity Study was begun in 1978 to review the equity and adequacy of Tennessee's Public School Finance Program. Changes in the structure of the Tennessee Foundation Program (TFP) did achieve greater equity in the amount of funds local districts obtained from the foundation program even though the residence of the students was still a determining factor in the amount of revenue going into their schools. Instructional expenditures exhibited a decrease in equity for both the areas of property wealth and sales tax revenue. A study conducted in 1988 to assess the equity of school finance in Tennessee pointed out that local option sales tax revenue accounted for the greatest variability of local teacher positions beyond the foundation formula. The property assessment, personal income, or net indebtedness of the district did not have the impact on the variability of locally funded teachers. Variation in local option sales tax revenue rendered its use in the financing of public education inequitable across the school districts of Tennessee. The availability of locally funded teaching positions varied according to the magnitude of the individual districts' financial ability. Information tables show the Pearson Product Moment Correlation coefficients for local teaching positions, local sales tax, and personal income. Regression and GINI coefficients are also illustrated in tabular form. (ALL)

U.S. Department of Education Invests Nearly $96 Million to Ensure All Students Have Same Opportunities to Learn, Achieve and Succeed

OCTOBER 2, 2014

VIA:U.S. Department of education 

Contact:   Press Office, (202) 401-1576, press@ed.gov

The U.S. Department of Education announced today nearly $96 million in grants to ensure every student—regardless of wealth, zip code, gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity or disability—has the same opportunities to learn and achieve.

These grants focus on closing equity and opportunity gaps for minority students attending colleges and universities across the country. Education is the engine of opportunity and the great equalizer for every student because it provides the clearest path to the middle class. That's why the Obama Administration has worked to ensure that there are ladders of opportunity for all students through a variety of programs, such as the Excellent Educators for All initiative and the President's My Brother's Keeper initiative.

"Ensuring that every student—from the wealthiest to the poorest and historically underserved—has access to a high-quality education is what our work is all about," said U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. "We aren't just talking the talk; we are awarding millions of dollars in grants to help institutions better serve minority students through various programs and services."

The grants awarded by the Department are:

• Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions Program ($20,141,221)
• Strengthening Institutions Program ($22,998,921)
• The Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions Program ($16,360,038)
• Native Hawaiian Education Program ($10,054,780)
• Alaska Native Education Equity Program ($12,662,376)
• Promoting Post-baccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans Program ($10,625,456)
• Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program ($3,039,006)

The Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions Program provides grants to assist institutions of higher education (IHEs) in expanding educational opportunities for, and improve the attainment of, Hispanic students. These grants enable these institutions to expand and enhance their academic offerings, program quality and institutional stability.

The Strengthening Institutions Programs award funding to help eligible IHEs become self-sufficient and expand their capacity to serve low-income students by providing funds to improve and strengthen the academic quality, institutional management, and fiscal stability of eligible institutions.

The Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions program awards two-year grants to IHEs serving Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian students. The grants can be used for a wide range of activities such as faculty development and exchanges, curriculum development, counseling services, and the purchase or upgrading of library materials or laboratory equipment. To be eligible for grants through this program, an institution must have an undergraduate enrollment of at least 20 percent Alaska Native or 10 percent Native Hawaiian students.

The Native Hawaiian Education Program awards grants to support innovative projects that enhance the educational services provided to Native Hawaiians and to supplement and expand programs and authorities in the area of education. Types of projects supported by this program include early education and care programs, family-based education centers, beginning reading and literacy programs, activities to address the needs of gifted and talented native Hawaiian students, special education programs, professional development for educators, and activities to enable native Hawaiian students to enter and complete postsecondary education.

The Alaska Native Education Equity Program supports efforts to meet the unique educational needs of Alaska Natives by awarding competitive grants for innovative projects addressing the distinct educational needs of this student population. Along with educational institutions, eligible recipients include Alaska Native organizations and cultural and community-based groups.

