Pages

Showing posts with label Tennessee. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tennessee. Show all posts

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.
  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
share: | | pinterest
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: ,

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
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 dataLinear 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
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 dataLinear 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
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).

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

Previous Versions of This Indicator

share: | | pinterest
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: ,

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
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
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
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.

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

Previous Versions of This Indicator

share: | | pinterest
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,

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
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
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
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

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

Previous Versions of This Indicator

share: | | pinterest
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

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

share: | | pinterest
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

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
share: | | pinterest
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

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)
share: | | pinterest
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: ,

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


share: | | pinterest
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: ,

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

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)
share: | | pinterest
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: ,

6.15.2015

The State of Education in Tennessee: Chaos, Collective Bargaining for Teachers

Article Via: theeducatorsroom.com

This article is part of our new feature “State of Education” where we hear what is going on in each state around the country, from an educator in that state.  If you would like to write about your state, contact us at info@theeducatorsroom.com!

The state of education in Tennessee is chaotic, at best. We are in a state of mind that I liken to terroristic confusion. Let me explain what I mean. After an act of terrorism, the masses are confused and reactionary. People do not often make decisions based on sound judgments; they act more out of emotion. In my opinion, as a product of public schools and as a public school teacher, education in Tennessee does not look good because the decisions are not made based on sound judgments. My opinions are based on legislation passed in Tennessee over the past two years. Two major laws have been passed by our majority conservative legislature and this does not speak well for educators like me.  Tennessee teachers have lost our right to collective bargaining, and we have to increase the amount of money we contribute to our pension.
Collective bargaining, commonly misnamed unions, has been given a bad name in our country. I am not sure about other areas in the state, but in Memphis, we have a professional association. That association is responsible for brokering a collective bargaining agreement.  By definition of thefreedictionary.com, “A collective bargaining agreement is the ultimate goal of the collective bargaining process. Typically, the agreement establishes wages, hours, promotions, benefits, and other employment terms as well as procedures for handling disputes arising under it.” In 2012, the State of Tennessee legislature declared that collective bargaining was the enemy and it was assassinated like an international terrorist. Obliterated was not only our say in how we are treated as professionals, but also our perceived worth as educators. Along with that assassination came a new evaluation process and a move toward basing teacher pay on standardized test performance and ever-changing performance standards; all of this without support or training to help teachers improve.
To add insult to injury, this legislative session has decided that teachers hired after 2014 have to contribute more to their pension plan. I won’t confuse you with the numbers, but the amount contributed by the state employee has increased as well as the age of potential pay out. With the average teacher salary just under $46,000 and health insurance prices rising, there is little room to contribute more to the pension plan. Sounds like a lot of teachers will be taking on more outside jobs to make ends meet in our present economy.
More chaos is evident on the local levels of education, especially in Memphis City and Shelby County Schools. Those events are either the aftershock of the state’s terroristic confusion, or perhaps they were precipitating events. (The state of education in my city is another article.) As in all tragedies, there are casualties. Too bad those casualties are our innocent students and our hard-working teachers.
© 2015 The Educator’s Room™
share: | | pinterest
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,

School Board Recognizes Labor, Gets Security Update

Article via: Memphis Daily News, Bill Dries
Interim countywide schools superintendent Dorsey Hopson told the school board Tuesday, Aug. 27, that “jurisdiction issues” between the Memphis Police Department and Shelby County Sheriff’s Office were the primary cause of security problems at schools this month.
Hopson added that he, Memphis Police brass and the Shelby County Sheriff’s Office continue to review school security measures.
“We have more uniform officers at our schools than we ever have before,” he said. “But there was some misunderstanding or disagreement between the sheriff’s department and the city of Memphis as to who had jurisdiction. … Obviously that’s a jurisdictional issue that we can’t solve. We are working with both the sheriff and police director to make sure we get this right.”
Elementary schools began using handheld metal detectors last week as part of the reaction to a kindergarten student who brought a gun to Westside Elementary School in his backpack. The gun went off inside the backpack in the school. No one was injured. But the incident exposed the jurisdiction issues Hopson referred to.
Hopson told the board ordering more of the handheld metal detectors for the elementary schools for all to have them will mean spending an extra $18,000 to $20,000 in the current fiscal year.
He also said the emerging security considerations will not amount to a “one-size-fits-all” security policy for every school.
On the school board’s agenda Tuesday were three resolutions, each from members of the old Memphis City Schools board who were attending their last meetings as the 23-member board becomes a seven-member board effective Sept. 1.
The board approved a resolution recognizing unions that had represented employees under the old Memphis City Schools system as a representative of some employees. The resolution by board member Dr. Jeff Warren does not recognize the unions for purposes of collective bargaining.
WARREN
It was the most debated item of the evening with Warren saying it was a simple recognition that the school system would talk with the union leaders representing teachers and other employees.
“We wouldn’t be where we are without unions,” Warren said. “It costs nothing but says we respect them.”
Other board members, including Chris Caldwell, thought union members in the audience might believe it was a formal recognition in terms of bargaining rights.
“This doesn’t give you any bargaining right,” Caldwell said. “I want you to know what the truth is.”
Hopson said state law prohibits collective bargaining with or without such a resolution. As long as employees and union leaders and board members realize that, he told the board he was “probably agnostic” in terms of his position on the resolution. He also noted signs in the audience urging the board to “support labor contracts.”
School board member David Pickler said the passage of the resolution reflected the intent of the 23-member board. But he added that he did not consider it binding on the seven-member board to come.
REAVES
School board member David Reaves criticized the resolution as “nothing more than a feel good piece of paper.”
Plumbers, carpenters and other craft trade workers were among those in the audience. The workers from the legacy Memphis City Schools system complained that craft trade workers for the legacy Shelby County Schools system are paid more than them.
Hopson said the higher pay for some workers who are all now a part of a single school system will see a leveling up over a three-year period with the inequity remaining for now. The three-year period is part of the state law that sets the terms of schools mergers.
The other resolution approved Tuesday by board member Patrice Robinson requests the Tennessee Comptroller’s Office review the school system’s health care plan and report on the feasibility of the school system’s employees joining either the Shelby County government health care insurance plan or the state government’s group insurance plan.
Meanwhile, the board deferred action Tuesday on a resolution by board member Betty Mallott to move toward setting up some method for more objectively judging the performance of charter schools. Hopson requested the indefinite delay saying he and his staff plan to come back to the board with a more detailed plan.
share: | | pinterest
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: ,

Remaking Memphis: Charters, Choice, and Experimentation


Array of strategies aims to transform Tennessee's largest district

By Jaclyn Zubrzycki via Ed Week 

Memphis, Tenn.
With a growing charter school sector, a new state-run district with plans to expand, and a reconfigured central office, Memphis is poised to become the next national center for New Orleans-style school governance.
Even as a commission spent the past two years planning for the largest school district merger in the nation's history—the former Memphis city district and an adjacent suburban system became the unified 140,000-student, 222-school Shelby County district on July 1—the landscape of governance within the legacy city school system was changing rapidly to favor parental choice and more autonomous schools.
The changes underway here include:
• A rapidly expanding array of charter schools. Home to just three charter schools 10 years ago, Memphis now has 41 charters, and more are on the way, including schools that will be part of some of the nation's best-known charter networks.
• A growing Achievement School District. The nation's second state-run school district, Tennessee's Achievement School District oversees 12 schools in the city and plans to run more than 50, most of them within Memphis, over the next five years.
• An "Innovation Zone." Created by the district as the analogue to the state-run district, the Innovation Zone, or I-Zone, encompasses 13 schools that have budget and hiring autonomy.
As a model for the Memphis efforts, district, charter, and state leaders are looking down the Mississippi River to New Orleans, where the state-run Recovery School District has converted most of the public schools in the city to charter status. The goal is to create a "system of schools rather than a school system," said Bradley Leon, the new chief innovation officer for the Shelby County district.

