Education Committee - Senate and House
Video
Transcript
5 documents
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin
- Processing date
- October 5, 2026
Members, if you could, go ahead and take your seats, please.
members please take your seats we'll start here in about a minute
all right good morning members and guests house uh or joint education will come to order uh if you would this morning let's uh let's stand representative nazarenko we'll start us in prayer this morning
Representative Jason Nazarenko
Unverified
1:54
all gathered here lord to uh come here and do the people's work lord we ask that you just bless this time that we have help us to make the right decisions that are going to benefit the
folks around us the children that are with us in this education system lord which is our future we just ask you to bless each one of these children the teachers the administrators as well
pray this in jesus holy name amen our members continuing from yesterday with our adequacy study we have Ms. Bynum, Beck, and Headley at the table and I will go ahead and recognize you for your
presentation on the resource allocation part one and then we'll roll right into part two. You're recognized.
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
2:49
Elizabeth Bynum with the Bureau of Legislative Research,
Speaker 18
2:54
Adrienne Beck also with the Bureau, Leah Headley Bureau of Legislative
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
3:03
Research. Good morning members we're glad to be here today to share more information with you. Our topic for today is resource allocation and we'll dive right in. We're going to start this morning as we did yesterday with the adequacy study statute which governs this entire process.
You can see here some part of the statute related to the committee's responsibilities, which is showing that the committee is required to review and continue to evaluate the amount of per-student expenditure necessary to provide an equal educational opportunity and the amount of state funds provided to school districts based upon the cost of an adequate education. The statute further states that this is accomplished by completing an expenditure analysis and resource allocation review, each biennium.
And so that's our purpose here today. As a reminder, if you would like to reference the adequacy statute, that's in tab 1A of your binder. Having gone through this statute, we're going to go through a roadmap of what we're going to do this morning. I'm going to briefly discuss some methodology. We're going to go through some quick terminology. And then we'll look at spending on items found in the matrix. If you'd like to reference the matrix during that section, that's in tab 1E of your binder. And we will look in that section specifically at the three categories of the matrix,
the school-level personnel, school-level resources, and district-level resources. Then, because foundation and other education funding can be spent on resources not identified in the matrix, Adrienne's going to take us through expenditures on non-matrix items. finally we'll look at total expenditure data this report is going to look at three-year public school spending including the most recently available expenditure data which is from the 24-25 school year I'll make a note about the
years right here when we're talking about a year when we refer to the 24-25 school year we're just going to refer to that as 25 and we are talking about school years unless we specify otherwise. In addition to expenditure data we'll provide where available comparisons to other states, best practices identified in research, and survey responses from Arkansas educators. Okay looking at methodology first we're going to just I want to explain how we're identifying
matrix versus non matrix expenditures and you can find a more detailed methodology in your report which is on your desk in Appendix A and that begins on page 52. As a reminder your report is going to remain in your binder throughout this process. It's also on the Bureau website under Education Adequacy Resources and it's on the General Assembly website in the meeting materials for this meeting. So expenditures are calculated using data from the Arkansas Public School Computer Network which we'll refer to as
AppScan. In calendar years 2013, 2014, and 2016, Bureau staff worked with consultants to map the resource lines in the matrix to codes in the Arkansas Financial Accounting Handbook. And this is a handbook that DESI produces that has codes for funds and expenditures and this is how districts enter their information into AppScan. So any expenditure that has not been mapped to a matrix line is considered
non-matrix spending. Then a little terminology about our fund sources. Foundation funding refers to the amount distributed to school districts for that school year from the public school fund other funds means any funds other than foundation funding and all foreign sources includes all state local and federal funds could you move your mic just a little
bit closer please okay later on in
Speaker 25
7:08
the report we're going to look at post-student expenditures both by district type
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
7:14
and school type and so for district type we have three categories that we're going to look at we're going to go through each of these and I'm going to show you some stats related to the these categories so that when we're looking at these categories you'll have an idea of the number of districts schools and students in each of these categories okay looking first at district type we have two district types regular trip districts and charter districts I want to make a note about
our terminology here when we say district we're referring to both of these types if we're making a distinction between a regular district and a charter district we will say regular district or charter district but if we just say district then we're referring to both you can see here the number of districts in each of those categories and the current year average daily membership Since we're looking at 2025 expenditures, that current year ADM is for the school year 2025.
Next, looking at our size category, you can see the number of districts in each category, the number of schools in each category, and the average daily membership for 2025. And so you can see that while the average daily membership is rising in each of these categories, The school count is also rising. The district count actually goes down when you get into those higher size categories. If you'll notice, districts above 5,000 students have an ADM of over 175,000.
So that's about a third of all students in the states. Our final district level category is school district letter grades. These are calculated by the Division of Elementary and Secondary Education. And you can see here that most students in 2025 attended a district that scored a letter grade of a B or C. Almost a quarter of students attended a B or C district in 2025.
Next, looking at our school type analysis categories, we have four here. The information on the school categories begins on page 54. you'd like to refer back to that and we're going to go through each of these like we did the districts the first is our location type the National Center for Education Statistics has a method for classifying schools as either urban or rural this is a school level measure and it is possible to have an urban and
a rural school district an urban and a rural school in the same district you You can see here that while rural schools account for about two-thirds of the schools in this state, the average daily membership of students attending those schools is just more than half of the students in this state, about 53%. Looking next at the number of students eligible for free and reduced-price lunch, the free and reduced-price lunch categories are done in quintiles, so you can see that it's about
an equal number of schools in each quintile. You can see that there are more students in those two lowest quintiles, and so those two quintiles make up about half of all students in the state in 2025. One important note here, you'll notice that that first quintile goes all the way from 1% to 47.4%. Next, looking at minority quintiles, this is again like the free and reduced lunch eligibility
in quintiles, so the school counts are similar. Minority is defined as any student who is identifying as non-white, and here you can see that the ADM is highest in that third and fourth quintile, and again, that makes up about half of the students in the state in 2025. Our final category is school letter grades. Again, these are calculated by the Division of Elementary and Secondary Education.
These are separate from the district letter grades. But like with district letter grades, most students are attending, a majority of students are attending a B or C school in 2025, about two-thirds of the students in the states. So now we'll get into spending on matrix items. The detailed foundation funding matrix defined, matrix lines define the necessary resources for an adequate education as defined by the General Assembly.
Again, you can find the matrix on tab one E of your binder. This section is gonna examine what's being spent on items in the matrix from both foundation funds and other funds. Out of respect for the member's time, we are not going to be presenting all of the data included in the report, but we're providing a summary of what's included in detail in the report. So you can see here the matrix lines across the bottom of your screen. I want to note that there are two lines that you will not see in this chart,
salary enhancement for other employees, salary enhancement for other employees and all personnel health insurance. These are items that VLR is not able to track using fund codes, and so that's why they're not included in this chart, but you will see them later in the presentation. So the remainder of the matrix lines are there across the bottom of your screen. The blue bar represents matrix expenditures for foundation funds.
The blue line represents foundation funding. And the yellow bar is a percentage of other funds used. So when looking at what is spent on all matrix items, the spending of foundation dollars exceeded the amount of foundation funding per the matrix for counselors, principals, secretaries, substitutes, and operations and maintenance. However, when spending on these items from all fund sources is considered, spending surpasses the foundation funding level
on all lines except supervisory aides. As a reminder, public school districts and Epidemarable public charters can apply for waivers from certain Arkansas rules, but receiving such waivers does not affect funding. First, we're going to look at expenditures by fund source. We're looking at three years of data. That blue bar is showing the percentage of expenditures on matrix items from foundation funds.
68% in 2025, or about $3.46 billion. The yellow bar is showing the percentage sent from all other fund sources. 32% in 2025, or $1.66 billion. The line at the top is showing total spending on matrix lines from foundation and other sources. So you can see that the percentage of matrix resources from foundation funds increased in 2025. There was a corresponding drop in the percentage of other funds used.
And total spending on matrix items is rising each year. Next, looking at per-student expenditures on matrix line items, I'm going to start at the bottom of this chart and work up. Again, we're looking at three years of data. The green bars at the bottom are showing the foundation funding amount per student for each year, as set by the committees during the previous adequacy study. The green line on those green bars is showing the amount of foundation funding spent on matrix line items.