The Promoting Post-baccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans Program provides grants to expand post-baccalaureate educational opportunities for, and improve the academic attainment of, Hispanic students. The program also provides funding to expand post-baccalaureate academic offerings, as well as enhance the quality of academic programs in IHEs that are educating and helping large numbers of Hispanic and low-income students complete postsecondary degrees.

The Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program helps colleges and universities assists predominantly minority institutions in effecting long-range improvement in science and engineering education programs, and increasing the flow of underrepresented ethnic minorities, particularly minority women, into science and engineering careers. The program also supports special projects designed to provide or improve support to accredited nonprofit colleges, universities and professional scientific organizations for a broad range of activities that address specific barriers that eliminate or reduce the entry of minorities into science and technology fields.

For breakdown of allocated funds, follow this link. 

U.S. Department of Education Awards $4.1 Million in Charter School Program National Leadership Grants

MARCH 17, 2015

via: U.s. Department of education 

Contact:   Press Office, (202) 401-1576, press@ed.gov

The U.S. Department of Education announced six new grant awards today totaling $4.1 million through the Charter Schools Program(CSP) National Leadership Activities program. These grants will help strengthen charter schools and charter school authorizers, while also improving capacity to serve students with disabilities and English learners. Helping the charter school sector address these key issues is a priority for the Department.

"We want to help charter schools, like all public schools, prepare students for college, careers and life," said Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement Nadya Chinoy Dabby. "We know that quality authorizing practices are crucial to creating high-quality charter schools. These grants will help charter schools provide excellent educational opportunities to some of our highest-need students."

The six grantees will provide technical assistance and training and share promising practices with charter schools across the country. The grantees are: (1) the Alameda County Office of Education; (2) the California Charter Schools Association; (3) the Illinois Network of Charter Schools; (4) the Massachusetts Charter Public School Association; (5) the National Association of Charter School Authorizers; and (6) New Schools for New Orleans.

Grantees will use the money to provide teachers with professional development or on-site coaching, to provide services to students with disabilities or English learners in charter schools, and to create shared systems across multiple charter schools for finding and accessing qualified teachers and experts. Others will help charter school authorizers conduct rigorous reviews of school applications to ensure quality, as well as conduct meaningful oversight of charter schools using multiple sources of data and identify and close underperforming charter schools.

Grants will run for three years. Grantee project abstracts are available here.

Grantee first-year awards:

Alameda County Office of Education $799,659
California Charter Schools Association $636,954
Illinois Network of Charter Schools $580,975
Massachusetts Charter Public School Association $506,603
National Association of Charter School Authorizers $799,683
New Schools for New Orleans $799,198
TOTAL: $4,123,072

APRIL 22, 2014

VIA: U.S. Department of education 

Contact:   Press Office, (202) 401-1576, press@ed.gov

U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan today announced that Arizona and New Hampshire will receive more than $12 million to continue efforts to turn around their persistently lowest-achieving schools through new awards from the Department's School Improvement Grants (SIG) program. Both Arizona and New Hampshire will use these funds to make awards to a new cohort of their lowest-performing schools.

"When schools fail, our children and neighborhoods suffer," Secretary Arne Duncan said. "Turning around our lowest-performing schools is hard work but it's our responsibility, and represents a tremendous opportunity to improve the life chances of children. The privilege to have an impact on the lives of our students is an absolute joy. We owe it to our children, their families and the broader community. These School Improvement Grants are helping some of the lowest-achieving schools provide a better education for students who need it the most."

School Improvement Grants are awarded to State Educational Agencies (SEAs) that then make competitive subgrants to school districts that demonstrate the greatest need for the funds and the strongest commitment to provide adequate resources to substantially raise student achievement in their lowest-performing schools.

Under the Obama Administration, the SIG program has invested up to $2 million per school at more than 1,500 of the country's lowest-performing schools. Early findings show positive momentum and progress in many SIG schools. Findings also show that many schools receiving SIG grants are improving, and some of the greatest gains have been in small towns and rural communities.

States announced today and their grant amounts are:

Arizona—$10,816,584
New Hampshire—$1,371,751