IES Blog

NCES recently released a finance tables report, Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary Education: FY 21 (NCES 2023-301), which draws from data in the National Public Education Financial Survey (NPEFS). To accompany the report, NCES has updated the interactive data visualization tool to highlight the per pupil revenues and expenditures (adjusted for inflation) and average daily attendance (ADA) trends from the fiscal year 2021 (FY 21) NPEFS.

This tool allows users to see national or state-specific per pupil amounts and year-to-year percentage changes for both total revenue and current expenditures by using a slider to toggle between the two variables. Total revenues are shown by source, and total current expenditures are shown by function and subfunction. Clicking on a state in the map will display data for the selected state in the bar charts.

The tool also allows users to see the ADA for each state. It is sortable by state, ADA amount, and percentage change. It may also be filtered to easily compare selected states. Hovering over the ADA of a state will display another bar graph with the last 3 years of ADA data.

Overall, the results show that spending¹ on elementary and secondary education increased in school year 2020–21 (FY 21). This is the eighth consecutive year that year-over-year education spending increased (since FY 13), after adjusting for inflation. This increase follows declines in year-over-year spending for the prior 4 years (FY 10 through FY 13).

Revenues

The 50 states and the District of Columbia reported $837.3 billion in revenues collected for public elementary and secondary education in FY 21. State and local governments provided $748.9 billion, or 89.4 percent of all revenues. The federal government contributed $88.4 billion, or 10.6 percent of all revenues. Total revenues increased by 3.0 percent after adjusting for inflation² (from $812.8 to $837.3 billion) from FY 20 to FY 21; local revenues remained relatively unchanged (from $365.1 to $365.1 billion); state revenues decreased by 0.6 percent (from $385.9 to $383.8 billion); and federal revenues increased by 43.2 percent (from $61.8 to $88.4 billion).

Total revenues per pupil averaged $17,015 on a national basis in FY 21. This reflects an increase of 5.9 percent between FY 20 and FY 21 and follows an increase of 1.5 percent from FY 19 to FY 20. The percentage change in revenues per pupil from FY 20 to FY 21 ranged from an increase of 15.3 percent in Maine to a decrease of 4.2 percent in Hawaii.

The Edunomics Lab at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy has developed NERD$, a national school-by-school spending data archive of per-pupil expenditures using the financial data states publish as required by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). In this guest blog post, Laura Anderson, Ash Dhammani, Katie Silberstein, Jessica Swanson, and Marguerite Roza of the Edunomics Lab discuss what they have learned about making their research more usable by practitioners.

When it comes to getting research and data used, it’s not just a case of “build it and they will come” (apologies to the movie “Field of Dreams”). In our experience, we’ve found that state, district, and school leaders want—and need—help translating data and research findings to inform decision making.

Researchers frequently use our IES-funded school-by-school spending archive called NERD$: National Education Resource Database on Schools. But we knew the data could have immediate, effective, and practical use for education leaders as well, to help them make spending decisions that advance equity and leverage funds to maximize student outcomes. Funding from the U.S. Department of Education’s  the National Comprehensive Center enabled us to expand on the IES-funded NERD$ by building the School Spending & Outcomes Snapshot (SSOS), a customizable, research-tested data visualization tool. We published a related guide on leading productive conversations on resource equity and outcomes and conducted numerous trainings for federal, state, and local leaders on using SSOS. The data visualizations we created drew on more than two years of pilot efforts with 26 school districts to find what works best to drive strategic conversations.

We see this task of translating research to practice as an essential element of our research efforts. Here, we share lessons learned from designing data tools with end users in mind, toward helping other researchers maximize the impact of their own work.

Users want findings converted into user-friendly data visualizations. Before seeing the bar chart below, leaders of Elgin Area School District U-46 in Illinois did not realize that they were not systematically allocating more money per student to schools with higher shares of economically disadvantaged students. It was only when they saw their schools lined up from lowest to highest by per pupil spending and color coded by the share of economically disadvantaged students (with green low and red high) that they realized their allocations were all over the map.

Note. This figure provides two pieces of information on schools in Elgin Area School District U-46. It shows the spending per pupil for each school in dollars, and it shows the share of the students in each school who are categorized as economically disadvantaged from 0 to 100% using the colors green to red. The schools are lined up from lowest to highest per pupil spending. When lined up this way, there is no pattern of where schools with more economically disadvantaged students fit in as they fall across the spectrum of low to high spending per pupil schools. The figure shows there is little correlation between school per pupil spending and the percent of economically disadvantaged students they serve. The figure made it easier for users to understand the lack of the relationship between per pupil spending by schools and the percent of economically disadvantaged students they serve.