So in 2025, that amount is $7,357, or about $400 less than foundation funding. The yellow line is showing expenditures on matrix line items from other funds. And you can see for all three years that that amount is around $3,500 per student. And then the blue bar at the top is showing total spending per student on matrix line items. So the sum of the green and yellow line. So in 2025, districts and charters spent almost $11,000 on matrix line items from all funds.
now looking at per student spending on matrix line items by district type so this is for 2025 districts spent almost a thousand dollars more per student than charter districts schools and districts with 350 or fewer students spent the most per student in that category almost five thousand dollars more than students in districts with 2,500 to 5,000 students which spent the least in that category, and schools in F districts spent the most in that category,
almost $1,000 more than districts spending the least. Now we're going to look at some key findings. We'll start with the full matrix, and then we'll look more specifically at each matrix category. Looking at three-year trends, first, districts spent between 40% to 42% more per student on matrix resources from all fund sources than what is perceived in foundation funding per student.
Expenditures on classroom teachers accounted for almost one-half of total matrix expenditures from foundation funding. Operations and maintenance were the second highest expenditures, and expenditures on all other matrix resources accounted for 6% or less of total spending. Looking just at 2025, these are, you can see this on the screen is results from the adequacy superintendent survey. The full results of that survey are in tab 3C1 toward the back of your binder, and the question that this is responding to, for each of the following resources in the matrix, please indicate if your district needs additional funding during the 24-25 school year.
Over half of superintendents reported being extensively in need of additional funding for special education teachers, operations and maintenance, student transportation, salary enhancement for other employees, and substitutes. In 2025, districts with 500 or fewer students spent the most per student on almost every matrix resource line and spent close to $4,000 more per student than districts with over 500 students.
And then you can see on the screen some statistics about the districts with lower than 500 students. It's 21% of total districts, 18% of regular districts, and 48% of charter districts. okay now we'll get into you let's
stop you real quick i want to members
Speaker 34
18:35
if there are questions this is kind of broken up into very neat detailed sections for us and so as we get to the end of a key finding if there are questions on that particular area i think that might be a good
place to take questions so we don't get too far away from the topic representative
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
19:02
duke you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question is back around page 18, slide 16, and it has to do, you mentioned that if a district receives, if I understood you correctly, if a district receives a
waiver, they still receive the funding. Is that correct? Yes, that's correct.
So if a district had a waiver for a library media specialist, for example, they're still receiving the full foundation amount. Okay,
so do you have a breakdown on, like, how many waivers in this last year that that occurred with and what the funding amounts were? Because obviously, and also do they repeat it the next year that they ask for a waiver again? Because if we have districts that are asking for a library media specialist waiver, and then they ask for it again and again, or multiple districts that are asking for it, then maybe we need to relook on what our guidelines and things are on these specialists if they don't need the money to have that position.
So do you have any of that information? I don't have that with me today, but we can look into that for you. I think that would be, at least for me, that would be very helpful. again like i think what i'm asking for i guess to some degree is the areas where they sought the waivers and how many districts did that were they repeat did they ask for it again the next year and how much funding went into those districts that asked for those waivers that they received that money for that position or that area or whatever it was and um seemed to be able to make
do without having that position but had the money allocated elsewhere because we may need to put money somewhere else so i would appreciate if you get that information that would be great we'll be happy to look into that and i think also charters versus districts just regular districts that have waivers how many who i would like to break down of that too in that as well which one had the um how that broke down between them and i think that was all my questions on
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
21:03
that thank you thank you senator flowers you recognize thank you uh the key finding on uh i think it's
page 11 2025 uh half of superintendents reported being in being extensively in need of additional funding do we have a breakdown or any more specific information i heard you refer to 3c1 for that yes
the super the full results from the superintendent
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
21:31
survey are in tab 3c1 in the back of your binder and that's where you can find the full breakout of that question and so that would
show you how many uh how many respond how many super the percentage of superintendents that responded for each for each matrix line
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
21:54
in each category and so if we wanted to
find out how much was being spent or funded for any of these items in the key findings from
all the schools? Do we have like a spreadsheet or
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
22:14
something? The funding amounts for each individual item are in your report.
Speaker 25
22:20
And that is where? That should be on your desk. where on my
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
22:29
desk I mean I got all notebook on my desk I got exhibits on my desk in addition to the report
Chair
Unverified
22:38
which I don't know exactly where that's at but there is a document in the binder that has a funding breakdown it doesn't have the person amounts for each line but it does have the where it has I should say
for the school level staffing they have the FTE amount funded for each line and And that's in, I don't have the tab with me, but it's in tab one, I believe. There's a funding overview one-page document that has the matrix on one side. That's in tab one E. Thank you. One E, matrix and other funding summary. And then we can make sure you get the per-student amounts for the staffing lines of the matrix, if that's what you were interested in
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
23:17
as well. Well, in regard to these key findings, and this is, I guess, directed to the chair,
Can we get our staff to print us out a spreadsheet on how much in each of these categories that are listed here that the superintendents want more funding for? I'm sure
that we can. Is that information contained in, like, Exhibit B2, which is the more detailed?
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
23:44
The information on the responses to this question about whether the superintendents felt they were in need of additional funding, That is in the superintendent's survey report, and that's in the back of the binder in tab 3C1.
The amount of funding and spending on each line item in the matrix is in the report that should be
your desk, there's a B2 that would have been right under that main presentation. Most of the data is in that, I believe, according to staff that
you're looking for, is the hard data is in that.
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
24:24
Well, what I'm getting at, and I haven't looked just at this, but it would be simpler, at least for me, and I would think for most committee members to have a
list of what's being spent in terms of matrix funding,
an inline item for matrix if I'm saying it right for each of these items special education teachers operations and maintenance student transportation salary enhancement and substitute since I've got several other folks in the queue asking questions
maybe you could put together a list so we can just give the staff say hey can
we get this in this format and then just you go down a more granular level if
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
25:10
necessary and exactly how many schools do we have school districts do we have 259 total
Speaker 71
25:19
school districts 259 259 so i'd be asking
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
25:22
for 259 items times one two three four five i think that should
be easy i think we can get you that information okay
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
25:34
thank you mr chair Representative Beck, you're recognized. Thank you. Just
a quick question on the slide number is 17. It's on page 9. But where you were talking about the breakdown of the other funding
versus the foundation funding. Yes. And that percentage increasing. So the other category shrunk in percentage of those funds. So the question I have is, is there less of the other fundings or is the difference in the percentages, because we went from 34 to 32, is the difference in percentages because the spending changed and so now the other funding is still the same.
It's just that the matrix has taken up, the foundation funding, excuse me, is taking up a larger percentage of it. I'm curious as to if the other funding went down in terms of dollars or not. You understand what I'm saying? It's a percentage, but it looks like, you know, the other funding decreased. I mean, just using the percentages that are here. We
Speaker 25
26:50
have seen declines in some of the other funding streams for 2025.
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
26:55
Yes. Does that make up the 2% difference? Yes. All right.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
27:07
Thank you. Representative Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So my question is on that last slide with the extensive needs that you were discussing. Do you have trend data on that? So, for example, this year the special education teachers at 67%. So is that trending higher?
Is it trending lower? because that would let us know that more and more schools are having a need for special education teachers. If those numbers are trending down, that lets us know that that is slowly being taken care of. So I'm just kind of curious if you have any trend lines on those items. We can pull that for you. That's a
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
27:47
question that we've asked in several previous cycles, so we can pull that data for you. Okay. All right.
Chair
Unverified
27:53
Thank you. Representative Payne, are you recognized?
