NCES Blog

Policymakers, researchers, and the public have long voiced concerns about the equitable distribution of school funding within and across school districts. More recently, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) requires that states and school districts add per pupil expenditures, disaggregated by source of funds, to their annual report cards for each local education agency (LEA) (e.g., school district) and school. In response to this these requirements, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) developed a new collection of finance data at the school level—the School-Level Finance Survey (SLFS).

The SLFS collects at the school level many of the same expenditure variables currently being collected at the district level on the School District Finance Survey. The pilot SLFS was designed to evaluate whether the survey is a viable, efficient, and cost-effective method to gather school-level finance data. Findings from the pilot survey were recently released in an NCES report titled The Feasibility of Collecting School-Level Finance Data: An Evaluation of Data From the School-Level Finance Survey (SLFS) School Year 2014–15.

Here’s some of what we learned:

Many states participating in the SLFS were able to report complete personnel and/or nonpersonnel expenditure data for a high percentage of their schools.

Of the 15 states that participated in the SLFS in school year 2014–15, 9 states were able to report school-level finance data for greater than 95 percent of their operational schools (figure 1). Other than Colorado and New Jersey,^[1] all states were able to report SLFS data for at least 84 percent of their schools, ranging from 85 percent in Kentucky to nearly 100 percent in Maine. Just over one-half of reporting states (8 of 15) reported all personnel items (i.e., dollars spent on salaries and wages for teachers, aides, administrators, and support staff) for at least 95 percent of their schools. Seven of 15 states reported all nonpersonnel items (i.e., dollars spent on purchased services, supplies, and other costs not directly related to school employees) for at least 95 percent of their schools.  
 

Figure 1. Percentage of operational schools with fiscal data reported in the SLFS, by participating state: 2014–15

NOTE: This figure includes operational schools only (i.e., excludes closed, inactive, or future LEAs). The count of schools reported includes schools that can be matched to the Common Core of Data (CCD) School Universe files and for which at least one data item is reported in the SLFS.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “School-Level Finance Survey (SLFS),” fiscal year 2015, Preliminary Version 1a; “Local Education Agency Universe Survey,” 2014–15, Provisional Version 1a.

SLFS data are generally comparable and consistent with other sources of school finance data.

A substantial majority of personnel expenditures can be reported at the school level. Personnel expenditures reported for the SLFS were reasonably comparable with the district-level and state-level data.^[2] For common personnel expenditures, the absolute percentage difference between the SLFS and the district survey was less than 9 percent in 8 of 10 states (figure 2). The absolute percentage difference between the SLFS and the state-level survey for common personnel expenditures was less than 9 percent in 6 of 10 states.
 

Figure 2. School-Level Finance Survey (SLFS), School District Finance Survey (F-33), and National Public Education Financial Survey (NPEFS), by participating state: 2014–15

NOTE: Total personnel salaries include instructional staff salaries, student support services salaries, instructional staff support services salaries, and school administration salaries. This figure includes all schools in the SLFS and all LEAs in the F-33. Only states where reporting standards are met are included.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “School-Level Finance Survey (SLFS),” fiscal year 2015, Preliminary Version 1a; “National Public Education Financial Survey (NPEFS),” fiscal year 2015, Final Version 2a; and “School District Finance Survey (F-33),” fiscal year 2015, Provisional Version 1a.

There are numerous inherent challenges in collecting school-level finance data: 

• Communicating the vision of why reporting school-level finance data is important to school finance practitioners.

• The pilot SLFS did not collect all types of current expenditures.

• Some states had not fully developed standardized protocols or procedures for reporting finance data at the school level. 

• There are varying legal requirements for the types of schools that are required to report finance data and the types of expenditures schools and districts are required to report.

• The survey’s data item definitions were not consistent with states’ internal accounting for some items.

During the pilot survey, NCES and Census Bureau staff took action to address these challenges. 

Evidence suggests that it is feasible to collect accurate and informative school-level financial data.

States participating in the SLFS are improving internal data systems and protocols, which will allow them to report complete and comparable school-level finance data. The SLFS promotes efficiency by incorporating long-established NCES standards for school district financial accounting. The results of the pilot SLFS survey demonstrate that it is feasible to collect accurate and informative school-level finance data. The informational and analytical value will increase as response rates improve and as states improve their capabilities to collect complete, accurate, and comparable finance data at the school level.

 

By Stephen Q. Cornman, NCES; Malia Howell, Stephen Wheeler, and Osei Ampadu, U.S. Census Bureau; and Lei Zhou, Activate Research

The prevalence of crime in America’s public schools continues to be a topic of much concern and discussion among parents, students, educators, and policymakers. A new report from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) provides the latest data to help inform conversations and debate about school safety.

The report, Crime, Violence, Discipline, and Safety in U.S. Public Schools, presents new information from the 2017–18 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS). SSOCS is a nationally representative survey of school principals that collects detailed information on both incidents of crime in U.S. public schools and the practices and programs schools have implemented to promote school safety.

This report presents selected findings on a wide range of topics, including violent and nonviolent incidents, disciplinary problems and actions, security measures, security staff, mental health services, and limitations on crime prevention. In addition to presenting updates for data that have been published in prior SSOCS reports, the new report highlights topics not covered in previous reports, including the number of incidents involving the use or possession of a firearm or explosive device at school as well as the percentage of schools that have “panic buttons” or silent alarms that directly connect to law enforcement in the event of an incident.

Data on both school crime incidents and school safety practices are available by various school characteristics, such as school type, enrollment size, and locale (i.e., whether the school is located in an urban, suburban, or rural area).  