Users want research converted into locally relevant numbers. Embedding district-by-district figures into visualizations takes effort but pays off. Practitioners and decisionmakers can identify what the research means for their own context, making the data more immediately actionable in their local community.

That means merging lots of data for users. We merged demographic, spending, and outcomes data for easy one-stop access in the SSOS tool. In doing so, users could then do things like compare peer schools with similar demographics and similar per-student spending levels, surfacing schools that have been able to do more for students with the same amount of money. Sharing with lower-performing schools what those standout schools are doing can open the door for peer learning toward improving schooling.

Data displays need translations to enable interpretation. In our pilot effort, we learned that at first glance, the SSOS-generated scatterplot below could be overwhelming or confusing. In focus groups, we found that by including translation statements, such as labeling the four quadrants clearly, the information became more quickly digestible.

Note. This figure provides three pieces of information on schools in Elgin Area School District U-46. It shows the spending per pupil for each school in dollars, the share of the students in each school who are categorized as economically disadvantaged from 0 to 100% using the colors green to red, and the achievement level of each school based on a composite of its students’ math and reading scores. Schools are placed into 1 of 4 categories on the figure, and a translation statement is put in each category to make clear what each category represents. These four translation statements are: 1) spend fewer dollars than peers but get higher student outcomes, 2) spend fewer dollars than peers but get lower student outcomes, 3) spend more dollars than peers but get higher student outcomes, and 4) spend more dollars than peers but get lower student outcomes. These translation statements were found to make it easier for users to understand the data presented in the figure.

Short webinar trainings (like this one on SSOS) greatly enhanced usage. Users seem willing to come to short tutorials (preloaded with their data). Recording these tutorials meant that attendees could share them with their teams.

Users need guidance on how and when to use research findings. We saw usage increase when leaders were given specific suggestions on when and where to bring their data. For instance, we advised that school board members could bring NERD$ data to early stage budget workshops held in the spring. That way the data could inform spending decisions before district budgets get finalized and sent to the full board for approval in May or June.

It's worth the extra efforts to make research usable and useful. These efforts to translate data and findings to make them accessible for end users have helped make the federally supported school-by-school spending dataset an indispensable resource for research, policy, and practice. NERD$ makes transparent how much money each school gets from its district. SSOS helps move the conversation beyond the “how much” into “what is the money doing” for student outcomes and equity, encouraging stakeholders to dig into how spending patterns are or are not related to performance. State education agencies are using the displays to conduct ESSA-required resource allocation reviews in districts that serve low-performing schools. The tool has more than 5,000 views, and we have trained more than 2,000 education leaders on how to use the data displays to improve schooling.

IES has made clear it wants research to be used, not to sit on a shelf. In our experience, designing visualizations and other tools around user needs can make data accessible, actionable, and impactful.

This blog was produced by Allen Ruby (Allen.Ruby@ed.gov), Associate Commissioner, NCER.

Financial literacy is a critical skill for young adults—especially as they begin to enter college or the workforce—that is often needed for partial or full financial independence and increased financial decision making.

The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA)—which is coordinated by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)—gives us a unique opportunity to analyze and understand the financial literacy of 15-year-olds in the United States and other education systems around the world. PISA is the only large-scale nationally representative assessment that measures the financial literacy skills of 15-year-olds. The financial literacy domain was administered first in 2012 and then in 2015 and 2018. The 2018 financial literacy cycle assessed approximately 117,000 students, representing about 13.5 million 15-year-olds from 20 education systems. The fourth cycle began in fall 2022 in the United States and is currently being conducted.

How Frequently Do Students Discuss Financial Topics With Their Parents?

In 2018, all education systems that administered the PISA financial literacy assessment also asked students to complete a questionnaire about their experiences with money matters in school and outside of school. In the United States, about 3,500 students out of the total 3,740 U.S. PISA sample completed the questionnaire.

This blog post explores how frequently students reported talking about the following five topics with their parents (or guardians or relatives):

1. their spending decisions
2. their savings decisions
3. the family budget
4. money for things they want to buy
5. news related to economics or finance

Students’ answers were grouped into two categories: frequent (“a few times a month” or “once a week or more”) and infrequent (“never or almost never” or “a few times a year”).

We first looked at the degree to which students frequently discussed various financial topics with their parents. In 2018, the frequency of student-parent financial discussions varied by financial topic (figure 1):

• About one-quarter (24 percent) of U.S. 15-year-old students reported frequently discussing with their parents news related to economics or finance.
• More than half (53 percent) of U.S. 15-year-old students reported frequently discussing with their parents money for things they wanted to buy.

Do male and female students differ in how frequently they discuss financial topics with their parents?

In 2018, higher percentages of female students than of male students frequently discussed with their parents the family budget (35 vs. 32 percent) and money for things they wanted to buy (56 vs. 50 percent). Meanwhile, a lower percentage of female students than of male students frequently discussed with their parents news related to economics or finance (21 vs. 26 percent) (figure 2).

Are Students’ Financial Literacy Scores Related to How Frequently They Discuss Financial Matters With Their Parents?

With a scale from 0–1,000, the PISA financial literacy assessment measures students’ financial knowledge in four content areas:

1. money and transactions
2. planning and managing finances
3. risk and reward
4. the financial landscape

In 2018, the average score of 15-year-old students ranged from 388 points in Indonesia to 547 points in Estonia. The U.S. average (506 points) was higher than the average in 11 education systems, lower than the average in 4 education systems, and not measurably different from the average in 4 education systems. The U.S. average was also not measurably different from the OECD average.

We also examined the relationship between frequent parent–student financial discussions and students’ financial literacy achievement (figure 3). After taking into account students’ gender, race/ethnicity, immigration status, and socioeconomic status—as well as their school’s poverty and location—the results show that students who reported frequently discussing spending decisions with their parents scored 16 points higher on average than did students who reported infrequently discussing this topic. On the other hand, students who reported frequently discussing news related to economics or finance with their parents scored 18 points lower on average than did students who reported infrequently discussing this topic.  

Do Students Think That Young Adults Should Make Their Own Spending Decisions?

We also explored whether students agreed that young people should make their own spending decisions. In 2018, some 63 percent of U.S. 15-year-old students reported they agreed or strongly agreed, while 37 percent reported that they disagreed.

Do male and female students differ in their agreement that young adults should make their own spending decisions?

When comparing the percentage of male versus female students, we found that a lower percentage of female students than of male students agreed or strongly agreed that young people should make their own spending decisions (59 vs. 66 percent). This pattern held even after taking into account students’ gender, race/ethnicity, immigration status, and socioeconomic status as well as school poverty and location.  

Upcoming PISA Data Collections

A deeper understanding of the frequency of parent–student financial conversations, the types of topics discussed, and the relationships between financial topics and financial literacy could help parents and educators foster financial literacy across different student groups in the United States.

PISA began collecting data in 2022 after being postponed 1 year due to the COVID-19 pandemic; 83 education systems are expected to participate. The PISA 2022 Financial Literacy Assessment will include items from earlier years as well as new interactive items. The main PISA results will be released in December 2023, and the PISA financial literacy results will be released in spring/summer 2024.

Be sure to follow NCES on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, and YouTube and subscribe to the NCES News Flash to receive notifications when these new PISA data are released.

By Saki Ikoma, Marissa Hall, and Frank Fonseca, AIR

To accompany the recently released Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary Education FY 2020, NCES has created an interactive data visualization tool to highlight the per pupil revenues and expenditures (adjusted for inflation) and average daily attendance (ADA) trends from the fiscal year (FY) 2020 National Public Education Financial Survey.

This tool allows users to see national or state-specific per pupil amounts and year-to-year percentage changes for both total revenue and current expenditures by using a slider to toggle between the two variables. Total revenues are shown by source, and total current expenditures are shown by function and subfunction. Clicking on a state in the map will display data for the selected state in the bar charts.

The tool also allows users to see the ADA for each state. It is sortable by state, ADA amount, and percentage change. It may also be filtered to easily compare selected states. Hovering over the ADA of a state will display another bar graph with the last 3 years of ADA data.

Revenues and Expenditures

Between FY 2019 and FY 2020, inflation-adjusted total revenues per pupil increased by 1.8 percent (to $15,711). Of these total revenues for education in FY 2020, the majority were provided by state and local governments ($7,461 and $7,056, respectively).

The percentage change in revenues per pupil from FY 2019 to FY 2020 ranged from +15.4 percent in New Mexico to -2.4 percent in Kentucky. Total revenues per pupil increased in 38 states and the District of Columbia and decreased in 12 states between FY 2019 and FY 2020.

[click to enlarge image]

In FY 2020, current expenditures per pupil for the United States were $13,489, up 0.5 percent from FY 2019, after adjusting for inflation. Current expenditures per pupil ranged from $8,287 in Utah to $25,273 in New York. After New York, current expenditures per pupil were highest in the District of Columbia ($23,754), Vermont ($22,124), New Jersey ($21,385), and Connecticut ($20,889). After Utah, current expenditures per pupil were lowest in Idaho ($8,337), Arizona ($8,694), Oklahoma ($9,395), and Nevada ($9,548).

The states with the largest increases in current expenditures per pupil from FY 2019 to FY 2020, after adjusting for inflation, were New Mexico (+9.3 percent), Illinois (+5.7 percent), Kansas (+4.0 percent), Texas (+3.7 percent), and Indiana (+3.7 percent). The states with the largest decreases were Delaware¹ (-12.8 percent), Connecticut (-2.7 percent), Arizona (-2.4 percent), Alaska (-2.0 percent), and Arkansas (-1.9 percent).

Average Daily Attendance (ADA)

During FY 2020, many school districts across the country closed their school buildings for in-person learning and began providing virtual instruction in an effort to prevent the spread of COVID-19. In order to collect the most consistent and measurable data possible, the U.S. Department of Education provided flexibility for states to report average daily attendance data for the 2019–20 school year.

Between FY 2019 and FY 2020, ADA decreased in 14 states, with the largest decrease at 2.4 percent in New Mexico. ADA increased in the remaining 36 states and the District of Columbia, with the largest increase at 4.1 percent in South Dakota. In 43 states, the ADA in FY 2020 was within 2 percent of the previous year’s ADA.

How do we achieve the best education results for the best price? This is a central question among researchers and policymakers alike. In this blog post, we share outcomes from school year 2017–18 concerning public charter school spending at the elementary, middle, and high school levels to help inform the discussion on charter school costs and benefits to the broader education system.

The first modern charter law in the United States was passed in Minnesota in 1991. Since that time, the number of charter schools has grown tremendously as an option in public elementary and secondary education. In 2017–18, the United States had 7,086 public charter schools in 44 states and the District of Columbia. In a decade, from 2007–08 to 2017–18, the number of public charter schools in the United States increased more than 70 percent, representing a little more than 7 percent of all public schools at the end of this time period (figure 1).

Figure 1. Number of public charter schools in the United States: School years 2007–08 through 2017–18

NOTE: These data include counts of operational public elementary/secondary charter schools for the 50 states and the District of Columbia.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), 2007–08 through 2017–18.

Nearly half (47 percent) of all public charter schools in the United States are classified as elementary schools, 11 percent are classified as middle schools, and 28 percent are classified as high schools (figure 2). The remainder (14 percent) have other grade-level configurations and do not fall into any of these categories.

Figure 2. Percentage of public charter schools in the United States, by school level: School year 2017–18

NOTE: These data reflect operational public elementary/secondary charter schools for the 50 states and the District of Columbia from the Common Core of Data (CCD) for 2017. School-level categories are taken from the Documentation to NCES’ Common Core of Data for school year 2017–18, whereby “Elementary” includes schools with students enrolled in grades K–4 that offer more elementary grades than middle grades; “Middle” includes schools with students enrolled in grades 5–8 that offer more middle grades than elementary or secondary grades; “High” includes schools with students enrolled in grade 12 and other secondary grades that offer more high grades than middle grades; and “Other” includes schools with both elementary and high grades or grades at all three levels (elementary, middle, and high). Excludes 2,360 schools categorized in the CCD as adult education, not applicable, not reported, prekindergarten-only, secondary, and ungraded.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), 2017–18.

According to expenditure data captured in the Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), public schools in the United States spent $330.94 billion in 2017–18, or more than $6,600 per pupil. Reports of national school expenditures based on data from the CRDC are significantly lower than those estimated using the National Public Education Financial Survey (NPEFS) from the Common Core of Data (CCD). This could be attributed to data on spending for school nutrition, operations and maintenance, and transportation being captured in the NPEFS but not collected in the CRDC. However, the CRDC data allow for comparisons of public charter and noncharter schools at the school level. In 2017–18, spending among public noncharter schools fell just under the national average of $6,500 per pupil. Like other schools in the U.S. public school system, charter schools do not charge tuition and instead receive district and state funding based on their enrollment. Public charter schools spent more than $26.83 billion in 2017–18, or just more than $8,900 per pupil, thus exceeding the national average.

The per pupil school expenditures of public charter schools across school levels¹ are different from those of public noncharter schools. This analysis compares spending between public elementary, middle, and high schools in 2017–18. (Mixed-level and other schools are excluded because they have variable grade levels and other characteristics that can make expenditures incomparable across school types.) Across school levels, per pupil expenditures among public charter schools exceeded the national average, while per pupil expenditures among public noncharter schools were closer to the national average. Specifically, for public charter schools, per pupil expenditures were highest for elementary schools ($8,400), followed by high schools ($8,200) and middle schools ($8,100) (figure 3). However, for public noncharter schools, per pupil expenditures were highest for high schools ($6,600), followed by elementary schools ($6,400) and middle schools ($6,100).