Representative Stetson Painter
Unverified
27:58
thank you mr. chair I think kind of go down the following line with senator flowers on slide 22 or 23 when we talk about what's currently up there right now can we have the breakdown of those requests for like 67% for special education can we have that breakdown as follows like school sizes like you know smaller schools or maybe rural versus urban who's exactly asking what those percentages are
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
28:29
we can do that that is a superintendent question so we can do
Chair
Unverified
28:33
that I type of district okay that'll be
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
28:40
great I appreciate that thank you represent Gonzales worth yes I echo the representatives who asked about this slide on the slide this one the breakdown for the salary enhancement what that includes it says non-certified classified so which group does that include that I don't I don't know if there's a breakdown of that but it appears that um that that's a that's
a very there there's some need there's a lot of need in that in that category and I'm just curious as to
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
29:17
what that what that includes is that possible it
Speaker 88
29:20
includes but I believe it includes both non-certified and classified employees that's your question okay but
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
29:26
you don't you're not sure I guess I'd like more specifics when it's non-certified classified for example the reason for my question currently in my school district there are 21 instructional assistant positions
specifically for special education that has been a very high high need area we also have five teacher positions in special education so um i wondered if that has something to do with if that if that category is included for those particular support staff non
Speaker 88
30:01
non-certified classified staff that's my question so that that's
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
30:07
a salary enhancement for that type of staff we can't track the expenditures
from there's not a separate fund code for that funding
Speaker 25
30:16
because it's part of foundation funding And so those aren't, we can't track
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
30:27
how that money is actually being spent. Looking now at school-level personnel. And this slide is showing, just for your reference, it's the number of school-level staffing
and the number of positions funded in the matrix for each year. Looking at key findings, starting with three-year trends, every school-level personnel line showed an increase in spending except instructional facilitators, which showed no change in spending. The largest increase in spending was for student support staff at 10%, followed by nurses at eight percent expenditures from all fund sources were more than two times
the amount funded in the matrix for the student support staff line looking specifically at 2025 the matrix line with the highest percentage of spending from all fund sources was classroom teachers at 43 percent spending from foundation funding was highest on principal and library media specialist matrix resource lines which both had 84% of funding coming expenditures coming from foundation funding spending from foundation funding was lowest on student support staff at
28% and nurses at 44% and conversely spending from other funding sources was highest on student support staff at 72 percent and nurses at 56 percent. Looking at district key findings, regular districts spent more per student than charter districts on all positions except nurses and secretaries. Regular districts spent over 12 times more per student on library media specialists than charter districts. The smallest district spent more per student on all positions
excluding special ed teachers, instructional facilitators, and library media specialists. The only resource line that showed a difference in spending by district letter grade was the student support staff, where districts with F grades spent almost two times more per student than other districts. And then finally, in school-level personnel, looking at school-level findings, the lowest free reduced lunch quintile spent the most per student on special education teachers, more than two times the lowest per student amount. The highest minority quintile
spent the most per student on instructional facilitators, more than two times the lowest per student amount. Rural schools spent the most per student on classroom teachers, library media specialists, counselors, student support staff, and principals. Urban schools spent
the most per student on special education teachers, instructional facilitators,
nurses, and secretary's all right we'll take a
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
33:31
couple questions senator flowers
you recognize Thank You mr. chair on page 13 matrix line expenditure analysis I'm I'm
I'm trying to figure, what is this decimal amount here? Let's just say the classroom teachers. So 24.94. What does that mean? Percentage of the matrix funding spent
for classroom teachers? Excuse me. This is
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
34:06
the number of positions that are funded in the matrix. And so the matrix is spending for 24.94 classroom teachers.
For a whole district? For one district with one K-12 school of 500 students. So for 500 students,
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
34:29
the district is spending 24.94 of the matrix for those teachers? These are referring to staff positions.
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
34:43
this is referring to staff positions and so for every 500 students
the matrix is funding 24.94 classroom teachers and then that amount is multiplied in order to get a spend a salary amount um but that's
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
35:07
the number of positions funded so how do you get to 0.67 for nurses and 0.72 for
student support staff, 0.85 for library media.
Speaker 25
35:22
What does that mean? Further details on each specific line are in the report in Exhibit 2B. These amounts have
Chair
Unverified
35:36
also been the same. They haven't really changed in, I think, several years in the matrix, the matrix sets, they just break out the number of FTEs. And in the PowerPoint yesterday in the presentation, there's a discussion, some calculations, if that's helpful, of how those are converted
to a per student amount that would be used to get to that 7,771 number. The staff positions are just set differently 'cause they're set towards staff positions or, Yes, like the staff position. So it's just saying it's the estimation of how many positions would be needed for every 500, and those are just varied, and those are made by the committees every two
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
36:21
years. So I guess when you have these fractional amounts less than one,
the salary or the funds that would pay these individuals that are listed here would be made up from other funding sources that's correct is there something that requires us not or allows us not to have a complete funding for a position other than a fractional position
under the matrix center flowers these amounts are set
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
37:02
by the committee and it's up to
the committee to determine what's inadequate what constitutes an adequate education and what that includes so I would ask the
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
37:13
chair because this is my first term on the education committee
has the education committees in the past has had discussions about how we reach these fractional parts here. Do you know? I think you've been on education. So I'll let staff correct me
if I'm wrong, but, you know, we look and we establish a
funding amount, and then as we see what the needs are from year to year based upon the different categories, then that funding amount may point towards, you know, a fraction based upon how many people will actually fill those positions uh but so the the additional data so that um that exhibit b2 that's on your desk if you'll look at page six it goes in a little bit more detailed information relative to what they're talking about on on each uh particular
category so classroom teachers special ed library media specialist all that it goes in a little bit more information information relative
to the specific dollar amount as well as the data that goes into that
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
38:28
so this adequacy the amount for the matrix we determine that as a committee yes ma'am so we're
at the part of this process so we're gonna evaluate all this data for the next
four months five months and then in October
we're going to come up with a Senate recommendation and a house recommendation and then hopefully they'll be the same recommendation come up with a joint recommendation to present and we establish all of those numbers and so there's there's a worksheet that you'll have that you already have in the binder that worksheet you can go in you can say hey I think that we need to allocate x for this particular line item and so then we take that and we put that together and we come up with come up with a recommendation based upon what the increase should be for the next biennium based upon what members recommend
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
39:17
but we don't start off with a certain number for funding we do not start off with
a certain number obviously a lot of it is built upon the the most recent uh previous number uh because uh to my knowledge i don't believe ever we have ever decreased it uh and so we're we're basing it on that but we don't start off with this specific amount is is our base let's go from there we we start with again it's a good guideline from from where we have been previously as a good starting
point but a member a member can certainly start wherever they choose to
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
39:54
with the recommendation they individually make
and last question to the chair do we ever have school district superintendents come before the committee before we finalize our recommendations for adequacy A lot of the information that's contained
within, and I'll let staff answer that, a lot of the information that's contained within is based upon surveys from superintendents, correct?
Chair
Unverified
40:23
discussing earlier, those are all survey results from superintendents, and we also survey all school principals and then all teachers, and those feedback are interspersed as applicable throughout the report. And I don't know what our feedback has been
from superintendents this time. I believe last time we got information from
all except for maybe four that had replied and given us their feedback. But I'm always open to hear from as many voices as we can.
I know personally I reach out to a lot of superintendents on a fairly regular basis to give their input. And I
would encourage members to do the same, to understand not just what's going on
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
41:04
in your particular local area, but what's going on across the state. That's why I would like to have that spreadsheet that I was talking about earlier. And I was just thinking that the items that I think it was Representative Meeks pointed out could be incorporated in that. And that could give us an idea of which schools are doing
And it sounds like staff has said they should be able to provide that. So thank you
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
41:36
for that suggestion. Thank you. represent beck you're recognized thank you mr. chair i i don't want to go too deep on this student support but just a quick question look looking at it back on 20 on excuse me on slide 16 and it shows that they didn't spend all the money that was allocated within the matrix for student support but it looks like it's the single largest area that took other support to
you know it's the largest yellow line on there but then so which would indicate that there's needs to be a lot more spending there you know for us but the the superintendents didn't even mention that i mean that's not one of their requests for more money it's kind of interesting i mean and and that and that's what got me because i looked at the other the allocation hasn't changed obviously so i wouldn't suspect anything else has changed either
so it's just interesting that they wouldn't recognize it as a needing funding when in fact they're getting their funding is it just because they've got other sources that are that that are willing to pay for it and that's why they some of that will
Chair
Unverified
42:56
get addressed in the non in non-matrix because some of the spending gets categorized a little differently so non-matrix spending may help better account for that and hopefully answer better answer that question for you on that line - Okay, thank you.
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
43:35
to Representative Beck's question about the student support staff not being specifically mentioned under that key
finding on 11? Could that possibly be part of the salary enhancement for other non-certified, classified employees?
Could that be in that category? I mean, how is it defined? Non-certified, classified. Sounds like student support staff could be included in
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
44:17
able to determine how that salary enhancement money is being spent. They certainly may be spending some of that money on student
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
44:26
support staff. Yeah, well, non-certified and classified employee It sounds like
it could be incorporating student support.
Speaker 106
44:39
I'll also add, and there's, like I said, the non-matrix section, so that might
Speaker 55
44:45
help address some of that. I know there's an issue sometimes with how expenditures are coded or mapped, and sometimes they can get,
Chair
Unverified
44:52
the categorization may not always line up exactly with the matrix line, as the matrix line because there is no clear definition for each individual matrix line since that's not in statute. Maybe
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
45:07
we need to have it in statute.
Speaker 20
45:12
Having us guess what is what. And Senator Flowers, the committee's created the matrix
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
45:23
and the committee can decide to define the matrix lines or define salary enhancement. Representative Rye, you're
Chair
Unverified
45:33
recognized for a question. Thank you,
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
45:37
Mr. Chair. On library media specialists, it's at .85,
and nurses is .67, and student support staff is .72. Let me ask you this. Where do you come up with that? Is that based on a certain amount of students, and then there's a breakdown for each nurse? The matrix is funded based
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
46:01
on 500 students, so this is the amount for 500 students. We as the bureau don't set that amount, the committee set that amount. So that's up to all of you to set that amount. And as you can see, a lot of these positions have had the same number of positions funded
for a number of years, but that's a decision of the committees. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right, you can continue. Okay, our second matrix category is school-level resources. This category is going to include technology, instructional materials, extra-duty funds, supervisory aids, substitutes, and the salary enhancement and health insurance.
