ERS is a national nonprofit that partners with district,
school and state leaders to transform how they use
resources (people, time, and money) so that every
school prepares every child for tomorrow, no matter
their race or income.
Every School. Every Child. Ready for Tomorrow.
1
We believe….
▪ All studentsdeserve a great education tailored to their
needs.
▪ One-school-at-a-time reform is not enough; we must
redesign school systems to create the conditions for
all schools to succeed.
▪ It’s not just about how much you have, but how well
you use it: districts can restructuretheir resources to
meet their strategicgoals and schools’ uniqueneeds.
2
▪ What does a state funding system need to accomplish?
▪ Understanding “adequacy”
▪ What would it mean to allocate resources equitably?
▪ How might a state system support excellence and
efficiency?
3
Agenda
Funding systems can enable high performance
4
Equity
Adequacy
Excellence Efficiency
5
NOTE: Expenditures shown include instruction, support services, food services, and enterprise operations, and exclude capital outlay and interest on debt.
Source: ERS analysis using datafrom NCES Table 236.55.Totaland current expendituresper pupil in publicelementaryand secondary schools: Selected years, 1919-20through2013-14; NCES
Table 236.10. Summary of expendituresforpublic elementary and secondary educationand otherrelatedprograms, by purpose: Selected years, 1919-20 through2013-14; Bureau of Economic
Analysis, Table 3.1 Government Current Receipts and Expenditures 1929-2016; NCES Table 106.70. Gross domestic product price index, Consumer Price Index, educationprice indexes, and
federal budgetcomposite deflator: Selected years, 1919 through 2014;Bureau of Economic Analysis, Current-Dollar and "Real" Gross Domestic Product1929-2016
0%
10%
15%
25%
$0
$4,000
5%
$2,000
$6,000
$8,000
$12,000
20%
$10,000
$14,000
1919-20
1921-22
1923-24
1925-26
1927-28
1929-30
1932-33
1934-35
1936-37
1938-39
1940-41
1942-43
1944-45
1946-47
1948-49
1950-51
1952-53
1955-56
1956-67
1958-59
1960-61
1962-63
1964-65
1966-67
1968-69
1970-71
1972-73
1974-75
1976-77
1978-79
1980-81
1982-83
1984-85
1986-87
1988-89
1990-91
1992-93
1994-95
1996-97
1998-99
2000-01
2002-03
2004-05
2006-07
2008-09
2010-11
2012-13
---Not
PerPupilExpendituresin2016-17Dollars
Real Inflation-Adjusted National Public K-12 Expenditures, and as compared to % of
GDP and % of current public expenditures (1920-2014)
K-12 dollar per pupil expenditures K-12 spending as % total public expenditures K-12 spending as % GDP
Just since 1970, real inflation-adjusted per-pupil funding increased 220%
National Context
Real spendingon educationhas increased sharply over the last 50 years
(until the great recession), fueled mostly by growthin the economy
6
7.4
10.2
10.9
12.1
12.5 12.7
4.3
5.6
6.4
6.9
8.0 8.2
$55K
$49K
$59K $60K $61K $59K
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
$80,000
$90,000
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2015
Averageteachersalaryin2016-17dollars
StafforTeachersper100students Staff per 100 students and Teacher per 100 students over time,
compared to changes in teacher salary
Staff members per 100 students Teachers per 100 students Average teacher salary
$100,000
Pupil to staff ratio 13.6 9.8 9.2 8.3 8.0 7.9
Pupil to teacher ratio 22.3 18.7 17.2 16.0 16.0 16.1
Since 1970, staff per pupil have increased72%, and teachers per pupil have
increased 88%, yet real inflation-adjusted teacher salaries have only
increased7%
National Context
6
This means that while teacher pay has kept pace with
inflation, it has not kept pace with comparable jobs
National Context
-8.5%
-7.6%
-8.8%
-10.2%
-13.4%
-12.1%
-4.0%
-18%
-14%
-16%
-12%
-10%
-8%
-6%
-4%
0%
-2%
1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009
-17.0%
2014
Source: Economic Policy Institute, “The Teacher Pay Gap is Wider Than Ever”, 2016
Note: From thereport: “Figure compares weekly wages. Regression-adjusted estimates include controls for age (quartic), education, race/ethnicity, geographical region, marital status, and
genderfor thepooled sample. Data are for workers age 18–64 with positive wages (excluding self-employed workers). Non-imputed data are not available for 1994 and 1995; data points for
these years have been extrapolated and are represented by dotted lines.”
