Fix school choice
New-district taxpayers pay more
Although I share the desire of Jane English, Bruce Cozart and Cory Biggs for Arkansas schools to move from being “adequate” to becoming “excellent,” I do not share their view that simply having a “broader and deeper conversation about school funding” will solve the problem.
Thanks to the efforts of former Gov. Mike Beebe, funding education in Arkansas is the No. 1 priority for the use of state tax revenue. Between revenue from the general fund and local property tax revenue, over 60 percent of such taxes support
K-12 and higher education with state aid or “foundation funding,” which is demonstrated by K-12 funding being over $2.9 billion per year.
Tweaking the Arkansas K-12 funding model may be needed, but by itself is unlikely to solve the lessthan-desired academic results. There are many factors which contribute to academic results in Arkansas schools; among them are low expectations by parents, teachers, and community members; inadequate preparation of teachers by Arkansas’ colleges and universities; and poor parenting. Lack of adequate funding is not the primary cause of poor academic performance.
To illustrate my point, of the seven school districts in Garland County, the district with the highest per-student cost in 2017-2018 was Hot Springs District ($15,499), which had mediocre academic results (its seven schools had 1 A, 2 B’s, 2 C’s and 2 D’s) compared to the Lake Hamilton District’s cost per student ($10,612), whose academic performance was very good (six schools had 1 A, 4 B’s and 1 C). The academic results are from the 2017 Arkansas Department of Education School Report Card, and the cost per student is from the UA-OEP 2017-2018 Financial Report by District.
If there is a comprehensive study of K-12 funding, I sincerely hope it includes the funding of “school choice.” At present, the funding is solely based on the amount of state aid the district receives when accepting a choice student. The net effect is that taxpayers in the nonresident district are bearing much of the cost to educate choice transfers and, in a few districts, almost 100 percent.
It is ironic that school districts who attract choice students because of their good academic results end up costing their taxpayers due to inadequate funding from the state. Which suggests the flawed state statute (618-1904) needs immediate attention.
Before explaining why this is the case, I would like to clearly state that I am personally in favor of school choice, but do not feel that schools who attract nonresident students for whatever reason should expect their taxpayers to bear most of the cost to educate those students. That should be the responsibility of their home districts and the state.
Should you (or state legislators) think school-choice funding is not a problem, let me explain it to you. According to 6-18-1904(e) funding is provided as follows: “For purposes of determining a school district’s state aid, a transfer student is counted as part of the average daily membership of the nonresident district where the transfer student is enrolled.”
State aid is the combination of “foundation funding” and “categorical aid.” There are few if any districts who receive enough in state aid to fully fund the cost of educating a choice student. On the other end of the spectrum, there are a few districts whose taxpayers largely fund the cost of educating nondistrict “choice” students (which should not be their financial responsibility).
To illustrate, the Fountain Lake School District (on which I served as a board member for nearly nine years) is receiving a total of $566 per student in the current school year. The most recently reported annual cost to educate a Fountain Lake student was $12,141, which means the state is providing 5 percent of the cost and district taxpayers are bearing 95 percent of the cost (for other district’s student). With 98 choice students currently enrolled in Fountain Lake, the cost borne by local taxpayers is $1,134,350, or approximately 10 percent of its budget.
A perverse aspect of Arkansas’ School Choice funding depends on the districts involved and the state aid paid to those districts. The state can end up paying less in state aid than would be the case if the student did not attend another district.
To illustrate, when a Cutter Morning Star student is accepted by Fountain Lake, the Cutter Morning Star district loses $6,068 in state aid, Fountain Lake receives only $566, thus the state pays out $5,502 less in state aid and the Fountain Lake taxpayers suffer the consequences.
The magnitude of the impact on districts varies, but whenever a district receives more choice students than leave the district, local taxpayers are footing most of the bill and the state pays out less state aid (shifting some of the cost to the receiving district’s taxpayers).
My plea to the legislators: Please fix school choice funding.