Looking at three-year trends, every school-level resource line showed a decrease in spending except extra duty and substitutes, which showed no change in spending. The largest decrease was in technology at 11%. Looking specifically at 2025 here, each matrix resource line accounted for 2% of less of spending from foundation funding sources and 3% or less of spending from all fund sources.
Spending from foundation funds was highest on extra duty at 80% and leased on technology at 32%. Spending from other fund sources was highest on technology at 68% and the least on extra duty at 20%. Looking at district-level findings, charter districts spent close to four times more per student than regular districts on instructional materials. I want to note here that two charters accounted for 16% of total expenditures on instructional materials.
Charters spent $150 more, over $150 more per student than regular districts on technology. Regular districts spent more than charters on extra duties, supervisory aides, and substitutes. The smallest district size category spent the most per student on all school-level resources except supervisory aides and extra duty. And D&F districts spent the most per student across all school-level resources except extra duty.
And finally, in school-level resources, looking at school-level findings, rural schools spent the most per student on substitutes and extra duty. Urban schools spent the most per student on instructional materials and supervisory aids. The highest minority quintile spent the most per student on supervisory aids and substitutes. And D&F schools spent the most per student across all school-level resources except extra duty.
And with that, we'll move on to district level resources, and this includes operations and maintenance, central office, and transportation. Three-year trends, district level expenditures for operations and maintenance and central office showed an increase in spending while student transportation showed no change. The largest increase in spending was for operations and maintenance at 12%. Looking at 2025, spending from foundation funding was between 60 to 63 percent for all district level resources districts with 500 or fewer
students spent the most per student on all district level resources and districts with F grades spent the most per student on all districts level resources and then looking at each individual line for central office charter spent two times more per student than regular districts districts with fewer than 351 students spent almost three times more per student than the lowest per student amount. For student transportation, regular districts spent
more than four times per student than charter districts. The smallest district size category spent the most per student. In operations and maintenance, the smallest district size category spent over $1,000 more per student than the lowest per student amount and with
Speaker 25
50:19
that we will move on to spending on non-matrix items
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
50:31
representative duke you're recognized for a question um thank you mr chair um thank you all again for the presentation a quick question and if this breakdown is in here then never mind but um i just
didn't see it on the on the expenditure there that we just went over with the charters um not spending as much as the districts if i understood is there any correlation to waivers that they may receive in that they're not necessarily spending as much because they receive waivers on some of these areas and are able to utilize staff and different things differently
yes we have uh there is a there is a it we can see that charters are spending less and they do tend to
have more waivers it can can we compile that so we can see what they're kind of similar to the other conversation is what are they getting waivers on and how is that saving them money that maybe we need to explore those options as well so that would be great thank you Senator Flowers, you're recognized.
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
51:35
Thank you. So with operations and maintenance,
you know, I don't know if it's still
called school due through the facilities and transportation division, but I'm wondering how does any information receive in terms of their, I guess, checking up on how that program is being implemented
throughout the different school districts? Can we glean something from their data? I'm just wondering, because, I mean, as far as I know, all the school districts are supposed
be hooked up to that division Senator Flores that'd
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
52:33
be a better question for the division of elementary and secondary education we are looking at the expenditures we don't have access to any whatever system they're using it to
track and any kind of operations and maintenance well it
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
52:50
seems to me like we set it up, and
that was some time ago, probably 2009, when that whole application was
set up. I think they renamed it or something. But it was supposed to be a means of preventative
systems with maintenance and operations at school and making sure that we take care. I mean, if we don't need to buy a whole new HVAC system because you're changing the filters on a regular basis, that is all supposed to be coordinated or at least reported to that division, so I don't see how we don't incorporate some
of that information that they acquire
into these reports, especially when you're
dealing with operations and maintenance. I'd like to know what are they
doing. Will they come before us, or
have they been before us already, that division? Senator
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
54:05
Flowers, we do have information. The adequacy statute requires us to cover the academic facilities distress program. And so there is information about that program in the accountability report. But beyond that, we don't have any of that information, and that would be a question for the Department of Education.
If we need, Senators, if we need to, at a future meeting, if we need to have the department come and answer additional questions, I know Greg Rogers looks like he's excited to do that at some point. i can see you're trying to hide behind the column but you can't uh if we need to have the department come and answer some some more um specific questions relative to operation and maintenance and certainly we can do that obviously it's a pretty relevant question especially when you're thinking about things like our new uh captive property insurance uh and we talk about things like deferred maintenance and other things which can can help that process be more effective and
more more cost efficient so happy to set that up
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
55:02
at a future meeting well i'd appreciate that because, you know, I'm thinking about
insurance and the schools do have that we've, I guess, kind of changed or something. But it seems like there should be more of an intertwine between that division of facilities and transportation with the whole department. And, again, if we had a future
meeting, perhaps our May meeting, I guess we meet in April,
But at our May meeting, if we need to have some more detail relative to that, that would be fine. And I think it may be instructive for us, again, as we're almost a full year into the state property captive, to perhaps get some information on that in addition to it. Okay. So happy to set that up. Greg, put it on your calendar. You can continue.
Chair
Unverified
56:01
so with the matrix spending wrapped up we're going to move into spending on non-matrix items so there are several items not included specifically in the matrix but are frequently purchased by public schools with at least some use of foundation funds and we're going to go over those and it's important to note that foundation funding is unrestricted so districts can use that however best fits their needs in some cases expenditures were placed in this category
simply because they didn't fit within the the specific intent of each individual of any of the matrix lines so first we're going to look at total spending by fund source similar to the chart that elizabeth walked through earlier so you'll see here districts and charters spent 2.31 billion dollars on non-matrix items in 2025 with nine percent of that coming from foundation funds and 91 coming from other funds and you'll see that's for the last three years that's remained
above two billion dollars and additionally expenditures
Speaker 163
57:08
on non-matrix resources from foundation funding accounted for um nine percent then nine categorical supplemental and federal fund sources accounted for 15 percent and then additional fund sources reasoning additional state fund sources accounted for 76 percent of the total spending um in that other funds and
Chair
Unverified
57:29
we're going to break that down in the next slide so these are the additional funds makeup of the other funds
used from on non-matrix resources excuse me um you'll see that totaled 1.8 billion dollars in 25 with the largest coming from the building fund and this refers to a fund that's used to record receipts for any kind of building related expenditures so when looking at spending from on non-matrix resources these are the top five categories of expenditures so instructional aids were the top use using matrix funds with 77 million dollars for
2025 and i'll note that um an additional slide as well but instructional aids looking at total expenditures a lot of those it was a variety of types of aids that
Speaker 163
58:26
were spent but the majority of them 40 from all funds in the next slide came were spent on special education related expenses
Chair
Unverified
58:35
so the next slide here is looking at total expenditures so looking zooming back out looking at
Expenditures from both foundation and other fund sources. We see that non-technology related facilities made up the largest expenditure and these are This was made up 32% and I'll also note It's a kind of caveat to that the 11 districts were the primary spenders in They made up using 50% of that spending on the non-technology related facilities line
so looking at spending per student over time we can see in 25 so a little bit different from the matrix line because there is no matrix funding so we have that zero bar at the bottom so you can see from foundation expenditures non-matrix spending was 441 dollars per student which has been a steady increase over the last three years and then other funds in that yellow line so that's also been increasing though a slight drop from 24
Speaker 163
59:45
as well as total spending from all fund sources on non-matrix
Chair
Unverified
59:49
items so then breaking out that spending by types of districts so we see that districts spent more than three times as much than charter districts per student on non-matrix items additionally districts
Speaker 163
1:00:08
with F letter grades have the highest per student spending when compared based on district letter grade. And
Chair
Unverified
1:00:20
then some results from our superintendent survey. So in the last three
surveys we've done in 22, 24, and 26, we asked superintendents to share if there was anything not included in the matrix that they believed is an important part of adequacy or providing an adequate education and over the last three surveys we've had the same top three responses in varying orders but they include mental health services school safety and dyslexia support services and it's important to note here that there is sometimes a discrepancy between expenditures
Speaker 163
1:00:57
that are not items included in the matrix and they sometimes get mapped or labeled within the app scan system as a matrix item incorrectly so sometimes that can account for some of there can cause confusion with not confusion but discrepancies between what superintendents believe is covered in the matrix versus what we're counting as
Chair
Unverified
1:01:21
spending but I'm going to go through each of those categories a little bit more so starting with school safety in 25 districts spend 100 million dollars on school safety related expenses or
$213 per student and I'll note here that spending was higher by one and a half times higher in traditional just regular districts as compared to charter districts so the most common source of fund used to cover school safety related expenses
Speaker 163
1:01:50
was other state and local funding with 41 percent and foundation funds making up 25 percent of those expenditures
Chair
Unverified
1:01:58
and the most common use the most common expense related to school safety was that for school
resource officers and as a note in the 2020 Arkansas school finance study conducted by APA which is Augenblick Palik and Associates a consultant hired by the committees at that time in their report they recommended that
Speaker 163
1:02:20
education committees consider adding resources for school security or school resource officers
Chair
Unverified
1:02:26
to the matrix for mental health expenditures districts spent 44 million dollars on these expenses or 93 dollars per student in 2025
and spending was also one and a half times higher in regular districts as compared to charter districts though the though the matrix identifies resources for guidance counselors many arkansas educators, superintendents, principals, and teachers have reported that the growing student mental health needs go beyond the expertise of guidance counselors, and that specific mental health resources and support for all students, including positions for specialized staff,
such as social workers, psychologists, or behavioral specialists, need to be identified. So the most common use of funds that districts use to cover mental health expenses were federal funds followed by foundation funds and the most common most common expenditure type the most common mental health expense from districts with social work activities psychological testing and other psychological services and counseling additionally apa noted this item in their report
as well in 2020 and recommended to the committees to consider adding resources for mental health to the matrix. Additionally, on our adequacy survey this year, we asked superintendents if their district had mental health therapists, excuse me, FTEs or full-time equivalent staff working in schools to provide mental health therapy services directly to students during the 25 school year. So 71% of superintendents reported that they did. So these are their
responses shown here on your screen. So approximately 85% of those districts had mental health therapists employed through an agency or other organization and then 40% had a therapist employed directly through the district and then there were 54 districts that
Speaker 163
1:04:27
had a mix. They had therapists on campus that were employed by the district as well as employed directly from another agency or organization
Chair
Unverified
1:04:39
and then that final category was for dyslexia related expenses so in 25 districts
spent 32 million dollars or 68 dollars per student and again per student spending for dyslexia services was twice as high actually in regular districts as compared to charter districts so in 20 since 2016 each school district has been required to have at least one individual school to serve as a dyslexia interventionist, and this is a resource requirement that's not currently addressed in the matrix. Additionally, screenings are required of all students in grades K through 12, excuse me,
K through 2, and students in grades 3 and above if teachers are noting any deficiencies in certain skills. The most common source of funds used by districts to cover these expenses came from Enhanced student achievement categorical funds that we'll cover in the next report as well as foundation funds and the most common expenditure type went towards dyslexia therapist or dyslexia interventionist and additionally in their in their 20 to 2020 report apa recommended an increase to the per
student funding amount for instructional materials which could be used to meet any current or forthcoming needs, such as dyslexia screeners, as long as other materials or other needs there. They also did note that other state adequacy studies do not typically address dyslexia separately
Speaker 163
1:06:12
from special education resources, so typically other states are including those in
Chair
Unverified
1:06:20
that umbrella. Additionally, another resource comes from Auden and Paikas, another
consultant that's been hired by the committee in past years and their most recent 2019 evidence-based model they identified other resources not currently funded in Arkansas's matrix and but
Speaker 163
1:06:36
they are as but they consider as critical to core educational program and
Chair
Unverified
1:06:42
student success so this includes core instructional tutors per student funding for gifted and talented education as well as career and technical education so the matrix does not provide funding for gifted and talented education
but pursuant to state law districts must expand a specific amount of state and local revenues on gifted and talented programs additionally standards for accreditation require districts to provide gifted and talented services and then related to career and technical education so this is not provided for in the matrix however the general assembly currently includes curriculum and career and technical frameworks as part of the definition of adequacy and standards also require each public
school district to offer at least one career rarity pathway aligned with high wage high demand jobs additionally in their model they identified key resources for at-risk students so that includes staffing for additional tutors and pupil support staff extended day programming and other English for as a second language services. So that brings us to our key findings section for non-matrix expenditures. Let me go and take a
Speaker 34
1:07:57
couple questions. Members will take a couple
questions on this section that she just finished and then we're going to let them roll through to the end of
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
1:08:09
this part of the presentation before any other questions. Representative Mayberry, you're recognized. Thank you very much. I'm
so glad we're talking a little bit about dyslexia. I'm going to back up. When this committee went to Judsonia, we heard from the staff there that they were having some concerns that maybe in some situations that there was some over-identification of dyslexia. We certainly want to make sure that we are identifying properly, but that some students
don't actually have dyslexia, that they might have something else, or simply that they're coming in in kindergarten and they just aren't exposed to reading yet and they're automatically being put into this category that they have dyslexia when really that's not what the issue they just need to be exposed to the science of reading and that it's causing some issues and I've just I've heard from a lot of other school districts along this lines and I really really really would love if we could, as a committee, spend some time taking a deep dive into this issue,
maybe have Desi present some information on the testing that's taking place, how are we diagnosing, and since we're trying to get, you know, this will be the first year that we have students that are being held back in third grade, and we want to make sure, from what I'm hearing, a lot of students now are developing IEPs or 504 so that they don't get held back. There's just a lot of issues in this area that I think we need to have greater conversation in, and I'd love to
see if maybe the dyslexia advocates could chime in, have them come to the table, have some school districts come to the table, have Desi come to the table, and really take a deep dive to make sure that our resources are being allocated properly as you can see this is a this is a huge issue and i don't know if this is the proper time to make a motion to have a subcommittee meet to delve more into it i don't is that a
question for the chair that's a question for the chair
i don't know that we need i don't know that we need a motion for any type of subcommittee maybe we can certainly discuss that offline uh and determine kind of the best course of action whether it be in conjunction with one of these meetings uh you know that there would be a little bit of a departure from adequacy specific since we'll uh be requesting the department to come and and provide some more academic um data so happy to to schedule something separately okay if if there is a will of the committee to do so i i appreciate it i just know i've heard
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
1:10:39
a lot of school districts saying we we need to address this and we need a bigger conversation and we
really want to have all stakeholders involved in in in that discussion and then one other very brief question if you don't mind me me just backing up just a little bit on page 21 slide 42 it has athletic supplies and transportation on one line 27.7 million and i see those things as very different issues and i didn't know if that could ever be broken up athletic supplies
on a separate line transportation a separate line that's it thank you so much
Chair
Unverified
1:11:21
i if i i'll look into that i know off the top of my head in terms of how our app scan is coding expenditures i'm not sure if that can be delineated out but if we can we can
Representative Stetson Painter
Unverified
1:11:39
absolutely do that for you representative painter Thank you. First of all, I want to echo the comments by representative Mayberry. I feel the same way and hearing the same topics
at schools in my district. Second of all is I'm having a brain fart today. So can you remind me, non-technology related facilities, can you remind
me of what that is exactly is? Because it's $745 million. Absolutely. So these are
Speaker 180
1:12:02
any kind of, It's a broad category, so it's any kind of activity concerning acquiring
Chair
Unverified
1:12:07
land buildings, remodeling buildings, constructing buildings, any kind of additions, equipment, installations, anything along those lines. So is that going to include our tornado shelters and stuff like that? I don't know off the top
Representative Stetson Painter
Unverified
1:12:18
of my head, but we can certainly
Chair
Unverified
1:12:21
look and see if that would be included. If you don't mind.
Absolutely. I greatly appreciate it. Thank you. Representative
Representative Steven Walker
Unverified
1:12:30
Walker, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mine's also on page 42. Instructional aid, instructional supplies and objects, would that be like the curriculum that the schools are purchasing or is that separate from that? I would double check,
Chair
Unverified
1:12:43
but I think that would be included under the supplies and objects, that aids would be strictly a staffing line. Okay.
Representative Steven Walker
Unverified
1:12:50
That looks like, to me, if our state was to look in building our own curriculum, we'd be able to save a lot of money there.
My other question, do we have a breakdown for rural areas on how much of a percentage that they're having to spend on these categories that are outside of the matrix? Because I know that's a common thing that I hear throughout my district about having to use foundational funding to fund some of this, the stuff that's outside of it. And I'm just curious on if we've got a breakdown on that. I don't have that with me, but we
Speaker 176
1:13:22
can absolutely provide that kind of breakdown for you. okay um if i
Representative Steven Walker
Unverified
1:13:30
can have my last question go ahead um what about unfunded mandates do we know and i'm
assuming stuff that's funded outside the matrix that we see here would fall under an unfunded mandate maybe not the curriculum things but there'll be stuff in this list do we know what percentage that would be for unfunded mandates that we have passed over the years so we don't have the ability we're not able to define
Chair
Unverified
1:13:53
what an unfunded mandate is so that's you would if you have some idea if you have some items you would like us to look into that you consider an unfunded mandate we could do that but we can't identify what unfunded mandate items would
Representative Steven Walker
Unverified
1:14:06
be do we do we have that in that survey that we send out or we ask schools for their opinion on what they would consider an unfunded mandate we
Chair
Unverified
1:14:15
have that response um of what items uh let me pull that slide up here for you but we do ask them what uh materials are not included in the matrix that they think are part of an adequate education so we have some other results but these are the three that have come up consistently for the last three surveys that we've administered okay perfect thank you representative nazarenko you recognize thank you mr chairman and thank you all for the
Representative Jason Nazarenko
Unverified
1:14:43
information. It's been great information here. I
wanted to echo Representative Mayberry's and I kind of had a question on that same line. So dyslexia has been something that had been a topic of discussion for myself here recently quite a bit. Just last week I met with a school board member on that specific topic and then talking with the superintendents. I've seen this same thing come up and then just two weeks ago I was in Raleigh and was kind of introduced to dyslexia testing that could possibly help so I'm trying to get some more information on that and then connect
it over here but I'd be very interested in anything we can find out to help with these numbers you're showing on here per student expenditure $68 for dyslexia so reached out to my district so I'm in a rural and low income area my district's about $150 per student and so it's much much higher and then when I'm looking at what they're spending about $885,000 last year and then matrix funding for that is about 330 so we've got a deficit of about 550 plus that that
they're having to come up with for that and so this on that same line dyslexia and any of the mental health anything that we can do to help them my question is this for you all is is there a because I'm kind of going back to the key findings on the school level resource as well rural schools spent most per student on substitutes and extra duty urban schools most spend on instructional materials and then so my question is is there a is there any kind of data that's showing per district per area what that spend is so that we could possibly see a correlation between
rural areas and low-income areas and dyslexia or anything like that to be able to correlate that
Speaker 55
1:16:32
and then be able to address it we can absolutely get that information for you I don't have it off the top of
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:16:44
we can provide some information and help perfect thank you very
thank you mr. chairman senator flowers okay I'm looking at the slide 41 expenditures on non matrix resources the building fund has a total spend of 695
5.3 million is that source funding source through academic division of academic facilities and transportation don't we put appropriate and put money every regular session in in that division we
so there is a facilities
Speaker 55
1:17:34
partnership program I don't know for sure if that's I don't think that would be included but I and I
Chair
Unverified
1:17:39
would have to look into that to further investigate to identify what other sources are included there mr. Rogers would you like to
Speaker 34
1:17:48
come and talk for just a moment about facilities partnership
i know you thought you're going to get off
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:17:58
easy today but sorry yeah i'd like to know i mean that's a good chunk of money there 695 million and uh none matrix if you would
please just introduce yourself for the record and
Speaker 34
1:18:10
then amaze us with your intelligence greg rogers department education uh
Speaker 200
1:18:15
so senator no the building fund does not have it's not partnership fund uh that is the the funds that districts have whether it was saving from county up from foundation funding or their millage that they passed for doing building projects that they put in the building fund to support any projects that they have to have going on in that bill in that
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:18:36
school district so each school district may have their own
Speaker 200
1:18:41
building fund yes ma'am that and they have because as part of qualifying one of the things is there's many things they use that building fund for it's for all sorts of projects for upkeep they have to do around their their school district as well as if they are requesting partnership funds they have to have what their participation amount based off the wealth index and that is where they would have their part of any
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:19:07
partnership project that they were looking to do with us well haven't we been given since as long as I I've been up here I think it started in 2005 money
appropriated to that division of academic facilities and transportation yes yes ma'am that there is a
Speaker 203
1:19:26
said earlier there is the partnership program that that's where they have that we
Speaker 200
1:19:31
have for building projects that warm safe and projects I guess I'll refer to it that was part of yes it was set back then as as part of that actually program to have warm safe dry to assist districts with making sure their buildings are warm and safe
Speaker 206
1:19:45
dry so that partnership program has been around for
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:19:49
a while and as to my mind it seems like we've been
appropriating at least 5 million every regular
Speaker 200
1:20:00
session so yes there's an appropriation about that but that's because we have projects are going on a a rolling cycle so it usually takes about three to five years if a school's building a school to get everything done and everything going on with the build page on that so that's the appropriation we the funding for it wasn't a line item in the rsa until 2024 and now that was a one-time fund that we come to p to alc and request how much money we want to pull out of that one-time funds
to do partnership programs for the next
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:20:32
cycle. And so is that the whole scheme now that you've got to
Speaker 200
1:20:39
go through ALC? Yes, I'll come to ALC and make a request for how much money we are seeing from approved partnership projects. Then we come to ALC and request those funds to be moved into the partnership program from Restricted Reserve
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:20:56
Fund. So since its inception in 2005, well, we just put the money over there in that division.
Now we have it placed in some restricted reserve that is not necessarily for division of equity? No, it still is. But instead of having it built in,
Speaker 200
1:21:12
the thought was at the time when it was moved in 2024 session that this is supposed to be for one-time fund, not a reoccurring expenditure because the schools aren't going to keep building schools. So instead of having a line item built in RSA that was around $60 million, the General Assembly set aside, I want to say it was $500 million.
And we had to come ask for that, how much we see for the current cycle, how much we believe we're going to need for partnership program projects. And so we come to ALC, ask for how much we have for those projects, and then the rest of
Speaker 206
1:21:49
it stays in restricted reserve. I think there's around
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:21:53
$290 million still in that fund since we started it. And it's left to that division to screen the applications and then make recommendations of which
Speaker 200
1:22:03
to approve? Yes, the division gets received, so districts have to do master plans,
and they have to show what they believe their ADM is going to be going on, the need for the life of the buildings they're currently in. There's a whole application they have to do. And then based off the projects they have in that master plan, There is a review from the facilities department that goes through and makes sure that it meets all the criteria for qualifying for a
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:22:30
partnership program. And the master plan is for a number of years? Yes, they have to
Speaker 213
1:22:35
redo that. It's five years, I think, but they have to redo it every two years.
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:22:41
Okay, and I'm glad you mentioned that $500 million because that's what it was when we first appropriated money back in 2005. It
wasn't $5 million, it was half a billion. We did the one-time funds. I want to
Speaker 200
1:22:54
say it was 2024, we did half the $500 million that we set in restricted reserve. Before then, the appropriation that I have is for the number of projects we have going on in the facilities partnership. So I understand what you're saying. Yes, ma'am. I remember that bill.
Speaker 215
1:23:11
It was a long bill, thick bill. A lot of
Speaker 216
1:23:15
us didn't understand it. Okay, thank
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:23:20
you. Senator Love, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for
allowing me to ask a question. Let me, just for my knowledge, now everything within the matrix, everything within the matrix is what we consider to be able to provide an adequate education. Is that correct? Yes, that's correct. And then everything, this non-matrix is maybe, I guess I'm not going to
say, I'm just going to say what we deem not to be essential to providing an adequate education.
Speaker 55
1:23:54
Is that? The non-matrix, there are expenditures that districts are just, these are spending from the district. So these are
Chair
Unverified
1:24:05
just what the districts have deemed what's necessary for their individual districts. And there just happen to be items that
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:24:13
are not included in the matrix. Okay, because I'm looking at slide 41, and I'm
looking at food service funding. And I'm wondering why that is
Speaker 220
1:24:26
not within the matrix, if it's food service funding.
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:24:31
I mean, I know that you're not the one. You're our staff, but I'm just saying give me the definition of what is under food service funding because I would just think that we would deem that as something that is essential for adequate education. I'll first note for food service, I do believe
Chair
Unverified
1:24:54
there's some federal funds included in that, so that might impact that a little bit. But in short, what's deemed essential for districts would be up to the decision of the committees.
And that has not been included as part of the matrix. But there are some federal funds that are included, I think, with this
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:25:15
food service fund there. Okay, so you're saying this body has not deemed food service as?