Eight-year-old Laniah Bowdery, front, waits with her classmates to perform at a reading assembly at Lowrance Elementary School in Memphis. Lowrance won state recognition this year for improving its students' reading and math scores.
—Timothy Ivy for Education Week
"Our belief is that Memphis is poised to be either the first or among the first major urban centers to fully and deeply transform public education for all kids—in our case, without having had to suffer a hurricane to get there," said Barbara Hyde, the president of the Hyde Family Foundations, a philanthropy in Memphis that funds some of the efforts.
She referred to Hurricane Katrina, whose destructive path in 2005 opened the way for an accelerated remake of the New Orleans school system, where more than 80 percent of students now attend charter schools.
"We have an unprecedented alignment of human-capital partners, a pipeline of talent, demonstrated high-performing school models, and a pipeline of new charter schools coming into the city," Ms. Hyde said.

Setting the Scene

State and local policy changes over the past few years have cleared the way for some of the shifts in Memphis and helped draw the interest of charter operators around the country.
Then-Gov. Phil Bredesen, a Democrat, signed Tennessee's First to the Top Act into law in 2010, which created the Achievement School District. The same year, Tennessee received a federal Race to the Top grant that included funds for the ASD. A separate 2011 state law opened enrollment in charter schools to all students and removed the cap on the number of schools.
"The policy context in the state, with no cap on charters, no collective bargaining, and one of the best authorizers in the country [the ASD] means some of the best [charter operators] are saying, I want to come to Memphis," said Chris Barbic, the executive director of the ASD.

Teachers in the Shelby County district also work in an altered policy environment: Collective bargaining was repealed in 2011; a 2013 state law requires teachers and principals to mutually agree on whether or not a teacher would work at a given school; and Tennessee teachers' evaluations are now tied to their students' scores on the state exams. The merged district has also moved away from seniority-based hiring.
Those changes have made the city fertile ground for the expansion of alternative-certification programs like Teach for America and Teach Memphis, according to Athena Turner, the executive director of Teach for America in Memphis.
Benjamin Fenton, the founder of New Leaders, a New York City-based group that trains aspiring principals and consults on school and district leadership, said the district's focus on school-level leadership, and philanthropic investment from local and national foundations, had brought his organization to the city in 2004 and opened the doors for others since.
The state also sent a signal by hiring Mr. Barbic, the founder of the Houston-based YES Prep charter network, to oversee the Achievement School District schools.

A Proof Point

Mr. Barbic said that Shelby County's schools would prove the benefits of school choice, both for families and for teachers, enabling them to choose the best school from a range of operators. He said he imagines district-run Memphis-area schools and the ASD working together in "co-opetition"—friendly competition—to improve.
Dorsey Hopson II, the district's new superintendent, is equally enthusiastic about the potential for dramatic change. "If we could give all of our schools the autonomy that the I-Zone has and the ASD has and the charter schools have—I think it'd be a recipe for success," he said.
Meanwhile, the merger of the Memphis and Shelby County districts opened up opportunities for conversations about just how the central office should be structured. Some 300 out of 1,000 central-office jobs were cut in the resulting reorganization, according to Mr. Hopson.
"When [the merger] started, initially it felt like a mess. But it turned out to be an extraordinary opportunity to throw everything up in the air and look at how to create a whole new system," said Ms. Hyde.
The changes are not uncontroversial, though.
Standing Together for Strong Community Schools, a nonprofit group in the state, views the state-run district and the growing charter sector as a move away from local control. Its members protest what their website describes as "well-funded special interests intent on dismantling our school systems, diverting public money from public schools, and limiting the voice of Tennessee citizens in shaping education policy through our local elected school boards."
The ASD and the district's I-Zone share the goal of raising the 69 Memphis schools that ranked in the state's bottom 5 percent on state standardized tests into the top 25 percent of schools, and both began taking charge of schools last school year after receiving an infusion of money from the state.
The ASD functions as an authorizer for six schools in the city and operates an additional six Memphis schools as "achievement schools," which are run as though they were a separate charter-management organization within the ASD. The achievement schools took over a feeder pattern of schools in Frayser, a particularly troubled area of the city.
Each school in the achievement district is required to accept all students who had previously been zoned to the school. The rule means charter operators must prove that they can show strong results without "creaming" students, or somehow enrolling an easier-to-teach group of students than the regular public schools do.

Where Are These Schools Located?

Use the Google Map below to explore the Memphis school district, including its I-Zone schools, as well as the area's charter and achievement schools. (Map by Doris Nhan) (map not included see original posting via Ed Week)

Innovation Zone

Prominent national charter operators, including YES Prep and the Oakland, Calif.-based Aspire, plan to open schools within the ASD in the next few years.
Mr. Barbic said he anticipates that by 2016, the ASD will run as many as 53 schools—most of them in Memphis—and serve as many as 19,000 students.
The 13 schools in the district's I-Zone are granted some of the same budget and hiring autonomy as a charter school or a school in the ASD. Once a school becomes part of the I-Zone, every teacher must reapply for his or her job. Some schools in the zone have an extended school day, and principals can select which interventions they'd like to use in their schools.
Antonio Burt, who is in his second year as the principal of Ford Road Elementary School, in the Westwood community, said the flexibility allowed him to blend various strategies he'd learned in New Leaders trainings and from colleagues around the country.
His school has an extended school day and a schedule that changes every few weeks to allow for longer blocks of instruction. "The I-Zone helped us maneuver around some red tape," Mr. Burt said.
Despite the longer workday and an atmosphere Mr. Burt proudly described as competitive, the school lost just two teachers last year and was recognized as among the state's most-improved schools.
While the state-run district can technically take over any school in the bottom 5 percent, Mr. Barbic said the ASD hosted community meetings and worked with the regular school district to determine which schools should be taken over.
Superintendent Hopson said that the regular district had been able to keep some schools under its own authority.
"Whenever we've said, hey, for community reasons or historic reasons, we would like to run these schools, and put these schools in our I-Zone, the response has always been, well, show me what your plan is," he said.
The I-Zone schools showed some of the highest gains on reading and math tests in the state last year, higher than both the rest of the district and the ASD. Helping parents navigate the mix of choices in the district is challenging, however.

Changing Landscape

Greg Thompson, the executive director of the Tennessee Charter School Center, which incubates and advocates for charter schools, said his organization was working on a website that would help parents understand what schools are available to them.
But Beverly Goliday, who has six grandchildren in the district, said that at this particular moment, "it is very complicated to find a school."
Although the expansion of the charter schools in other districts, including Philadelphia, has led some district leaders to raise concerns, Mr. Hopson is optimistic.
"Obviously, as more charters come online, enrollment in the district's going to go down," he said. "But the main focus or issue should be on making sure we have as many good schools as possible."
He said there were still some details to work out: For instance, he said, state funding should change to reflect the district's expenses in administering charter schools.
Still, the pace of change isn't slowing anytime soon, both because of the expansion of the ASD and the I-Zone and because of a forthcoming wrinkle in the merger: Six suburban districts in the area are expected to vote to create their own school boards and separate from the merged system this fall.
With that prospect looming, the merged Shelby County district does not yet know whether it will have 80,000, 100,000, or 140,000 students in the next school year. That uncertainty "keeps us on our toes," Mr. Hopson said.
Coverage of leadership, expanded learning time, and arts learning is supported in part by a grant from The Wallace Foundation, at www.wallacefoundation.org. Education Week retains sole editorial control over the content of this coverage.
Vol. 33, Issue 07, Pages 1,18-19
share: | | pinterest
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

6.14.2015

Teacher Merit Pay is on the Way in Tennessee


Article Via: Andy Spears - April 19, 2013 

The Tennessee State Board of Education met today and gave approval on first reading to two proposals that essentially mandate teacher merit pay starting in the 2014-15 school year.
The first proposal, effective in the 2013-14 year, removes the automatic step increases now mandated for each additional year of service.  Instead, teachers would earn a mandated base salary plus an additional amount in years 1-5, 6-10, and 11-15.  Teachers with an advanced degree would earn a higher additional amount in essentially the same time blocks.  Here are the details.

This proposal is somewhat similar to the pay plan adopted last year by Metro Nashville Public Schools that front-loaded pay, making starting salaries about $6000 higher and raising pay for most all teachers in the system, but capping any years of service increases at year 15.

The plan guarantees that no teacher may see their salary go down as a result of the adoption of this pay plan. Some teachers, however, would likely be at or above the new mandated ranges and so may not see any pay increases for a few years, depending on how their local school systems handle the pay issue.

The idea is to free up funds currently used for step increases for teachers so those funds may be used to differentiate pay among teachers.

To that end, the Board adopted another proposal effective in 2014-15.  It mandates that all systems develop a differentiated pay plan to be approved by the Department of Education.  The plan is to be merit-based and essentially must depend on either 1) filling hard to staff schools or hard to fill subjects and/or 2) rewarding performance as determined by the state’s new and ever-evolving teacher evaluation system.

Aside from the fact that performance pay doesn’t seem to work that well, there’s no indication of how districts will locate the funds necessary to make these pay adjustments work.  That is, aside from the funds that may be freed up from ending mandatory step increases, there’s no movement to add state funds to the pot to allow for significant incentives.  In fact, the base pay plan adopted by the Board simply doesn’t go far enough toward establishing an effective base.  Moving the base closer to $40,000 is part of an education agenda designed to make a meaningful impact on Tennessee schools.
Performance pay plans almost always cost more money than the step/level plans.  That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be pursued, but it does mean money is necessary to make them work.  Metro Nashville’s compressed pay plan cost $6 million in year one.  In Denver, where a performance pay plan has been in effect for a number of years (ProComp), the average teacher now makes $7000 more per year than they did under the old plan.  Paying teachers more is a good thing and a key component of investing in teachers to help improve schools.  But absent state dollars, it’s unclear where or how local districts will find the money to make this proposal work.

Further, because local teachers’ associations no longer have the power to bargain collectively, there is no requirement of input on new plans by teachers.  Local Boards may consult any party they wish or simply adopt an approved plan and impose it on the teachers of their district.  Of course, consulting those whose pay you are about to change about how they’d like to see it improved makes sense, but that doesn’t mean local districts will do that. And the State Board doesn’t require such collaboration.
Some (StudentsFirst) have indicated that because of this year’s teacher and state employee pension reform, there will be more money available in the state budget.  They’ve suggested using that money to improve teacher pay.  The first savings should be realized in 2014-15.  So, it will be interesting to see if there are legislative proposals that incorporate the savings from pension reform into funds available to districts for the performance pay scheme that will soon be mandated from the State Board of Education.  It will also be worth watching to see if the Board makes any movement on giving teacher base pay a meaningful increase.

Tennessee has experimented with performance pay before.  The Career Ladder program was implemented by Governor Lamar Alexander.  It was funded for a time, then became expensive, then was stopped, and is now being phased out — with fewer and fewer Career Ladder teachers remaining in service each year.

The point is, without careful planning and implementation, the proposals adopted on first reading today and likely headed for final approval in July may do nothing but put added financial pressure on local governments.  Local school districts should watch cautiously and should ask their legislators to put forward plans to use state money to fund these proposals.  While it is not clear performance pay will even have the intended positive results, it will surely fail if there is no commitment in the form of investment from those backing the plan.
share: | | pinterest
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)