Arkansas School Finance Study

Prepared for the Arkansas House and Senate Education Committees in 2020

This report concludes a yearlong school finance study completed by Augenblick, Palaich and Associates (APA), in partnership with WestEd, on behalf of the Arkansas House and Senate Education Committees. The study described in this report was intended to “provide to the members of the Arkansas General Assembly detailed and accurate information concerning the current efficacy of the biennial adequacy study and evaluation undertaken by the Committees, and to provide the Committees with recommendations regarding reform or replacement of the current methods for determining educational adequacy in the State of Arkansas.”

This project requested a broad study that required analysis in 31 study areas including, but not limited to:

• Examining the equity and adequacy of the current resource matrix used to establish school and district funding

• Analyzing student performance

• Addressing poverty and achievement gaps

• Examining staff attraction and retention

• Exploring the impacts of district, school and class size

• Determining how the state should define college and career readiness for graduates

Based on this work, the study team developed several recommendations:

1. The state should consider adopting a hybrid approach to reviewing adequacy.

2. Revisit current incentive structure to increase the number of highly qualified teachers serving students at high-need schools and small schools. Monitor and ensure teacher quality is equitable across schools.

3. Develop a legislative task force to investigate and address the out-of-school factors that inhibit performance for high need students within the state.

4. The state should adopt a career readiness definition that includes: 1) core academic knowledge and skills, 2) capabilities, 3) behavior skills and dispositions, and 4) postsecondary preparation and planning. The study team recommends that the definition be focused on career readiness for all students, as college is just one of several pathways to a career.

5. The Committees should reconsider current matrix resource levels in the areas where the body of evidence is most consistent.

6. The state should smooth its ESA funding formula with a focus on providing higher resources per student at lower concentrations of students. Additionally, the formula should be created as a weight above the foundation amount, allowing ESA funding to rise at the same rate as foundation funding. All ESA funds should flow through this formula, including funding currently provided as a separate match grant.

7. The Committees should consider removing special education funding from the resource matrix and provide funding based on actual special education students served.