Chair
Unverified
1:25:22
It's not been a part of the matrix, which is what the committees use to determine what to provide foundation funding for what they deem to
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
1:25:31
be an adequate education. Okay, so now this is just a comment to
my colleagues. you all we're talking about food service not being part of the matrix and not
being able to provide an adequate education I think that we need to begin to think about what we are including the matrix and what we're not because I truly believe that food service is going to be something that we would deem is part of an adequate education so
thank you thank you mr. chair for indulging me Thank you, Senator. And just a quick comment on that. Obviously, as
the matrix has evolved over time, you know, we're 20 plus years into it, as it's evolved over time, there are additional things that have been added, and it's up to the purview of the committee to do so. And there's also, as you see, a number of things that are funded outside of it. Obviously, food services is something that we do fund as a state, and I believe we've made an increased commitment to that, especially even this last session.
so those things are being funded to schools they just may not be aligned out of within this formula necessarily again we can we can choose to make changes to the formula should we should we
decide to do that representative right you're recognized for
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
1:26:41
a question you mr. chairman this question here um let's just say that you have a building project that's gonna be over a 30-year period and it's gonna be ten million dollars you got a wealthy district and then you got poor districts is this money that's coming back to those poor districts
is that money actually going to be a bigger percentage than what it would be for a big school and a wealthier school i want to make
Speaker 106
1:27:14
sure i understand your question um in relation to like the found
Chair
Unverified
1:27:19
in terms of the facility funding if you're referring to the facilities partnership funding which is a primary a big use of in terms of building plans i would refer to the department on that question um and i think what factors they include in in that because i think there's a lot of
Speaker 55
1:27:36
different factors that are included in those decisions um but i'm not sure if
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
1:27:43
i've answered what you were yeah that's close that's close but what what i wonder is let's say that the basic funding foundation is eight million dollars you know uh i mean excuse me eight thousand dollars per student okay out of that eight thousand we may only be paying for 15 20 percent of some districts because they're poor districts okay but then you build a building i just had wondered if the same
percentage is used on that as building part as it would be on the part that actually is set up in a way that's based
on the wealth of the district? So
Speaker 55
1:28:29
I think some of your question might be better answered by the department.
Chair
Unverified
1:28:33
I will note that the matrix lines and what's included in the total 7,771. There is no line item specifically for buildings or building construction. It's operations
and maintenance, central office expenditures, but facilities funding specifically is separate from that, and there's multiple sources that districts can use for that, but that wouldn't be necessarily part of the foundation funding amount, and how that
Speaker 163
1:28:56
gets the wealth would be, I would defer to the district on, or the department
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
1:29:02
on. Yes, ma'am, and you know, you see a part here where you say, well, we need seven meals, extra meals to
do what we need to do. You know, that may not be near as much percentage-wise paid for by local
as it would be local, which is a poor district, compared to a richer district. I just wonder if there's some kind of balance in there. Yeah, I think
Speaker 55
1:29:29
I would have to defer to the department on that one. They can better speak to how the wealth factor
stands. So, members, I'm going to ask that as these ladies have done an outstanding job of putting the adequacy information together, let's let them stick to that. We can definitely go down a lot of roads to a lot of different questions, especially for the department.
You know, I may even just schedule a Greg day, and we can just sit and talk to Greg for hours upon end should he be willing to entertain us. But let's try and stick with the presentation that they've got and get those questions answered. And then we come up with additional questions. Let's do that. So I'm going to allow you guys to go ahead and just move on. You know, just a real quick follow-up on the dyslexia since we were talking about that. I appreciate the discussion. I think that's an important discussion. Personally, I think that we should find a way to continue to enhance our funding of dyslexia,
and that's something, again, that we can make a choice to do as a committee. I personally fall out on if we're identifying more kids. I think it's probably to the students' benefit that we over-identify as opposed to under-identifying. But the funding side of it is certainly something we can address as we move through this process. So you're recognized. Continue. So
Speaker 106
1:30:47
I'll wrap up the non-matrix section with some additional key findings. So first with our three-year trends.
Chair
Unverified
1:30:55
So total spending on non-matrix items continued to remain over $2 billion over the last three school years. Spending on non-matrix items using foundation funds has consistently been highest for instructional aides. And spending from all sources on non-matrix items was highest for non-technology-related facility expenses. And then for the 25 school year, regular districts spent three times more than charter districts per student on non matrix items districts with
enrollment with ADM between 351 and 500 had the highest non matrix per student spending and then F districts spent the most per student on non matrix items when compared across school letter district letter grades and finally there were three items identified by superintendents in the last three adequacy surveys mental health services school safety and dyslexia support And that rubs up non-matrix and I'll pass it over to Leah for the last section.
Speaker 227
1:32:06
Okay, so we'll go over total spending. So this section
Speaker 228
1:32:21
will include spending on both matrix resources and non-matrix resources for the total amounts. And so for the last three years, you can see that less than half of total spending has been spent from foundation funding.
In the last three years, the total spending has increased a little over 5% with most of that increase taking place between the 23 and 24 school years this as I mentioned this includes both non matrix and matrix resources and so this would be the totals from these slides Adrian and Elizabeth have just presented and so looking at those totals and calculating it into this amount about two-thirds actually more than two-thirds of the total spending was on matrix resources in each of the three years so looking at a per student amount for all resource spending
for districts in the last three years you can see that districts spent a little more than double each school year more than the foundation amount provided according to the matrix amount and so that 771 for 2025 overall from all fund sources districts spent a total of $15,819 per student and that additional $8,000 was made up from other fund sources which Adrian went over a couple of those yesterday. So by district type you can see and as a reminder there most of these students
94% of the students are in regular districts, and so the population size for that bar is larger. Most district spending at the highest amounts were in the F districts and the smallest school districts. The F districts also had the smallest population, but they spent $20,000 per student, and $20,000 also in the smaller districts with students fewer than $350,000.
And as the district size increases, spending tends to decrease as well, with the exception of the districts of the 1,500 student count and 5,000, where per student spending increases to over $16,000 per student. So moving on to key findings for total spending. In 2025, the spending on matrix resources accounted for the highest percentage of total expenditures, and so that's that 69%, followed by the non-matrix resources at 31%.
And from that point, we look at spending by matrix lines, and so classroom teachers accounted for 30% of total spending in 2025, followed by operations and maintenance, central office, and special education teachers. And if you recall the survey results that we presented earlier that Elizabeth went over, those matrix lines are also consistent with the top five matrix items that superintendents were reporting needing more funding for. Overall, all remaining matrix lines accounted for less than 3% of total spending.
So looking at some three-year trends for the last school years, total per student funding, as I mentioned, was more than 50% from all fund sources for each of those years, more than what they were provided in foundation funding. By fund source, if you were to divide out the amount districts spent from foundation funds, 95% went to matrix resources and 5% went to non-matrix resources.
Speaker 229
1:36:10
More per student findings, you can see that in all district types they spent more
Speaker 228
1:36:19
than $10,000 per student when looking at the per student spending amounts by district size. I'll note that the student count is based on current year ADM while the foundation funding amount is based on the prior year ADM and so there is a difference in number of students being funded here. But overall, the highest amount of spending was in those $20,000 per
students in those districts I noted, and the lowest amounts were spent in the B school districts and charter districts as well, with less than $12,000 per student in charters. And C districts, those second in the highest percentage of students, had the second highest expenditure per student as well. So this takes us to our last batch of key findings, which is including data limitations to our analysis as BLR staff.
We're unable to complete a full expenditure analysis because of those two matrix lines that we went over earlier, the classified salary enhancement lines and the other employee health insurance. Those were added in recommendations in the 22 adequacy study and due just to the constraints of our to go through the Financial Accounting Handbook and ABSCAN data, we're not able to identify what expenditures are tracked to those line items. And so because, as Adrian mentioned yesterday, without definitions for each of those matrix
lines, we're also limited to the fund source definitions and classifications outlined in DESI's Financial Accounting Handbook, it's difficult for us to identify with certainty which classification should be mapped to each of those lines. And so for an accurate comparison to what matrix is funding and what foundation funding is being spent on compared to the line items and those expenditures, it's difficult to do so without an apples-to-apples comparison. Lastly, a co-mingling of the multiple fund sources also makes it difficult to disaggregate what is not spent from foundation funds.
And so while we have a clear trend, as you've seen throughout this presentation, we can identify what was spent from foundation and what was spent from categorical and supplemental funds which we'll go over in part two and but it makes the commingling of other sources including federal dollars and prevents us from identifying exactly which first fund sources and revenues are making up expenditures and with that I will
Speaker 227
1:38:41
take any questions thank you members you have
Speaker 34
1:38:48
questions on this portion represent Gonzales were then you
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
1:38:54
recognize thank you for your presentation you mentioned about the it's it's kind of tough or difficult to identify some of these items because of the commingling or you're just not quite sure how what would we what would need to be done to provide clarity for those line items if it's not if it's not being done now I
don't it's just a question because I've heard several times in our questions we can't really determine that based on the way the data
Speaker 20
1:39:31
is entered or okay representative Gonzales and we the financial accounting handbook
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
1:39:37
has the codes for funds and expenditures that we use and so some of our difficulty is when there's not a fund code or an expenditure code attached to a particular item and and the department produces that financial accounting
handbag and that is in statute that they're required to produce it and there are there are specifics in that statute about specific
funds and specific expenditures that are required to have their own codes okay thank
Speaker 62
1:40:14
you are there additional questions by members
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:40:21
center flowers okay so it seems as though
Several items, including this
classified employee salary enhancement and other employee health insurance, has no definition. Did I understand that to be the case? As well as gifted and talented, even though required. As far as the matrix
Speaker 228
1:40:50
line items, and so the two lines you mentioned, excluding gifted
and talented because that is not identified in the matrix, the original discussions in 2003 and then again in 2006 had broad descriptions used for those resources, but there have never been any explicit definitions
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:41:13
written for those matrix lines, no. Seems like we have some work to do in terms of defining these terms that are included in the matrix.
If I could go back
to, because I was looking at this LEA indebtedness in this 43 on
page 22. And I was wondering, what is that? How are we indebted to the tune of $372.3 million?
Now, that's that educational agency. We have state and local. And the Department of
Ed has a state, they used to. I don't know
if they still do or not. SEA, but this is non-matrix,
and we're dealing with – am I right about that?
that local education agent and our state education agency at the department has indebtedness i mean i
i'm trying to understand it's non-matrix but it's an indebtedness yes so this refers to this
Speaker 106
1:42:52
is at the disc this is district level so this is um any kind of debt the debt the districts may be accruing typically with facilities is a big driver of
that i believe for the lea for the lea refers to the districts so each individual districts have projects that may need paid over many years
Chair
Unverified
1:43:14
or so there there's typically just typical debt that may come along with any kind of construction projects or along the like but anything further i might defer to the department to further clarify but those are typically what those are referring to. Is there a
Speaker 117
1:43:37
have an explicit definition. I had never thought of
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:43:42
LEA being associated with
building but rather special needs and an agency that is supposed to be supervising or at least uh following up on uh administering special needs senator flowers and an lea is local education association
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
1:44:08
and so that's just another way of identifying a district
um an ale is an alternative learning environment and that's what's going to be connected to special needs but the lea
is just referring to the local education agency
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:44:26
or a district well how is that How do capital improvements get in that? I'm not understanding this. I mean, LEA, I've never seen it associated with anything other than alternative learning or special needs. I can't speak to that specifically.
Speaker 55
1:44:46
LEA, like she said, when we use it, it's a number. It's a number that we use to identify districts for
Chair
Unverified
1:44:53
a multitude of purposes. And the term LEA indebtedness comes from that financial accounting handbook. So it's a term of how the department is categorizing several different expenditure types. So that's where that comes from. And those are typically encapsulating any kind of those facility building type
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:45:14
of expenses. I'm really confused about that.
If Greg from the department has any comment on that, this is strange to me.
And you mentioned some kind of financial booklet or something. Where is that? So that's a statutory
Speaker 55
1:45:34
requirement that the department is required. It's a very extensive book that's used to track help for our app scan system. It's the data system refers to AppScan, which is where all districts are inputting their expenditures that they're using for spending.
Chair
Unverified
1:45:54
And that is a handbook that's used for analysis purposes to help identify which codes mean which to mean what. That's publicly available. We're
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
1:46:05
happy to send you a copy of that. And we'd be happy to send you the definition
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:46:13
for the LEA indebtedness. Yes, I'd like to see that
because, I mean, I'd just like to see that. And because we have in the department, SEA, which is a state education agency.
And I don't understand this. I mean, I've never
heard of LEA being associated with some capital improvement. So, Senator, one
portion of the adequacy binder, which is not completely full right now, but staff can get to us, is a term and a definition portion. And so the staff will provide that, which gives us a whole gamut of acronyms and everything that they refer to.
So we're going to have staff make sure that's included in your binder.
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:47:00
Okay, and the other thing, Mr. Chair, you had mentioned before that there is a workbook or work schedule
or something in our notebook. Where is that? Are we supposed to be taking notes and writing notes or something in that worksheet or
something? So 1D of your binder, section 1D. 1D.
It should be a recommendations worksheet. It's a
lot to flip through. Okay, I see. I'm there with you.
I got it. So the recommendations worksheet, and so as you've heard us talk about in the past, previously in the adequacy process we would typically take that worksheet at the end of at the end of the process so go through all of these hearings gather all this information
and then we would be presented the joint committee would be presented the worksheet and would then go in and make their individual recommendations senator english and i as we kind of evaluated the process to see how could how we could be more efficient in it we wanted to go ahead and provide that now so that as we're going through the different specific categories and have these discussions the members can go in and go ahead and approach the worksheet with their current information their current knowledge uh and and go ahead and start and kind of get ahead of the game so that we're not trying to think back on six months eight months ten months of work
and try to remember what we did so but that worksheet is there for you to to continue to evaluate and put information as we're going through this process and
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:48:48
make your own recommendations okay and so we we will be making this report for fy28 so
the recommendations that we make the recommendations are due the end of october we'll make those recommendations as again separate committees
senate house or as a joint committee which would be ideal we present those recommendations
and then historically those recommendations have been acted on in the following legislative session for the next biennium so the recommendations we take so this this last last time in october of 24 october november of 24 we had the recommendations we came out with roughly a 2.48 percent increase uh each year and that's what was acted on in the adequacy bill that was run in the 25 session we'll do the same thing we'll make the recommendations we'll run a bill in the 27th session that is um reflective of those recommendations okay which will be for 20
fiscal year 28 29 it'll be for the school years of 27 28 28 29 yes so this could our current our current adequacy recommendation uh which was passed in 25 was for the 25 26 school year and the 26 27 school year uh the per pupil funding amount so the next one will be for the 27 28 28 29
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:50:06
school years right okay thank you so uh you know i i've been making little notes on on
these sheets these um charts that you all are giving us so i'll just put these
in my binder is that yes ma'am yeah whatever you
think is most effective for you and then later try to figure out where where in the
Speaker 247
1:50:26
works i mean make use use the worksheets as much as
you want to Again, the only thing that we typically ask is don't take those home with you because they have a hard time getting back has been our experience. So take that. Spend as much time every time you're down here in Little Rock. Spend as much time as you want to on them. Okay. Thank you. Okay, members, there are no additional questions, so I'm going to make a recommendation.
If the committee would so entertain me, I'm going to make a recommendation that we take this next part, the part two, And we're going to move that to a meeting in May, which will be after the fiscal session. Yes, Representative Innet. Am I on? Am I on? You are, yes. Thank
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
1:51:12
you, Mr. Chairman. I had a couple questions for ADE, if I can, if I may. What's the nature of those questions?
So what I'm trying to do is kind of help us to cohesively
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
1:51:28
land this plane today. Yes, and I want to help you do that, too. I had some questions about ALE. I
forgot to ask them yesterday. Yeah, so ALE is actually more comprehensively addressed in the next presentation. And so let me kind of finish where I was going. I think that will help context. So my recommendation, do you have another question besides ALE?
Okay. So my recommendation to the committee is going to be that we take part two of what was going to be presented today. I would ask that you go read through it. So you've got Exhibit B2. Take your Exhibit B2, whether you do it online, whether you do it in paper. Read through this because it's looking at things like categorical. It's looking at ALE. It's looking at ESA funds, all of the other things. It's very, very detailed. And then we will schedule a May meeting after the fiscal session. In that May meeting, we will go over the second portion of what was going to be presented today.
And we will also make that our Greg Rogers afternoon as well so that we can kind of hit all those things together. So if there are questions for staff on the presentation, we'll address that then. If there's questions for the department, we'll also address that then to
kind of comprehensively look at it. And seeing no additional questions, joint education is adjourned.
Agenda
A. Call to Order
B. 2026 Adequacy Study: Resource Allocation Part I [Exhibits B1-B2]
C. 2026 Adequacy Study: Resource Allocation Part II [Exhibits C1-C2]
D. Other Business
E. Adjournment
Documents
Speakers
Representative Keith Brooks Chair
Unverified
Representative Jason Nazarenko
Unverified
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
Speaker 18
Speaker 25
Speaker 34
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 71
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
Representative Stetson Painter
Unverified
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
Speaker 88
Speaker 48
Speaker 125
Speaker 123
Speaker 135
Speaker 106
Speaker 55
Speaker 20
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
Speaker 163
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
Speaker 180
Representative Steven Walker
Unverified
Speaker 176
Speaker 196
Speaker 200
Speaker 203
Speaker 206
Speaker 213
Speaker 215
Speaker 216
Senator Fredrick J. Love
Unverified
Speaker 220
Speaker 227
Speaker 228
Speaker 229
Speaker 62
Speaker 117
Speaker 247
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified