Public Education Policy in the
Intermountain West Region:
CHALLENGES IN
DEMOGRAPHICS, FUNDING,
AND POLICY INNOVATION
DR. TERESA S. JORDAN
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL
LEADERSHIP/UNLV
BROOKINGS WEST CONFERENCE
OCTOBER 8, 2010
Purpose
 Present comparative baseline education data
for the six states in Intermountain West
Region
 Discuss current state funding allocation
system
 Look to future policy challenges
Are We Making Progress?
“ The root of the matter is that the public
school system in the United States is not
adequately efficient as an education force.
For reasons of faulty administration,
indifference of parents and children, lack of
adequate motivation in instruction, and the
hardship of economic times, the public school
system does not reach and hold its children.”
-from 1910 education journal
Demographics
INPUTS
STUDENT ENROLLMENT
ETHNICITY
SPECIAL NEEDS
AVERAGE TEACHER SALARIES
OUTPUTS
GRADUATION RATES
DROPOUT RATES
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
INPUTS
Student Enrollment
STATE
Arizona
Colorado
Idaho
Nevada
New Mexico
Utah
Regional
Enrollment
# Districts
608
178
131
17
89
41
Student
1,077,800
830,146
281,003
441,808
328,882
490,377
3,450,016
State’s % of Regional Enrollment
7.04% of Total U.S. Enrollment
14.21%
9.53%
31.25%
12.80%
8.14%
24.06%
AZ
CO
ID
NV
NM
UT
State Enrollment by Ethnicity
Idaho
Utah
% Ethnicity
% Ethnicity
90 82.3
80
70
60
50
40
30
13.4
20
10
1.6 1.6
1.1
0
%
Ethnicity
90 80.8
80
70
60
50
40
30
13.2
20
3.1 1.5
10
1.4
0
%Ethnicity
State Enrollment by Ethnicity
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Colorado
Arizona
% Ethnicity
% Ethnicity
50
61.9
45.4
41
40
30
27.6
6
20
3.3
1.2
10
0
5.4
2.6
5.6
State Enrollment by Ethnicity
Nevada
New Mexico
% Ethnicity
%. Ethnicity
50 44.4
40
35.4
30
20
10
0
%
Ethnicity
11.1
7.6
1.6
60
54.6
50
40
30.6
30
20
10.9
10
2.6
1.3
0
%.
Ethnicity
Children and Youth with Special Needs
State/
Jurisdiction
Number
Children
At-risk
(FRPLproxy for
poverty)
Number of
LEP/ELL
Children
Number
Children
with IEPs
Total
Enrollment
Special
Needs
(double
counts)
AZ
CO
ID
NV
NM
UT
US (avg.)
412,305
275,475
103,202
169,144
199,302
172,576
390,073
149,721
85,323
16,671
46,667
61,207
46,770
50,235
122,314
83,076
27,989
47,672
46,404
76,273
115,082
684,340
443,874
147,862
263,483
306,913
295,619
Proportional Share of Special Needs
Students
States’ % Share in Region
1200000
%Total Enrollment
Special Needs
(Double Counts)
14%
14%
32%
21%
12%
7%
States’ % Need of Total
Enrollment (Double Count)
1000000
AZ
CO
ID
NV
NM
UT
800000 63%
600000
55%
400000
200000
61%
93% 51%
54%
0
AZ CO ID NV NM UT
Average Teachers’ Salaries
% Change 2007-08 to 2008-09
State
Salaries
07-08
Rank
Salaries
08-09
Rank
Percent
Change
(Constant
$$)
AZ
$45,772
35
$54,319
16
3.4
CO
$47,490
25
$46,358
38
2.2
ID
$44,099
41
$48,487
28
-2.0
NV
$47,710
24
$45,178
41
1.2
NM
$45,112
38
$50,067
22
-0.3
UT
$41,615
49
$45,752
39
9.0
US
$52,800
$42,335
-3.7
Average Classroom Teacher Salaries-Current and
Constant Dollars 1990-2010
OUTPUTS
Graduation Rates
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1997
2007
AZ
CO
ID
NV
NM
UT
U.S.
Dropout Rates
% Dropout 2007
8
7
6.7
6.4
6
5.1
5
5.2
4.2
4.1
UT
U.S.
4
3
2
2
1
0
AZ
CO
ID
NV
NM
NAEP Scores 2009
350
300
250
4th Gr Math
8th Gr Math
4th Gr Reading
8th Gr Reading
200
150
100
50
0
AZ
CO
ID
NV
NM
UT
U.S.
Consider
 Being proactive in creating future policies that support
elementary and secondary education yet do not create an
unrealistic tax burden on the working age population.
 Creating funding allocation systems that support vertical
equity so that districts do not have to divert funds from one
group of students to meet the needs of another group because
of inadequate resources.
 Developing policies that attract and hold the best and
brightest of our teaching force.
Consider
 Examining whether or not the current “construct”
for high school can meet the needs of 21st century
students who will be navigating a global economy.
 Examining the effectiveness of differentiated
instructional strategies, the extent to which schools
engage their communities, and the degree to which
community agencies coordinate and collaborate to
address the needs of children in poverty.
Financing K-12 Public
Education
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
STATE FUNDING ALLOCATION SYSTEM
INTERMOUNTAIN WEST STATE FUNDING POLICY
CHALLENGES
Complexities of Funding System
 Development and maintenance of public school
finance systems is a complex process
 Requires continuous monitoring and updating due
to changing economic and demographic conditions.
 Public education is a major enterprise in the U.S. and
the dominant employer in many communities. One
person in five either attends or is employed
in the nation’s public school systems.
Policy Questions
 For all the complexity of school finance
systems the policy questions are fairly
simple
 Who
or what to fund
 What amount to fund
 Where to get the money
 How to share the responsibility among the
different levels of government
Overarching School Finance Goals
 Equity- the equal treatment of persons in
equal circumstances
 Adequacy -achieved when programs and
learning opportunities are sufficient for a
particular purpose
 Local District Choice -the local
taxpayers and the school board have the
authority to establish the budget and set the
tax levy for the operation of schools.
State Funding Allocation Systems
 5 basic funding formulas
 Minimum Foundation Program
 District Power Equalizing
 Combination-tiered Program
 Flat Grant
 Full state Funding
(40 States)
(3 States)
(5 States)
(1 State)
(1 State)
 All Developed in 1920s and 1930s
 Models antiquated and obsolete
 Funding is not linked to state standards and goals
 Have knowledge and tools to redesign
 Do policymakers have the will?
Intermountain West State
Funding Policies
C U R R E N T O P E R A T I N G E X P E N D I TU R E
FISCAL CAPACITY
FISCAL EFFORT
FORMULAS AND ADJUSTMENTS TO
FORMULAS
CHALLENGES
Current Expenditures*
State
Arizona
Current Expenditures Per
Pupil
$5,932 (50)
Colorado
$9,574 (30)
Idaho
$7,730 (47)
Nevada
$7,615 (48)
New Mexico
$10,099 (25)
Utah
$5,912 (51)
U.S. Median
$9,979
*Rankings in parentheses
Federal, State and Local Share of K-12
Revenue
110%
100%
90%
80%
16.00%
23.20%
39.80%
70%
36.10%
49.20%
42.30%
Local
59.30%
60%
State
50%
67.10%
40%
30%
70.40%
52.40%
42.80%
52.00%
48.80%
32.90%
20%
10%
0%
Federal
7.80%
8.00%
9.70%
7.80%
13.60%
11.90%
8.90%
AZ
CO
ID
NV
NM
UT
U.S.
Fiscal Capacity
Capacity is the wealth of a state or the
taxpayer ability to support
governmental services.
 It is typically defined as per capita
personal income

Fiscal Capacity
2000
2001
2003
2005
Arizona
24,988
25,878
26,183
26,838
30,267
31,936 32,935
Colorado
32,434
33,455
33,276
34,283
37,946
39,491 41,344
Idaho
23,727
24,506
25,057
25,911
28,158
29,920 31,632
Nevada
29,506
30,128
30,180
31,266
35,883
38,994 38,578
New
Mexico
21,931
23,081
23,941
25,541
27,644
29,929 32,992
Utah
23,436
24,033
24,306
24,977
28,061
29,406 30,875
United
States
29,469
30,413
30,906
31,632
34,586
36,714 39,138
State
2002
2006
2009
State
Revenue Sources and Tax Burden
Per Capita
State
Income Tax
Per Capita
State
Corporate
Income Tax
Per Capita
State/ Local
Property
Tax Per
Capita
Arizona
$530
$122
$991
$1000 $3244 (40)
Colorado
$1037
$104
$1180
$473 $4359 (13)
$951
$126
$752
$890 $3670 (27)
$0
$0
$1136
$1187 $3245 (39)
New Mexico
$614
$179
$516
$986 $3114 (46)
Utah
$962
$146
$777
$729 $3446 (35)
Regional
Mean
U.S.Mean
$682
$113
$892
$876
$3513
$918
$167
$1277
$794
$4283
Idaho
Nevada
State Sales
Tax Per
Capita
State/Local
Tax Burden
Per Capita
Fiscal Effort
 Effort is the proportion of per capita
personal income spent for a
governmental service such as schools
 In education it is usually expressed as
Per Pupil Expenditures per capita
Fiscal Effort In Intermountain West
Per Capita Expenditures
State
Arizona
Public
Welfare
Health &
Hospitals
Police &
Fire
Protection
Corrections
K-12
Education
$1029
$447
$458
$244
$1271
Colorado
$771
$541
$411
$242
$1592
Idaho
$997
$614
$291
$180
$1264
Nevada
$720
$437
$566
$258
$1523
New
Mexico
Utah
$1626
$628
$424
$238
$1641
$816
$478
$311
$180
$1268
U.S.
Median
$1176
$508
$344
$189
$1622
Formula
Adjustments
Formula Adjustments
Type of Formula
Density/
Sparsity
Grade Level
Weights
District/
School size
Declining
Enrollment/
Growth
Capital Outlay/
Debt Service
Transportation
Revenue/
Expenditure
Limits
State Support
Nonpublic
Schools
Arizona
Colorado
Idaho
Nevada
New
Mexico
Utah
Foundation
Program
Foundation
Program
Foundation
Program
Foundation
Program
Foundation
Program
Foundation
Program
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
By petition
X
X
X
X
X
Approved
project
grants
Equalized
project
grants
State bond
guarantee
approved
grants
Categorical
density
formula
Categorical
density
formula
X
Categorical
outside
formula
Categorical
outside
formula
X
Essentially
eliminated
X
X
Formula Adjustments- Vertical Equity
Special
Education
Adjustments
by Type
Per Pupil/
Weighting
Cost
Reimbursement
Unit
Allocation
Other
Arizona Colorado Idaho Nevada
X
X
New
Mexico
Utah
X
X
X
X
Other Needs Adjustments
Compensatory
Education
(At-Risk)
English Language
Learner/Bilingual
Funding
Gifted /Talented
X
X
X
Part of
Comp Ed
X
X
X
Part of
Comp Ed
X
X
Categoryical aid
Challenging Issues
 How are the overarching policy goals in school finance being balanced?
What happens if one or more goals are ignored?
 Support levels for variables within a state’s funding allocation system
appear to be idiosyncratic. Is the variation across systems valid?
 Are there ways to better balance some states’ taxing systems to make
them less volatile in economic downturns?
 How do districts address the stressors to unfunded and underfunded
mandates? What impact, if any, do these have on attaining district
accountability goals?
Challenging Issues Con’t
 How could states link funding principles to state
accountability and productivity goals?
 What would a redesigned funding system look like? What
components would a state want to pay for that have a
research based rationale for impacting state accountability
goals?
These questions could focus a beginning discussion for
collaborative dialogue among the region’s state education
policymakers. Our antiquated funding mechanisms, designed
for another time in history, are not serving us well.
In Summary
 Overhaul the state funding allocation system
 Link funding to state standards and school
improvement efforts
 Stop legislating unfunded & underfunded
mandates
 Stop paying for things that don’t matter; pay
for things that impact student learning
Into The Future
 Funding Closest to the Client
 Performance-Based Pay Systems
 Teacher’s Pension Plans
 Differentiated Staffing