Wage Gap between Public School Teachers and Similar Workers
Accounts for hours worked and other factors
8
16%
26% 26%
15%
12%
5%
36%
31%
17%
11%
4%
1%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Distribution of Teacher Aptitude Based on Mean College SATScores
1963 2000
As of 2010, only 24% of U.S. teachers came from the top third of their
college graduating classes, only 14% in poor communities.
In some countries, 100% of teachers come from the top third.
Lowest 2 3 4 5 Highest
National Context
The aptitude of new teachers has also declined in lock-
step with this growing wage gap
Source: Hoxby, Caroline, M., and Andrew Leigh. 2004."Pulled Away or Pushed Out?Explaining theDecline of Teacher Aptitude in theUnitedStates." American Economic Review,94(2):
236-240; Loeb, S., & Beteille,T. (2009)
Did You
Know?
The resulting teacher shortages significantly impact
student performance
▪ Reported increasesin:
▪ Unfilled vacancies
▪ Emergency credentialed teachers
▪ Shortage of applicants even in critical (easy to staff) subject
areas
▪ Teachers teaching out of subject
▪ Schools and districts are not set up to handle the
growing influx of untrained adults who are being asked to
enter classrooms, sometimes with little advance training
at all
9
National Context
Nationally,North Carolina is among the lowest-
funded states
9
$19.6K
$0
$20,000
$25,000
Uta
h
Arizona
Idaho
Nevada
Texas
NorthCarolina
California
Georgia
Colorado
Tennessee
Oklahoma
Florida
Washington
Mississippi
Virginia
Alabama
Indiana
Kentucky
SouthCarolina
NewMexico
Orego
nMichigan
Missouri
Minnesota
Arkansas
SouthDakota
Ohi
o
Wisconsin
Kansas
Louisiana
Iowa
Illinois
Hawaii
Maryland
WestVirginia
Delaware
Nebraska
Pennsylvania
Massachusetts
Montana
NorthDakota
RhodeIsland
NewHampshire
Maine
NewJersey
Connecticut
NewYork
Alaska
Wyoming
Vermont
Total K12 Per Pupil Expenditure, 2013-14 (adjusted for geography)
$15,000
National median= $11K
$10,000
$8.1K
$6.5K
$5,000
Source: NCES; per pupil expenditures adjusted using CWI; ERS analysis
Recently, real inflation-adjusted per-pupil funding
has declined by 10%, 2X more than nationwide
9
-10%
-10%
-15%
-20% -19%
-5%
Indiana
Idaho
Arizona
Nevada
Florida
Georgia
NorthCarolina
Arkansas
Wisconsin
Nebraska
Illinois
SouthDakota
Wyoming
Uta
hNew
Mexico
Colorado
Mississippi
Virginia
Texas
Hawaii
Maryland
Oklahoma
Alabama
Missouri
Louisiana
Michigan
Maine
Kentucky
WestVirginia
Montana
Kansa
s
Ohi
oDelaware
SouthCarolina
Washington
Tennessee
Minnesota
California
Vermont
NewYork
NewJersey
RhodeIsland
Massachusetts
Pennsylvania
NorthDakota
Oregon
Iow
aNew
Hampshire
Connecticut
Alaska
Percent change in real inflation-adjusted dollar per pupil revenue 2009-10 to 2013-14
10%
6%
5%
0%
National median = -5%
Source: NCES, Common Core of Data; Bureau of Labor Statistics; ERS analysis
14
NC teachers earn about 67% of what similarly educated non-
teachers in the state earn, even after controlling for hours
worked per week andyear
94
100
Arizon
aVirginia
Tennessee
NorthCarolina
Oklahoma
Colorado
Georgia
Missouri
SouthDakota
Massachusetts
Texas
Washington
Indian
aKansas
NorthDakota
Alabam
a
Connecticut
Kentucky
Minnesota
Utah
Idah
o
Mississippi
Florida
Illinois
NewHampshire
SouthCarolina
Arkansas
Montana
California
Delaware
Louisiana
Maryland
Ohi
oOregon
Vermont
NewJersey
Wisconsin
Hawai
iNebraska
WestVirginia
Michigan
NewMexico
RhodeIsland
Pennsylvania
Maine
NewYork
Nevada
Alaska
Iowa
Wyoming
Wage Competitiveness Ratio(2012)
90
80
National median= 73
70
62
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
The wage competitivenessratio controls for age, education level, hours worked per week, and hours worked per year
Source: “A coming crisis in teaching? Teacher supply, demand, and shortages in the U.S.”, Learning Policy Institute 2016
15
The attractiveness of the teacher profession (pay and
working conditions) is particularly low in North Carolina
44.6
68.1
40 37.7
30
20
10
0
50
70
Arizona
Hawaii
SouthCarolina
Mississippi
Florida
Louisiana
NorthCarolina
NewMexico
Montana
Oklahoma
Maine
SouthDakota
WestVirginia
TennesseeNew
Hampshire
Alabama
Arkansas
Colorado
Kansas
Maryland
Nebraska
Alaska
Idaho
Vermont
Georgia
Virginia
Delaware
Nevada
Washington
Wisconsin
Texas
California
Iowa
Kentucky
Missouri
Indiana
NorthDakota
RhodeIsland
Michigan
Utah
Oregon
Ohio
Wyoming
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Pennsylvania
Connecticut
Illinois
NewJersey
NewYork
State Total Scores for Opportunity & Competition and Academic
and Work Environment (WalletHub)
Source: WalletHub 2017
60
National median = 54.0
States were evaluated on 21 metrics including starting salary, income growth potential, average teacher pension, public schoolenrollment growth, pupil-teacher ratios, and turnover
16
While spending levels don't always predict outcomes,
at the lowest levels, they drastically limit possibility
$19.6K
$0
$20,000
$25,000
Uta
h
Arizona
Idaho
Nevada
Texas
NorthCarolina
California
Georgia
Colorado
Tennessee
Oklahoma
Florida
Washington
Mississippi
Virginia
Alabama
Indiana
Kentucky
SouthCarolina
NewMexico
Orego
nMichigan
Missouri
Minnesota
Arkansas
SouthDakota
Ohi
o
Wisconsin
Kansas
Louisiana
Iowa
Illinois
Hawaii
Maryland
WestVirginia
Delaware
Nebraska
Pennsylvania
Massachusetts
Montana
NorthDakota
RhodeIsland
NewHampshire
Maine
NewJersey
Connecticut
NewYork
Alaska
Wyoming
Vermont
Total K12 Per Pupil Expenditure, 2013-14 (adjusted for geography)
$15,000
National median= $11K
$10,000
$8.1K
$6.5K
$5,000
Source: NCES; per pupil expenditures adjusted using CWI; ERS analysis
▪ What does a state funding system needto accomplish?
▪ Understanding “adequacy”
18
▪ What would it mean to allocate resourcesequitably?
▪ How might a state system supportexcellence and
efficiency?
Agenda
Unfortunately, we know that the concentration of
poverty predicts outcomes in most cases
Data on school average proficiency from 4 large districts
R² = 0.74
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
R² = 0.81
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
R² = 0.72
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
R² = 0.77
19
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
A B
C D
ELAProficiency15-16
% FRL
School level concentration of poverty lowers
performance for ALL students
89
83 82
74
56
67
63 62
56
40
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0-19% 80-100%
PercentofStudentsRatedProficient
20-39% 40-59% 60-79%
Percent of Poverty Students in School
Student Performance vs. School Level
Concentration ofPoverty
Non-Economically DisadvantagedStudent Economically DisadvantagedStudent
20Source: ERS Analysis of 8 largedistricts across 8 states
..And NC has a larger gap between low- and high-
funded districts than most states
-5%
22%
-25%
-20%
-19%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
-5%
-10%
-15%
Illinois
NewYork
Pennsylvania
Texas
Maryland
MichiganNorth
Carolina
Iowa
Montana
Missouri
Idaho
RhodeIsland
Wyoming
Maine
Nebraska
NewHampshire
Alabama
Arizona
Virginia
Colorado
Kansas
SouthCarolina
Vermont
NorthDakota
NewMexico
Florida
Arkansas
Connecticut
Washington
Mississippi
WestVirginia
Oregon
Wisconsin
Utah
Oklahoma
Georgia
NewJersey
Louisiana
Massachusetts
California
Kentucky
Indiana
Tennessee
Delaware
SouthDakota
Minnesota
Ohio
%DifferenceinFundingBetweenHighest-and
Lowest-PovertyDistricts
EducationTrust Funding Gap, Unadjusted for Need
21
Early Learning
& Early
Intervention
Teaching
Excellence
School
Funding
Dimensions of resource equity
School
Leadership
Instructional
Time: Length
of Day/ Year
Personalized
Time &
Attention
Social &
Emotional
Supports
Academic
Rigor:
Curriculum,
Instruction, &
Course-taking
Diverse &
Inclusive
Schools
Support for
Parental
Engagement
22DevelopedbyERS inpartnershipwithChiefsfor Change
▪ What does a state funding system needto accomplish?
▪ Understanding “adequacy”
▪ What would it mean to allocate resourcesequitably?
23
▪ How might a state system supportexcellence and
efficiency?
Agenda
Organizing for high performance means making big
shifts from traditional ways of organizing
Design
Essential
From: To:
Teacher
Collaboration
Teaching as anindividual
enterprise.
Teamsof teachers whowork together to
execute a collective vision for excellent
instruction, and their own professional
improvement.
A“one-size-fits-all”
teaching job.
Roles and assignments that matcheach
individual’s unique skills and expertise
to neededroles.
Personalized
Time &
Attention
Standardized class sizesin
“one-teacherclassrooms.”
Groups of teachers and students that
vary across subjects, activities and
students.
Rigid time allocations.
Flexible schedules that allow timeto
vary with needs ofstudents.
WholeChild
Investments in culture and
social-emotional support
that remove resourcesfrom
coreinstruction.
Investments that are embedded within
and reinforce the school’s core
instructional work.
24
And is the result of transformational changes in how
people, time, and moneyare used
24
Design Essential Examples of TransformationalResource Changes
Teacher
Collaboration
✓ 90 min+ weekly for shared-content teacher teams to
collaborate
✓ 100% of teams facilitated by an instructionalexpert
✓ Coaching ratios of 8-12 teachers per full-time instructional
expert
Personalized Time
& Attention
✓ Struggling students receive 50% more time in target areas
than students who are proficient
✓ Targeted student groups are adjusted more than 4x/yr based
on student progress
✓ Teacher load in high-priority classes is fewer than 50 students
WholeChild
✓ Regular time exists in student schedules to deliver an SEL
curriculum that is developmentally appropriate
✓ Classroom teachers and school-based SEL staff meet
regularly to review student data and action-plan
▪ Design new teacher and principalcompensation
structures that attract and keep the most effective
▪ Shift staffing resources to highest-prioritysubjects
▪ Enable more flexible roles in schools that fit today's work
world
▪ Explore innovative ways of delivering instruction through
technology and outside partners
▪ Extend and vary instructionaltime
26
Supporting and enabling higher-performing school
designs requires funding flexibility in order to:
Funding systems can enable high performance
4
Equity
Adequacy
Excellence Efficiency
While NC must address adequacy, funding reform must also ensure that
new dollars do not flow into legacy staffing and compensation structures
that no longer work for students or teachers.