One key finding highlighted in the report is that most schools have written plans for various emergency scenarios. In school year 2017–18, the most common types of plans reported were for responses to natural disasters (94 percent), active shooters (92 percent), and bomb threats or incidents (91 percent).

The report also presented other key findings from the 2017–18 school year:

• Seventy-one percent of U.S. public schools reported that at least one violent incident occurred at school during the school year.

• Three percent of schools reported that there was at least one incident involving the possession of a firearm or explosive device at their school.

• Forty-six percent of traditional public schools had a school resource officer present at school at least once a week, compared with only 19 percent of charter schools. Conversely, a higher percentage of charter schools than of traditional public schools had a security guard or other security personnel present at least once a week (35 vs. 21 percent).

• Restorative circles were used more frequently in schools with a higher enrollment of minority students. A restorative circle is a formal mediation process led by a facilitator who brings affected parties of a problem together to explore what happened, reflect on their roles, and find solutions that address individual and community concerns. Among schools with at least 50 percent minority enrollment, half (50 percent) reported involving students in restorative circles. However, in schools with lower minority enrollment (20 to 50 percent), a lower percentage of schools reported involving students in restorative circles (38 percent).

• Fifty-one percent of schools provided diagnostic mental health assessments to evaluate students for mental health disorders, and 38 percent provided treatment to students for mental health disorders.

To access the full report, please visit https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2019/2019061.pdf. SSOCS:2018 data files will be released later this year. Due to the sensitive nature of SSOCS data, researchers must apply for a restricted-use license to access the full SSOCS:2018 restricted-use data file. A public-use data file—with some sensitive variables removed—will be released after the restricted-use data file.

By Sam Correa and Melissa Diliberti (AIR) and Rachel Hansen (NCES)

The school-age population in the United States is becoming more racially and ethnically diverse. An NCES report released in February 2019, Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups 2018, examines how education experiences and outcomes vary among racial/ethnic groups. The report contains 36 indicators that cover preprimary to postsecondary education, as well as family background characteristics and labor force outcomes.

Between 2000 and 2017, the percentage of 5- to 17-year-olds who were White decreased from 62 to 51 percent, while the percentage who were Hispanic increased from 16 to 25 percent.

Figure 1. Percentage distribution of the U.S. resident population ages 5–17, by race/ethnicity: 2000 and 2017

# Rounds to zero.

NOTE: Data are for the resident population as of July 1 of the indicated year.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, 2000 Population Estimates, retrieved August 14, 2012, from http://www.census.gov/popest/data/national/asrh/2011/index.html; and 2017 Population Estimates, retrieved September 5, 2017, from https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/2016/demo/popest/nation-detail.html. See Digest of Education Statistics 2017, table 101.20.

Prior research shows that living in poverty during early childhood is associated with lower-than-average academic performance that begins in kindergarten^[1] and extends through high school, leading to lower-than-average rates of school completion.^[2] In 2016, the percentages of children living in poverty were highest for Black and American Indian/Alaska Native children and lowest for White and Asian children.

Revenues and expenditures per pupil on elementary and secondary education increased in school year 2015–16 (fiscal year [FY] 2016), continuing a recent upward trend in the amount of money spent on public preK–12 education. This is the third consecutive year that per pupil revenues and expenditures have increased, reversing three consecutive years of declines in spending between FY 10 and FY 13 after adjusting for inflation. The findings come from the recently released Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary School Districts: School Year 2015–16 (Fiscal Year 2016).

The national median of total revenues across all school districts was $12,953 per pupil in FY 16, reflecting an increase of 3.2 percent from FY 15, after adjusting for inflation.^[1] This increase in revenues per pupil follows an increase of 2.0 percent for FY 15 and 1.6 percent for FY 14. These increases in revenues per pupil between FY 14 and FY 16 contrast with the decreases from FY 10 to FY 13. The national median of current expenditures per pupil was $10,881 in FY 16, reflecting an increase of 2.4 percent from FY 15. Current expenditures per pupil also increased in FY 15 (1.7 percent) and FY 14 (1.0 percent). These increases in median revenues and current expenditures per pupil between FY 14 and FY 16 represent a full recovery in education spending following the decreases from FY 10 to FY 13.

The school district finance data can help us understand differences in funding levels for various types of districts. For example, median current expenditures per pupil in independent charter school districts were lower than in noncharter and mixed charter/noncharter school districts in 21 out of the 25 states that were able to report finance data for independent charter school districts. Three of the 4 states where median current expenditures were higher for independent charter school districts had policies that affected charter school spending. The new School District Finance Survey (F-33) data offer researchers extensive opportunities to investigate local patterns of revenues and expenditures and how they relate to conditions for other districts across the country.

More than 50 years ago, Congress established Title I, Part A funding (generally just called Title I) to support school districts in educating the nation’s economically disadvantaged students. Today, billions of dollars in Title I funding are distributed to school districts across the country through four grants, using a complex set of formulas.

A new report from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) provides a look at how Title I funds are allocated and how the current formulas affect school districts of various sizes, socioeconomic status, and geographic locales, such as rural or urban. The Study of the Title I, Part A Grant Program Mathematical Formulas was conducted in response to a congressional mandate under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which was passed in 2015.

In fiscal year 2015 (FY 15), the total Title I allocation per formula-eligible child in the United States was $1,227.^[1],[2] However, states varied in their total Title I final allocation per formula-eligible child, ranging from $984 in Idaho to $2,590 in Vermont, a difference of $1,606. (NOTE: A child is "formula eligible" if he or she is ages 5–17 and living in a family below the national poverty level or one that is receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families [TANF], a neglected and delinquent child located in a locally funded institution, or a foster child.)

Total Title I allocations per formula-eligible child also differed by geographic locale, district poverty level, and district size: