Equity and Adequacy in Alabama Schools and Districts

Equity and Adequacy in Alabama
Schools and Districts

Prepared for
Alabama State Department of Education
By
APA Consulting
March 2015
Equity and Adequacy in Alabama Schools and Districts
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
I. Overview of Alabamas School Finance System and Comparison to Other Southern Region Education
Board (SREB) States ...................................................................................................................................... 1
The Current Structure of Alabamas School Finance System.................................................................... 4
Comparison of Alabama to the Other SREB States ................................................................................... 6
Structure of Each States School Finance System ................................................................................. 7
II. Equity Study ............................................................................................................................................ 24
Defining Equity ........................................................................................................................................ 24
Measuring Equity .................................................................................................................................... 25
Our Analytical Approach ......................................................................................................................... 26
Horizontal and Vertical Equity ............................................................................................................ 27
Fiscal Neutrality................................................................................................................................... 31
Practical Implications of Inequality ......................................................................................................... 32
III. Successful School District Approach to Determining Adequacy ............................................................ 34
Identifying Successful Districts................................................................................................................ 34
Determining a Base Cost Spending Figure for Successful Districts ......................................................... 35
Applying Efficiency Screens................................................................................................................. 36
IV. Professional Judgment Approach to Adequacy ..................................................................................... 38
Creating Representative Schools and Districts ....................................................................................... 38
Professional Judgment Panel Design ...................................................................................................... 40
Summarizing Alabama State Standards .................................................................................................. 41
Using the Evidence-Based Approach to Strengthen PJ Work ................................................................. 41
Professional Judgment Panel Procedures ............................................................................................... 44
Professional Judgment Results ............................................................................................................... 45
i

School-Level Personnel ....................................................................................................................... 46
School-level Non-Personnel Costs ...................................................................................................... 54
School-Level Additional Programs ...................................................................................................... 55
School-level Technology Hardware..................................................................................................... 60
District-Level Resources ...................................................................................................................... 64
Applying Resource Prices .................................................................................................................... 67
School-Level and District-Level Costs.................................................................................................. 68
Total Base Costs and Weights ............................................................................................................. 69
V. Modeling Adequacy Results ................................................................................................................... 71
Base Cost ................................................................................................................................................. 71
Adjustments ............................................................................................................................................ 71
Applied to Alabama School Districts ....................................................................................................... 72
VI. Considerations for Creating a Funding Formula .................................................................................... 77
Appendix A- Professional Judgment Panel Participants ............................................................................. 77
Appendix B- Summary of Alabama Standards ............................................................................................ 82
Appendix C- Background and Instructions for PJ Panels ............................................................................ 88
Appendix D- ALSDE-Provided Statewide Average Salaries ......................................................................... 90
Appendix E- Alabama Technology Hardware Prices ................................................................................... 92
Appendix F- References .............................................................................................................................. 93
ii
Introduction
The Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE) contracted with Augenblick, Palaich, and
Associates (APA) to conduct a series of studies regarding elementary and secondary education financing
in Alabama. These studies included: (1) a review of the current state funding system; (2) an equity study;
(3) a study using the successful schools approach to adequacy; and (4) a study using the professional
judgment approach to adequacy. Each study was conducted in 2013-2014 and resulted in a separately
released report. This final report compiles all previous reports and includes recommendations for a new
state education funding system, including a comparative analysis to current spending.
When APA evaluates a states school finance system, the study team is interested in a variety of issues:
1. The structure of the system and the manner in which the distinct components work together to
distribute state funds to school districts;
2. The impact of the system on school districts in terms of their revenues, expenditures, and tax
rates;
3. The levels of student equity and taxpayer equity achieved by the system, the amount of variation
in per student spending and tax effort that exists among school districts, and the possible
explanations for any variations that are found; and
4. The adequacy of the system and its levels of revenue that assure all school districts have a
reasonable opportunity to meet state education standards and student academic performance
expectations.
The intent of examining these issues is to understand whether a state is meeting the basics of a strong
finance system. Based on APAs experience over the past 30 years, the firm has developed a set of
characteristics that are associated with a strong school finance system taking into consideration the
uncontrollable differences that exist across school systems in any state, state requirements that define
how education must be organized and delivered, state expectations for student performance.
Consequences might exist if these expectations are not met, and constitutional requirements of the sort
have led courts to reject existing school finance systems and require legislatures to reformulate them.
These characteristics (below) are not specific to Alabama and serve as a reasonable starting point in
examining the strengths and weaknesses of any states school finance system, and will guide the
examination of Alabamas education funding in this report.
Basic Characteristics of a Strong School Finance System

1.
The allocation of state support is positively related to the needs of school systems, where needs
reflect the uncontrollable demographic characteristics of students and school systems.
2.
The allocation of state support is inversely related to the wealth of school systems, where
wealth reflects the ability of school systems to generate revenue for elementary and secondary
education.
3.
The allocation of state support is sensitive to the tax effort made by school districts to support
elementary and secondary education, which might consider some, but not all, local tax efforts
made on behalf of schools.
4.
The amount of state support allocated to school systems reflects the costs they are likely to
incur in order to meet state education standards and student academic performance
expectations.
5.
All school systems are spending at adequate levels, and the variation in spending among school
systems can be explained primarily by differences in the needs of school systems and the tax
effort of districts and is not only related to differences in school district wealth.
6.
School systems have similar opportunities to generate revenues to reach those adequate
spending levels.
7.
School systems have a reasonable amount of flexibility to spend the revenues they obtain as
they want, provided they are meeting, or making acceptable progress toward meeting, state
education standards and student academic performance expectations.
8.
The school finance system covers current operating expenditures as well as capital outlay and
debt service expenditures.
9.
State aid that is not sensitive to the needs of school systems and is not wealth-equalized, such
as incentive grants or hold harmless funds, are limited relative to state support that is needbased and wealth-equalized.
10. Property taxpayers are treated equitably. Property is assessed uniformly within different
classes of property and low income taxpayers are relieved of some of the obligation to pay
property taxes.
11. The state has a procedure to define and measure school finance equity for students and
taxpayers and periodically assesses the equity of the school finance system.
12. The state has a procedure to define and measure the adequacy of revenues school systems
obtain for elementary and secondary education and periodically determines whether
adequate revenues are available in all school systems.

In order to examine these issues, APA gathered data from a variety of sources including the National
Center for Education Statistics (a unit of the U.S. Department of Education), the U.S. Census Bureau, and
the Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE). The study team used national sources to facilitate
comparisons of Alabama to the other Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) states and used ALSDE
data to examine enrollment, revenues, and expenditures of school districts. This report contains
language that is specific while discussing data in Alabama it refers to systems as geographic areas
that deliver public elementary and secondary education services and districts as geographic areas that
collect taxes to support public elementary and secondary schools. The two may or may not share
common boundaries.
The remainder of this report is organized in the following sections:
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
Overview of Alabamas School Finance System and Comparison to Other Southern Region
Education Board (SREB) States
Equity Analysis
Successful School District Approach to Adequacy
Professional Judgment Approach to Adequacy
Modeling Adequacy Results
Considerations for Creating a Funding Formula
I. Overview of Alabamas School Finance System and Comparison to

Other Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) States
The purpose of this section is to provide an overview of Alabamas school finance system and to
compare the system to those operating in the 15 other Southern Region Education Board (SREB) states
(Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina,
Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia).
The Current Structure of Alabamas School Finance System

Alabama uses a foundation program as its primary method of distributing state funds to school systems.
In FY 2009, the state allocated $4.21 billion for public schools. Of this $4.21 billion, $3.60 billion (85.5
percent, before proration) was allocated through the foundation program. The foundation program
concept, developed more than a century ago, is the most popular formulaic procedure states use to
distribute aid to school districts. Under a foundation program, a state sets a target level of revenue
unique to each school system. State aid, then, is defined as the difference between that target revenue
amount and the yield of a local property tax, the rate of which is common across all districts. Using this
foundation program approach, a state can recognize a variety of circumstances across school systems
that affect the cost of providing education services while simultaneously equalizing state support
relative to the variations in property wealth across all systems.
For example, assuming two hypothetical school systems, System A and System B, the target revenue
level in System A might be $5,000 per student while the target revenue level in System B might be
$6,000 per student (because System B had more students with special, high-cost needs than System A).
If both districts had the same level of property wealth per student, and both districts raised $2,000 at
the uniform level of property tax effort that the state uses to calculate the local share of the foundation
program, then System A would receive $3,000 per student in state aid while System B would receive
$4,000 per student in state aid. Similarly, if System A and System B both had target revenue levels of
$5,500 per student, but System A generated $1,500 per student in local revenue at the state-designated
property tax rate while System B generated $4,500 per student (because it was much wealthier than
System A), then state aid to System A would be $4,000 per student and state aid to System B would be
$1,000 per student. States using the foundation approach attempt to promote equity for students by
recognizing differences in need as well as differences in wealth across school districts. (The sum of state
and local revenue accounts for the vast majority of all revenue available to school districts, but varies
across school districts because district needs change while property tax rates are the same in all school
districts, regardless of variations in wealth or need). Using the foundation approach, school systems do
not send locally generated funds to the state or to other school systems; instead, wealthier systems
simply obtain less revenue from the state than less wealthy systems.
Alabama uses an older approach one that was common among southern states but is less common
today to determine target revenue for each school system. The approach determines the amount of
revenue systems need on a unit basis (where units are personnel), based on four factors:
4

1. The number of students enrolled in each system, using average daily membership (ADM) for 20
school days after Labor Day of the prior year;
2. The number of teachers and other personnel the state believes each system needs (based on
student-to-staff ratios that differ between grade levels 14.25 students per teacher in grades K3, 21.85 students per teacher in grades 4-6, 20.45 students per teacher in grades 7-8, and 18.45
students per teacher in grades 9-12), although systems can employ more teachers or staff
outside of state specifications, provided each specific personnel requirement is met;
3. The salary and benefits the state believes personnel should be paid, based on statewide salary
schedules that recognize differences in education levels and years of experience of personnel,
and based on the requirement that school system salary schedules must mimic state salary
schedules (although their salary levels can be higher than the states); and
4. Other expenditures that the state believes districts should make for things like the maintenance
and operation of school facilities, student materials, textbooks, and other categories that vary
from year to year.
In FY 2009, the application of these four factors produced 48,531 total units with salaries of $2.25
billion, personnel benefits of $905 million, other current expenses of $816 million, and other classroom
supports of $51 million. In total, the foundation program target revenue was $4.06 billion before
proration in FY 2009; this resulted in a cost of $83,700 per unit, or $5,462 per student.
Most other states use a newer approach to determining target revenue for school systems. This
approach is based on setting an amount of revenue per student, then adjusting the per-pupil revenue
amount to reflect the expenses of serving students with special, high-cost needs. Student weights
reflect the expected cost of serving such students, relative to the base cost set for students without
special needs. One caveat, Alabama does already use a student weight of 2.5 for Special Education, and
applies this weight by adjusting the student-to-teacher ratios for a uniform five percent of all students in
each school system. (This creates more personnel units than if the weight had not been used). In fact, in
the proportion of students in Special Education programs exceeded five percent of all students in almost
every school system in Alabama. In 77 systems which, combined, enrolled more than 460,000 students
more than 10 percent of all students were enrolled in Special Education programs. Based on the actual
distribution of Special Education students in 2012, the weight of 2.5 used in the foundation program
might only have a value of 1.2 (where 1.2 is the ratio of 2.5, multiplied by five percent of all students,
divided by the actual number of students in Special Education programs or 1.2 = [2.5 X {.05 X
735,084}]/78,278).
Alabama then deducts the expected yield of a 10 mill property tax (where a mill is .001 dollars, or a
tenth of a penny) from the target revenue needs of each school system to determine state foundation
support. In some states, the expected local contribution is only used to calculate state aid; districts
might not actually collect it. In Alabama, however, local contribution is required and state aid is reduced
to the extent that the amount of local contribution collected is less than the amount expected. The
value of one mill of property tax varies dramatically across school districts in Alabama, ranging from
more than $1 million to less than $100,000. More importantly, the value of one mill of property tax per
5

student varies from less than $35 in 13 school systems to more than $120 in nine systems. In total, the
expected local contribution to the foundation program was about $460 million in FY 2009. (School
districts can generate revenue from local taxes other than property taxes, provided that the amount of
revenue generated is equivalent to the yield of a 10 mill tax on ad valorem property.)
As noted above, the state provides other support to school systems outside of the foundation program.
Of $602 million in such aid, $336 million went towards transportation costs (55.8 percent), while the
remainder supported personnel not included in the foundation program. Such personnel could include
school nurses and technology coordinators; at-risk students (based on the average proportion of
students eligible for the federal student lunch program and the average proportion of students
performing below proficient on statewide academic assessments); preschool programs; and capital
outlay expenditures. Aid for at-risk students amounted to less than $30 million, or less than $100 per atrisk student, equivalent to a student weight of less than .02 (given that the foundation level was about
$5,462 per student in FY 2009). While foundation spending equalizes state aid relative to local wealth
(providing a higher proportion of total cost to less wealthy systems), state aid not distributed through
the foundation program is not equalized relative to local wealth.
The state also provides aid for capital improvements using an equalized matching system. The matching
system requires school systems to raise capital funds that generate enough state aid so that the
combined state and local revenue produced by each mill of tax effort is equivalent across all systems.
This is sometimes referred to as power equalization with the state then equalizes the yield of each mill
of tax effort, rather than assuring that all systems make a common level of tax effort to meet their
revenue targets (which may differ).
APAs understanding is that Alabama raised almost $1 billion in local revenue above the amount
associated with the foundation program (which is about 20 percent of all state and local revenues that
support elementary and secondary education). Depending on which systems generate this excess local
funding, and depending on how much money those systems raise, there could be an impact on both
student equity (because some systems may spend more per student than others, and there may be a
positive relationship between per-student spending and school system wealth) and taxpayer equity
(because equivalent property tax rates the property tax rates needed to raise local revenue from the
actual sources where it is derived may vary across school systems and may be inversely related to perstudent spending).
Comparison of Alabama to the Other SREB States

As part of this study of Alabamas education funding system, APA compared Alabama to the 15 other
states within the Southern Region Education Board (SREB), some of which border Alabama and most of
which are nearby. SREB states have shared an interest in public education and, specifically, an interest in
increasing public education funding and improving student performance for a generation.
In general, the southern states within SREB have had a number of commonalities affecting their
organization and support of public schools:
6

1. They originally organized school systems based on counties, which tended to result in fewer
school systems than would be typical in Northeastern or Midwestern states (though the number
of systems was later expanded to include cities within counties);
2. They typically separated the authority to run schools (hire and fire staff, set staff salaries,
determine how to spend revenues) from the authority to set local taxes, giving these different
authorities to school systems and to counties, respectively;
3. They tend to have more state control or, put differently, less local control over education
policy, including the specification of statewide salary schedules (at least the structure of the
schedules and minimum levels of pay), staffing ratios (numbers of students per type of staff),
program offerings and structure, and accountability;
4. The state share of all revenue generated for schools (for current operations and capital
purposes) tends to be relatively high, which promotes student and taxpayer equity because
there is lower reliance on locally generated revenue;
5. Per-student federal support tends to be relatively high, which reflects higher levels of poverty,
(since poverty is the basis of distribution of federal aid); and
6. State financial support for education has been relatively low, although it has risen dramatically in
the last 25 years and may be high relative to personal incomes (which, coupled with a
comparatively low cost of living in the South, have tended to be lower in southern states than in
other states).
APA looked at a number of factors to make comparisons between Alabama and other states, including
the structures of state school finance systems, the amounts spent on education and other public
functions, the numbers of students and the students programmatic needs, the numbers of education
staff employed relative to the numbers of students, the teacher characteristics, and the average teacher
salaries.
Structure of Each States School Finance System
Background
The information in Table 1, at the end of this section, provides a description of certain elements that
tend to be present in modern school finance systems (those systems created in roughly the last 40
years). None of these elements is described in sufficient detail that any states school finance system
could be simulated (that is, that the finance systems impact on each school district could be determined
from the information provided). Rather, the purpose of the description is simply to ascertain broad
similarities and differences between states in the allocation of state support to school systems.
Today, almost every state uses one or more mathematical formulas (if multiple formulas are in use, then
one formula is usually responsible for the majority of aid) to determine how much state support and
sometimes how much locally generated support will be available in each school system. Using
formulas takes away the need for states to make individual decisions for each school system, particularly
given that each state has dozens, if not hundreds, of such systems. When states started providing
support to systems, amounts were typically allocated on a per-teacher or per-classroom basis. Amounts
7

were provided primarily to ensure that school systems could provide programs that met minimal state
standards. (States may have specified how many teachers were needed, how much teachers should be
paid, and how much should be spent on basic supplies and materials.) The original concept behind state
support was that states should ensure that every school system had sufficient revenue to provide a free,
basic education fulfilling the intent of the education clauses included in almost every state constitution.
These clauses called for free public schools to be available throughout each state.
In the early 20th Century, states discovered that local systems supplemented state aid (or vice versa),
and that there were dramatic differences in the revenues available to school systems. As a result, there
were also dramatic differences in the breadth and quality of the programs that local systems offered.
These differences created was what seen as an inappropriate level of inequality among school systems.
Academic researchers determined an association between the variations in revenues across school
systems and the levels of wealth of the school systems (based on property wealth per student, since
property taxes are the source of most local revenue for public schools). Researches did not determine
an association between the variations in revenues and the tax efforts of systems; wealthier systems
could have the same tax effort as, or even lower tax effort than, poorer systems, but could generate
more revenue per student to supplement state support. By the middle of the 20th Century, many states
had embraced a particular approach to addressing spending inequality across school systems, called the
foundation program approach. As described earlier, a foundation program sets a target level of revenue
for each system and then uses state aid to pay the difference between the target revenue and the
amount generated locally, using a level of tax effort common across all school systems. Under the
foundation program, wealthier school systems and poorer school systems could have a common tax
effort and could generate similar revenue per teacher, per classroom, or per student. Still, a number of
issues might still cause variation in school systems spending or in their tax rates, since most states failed
to place limits on locally generated revenues for public education while simultaneously assuring a
minimum amount of state aid for every system, regardless of wealth.
School finance litigation, which emerged in the late 1960s and was pursued in most states, focused on
whether variations in per-student spending, coupled with local tax rates, resulted in states failures to
fulfill constitutional requirements (as mentioned above). This equity litigation led a number of states
to strengthen their foundation programs. Some of these strengthening efforts included wealthequalizing formerly separate programs designed to provide state aid for students with special, high-cost
needs; creating new basic aid approaches, commonly referred to as reward-for effort approaches
since they made state aid contingent on local wealth and tax effort; or creating second tiers of formulas
that, in addition to foundation programs, attempted to equalize, and sometimes limit, local revenues
that exceeded foundation program targets.
States have always allocated support for services that were not included in foundation programs, like
transportation, Special Education, or capital outlay and debt services. States used what have been called
categorical supports, often allocated on the basis of a fixed per-student amount or a percentage
reimbursement of approved expenditures (including 100 percent, or full funding of such expenditures).
These fixed per-student amounts or percentage reimbursements did not take into account district
8

wealth.; Further, categorical funding typically implies that funds generated must go towards the
programs for which they were generated. During the era of equity litigation (roughly 1970-2000), many
states integrated categorical programs into their foundation programs through the use of student
weights. These weights, mentioned above, are designed to count certain students as more than one
full-time equivalent (FTE) based on the higher cost of serving students with specific special needs,
compared to the lower cost of serving students with no special needs. (For example, a student in a
category that costs 60 percent more to serve than a student in the base category without identified
needs would be counted as 1.60 rather than 1.00 to account for such costs; this weighted counting
would thereby raise the target revenue associated with the foundation program.) States vary
dramatically in terms of which students are weighted, how many weights are used for a particular
service (e.g. Special Education), and how heavy the weights are. Thus, states vary in the extents to which
weights reflect their actual costs of providing services.
In the past decade, states have become more rigorous in setting parameters (figures such as $5,000 per
student, or a weight of 1.35) to drive the mathematical equations in their school finance formulas. Early
on, parameters may not have reflected much more than the total amount of funding available for
distribution to all school districts. States applied a particular set of parameters, which resulted in
aggregate statewide spending equal to the total available funding. But some states, including Maryland
and Mississippi in SREB, have undertaken more detailed studies not just examining the cost of
providing particular services, but examining the cost of providing services in a way likely to result in
students meeting state performance objectives. A second round of school finance litigation has been
filed based on the premise that it is unconstitutional when states do not fund schools to a level where
those schools have a reasonable chance of meeting state standards, including student academic
performance standards (it should be noted that the Colorado Supreme Court rejected this approach in
its May 2013 Lobato case decision).
Structure
The information in Table 1, at the end of this section, provides short descriptions of the state school
finance systems in Alabama and in the other SREB states. When comparing states, the first thing to note
is the variation in the number of school systems. Several states have a relatively low number of systems
(fewer than 100), while two states have a large number of systems (more than 500). Alabama, like seven
other states, has a moderate number of systems (100-500).
Looking at the next column in the table, it is clear that most SREB states use the foundation program
approach in distributing state aid to school systems. In one case (North Carolina), the state fully funds
the basic program (without any local contribution); in another case (Oklahoma), there is a second tier
that provides funds for teacher salaries. Kentucky combines a foundation program with two other
funding tiers, one of which is wealth-equalized while the other is not. There are several approaches
states can use to set the foundation program target level of revenue for each of their school districts.
Still, the most common approach is to set a base level of funding for all students, which might then be
adjusted using student weights for students with particular needs. In most cases, the target amount per
9

student is simply a figure set by the legislature a number that may not be rooted in the actual costs of
education programs. As mentioned above, Marylands figure is based on an analysis of the anticipated
cost of meeting state standards, and Mississippis figure is based on actual spending in districts that are
considered to be performing comparatively well. Alabama, Delaware, North Carolina, and West Virginia
use classroom units and statewide teacher salary schedules as their primary bases for calculating
foundation program target revenues (with adjustments for different types of personnel in addition to
teachers).
A basic requirement of all school finance formulas is a procedure to count students. Essentially, states
differ in regards to: (1) whether they use average daily attendance (ADA, or the students who are
actually present in schools on a daily basis) or average daily membership (ADM, or the students systems
expect to serve on a daily basis, even if those students are not in attendance) and (2) how often they
count students, which varies from a few days (which may be spread over the course of an entire year or
not) to every day school is in session. SREB states tend to use ADM and tend to count students
frequently.
To determine state aid under their foundation programs, almost all SREB states deduct the yield of a
statewide common property tax rate from each districts target revenue. Even Louisiana and Virginia use
a common levy to reach a statewide goal of local districts paying a fixed percentage (35 percent or 45
percent) of aggregate foundation program target revenues. In Alabama and Kentucky, the amount of
local revenue deducted from foundation program target revenues depends on the yield of a fixed
property tax rate. (In Kentucky, this means that taxes other than property taxes can be used to generate
the target revenues.) It is impossible to compare property tax rates across states given differences in the
ways property is assessed both the rates at which residential property is assessed and the relationship
between assessment rates for residential properties versus other types of properties, such as
commercial, industrial, or agricultural. Because SREB states use property taxes as the bases of local
contributions to their foundation programs, the states measure the relative wealth of school systems
using property values, typically on a per-student basis. A few states (Georgia, Maryland, and Virginia)
combine property values with personal incomes and/or the sales tax base in measuring the fiscal
capacity of school systems. Louisiana uses a broader measure of system wealth in its second tier,
employing a reward-for-effort program to allocate state aid above the foundation program.
Most states, including SREB states, provide additional support to school systems for students with
special needs. Special needs students include students considered at risk of failing in school; students
with individual education plans (IEPs) who participate in Special Education programs; English Language
Learners (ELL) or Limited English Proficient (LEP) students; and gifted and talented students. (Students in
other programs, such as vocational, technical, or agricultural programs, may also receive supplemental
state aid.) States vary considerably in how they identify special needs students and how they allocate aid
to such students. In most cases, SREB states use the count of students eligible for free and reduced price
lunch as a basis to count at-risk students. (Alabama combines this count with the count of students
performing at low levels on statewide academic assessments.) Among SREB states that use student
weights to determine the added costs of serving at-risk students, weights range from .05 to .94.
10

Student weights are typically used as the bases for supporting Special Education. These weights are
applied to actual counts of students, by disability (since weights can be differentiated by disability).
While Alabama has a very high weight for Special Education (which is used to adjust staffing ratios in its
foundation program), it applies that weight to a fixed five percent of all students, a level well below the
average proportion of students typically served in school districts Special Education programs. (The
average proportion of Special Education students tends to be around 13 to 14 percent of all students,
though this figure can vary from below five percent to over 20 percent across school districts.) While
most SREB states provide added support for ELL students using student weights, these weights vary
from .10 to over 2.50. Most SREB states also provide added support for gifted and talented students
using student weights. It is not unusual for states to apply the gifted students weight to a fixed
proportion of students.
Some SREB states also provide support based on characteristics of school districts thought to have cost
impacts beyond the districts control. For example, a few states provide more aid for relatively small
school systems. Two states (Florida and North Carolina) take geographic isolation into consideration
(Florida on an individual school basis), while two others (Maryland and Texas) recognize differences in
cost of living as a basis for providing supplemental state support.
A few SREB states provide wealth-equalized support for systems that levy tax rates in excess of the rates
required under the foundation program. While this wealth-equalized support is not widespread, it does
help to address the issue of unlimited, unequal local funds that allow systems to spend above
foundation program target levels.
Almost all SREB states provide specific funds for student transportation; those states that do not may
include such expenditures in their target revenues under the foundation program. A couple of states
(Delaware and South Carolina) pay all costs of transportation. (In South Carolina, the state operates the
system.) The other states tend to use density-based formulas to determine each districts spending
level. With that said, at least one state (Arkansas) provides a flat amount, and another state (West
Virginia) reimburses a fixed proportion of allowable expenditures. In cases where transportation
expenditures are not included in the foundation formula, state aid is not wealth-equalized.
State support for capital outlay and debt service is particularly difficult to describe succinctly. Most
states define allowable projects in detail; permit local systems to provide support within limits, based on
assessed value of property; and vary in how they provide state aid. In some cases, states provide no
support. This is the case in Louisiana, although the state will cover some expenditures under the
equalized incentive program.) In other cases, states provide a fixed amount per student (Kentucky, an
equalized state) or a fixed state share of expenditures (Delaware and Tennessee). Alabamas program
allows districts to set a property tax rate for capital purposes and then matches local revenue in an
equalized fashion.
11

K-12 Spending, Numbers of Personnel, Teacher Characteristics and Teacher Salaries
Table 2, at the end of this section, provides a plethora of information about school system spending,
allowing for comparison between Alabama and other SREB states in terms of spending per student,
variation in spending across school systems, statewide average staffing levels for different types of
employees, and teacher characteristics. The figures in Table 2, and in several other tables, are organized
as follows: (1) Alabama figures are shown as the first row in the table, are bolded, and are in a relatively
large font. (2) other SREB states are organized in two groups and are listed alphabetically within each
group. The first, upper group of other SREB states includes those states (Arkansas through West Virginia)
with personal income per capita within (plus or minus) $2,500 of Alabamas personal income per capita.
These figures are all italicized. (3) all figures that are higher than the corresponding figure for Alabama
are bolded and are in a slightly larger font than figures lower than the corresponding figure for Alabama.
(This is true in most cases, except in cases where a lower figure is better, as in the third and fourth
columns of Table 2.)
It is worth noting that among the other SREB states, some (Kentucky, Louisiana, and South Carolina) are
similar in population to Alabama, some (Arkansas, Delaware, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and West Virginia)
are smaller than Alabama, and some (Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and
Virginia) are larger than Alabama. APA views personal income per capita as a good indicator of a states
wealth and capacity to fund public services; lower personal income tends to create a need for more
public services. Of the 15 other SREB states, nine have personal incomes per capita that are within
$2,500 of Alabamas. (Four states are higher and five states are lower.) Six states have personal incomes
per capita that are more than $2,500 above Alabamas. The average personal income per capita in states
similar to Alabama is $30,575 almost the same as Alabamas figure of $30,516. The average personal
income per capita of all 15 other SREB states is $33,362. Even if personal income per capita were
adjusted by interstate cost of living differences (based on APA-developed figures), almost all of the other
SREB states would fall into the same categories displayed in Table 2 (and Tables 3 through 8). Only
Oklahoma would move into the group of states that have much higher levels of personal income per
capita compared to Alabama.
Spending
The first column of Table 2 shows per-student K-12 spending in 2008-09. (The 2008-09 school year is the
latest year for which data required to make comparisons between states is available from the
National Center for Education Statistics.) With per-student spending at $8,964, Alabama in 2008-09 was
6.8 percent below the average of all other SREB states. For SREB states with similar levels of personal
income per capita, Alabama was slightly above the average. Of the 15 other SREB states, seven had
spending above Alabama and eight had spending below Alabama. When such spending is adjusted by
interstate cost of living differences (Column 2), Alabamas spending level is just below the average of all
other SREB states, and is about 2.7 percent higher than the average spending level in states with similar
levels of personal income per capita. The variation in spending among school districts in Alabama
(Column 3) appears to be comparatively low well below the average of all other SREB states and the
average of SREB states with similar levels of personal income per capita. Only two states have less
12

variation in spending among school districts than Alabama. Given the measure of variation used, about
one-third of Alabamas school systems spend either less than $8,130 or more than $9,798 a difference
of $1,668 per student, or about $30,000 per classroom. The relationship between per-student spending
and district wealth (Column 4) in Alabama is near the average for SREB states, but is slightly below the
averages of the two groups of other SREB states discussed above. Seven of the other SREB states have
lower correlations between spending and wealth. In Column 5, district spending has been analyzed to
take student needs and cost of living differences into consideration to show the extent to which all
districts reach a national average of 90.0. Alabama is about average compared to the other SREB states
and is slightly above the average of other SREB states with similar levels of personal income per capita.
Numbers of Personnel and Teacher Characteristics
The figures in Columns 6 through 9 of Table 2 indicate the statewide average number of staff per 1,000
students. This measure of staffing facilitates comparisons across states, between Alabama and other
SREB states. Alabamas total staffing (including teachers, instructional support staff, administrators, and
all support personnel) was 130.9 per 1,000 students, which was below the average of all other SREB
states and slightly below the averages for SREB states with similar levels personal income per capita.
This pattern holds true for teachers, administrative staff, and guidance counselors. Per 1,000 students,
14 of the 15 other SREB states employed more teachers than Alabama; 13 employed more
administrative staff than Alabama; and 10 employed more guidance counselors than Alabama.
Average teacher salaries in Alabama were 4.1 percent below the average of all other SREB states and
slightly below the average of the other SREB states with similar levels of personal income per capita.
Two main factors drive teacher salaries: average years of teacher experience and proportions of
teachers with degrees higher than a bachelors. Compared to other SREB states, Alabamas average for
years of teacher experience was comparatively low, while its proportion of teachers with degrees higher
than a bachelors was relatively high. The benefit rate paid to personnel in Alabama was very high
compared to other SREB states.
Student Needs
One of the ways states differ from each other is in the extent to which different student needs affect
them. These different student needs may have significant cost implications. (It should be noted that
differences between states can mask differences among school districts, which are likely to be more
extreme than differences between states.) In Columns 2 through 4 of Table 3, at the end of this section,
the proportions of students with special needs students in Special Education programs, students
eligible for free and reduced price lunch, and students whose parents are not fluent in English (an
indicator of ELL or LEP students when state by state data is unavailable) are shown relative to the
student populations in Column 1. Alabama has a relatively low proportion of students in Special
Education programs, at 11.1 percent. This figure is nearly 20 percentage points lower than the average
of other SREB states with similar levels of personal income per capita, and it is well below the national
average. Alabamas proportion of students eligible for free and reduced price lunch (52.2 percent) is
about the same as the average of the other SREB states with similar levels of personal income,
13

somewhat higher than the average of all SREB states, and well above the national average. Alabamas
proportion of students whose parents are not fluent in English is low just below the average in SREB
states with similar levels of personal income per capita, well below the average in all other SREB states,
and well below the national average.
One way to compare states in terms of student needs is to examine the ratio of weighted to unweighted
students, where students with special needs have been weighted to reflect the cost of serving them
relative to the cost of serving students with no special needs. APA used weights for the three categories
of special needs students: Special Education students, at-risk students, and ELL students. To develop
appropriate weights, APA relied on analyses of the costs of serving such students in several states where
recent costing-out studies have been undertaken. For this study, APA used weights of 1.10 for Special
Education, a weight of .40 for at-risk students, and a weight of .75 for ELL students. These weights are in
addition to the 1.0 they would receive as a base student. Further, these weights are not Alabama
specific and varied from the weights produced during the adequacy study which was conducted several
months after this initial comparison. With these weights, the ratio of weighted to unweighted students
is 1.37, which means it is expected that statewide expenditures would be 37 percent higher than if no
students had special needs. Alabamas need ratio is slightly below the average of the other SREB states
and slightly below the national average.
State and Local Spending for K-12 and Postsecondary Education
The figures in Table 4, at the end of this section, show total state and local spending for elementary,
secondary education, and postsecondary education; the number of students served, and the amount of
spending per student in 2008-09 (where spending includes current operations and capital). In Alabama,
state and local governments spent $7.848 billion to serve 745,668 elementary and secondary students,
and they spent $4.797 billion to serve 245,040 postsecondary students. This means that in Alabama,
state and local governments spent $10,525 per student in elementary or secondary school, and $19,574
per student in postsecondary school. The amount Alabama spent on elementary and secondary students
was 6.7 percent higher than the average spent in other SREB states with similar levels of personal
income per capita. It was 1.9 percent lower than the average amount spent in all other SREB states.
(While eight other SREB states spent less than Alabama on elementary and secondary education, seven
states spent more.) The amount Alabamas state and local governments spent per student in elementary
and secondary school was 10.2 percent lower than the national average. The amount Alabama spent on
postsecondary students was 15.9 percent higher than the average in other SREB states with levels of
personal income per capita similar to Alabamas. Alabamas spending on postsecondary students was
13.2 percent higher than the average amount spent in all other SREB states; fourteen of the other SREB
states spent less than Alabama, while one state spent more. The amount Alabamas state and local
governments spent per postsecondary student was 16.7 percent more than the national average.
One way to look at the amounts that state and local governments are spending is to use proportions to
compare per-student elementary and secondary spending to per-student postsecondary spending. In
Alabama, per-student elementary and secondary spending was 53.8 percent of per-student
14

postsecondary spending. That is, Alabamas state and local governments spent just over half as much on
elementary and secondary students as they spent on postsecondary students. The proportion was 58.8
percent in the other SREB states with levels of person income per capita similar to Alabamas. The
proportion was 62.8 percent for all other SREB states. Twelve of the 15 other SREB states had
proportions higher than Alabamas. Nationally, the average proportion was 69.9 percent.
State and Local Expenditures for Public Functions
Table 5, at the end of this section, shows data on the amounts state and local governments spent per
capita (relative to state population). Data is shown separately for all states, and is then combined for
Alabama, for the national average, for the average of the other SREB states with similar levels of
personal income per capita to Alabama, and for the average of all other SREB states. Table 5 provides
data on education (including both elementary and secondary education and postsecondary education),
social services, transportation, public safety, environment and housing, and government administration.
Comparisons on a per capita basis are useful indicators of the amounts of services available. (It is
important to note, though, that differences in population demographics, including age and income
distribution, influence the need and demand for public services.) In Table 5, Columns 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, and
16 show state support per capita; Columns 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18 show local support per capita; and
Columns 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, and 17 show combined state and local support (but not for each of the 15 other
SREB states).
As far as education is concerned (Columns 1 through 3), Alabama spends at a relatively high level.
Statewide spending is more than 20 percent higher than the two group averages of SREB states, and is
40 percent higher than the national average. At the same time, Alabamas local governments spend at a
relatively low level about nine percent lower than the average of the other SREB states and 18 percent
lower than the national average. Interestingly, in 13 of the other SREB states, when state support for
education was higher than in Alabama, local support was lower than in Alabama. (In Tennessee, both
state and local levels of support were lower than in Alabama. In Delaware, both state and local levels of
support were higher than in Alabama.) When state and local spending is combined, Alabama spent 6.7
percent more than the average of the other SREB states with similar levels of personal income per
capita. Alabama spends 2.2 percent more than the average of all other SREB states, and it spends
slightly less than the national average. While 10 of the other SREB states spent an average of $242 less
per capita than Alabama on education, five states spent an average of $303 more per capita than
Alabama on education.
As shown in Table 6, at the end of this section, when state and local support for education is separated
into elementary and secondary education versus postsecondary education (excluding libraries), state
and local spending per capita for elementary and secondary education is moderate. This means that
Alabamas spending is slightly higher than the average of the other SREB states with similar levels of
personal income per capita, but comparable to the average for all other SREB states. Alabamas local
spending per capita for elementary and secondary education is still 12 percent lower than the national
average. Meanwhile, Alabamas state and local spending per capita for postsecondary education is very
15

high about 30 percent higher than the average of the other SREB states and the national average.
When compared proportionally, Alabamas state and local spending per capita for postsecondary
education is 61.1 percent of its spending for elementary and secondary education. This is a higher
proportion than in any of the other SREB states, and it is 50 percent higher than the national average
proportion.
The remaining columns in Table 5 detail Alabamas spending on other public functions, as compared to
the other SREB states. In sum, Table 5 shows that Alabamas combined state and local spending per
capita for social services was higher than the average of all other SREB states and higher than the
national average. At the same time, Alabamas spending for transportation, public safety, environment
and housing, and government administration was lower than the average spending per capita of the
other SREB states and lower than the national average. Alabamas spending per capita for education
(elementary and secondary education as well as higher education) was similar to the average of all other
SREB states and similar to the national average.
16

Table 1.1
Structural Characteristics of State Aid Distribution Systems For Public K-12 Education In Alabama And Other
Southern Region Education Board (SREB) States
Number of
School
Districts
Basic Structural
Type
Basis of Setting a Base

Amount
Alabama
133
Foundation
Arkansas
244
Delaware
State
Student Count
Local Deduction
Class. Unit and Tchr. Sal.

Sched.
ADM; 20 days
10 mill
Foundation
Per pupil; base = $6,267
ADM; avg across 3/4

of school year
19
Foundation
Class unit & tchr sal

sched, plus equalization
formula
Florida
67
Foundation
Georgia
180
Kentucky
Direct/Implied
Measure of Local
Wealth
Special Needs Student Factors

At-Risk
Special Education
ELL/LEP
Gifted/ Talented
Property per
Student
FRL students and

low performing
students
2.5 weight applied

to 5% of ADM
Based on ELL
count
N/A
25 mill
Property per
student
Based on school
level % of FRL
students
no state aid
$305 per ELL/LEP

student
Weight of 0.15
applied to 5% of
ADM
ADA
Varies - local choice.
Property per
student
N/A
Weights
differentiated by
disability
N/A
Teacher units
Weighted FTE. Base

student allocation =
$3,582.98
Attendance 1 day
during survey period
(4 surveys per year)
Mill ranges from 4.827 to

5.719 due to assessment
ratios
Property per
student
N/A
Weights
differentiated by
service category
Weighted at 1.167
Included in Special
Ed.
Foundation
WFTE- base=$2,343 and

min salary=$33,424
multiple attendance
counts
5 mill
State Income
and Sales tax
1.3136-1.5938
weight on FRL
2.396-5.8253 weight
2.5337 weight
1.6686 weight
174
Foundation
ADA
30 cents equivalent per

$100 assessed property
value
Property per
student
Based FRL students

weighted at .15
Weights
differentiated by
disability
Weighted at 0.96
Grant awards
available
Louisiana
69
Foundation
per pupil; base- $3,855
Multiple attendance
count days
Local pays 35%
Property
FRL- .22 weight
1.5 weight
.22 weight and

additional
teachers available
.6 weight
Maryland
24
Foundation
ADA
Local contribution
required, adjusted for
district wealth (target of
50-50 state-local split)
Taxable income;
property value
per at-risk pupil;

0.94
per pupil; 0.74
.99 weight
N/A
Mississippi
152
Foundation
Per pupil; base =

$5,017.97
ADA
28 mill levy.
Contribution capped at
27% of program costs.
Property per
student
FRL students
weighted .05
Weights
differentiated by
teacher ratio
N/A
Teacher units
ADM
N/A
Property
Based on tchr. sal

sched.1 staff
position per 19.520.5 students
depending on level
$3,649.02 per
funded child count
(handicapped child
count or 12.5% of
ADM)
Based on tchr. sal.

Sched., number of
LEP students and
LEP student
concentration
$1,211 per child

applied to 4% of
ADM
North
Carolina
115
Grant program
Class. Unit and Tchr. Sal.

Sched.
Oklahoma
532
Foundation and
Salary Incentive
Per pupil; base- $1,542
WADM
up to 15 mills
property
.25 FRL weight
.05-3.8 weight
differentiated by
ability
.25 weight
.34 weight
South
Carolina
85
Foundation
Weighted Pupil Units,

Base-$1,777
ADM
Required minimum
effort must keep up with
inflation
Sales tax,
Property
.114-.26 FRL weight
1.74-2.54 weight
differentiated by
ability
N/A
Reimbursement of
actual
expenditures
Tennessee
140
Foundation
Funded positionsaverage per pupil $6,648
ADM
25% share
Propety and
sales
FRL- $509.46 per

ADM (based on 1:15
class size)
0-.91 weight
differentiated by
disability
1 staff position
per 30 ELL
part of Special ed
Texas
1032
Foundation
Per Pupil- $6,919
WADA
0.86 per $100 property

effort
Property
.2 FRL weight
1.7- 5.0 weight by

service
.1 ELL weight
.12 weight (capped

at 5% of students)
Virginia
134
Foundation
per pupil compositeaverage $5,552
ADM
local pays 45% share of

index (50%-property
value, 40%- adjusted
gross income, 10%taxable retail)
Property
estimated FRL
Differentiated by
disability, shared
based on composite
17 teacher
positions per 1000
ELL and composite
share
1 teacher units per

1000 students and
composite share
West
Virginia
55
Foundation
Funded positions- 74
funded staff per 1000
students plus
supplemental equity
ADM
90% regular property

levy minus 5% of sum
Property
N/A
Up to a full
reimbursement of
actual expenditures
Up to a full
reimbursement of
actual
expenditures
AP/IB allowance
(1%app*enrollmen
t)
FRL=Free and Reduced Lunch. ELL = English Language Learner; LEP = Limited English Proficiency
ADM = Average Daily Membership; ADA = Average Daily Attendance; WADA = Weighted Averaged Daily Attendance; WADM = Weighted Average Daily Membership
17

Table 1.1 (Continued)
Structural Characteristics of State Aid Distribution Systems For Public K-12 Education In Alabama And Other
Southern Region Education Board (SREB) States
District Cost Factors
State
District Size
Other
Unequalized Incentive Funds
Transportation
Capital Outlay and Debt Service
Alabama
N/A
N/A
N/A
Density Formula (per pupil)
1 or 3 mill county tax option for capital projects.

State support based on student count, adjusted
for LEA wealth, requiring matching local
contribution
Arkansas
N/A
Declining membership
adjustment; Isolated
funding
Equal basis per school
Local: capital mill (avg is 0.67 mills), debt service

mill (avg is 11.06 mills)
State support: 10% debt reduction; bonded debt
assistance, phased out over 10 years
Delaware
N/A
N/a
N/A
Paid in full - allocated on per

route basis
60-80% of construction funded. Bonded

indebtedness limited to 10% of assessed
valuation of district
Florida
Sparsity index;
20,000 students or
less
Isolated school
supplement
Operating mill of 0.748;
Formula - based on district pro

rata share
Capital Outlay and Maintenance mill of 1.5.

Proceeds from motor vehicle license available for
capital outlay. Allocated according to instructional
units.
Georgia
N/A
N/A
state equalizes up to 3.25 millmaximum up 20 mills
for students more than 1.5 mi.

Based on salary schedule and
operation
voter approved 1% sales tax (no greater than 5

years)
Kentucky
N/A
N/A
Tier I: Allowed to levy

equivalent tax rate to raise up
to 15% above base. Tier II: up
to 30% above base.
Density formula (per pupil)
$100 per ADA for priority projects
Louisiana
up to .2 weight
(districts <7500)
N/A
State matches 37.4% of each

dollar above foundation
N/A
Local responsibility (have authority up to 5 millsexcept New Orleans)
Maryland
N/A
Geographical cost of
education incentive
(GCEI) program
N/A
Grant based on student count.
School construction is shared state/local cost.

Annual grant for aging schools.
Mississippi
N/A
N/A
state matching funds up to 5

mills
Density formula (per pupil)
$18 per year per pupil (based on ADA)
North Carolina
N/A
Special allotment for

isolated school
populations
N/A
Efficiency rated formula
Up to two 0.5 cent additions to sales tax - 30% can

go to capital outlay, 60% can go to retiring debt.
Capital projects matched $3 state to every $1 local
funds
Oklahoma
(529ADM/529)*2*ADM
average daily haul* 1.39
South Carolina
N/A
Inflation factor
State funded
Assembly amount set, then divided by ADM
Tennessee
N/A
NA
based on urban setting and

students/SPED/ miles per ADM
State's share - 50% "non-classroom." based on

grades and type of addition
Texas
N/A
1.02-1.20 Cost of Living

weight
N/A
N/A
Cannot exceed $1.5 per $100 sales tax
Virginia
minimum 51 staff
positions
N/A
N/A
per pupil based on density and

division
Public loans at reduced interest rate
West Virginia
Minimum 44.0777.26 staff

depending on
category
N/A
87%-95% of actual
N/A
18

Table 1.2
Comparison of Per-Student Spending for K-12 Education, Variation in Per-Student Spending, Numbers of Staff, and Teacher Characteristics
for Alabama and Other SREB States
Per Student Spending
Population and Personal
Income per Capita
Personal
Population Income per
(000s)
Capita
ALABAMA
4,785
$30,516
Personnel Numbers
(2008-09)
Admin.
Per Student
Spending
(2008-09)
1
Per Student
Spending
Adjusted by
Inter-State
Cost of
Living
2
$8,964
$10,303
0.093
0.147
Variation in
Spending
Across
Districts*
(Higher Value
is Worse)
3
Wealth
Neutrality**
(Higher
Positive
Score is
Worse)
4
Spending
Index***
(Higher
Number is
Better)
5
Total Staff
per 1,000
Students
Teachers
per 1,000
Students
Staff (Cert.
and NonCert.) per
1,000
Students
Teacher Characteristics
Guidance
Counselors
per 1,000
Students
Average
Salary
(2009-10)
Average
Years of
Experience
(2007-08)
10
11
87.1
130.9
64.1
11.6
2.51
$47,571
12.1
Percentage
of Teachers
with More
Than a B.A.
Degree
(2007-08)
12
Benefit
Rate (for
All Staff in
2008-09)
13
55.7%
41.4%
Other SREB States

Arkansas
2,922
$29,771
$8,854
$10,540
0.139
0.088
85.8
148.8
77.6
16.5
3.01
$46,700
14.4
41.4%
26.2%
Georgia
9,712
$31,859
$9,649
$10,157
0.142
0.185
91.0
144.4
71.8
12.3
2.23
$53,112
12.8
61.2%
26.6%
Kentucky
4,347
$29,959
$8,786
$9,872
0.135
0.056
86.1
149.6
64.8
18.3
2.18
$49,543
12.9
79.1%
33.0%
Mississippi
2,970
$28,041
$8,064
$9,487
0.157
0.236
76.0
146.4
67.8
15.4
4.26
$45,644
12.3
43.4%
31.6%
North Carolina
9,560
$31,990
$8,463
$9,300
0.138
0.394
81.4
134.2
68.3
12.9
2.67
$46,850
11.7
35.4%
25.0%
Oklahoma
3,760
$32,707
$7,878
$9,160
0.158
0.052
71.8
128.7
65.3
14.6
2.62
$47,691
13.4
33.5%
28.6%
South Carolina
4,637
$29,770
$9,228
$10,141
0.140
0.228
85.5
93.9
66.2
6.1
2.61
$47,508
13.3
59.1%
29.7%
Tennessee
6,357
$31,720
$7,992
$8,980
0.112
0.100
78.5
130.5
66.8
9.1
2.83
$46,290
13.2
55.1%
29.2%
West Virginia
1,854
$29,360
$10,606
$12,626
0.078
0.009
99.0
136.5
71.5
12.2
2.58
$45,959
14.6
60.5%
50.0%
900
$35,881
$12,109
$12,484
0.158
0.090
99.3
117.4
65.9
11.7
2.27
$57,080
11.5
61.8%
43.5%
18,839
$35,273
$8,867
$9,141
0.084
0.151
83.2
129.5
70.8
15.1
2.30
$46,708
12.1
39.1%
31.4%
Loui s i a na
4,545
$34,512
$10,625
$12,074
0.147
0.219
95.3
147.3
72.1
13.8
4.20
$48,903
12.9
28.1%
34.1%
Ma ryl a nd
5,786
$44,025
$13,738
$12,489
0.105
0.243
100.0
138.4
69.8
18.5
2.88
$63,971
12.5
57.4%
37.5%
25,253
$35,390
$8,562
$9,307
0.199
0.090
85.0
136.6
69.0
15.2
2.30
$48,261
12.3
29.9%
16.0%
8,024
$40,168
$10,928
$10,820
0.128
0.203
97.3
164.7
57.8
14.9
3.24
$50,015
12.8
42.6%
34.9%
$33,362
$9,623
$10,439
0.135
0.156
87.7
136.5
68.4
13.8
2.81
$49,616
12.9
48.5%
31.8%
Simple Average of Other SREB States

within $2,500 of Alabama's Personal
Income per Capita
$30,575
$8,836
$10,029
0.133
0.150
83.9
134.8
68.9
13.0
2.78
$47,700
13.2
52.1%
31.1%
Del a wa re
Fl ori da
Texa s
Vi rgi ni a
Simple Average of
Other SREB States
* The figure shown is the coefficient of variation (the standard deviation divided by the mean for all school districts in a state), where .000 indicates no variation.
** The figure shown is the correlation coefficient between per student spending and property wealth for all school districts in a state, where .000 indicates no relationship.
*** The figure shown is the degree to which districts approach national spending levels when spending figures are adjusted by cost-of-living and differences in student needs, where the national average is 90.0
Note: Figures for other SREB states that are similar to Alabama in terms of personal income per capita are italiciized.
Note: Figures for the other SREB states that are bolded and in a slightly larger font are higher than Alabama's figures (except in the cases of columns 3 and 4).
Source: Figures come from several sources, including the Digest of Education Statistics: 2011 (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Tables 72 and 84),
Quality Counts (Education Week , Vol 32, Number 16, January 10, 2013, School Finance table), and the "Build a Table" function of the National Center for Education Statistics.
19

Table 1.3
TABLE 3
Students
with
Special,
High-Cost
inOTHER
Alabama,
Other
SREB
States,BOARD
and the
U.S.
STUDENTS
WITH
SPECIAL,
HGH COST
NEEDS IN Needs
ALABAMA,
SOUTHERN
REGION
EDUCATION
(SREB)
STATES,
AND THE UNITED STATES
Students with Special, High Cost Needs
Personal Income and Population

Personal
Personal
Income
Population
Income per
($000,000)
(000s)
Capita
United States
ALABAMA
Number of
Students
Percentage of
Students in
Special
Education
Percentage of
Students
Eligible for
Free or
Reduced Price
Lunch
Percentage of
Children
Whose
Parents are
Not Fluent in
English
Ratio of
Weighted
Students to
Unweighted
Students*
$11,276,493
309,330
$36,455
49,265,572
13.2%
43.6%
16.8%
1.45
$146,017
4,785
$30,516
745,668
11.1%
52.2%
5.0%
1.37
57.1%
53.0%
7.9%
12.6%
51.6%
4.3%
1.44
1.43
1.42
1.44
Other SREB States

$86,992
2,922
$29,771
478,965
13.5%
Georgia
$309,419
9,712
$31,859
1,655,792
10.9%
Kentucky
$130,233
4,347
$29,959
670,030
$83,281
2,970
$28,041
491,962
North Carolina
$305,829
9,560
1,488,645
Oklahoma
$122,978
3,760
$31,990
$32,707
South Carolina
$138,045
4,637
$29,770
718,113
Tennessee
$201,647
6,357
$31,720
971,950
West Virginia
$54,433
1,854
$29,360
282,729
Delaware
$32,293
900
125,430
Florida
$664,500
18,839
Louisiana
$156,855
4,545
Maryland
$254,731
5,786
843,861
Texas
$893,709
25,253
4,752,148
9.5%
48.8%
Virginia
$322,309
8,024
$35,881
$35,273
$34,512
$44,025
$35,390
$40,168
16.1%
13.1%
12.6%
14.6%
14.2%
12.2%
16.6%
15.2%
14.6%
12.6%
12.3%
1,235,795
13.5%
Arkansas
Mississippi
645,108
2,631,020
684,873
68.3%
2.6%
33.2%
11.1%
7.7%
5.5%
6.5%
56.1%
52.5%
50.0%
50.0%
1.3%
39.1%
9.4%
19.4%
49.6%
1.35
1.44
1.41
1.38
1.39
1.39
1.50
1.43
64.9%
4.1%
34.7%
1.51
33.0%
10.7%
28.4%
11.3%
1.35
1.37
$33,362
13.4%
49.5%
9.5%
1.42

within $2,500 of Alabama's
Personal Income per Capita
$30,575
13.7%
52.4%
6.6%
1.41
* Students are weighted as follows: for special education, 1.10; for free and reduced-price lunch, .40; and for lack of fluency in
English, .75 (where weights reflect the excess cost of serving students relative to a base cost).
Note: Figures for the other SREB states that are bolded and in a slightly larger font are higher than Alabama's figures.
Sources: Digest of Education Statistics: 2011 (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Tables 45 and 48) and
Quality Counts (Education Week, Vol. 32, Number 16, January 10, 2013), p. 46
20

Table
TABLE 41.4
PER STUDENT
STATE/LOCAL
K-12 EDUCATION
AND POSTSECONDARY
EDUCATION
IN 2008-09
ALABAMA,
Comparison of COMPARISON
Per-StudentOFState
and Local
SpendingSPENDING
for K-12FOR
Education
and Postsecondary
Education
in 2008-09
forFOR
Alabama,
Other SREB States
OTHER SOUTHERN REGION EDUCATION BOARD (SREB) STATES, AND THE UNITED STATES
Personal
Income
($000,000)
United States
Population
(000s)
Personal
Income per
Capita
Elementary/Secondary Education (El-Sec)
Postsecondary Education (PSE)
Number of
Students
State/Local Spend
(Curr. and Cap. in
Millions)
Curr. + Cap.
Spending per
Student
Number of
Students
State/Local Spend
(Curr. and Cap. In
Millions)
Curr. + Cap.
Spending per
Student
El-Sec as a
Percentage of
PSE Spending
$11,276,493
309,330
$36,455
49,265,572
$577,597
$11,724
13,972,153
$234,387
$16,775
69.9%
$146,017
4,785
$30,516
745,668
$7,848
$10,525
245,040
$4,797
$19,574
53.8%
Arkansas
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
$86,992
$309,419
$130,233
$83,281
$305,829
2,922
9,712
4,347
2,970
9,560
$29,771
$4,747
$18,621
$6,306
$4,480
$14,479
$9,912
$9,411
$9,106
$9,727
140,706
376,468
208,970
144,224
434,976
$2,280
$5,587
$3,532
$2,584
$8,052
$16,201
$14,840
$16,900
$17,917
$18,511
61.2%
75.8%
55.7%
50.8%
52.5%
Oklahoma
$122,978
3,760
$31,990
$32,707
478,965
1,655,792
670,030
491,962
1,488,645
645,108
$5,856
$9,077
178,253
$3,275
$18,375
49.4%
South Carolina
$138,045
4,637
$29,770
718,113
$8,187
$11,400
187,253
$3,237
$17,288
65.9%
Tennessee
West Virginia
Delaware
$201,647
$54,433
$32,293
6,357
1,854
900
$31,720
971,950
282,729
125,430
$8,415
$2,899
$1,768
$8,658
$10,255
$3,323
$1,456
$965
$15,520
$16,420
$24,772
55.8%
62.5%
56.9%
Florida
$664,500
18,839
2,631,020
$28,117
709,593
$8,926
$12,579
85.0%
Louisiana
$156,855
4,545
684,873
$7,962
203,098
$3,382
$16,654
69.8%
Maryland
$254,731
5,786
843,861
$11,713
$14,098
$10,687
$11,626
$13,881
214,140
88,695
38,952
280,603
$4,948
$17,632
78.7%
Texas
$893,709
25,253
4,752,148
$47,980
$10,096
1,163,132
$20,738
$17,829
56.6%
Virginia
$322,309
8,024
1,235,795
$14,602
$11,816
383,121
$6,906
$18,027
65.5%
ALABAMA
Other SREB States
$31,859
$29,959
$28,041
$29,360
$35,881
$35,273
$34,512
$44,025
$35,390
$40,168
$11,246
$33,362
$10,733
$17,298
62.8%
Simple Average of SREB States Within

$2,500 of Alabama's Personal Income
per Capita
$30,575
$9,866
$16,886
58.8%
Note: Figures for the other SREB states that are bolded and in a slightly larger font are higher than Alabama's figures.
Source: Digest of Education Statistics: 2011 (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Tables 31, 38, and 217)
21

TABLE 5
2010 STATE AND LOCAL EXPENDITURES PER CAPITA BY SPECIFIC FUNCTIONS FOR ALABAMA, OTHER SOUTHERN REGION EDUCATION BOARD (SREB) STATES, AND THE UNITED STATES

Personal
Income
($000,000)
Population
(000s)
Personal
Income per
Capita
Education (incl. Higher,

Elementary and Secondary,
and Libraries)
State
S+L
Local
1
United States
$11,276,493
309,330
$36,455
$821
$1,959
Social Services (incl. Public

Welfare, Hospitals, Health,
and Veterans)
State
S+L
Local
4
$1,646
$2,780
ALABAMA
$146,017
4,785
$30,516
$1,154
Transportation (incl.
Highways, Airports, and
Ports)
S+L
State
Local
$575
$311
$2,221
$1,609
$1,707
$2,762
Public Safety (incl. Police,

Fire, and Corrections)
S+L
State
Local
10
$291
$218
$601
$696
$301
$2,403
11
Environment and Housing

(incl. Parks and Waste
Management)
S+L
State
Local
12
13
14
$510
$124
$728
$223
$160
$524
Gov't. Administration (incl.

Judicial and Public
Buildings)
S+L
State
Local
15
16
17
$518
$167
$642
$356
$76
$517
18
$243
$410
$303
$123
$379
$208
$330
Other SREB States

Arkansas
$1,812
$1,827
$1,858
$72
$264
$581
$226
$231
$289
$411
$363
$302
$415
$1,865
$769
$281
---
$141
$179
$180
$175
$170
$211
$225
$164
$1,202
$1,410
$799
$1,743
$1,646
$1,611
$1,685
$2,043
$2,168
$468
$243
---
$182
$141
$412
$1,754
$1,892
$1,711
$1,829
$2,337
$169
$84
$219
$467
$1,603
$1,354
$974
$2,056
$1,815
$956
$1,719
$2,338
$2,108
$1,989
$282
$263
$228
$467
$175
$209
$337
$189
$201
$935
$1,767
$1,739
$214
$217
$86,992
2,922
$29,771
$930
Georgia
$309,419
9,712
$31,859
$765
Kentucky
$130,233
4,347
$29,959
$83,281
2,970
$28,041
North Carolina
$305,829
9,560
Oklahoma
$122,978
3,760
$31,990
$32,707
$1,131
South Carolina
$138,045
4,637
$29,770
$992
Tennessee
$201,647
6,357
$31,720
$655
$54,433
1,854
$29,360
$1,108
$35,881
$35,273
$34,512
$44,025
$35,390
$40,168
$1,480
$33,362
Mississippi
West Virginia
Delaware
$32,293
900
Florida
$664,500
18,839
Louisiana
$156,855
4,545
Maryland
$254,731
5,786
Texas
$893,709
25,253
Virginia
$322,309
8,024

within $2,500 of Alabama's
Personal Income per Capita
$861
--+++
$834
$868
$1,374
$1,166
$938
$752
$857
$1,352
$1,645
---
---
$35
$619
$602
$537
$264
$568
$128
$470
$411
$1,401
---
$401
$220
$1,493
---
$340
$327
$413
$361
$2,702
$30,575
---
$2,153
$1,651
$1,737
---
$208
$241
$155
+++
$258
+++
$290
$114
$151
+++
$372
$274
$198
+++
$575
$465
$347
$281
+++
$408
$277
$330
+++
$358
$340
$344
$257
+++
+++
+++
+++
+++
$679
$558
$512
$423
$500
$393
$124
$102
$152
$125
$102
$87
$108
$98
$161
$298
$85
$524
$185
$186
+++
+++
+++
+++
+++
+++
+++
$311
$366
$312
$314
$367
$310
$341
$330
$194
$137
$74
$261
$121
---
$189
$296
$212
$483
+++
$218
+++
$261
$277
$257
$63
$353
$689
$537
$593
$412
$444
$151
$398
+++
+++
+++
+++
$50
$610
$186
+++
$187
$127
+++
$212
$117
---
$141
$150
$191
$118
$158
$196
$151
$120
$218
$218
+++
$76
---
$187
$133
+++
$256
$175
$549
$330
$147
$203
$378
$328
$153
$184
$2,589
$2,203
$533
$516
$445
$337
Other SREB States Above Alabama in S+L Expenditures

Number
Amount of Simple Average Above Alabama
5
$303
3
$323
9
$134
10
$161
15
$170
11
$81
Other SREB States Below Alabama in S+L Expenditures

Number
Amount of Simple Average Below Alabama
10
-$242
12
-$394
6
-$74
5
-$44
0
N/A
4
-$45
--- indicates that both state and local are lower than Alabama
+++ indicates that both state and local are higher than Alabama
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Annual Surveys of State and Local Government Finances.
22

Table 1.6
State and Local Spending on Elementary and Secondary Education, Postsecondary Education
State and Local
Spending for
Elementary and
Secondary
Education per
Capita
State and Local

Spending for
Postsecondary
Education per
Capita
State and Local Spending for

Postsecondary Education per
Capita as a Percentage of State
and Local Spending for
Elementary and Secondary
Education per Capita
United States
$1,867
$758
40.6%
Alabama
$1,640
$1,002
61.1%
$1,625
$1,917
$1,451
$1,508
$1,515
$1,557
$1,765
$1,324
$1,564
$1,965
$1,492
$1,752
$2,024
$1,900
$1,820
$1,679
$780
$575
$812
$870
$842
$871
$698
$523
$786
$1,072
$474
$744
$855
$821
$861
$772
48.0%
30.0%
56.0%
57.7%
55.6%
55.9%
39.5%
39.5%
50.2%
54.6%
31.7%
42.5%
42.2%
43.2%
47.3%
46.3%
$1,581
$751
48.1%
Other SREB States

Arkansas
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Tennessee
West Virginia
Delaware
Florida
Louisiana
Maryland
Texas
Virginia
Simple Average of
Other SREB States
Simple Average of
Other SREB States
with Income
Similar to Alabama
23
II. Equity Analysis

In this part of the study, APA examined the fiscal equity of Alabamas school finance system from the
2006-07 school year to the 2012-13 school year. Findings can be summarized as follows:
Over the past seven years, Alabamas school finance system has either barely met (by some
measures) or failed to meet generally accepted equity standards, and has become more
inequitable.
There is a moderate positive relationship between local property wealth and per-student
spending, which suggests that Alabama could do more to support school systems in low-wealth
communities.
Alabamas school finance system also fails to meet equity standards for vertical equity,
suggesting the state could do more to provide support for students with special needs.
Per-student expenditures increased slightly $458 over the seven-year period. When inflation1
is taken into account, however, per-student expenditures have actually decreased by $513.
Alabamas total K-12 enrollment is declining. Enrollment dropped by 0.5 percent between 200607 and 2012-13. About a quarter of all districts experienced enrollment decreases of 10 percent
or more.
The data suggests that differences in local property wealth drive wealthier districts to have high
spending levels, more teachers per 1,000 students, and higher teacher salaries on average.
The remainder of this report includes a more in-depth discussion of: (1) how APA defines and measures
equity, (2) the methods APA used to conduct this study, and (3) a discussion of APAs analysis.
Defining Equity
School finance equity has been discussed and analyzed in terms of both: (1) the focus on who or what is
being treated equitably and (2) the particular type of equity this study is concerned about. Most often,
equity studies focus on the distribution of resources to school districts, since nearly every state
calculates its state school finance formula at the district level. However, it is also reasonable to be
concerned about how equitably resources are ultimately directed toward individual students. Are
resources being allocated fairly to schools within school districts? Are more resources being targeted
toward students with greater educational needs? Taxpayers are another legitimate focus of equity. Are
some taxpayers subject to much higher tax rates (or lower levels of resources) solely because they live in
cities or counties with little wealth? Do other taxpayers enjoy the ability to raise much higher levels of
revenues with lower tax effort because they live in wealthy communities?
There are also multiple equity concepts that are typically addressed in school finance equity analyses.
The most common of these concepts are horizontal equity, vertical equity, and fiscal neutrality.
Horizontal equity is concerned with how equally resources are allocated to similarly situated districts or
students. It is sometimes said that horizontal equity addresses the equal treatment of equals. That is,
1
Inflation for this report was determined using the CPI-U South Region from the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
24

an equitable school finance system will provide a roughly equal amount of resources to students with
similar educational needs. Under a school finance system with high horizontal equity, students with no
special needs are funded roughly equally, regardless of which school districts they attend. Vertical
equity measures how well the school finance system takes into account varying student needs. A system
with high vertical equity will provide more resources for students with greater educational need to
support the programs and interventions required for these students to succeed in school. The third
equity concept, fiscal neutrality, assesses the link between local wealth and the amount of revenue
available to support a school district. A touchstone of school finance theory asserts that there should be
little or no relationship between local wealth such as the local property tax base and the amount of
revenues provided to a local school system. A school finance system with high fiscal neutrality minimizes
the relationship between local wealth or capacity and school spending.
Based on APAs work over many years and in many states, and based on similar work in the academic
community, the study team believes that, in practical terms, equity in school finance has three
dimensions. These three dimensions, described directly below, form the basis of the current analysis of
school finance equity in Alabama:
1. Student fiscal equity means that a states per-student spending should be either uniform
(horizontal equity) or very similar across all school districts. A states per-student spending
should also be logically related to factors that exist outside the school systems control and that
affect the costs of serving students (e.g. the proportion of students in each district with special
needs, or school system characteristics like size or location). This is called vertical equity.
2. Taxpayer equity means that either the tax rates supporting education are similar across school
systems, or that differences in tax rates can be explained by taxpayer desire to spend more on
education, within reasonable limits.
3. Fiscal neutrality means that there is little or no relationship between the wealth of school
systems and those systems per-student spending levels. While almost no one expects a school
finance system to produce perfect equity, it is important that the vast majority of differences in
spending and taxing across school districts can be explained by acceptable factors.
Measuring Equity
While there are a number of generally accepted statistical methods used for analyzing equity, APA has
found that there are generally three tests that are most useful in helping policymakers understand the
degree to which a school finance system is equitable. These three tests consist of:
Horizontal equity: To measure horizontal equity APA uses range and coefficient of variation. Range is
the difference between the smallest and largest value of some variable, such as per-student spending.
The greater the range, the more likely it is that a system has lower horizontal equity. Coefficient of
variation (CV) is a measure of how much items vary around an average. In statistical terms, CV is the
standard deviation divided by the mean or average. If per-student expenditures across districts do not
25

vary a great deal, then all of the items will be tightly packed around the average. If expenditures are
highly variable, then the items will be widely dispersed from the average. The value of the CV in
percentage terms typically varies from 0 to 100, although its value can go higher. APA presents the CV in
this report in decimal form, with a value between 0 and 1. A lower number (closer to 0) indicates less
variability, while a higher number (closer to 1) indicates more variability.
Vertical equity: To measure degree to which a school finance system is vertically equitable, APA can use
the same measures as used for horizontal equity, except that weighted student counts are substituted
for standard counts. By using weighted student counts, which provide a measure of student need, the
study team is able to assess whether spending varies with student need, with the expectation that
higher spending is associated with higher levels of need.
Fiscal neutrality: The most common method for measuring fiscal neutrality is to find the correlation
between property wealth per student and per-student spending. A high-quality school finance system
will exhibit little relationship between the two, since local wealth should not determine how much
money a school system has to spend. The correlation ranges from -1 to 1, with -1 representing a perfect
negative relationship. (For example, a one-unit increase in one item, such as per-student property
wealth, results in a one-unit decrease in the other item, such as per-student spending.) In this type of
correlation, 1 represents a perfect positive relationship. (For example, a one-unit increase in one item
results in a one unit increase in the other item.) A correlation of 0 means there is no relationship
between the two items.
Our Analytical Approach

APAs equity analysis examined district-level enrollment and fiscal data for three years: 2006-07, 201112, and 2012-13. By including the earlier fiscal year, 2006-07, the study team was able to look for longerterm trends in Alabamas school finance system. The latter two years provided an indication of the
states direction over the two most recent years for which data is available. To keep our data as
comparable as possible from year to year, APA only included in our datasets those districts that were in
existence across the entire time period of 2006-07 through 2012-13. As a result, this analysis does not
include the following districts, all formed after 2006-07: 303, Alabaster City; 121, Chickasaw City; 177,
Pelham City; 187, Saraland City; and 196, Satsuma City.
As noted above, APAs focus was on three equity measures: (1) horizontal equity, (2) vertical equity, and
(3) fiscal neutrality.
Table 2.1 that follows shows the number of districts included for each year; the total number of
unweighted and weighted students served in those districts; the change in student numbers over the
six-year period from 2006-07 to 2011-12; and the one-year change from 2011-12 to 2012-13.
26

Table 2.1: School Systems Included in the Equity Analysis
Year
2011-12
2006-07
District Characteristics
Number of Systems
Number of Students
Number of Weighted Students
Ratio of Weighted to
Unweighted Students
One Year
Change
2012-13
131
739,401
976,843
131
735,084
974,673
131
730,769
945,002
1.32
1.33
1.29
-0.6%
-3.0%
Seven Year
Change
-1.2%
-3.3%
Table 2.1 shows that enrollment in these districts has declined by nearly 9,000 students, or 1.2 percent,
over the seven-year period. Total enrollment, including enrollment in the five excluded districts,
declined by a lesser amount (0.5 percent) between 2006-07 and 2012-13. This decline suggests that a
little more than half of the decrease was due to the loss of students in Mobile and Shelby Counties
following the establishment of the five new city districts. Of the 131 districts included in this analysis, 60
percent experienced declining enrollment between 2007 and 2013, with about a quarter decreasing by
10 percent or more. Alternately, only 13 districts saw their enrollment increase by at least 10 percent.
Declining enrollment is not necessarily an equity-related issue. However, it does raise questions about
state policies with regards to specific financial support for districts with declining enrollment and
incentives for district cost-sharing or eventual consolidation. For example, the states current funding
formula cushions the immediate impact of declining enrollment by using the greater of the current
years or previous years enrollment count.
Horizontal and Vertical Equity
The following sections present the results of APAs equity analysis along the three equity dimensions of
horizontal equity, vertical equity, and fiscal neutrality. The study team begins this discussion with a brief
look at school expenditures trends since 2006-07.
Per Student Expenditures
Over the seven-year period from 2006-07 to 2012-13, average per-student expenditures2 in the state
increased by $458. Table C, below, shows the average per-pupil current expenditure was $7,383 in
2006-07. This figure increased to $7,638 per student in 2011-12, and then rose to $7,841 in 2012-13.
However, this increase was insufficient to keep up with inflation. When adjusted for inflation the perstudent amount actually decreased by $513 between 2006-07 and 2012-13. While level of funding is
more of a consideration for adequacy, insufficient funding can also impact equity, particularly where
local jurisdictions with greater local property wealth are able to offset reductions in state revenues by
increasing local effort.
As used here, total current expenditures consist of all expenditures minus capital, transportation and food service
spending.
27

Equity Measures
The primary equity indicators used in this analysis are (1) the range in per-student expenditures
between the lowest- and highest-spending districts and (2) the coefficient of variation of per-student
expenditures. Both of these indicators show that Alabamas school finance system was relatively
inequitable in 2006-07, and that the system has worsened since then. Table B shows that the range
between the lowest- and highest-spending districts in 2006-07 was $5,039 per student, with a ratio of
1.83 from highest to lowest. This means that, per student, the highest-spending district had over $5,000
more in financial resources than the lowest-spending district. To provide some context, this translates to
$125,975 more for a classroom of 25 students enough to pay for nearly three additional teachers at
the statewide average teacher salary. This range increased to $5,509 in 2011-12 and to $6,025 in 201213. The ratio of the highest- to lowest-spending district also increased, to 1.92 in 2011-12 and to 2.0 in
20112-13. These increases indicate that the highest-spending district spent almost exactly twice as much
per student as the lowest-spending district.
The coefficient of variation (CV) APAs measure of how much school district per-student expenditures
vary from the average also increased over the period examined in this study. The generally accepted
standard for an equitable school finance system is a CV of 0.100 or less. In 2006-07, the CV for Alabama
was .112. This is somewhat higher than the 0.100 standard. However, the CV increased to .131 by 201112, and declined only slightly to .128 in 2012-13. This also indicates that inequality in the states school
finance system has increased significantly in recent years.
Table 2.2: School System Expenditures and Equity Indicators
2006-07
Year
2011-12
2012-13
One Year
Change
Seven Year
Change
Current Operating Expenditures per Student

Simple Average
Minimum
Maximum
Range
Ratio of Maximum to Minimum
Simple Coefficient of Variation
$7,383
$6,061
$11,100
$5,039
1.83
0.119
$7,638
$5,986
$11,495
$5,509
1.92
0.131
$7,841
$6,050
$12,075
$6,025
2.00
0.128
2.7%
6.2%
Current Operating Expenditures per Weighted Student

Simple Average
Minimum
Maximum
Range
Ratio of Maximum to Minimum
$5,567
$4,418
$10,154
$5,736
2.30
0.145
$5,700
$4,585
$10,168
$5,583
2.22
0.148
$6,044
$4,887
$10,433
$5,546
2.13
0.144
6.0%
8.6%
If districts are categorized by level of wealth, there are significant financial disparities between districts
at the top of the wealth spectrum and districts at the bottom. For this analysis, APA organized districts
into five groups, or quintiles. Those districts in the top quintile represent the top 20 percent of all
districts in terms of property wealth per student. Those in the lowest quintile represent the bottom 20
percent of districts in terms of property wealth per student, and those districts in the middle quintile are
clustered around the statewide average wealth per student.
28

As Table 2.3, below, shows, each of the five quintiles has approximately 26 schools. The districts in the
highest quintile serve the largest proportion of students, while the districts in the lowest quintile serve
the smallest proportion of students.
Table 2.3: 2012-13 School System Expenditures and Equity Indicators
Wealth Quintile
Second
Lowest
Lowest
Second
Highest
Middle
Highest
School Finance
Variables
Districts
26
26
105,021
27
127,751
26
188,006
26
Students
82,723
227,268
Wealth*
$34,306
$47,769
$58,839
$75,123
$110,329
Need**
1.31
1.29
1.30
1.31
1.29
Tax Effort (mills)***
45.8
32.9
29.4
30.3
28.5
Local Revenue
$1,499
$1,558
$1,732
$2,257
$3,061
State Revenue****
$5,105
$4,919
$4,823
$4,605
$4,299
$159
$220
$240
$245
$303
$7,591
$7,471
$7,588
$7,923
$8,641
$5,793
$5,794
$5,846
$6,050
$6,744
62.1
62.4
62.9
64.1
66.5
47.4
48.4
48.5
49.0
51.8
$46,733
$46,938
$47,038
$47,166
$48,309
Local and State

Revenue per
Student per Mill
of tax Effort
Spending per
Student*****
Spending per
Wgt. Student*****
Teachers per 1,000
Students
Teachers per 1,000
Wgt. Students**
Average Teacher
Salary
*
**
***
****
*****
Wealth is property value per student

Need is the ratio of weighted to unweighted students
Tax effort is local current revenue per student divided by wealth
State revenue is for current operating purposes only
Spending is for current purposes excluding transportation
29

The data in Table 2.3 shows a sizeable gap in 2012-13 between the lowest and highest quintile districts
in terms of per-pupil wealth, tax effort, and spending per student. In terms of property wealth per
student, the statewide average is $58,839. Districts in the highest quintile average $110,329 $51,490
more and nearly double the average. Districts in the lowest quintile average only $34,306 per student,
or $24,533 less than the average. Similarly, the local tax effort for districts in the lowest quintile is much
higher than the average 45.8 mills compared to the statewide average of 29.4 mills. With a millage of
28.5, the tax effort of districts in the highest quintile is slightly lower than the statewide average and
only 62 percent of the millage of the lowest percentile districts. Even with this much higher mill rate,
because districts in the lowest quintile have a lower property wealth per student, they only generate
$159 of state and local revenue per mill compared to $240 per mill on average, and $303 per mill for
districts in the highest quintile. This data shows that taxpayers in the top quintile districts are able to
raise nearly twice the revenue for their schools while taxing themselves at a much lower rate than
taxpayers in the lowest quintile.
Districts in the highest quintile also have a substantial advantage in spending over those in the lowest
quintile. The top quintile districts spend $1,050 per student more than the lowest. When looking at
spending per weighted students (the count of students adjusted to account for special needs), the gap
between the top and bottom quintiles narrows slightly to $951 per pupil. It should be noted that the
middle quintile spending per weighted student is slightly lower than that of the lowest quintile,
suggesting that the top quintiles spending advantage is unrelated to the needs of its students.
While horizontal equity is concerned with how equally similarly situated students are funded across
schools districts (e.g. a student with no special needs should receive approximately the same amount of
funding from district to district), vertical equity assumes that a greater number of resources are needed
to effectively educate students who possess special needs, such as students at risk of falling behind,
students with physical or cognitive disabilities, or students with limited English proficiency.3 There are
several methods for measuring vertical equity. The most straightforward approach is to run the same
analyses used for examining horizontal equity, but to use weighted student counts rather than
unweighted counts.4
For this analysis, the study team used APA-developed weights for the three categories of special needs
students to do a weighted student count.5 The study team applied these weights to the counts of
students falling into each of the three special need categories: at-risk, ELL and LEP, and Special
Education. After weights were applied, a new total weighted student count was calculated. For 2013,
the total weighed student count was 945,002 students compared to an unweighted count of 730,769.
The ratio of the weighted to unweighted counts provides an estimate of the overall level of student
need in Alabama. This ratio for 2013 was 1.33, the same as the ratio in 2012, and just slightly higher
3
Berne and Stiefel, 1984

Berne and Stiefel, 1984
5
APA analyzed the cost of serving special needs students in several states where recent costing-out studies were
undertaken to develop standardized weights above 1.00 to account for the extra costs of serving special needs
students. These weights include 1.10 for Special Education, .40 for at-risk students, and .70 for ELL/LEP students.
4
30

than the 1.32 ratio in 2007. This suggests that the level of need in the state has remained relatively
stable over the past seven years.
Table 2.4 below shows the change in enrollment, weighted enrollment, and the ratio of weighted to
unweighted enrollment for the years 2006-07, 2011-12 and 2012-13.
Table 2.4: Unweighted and Weighted Enrollment for the Years 2006-07, 2011-12 and 2012-13
2006-07
2011-12
2012-13
7 Year
Change
1 Year
Change
Unweighted Enrollment
739,401
735,084
730,769
-1.2%
-0.6%
Weighted Enrollment
976,843
977,517
945,002
-3.3%
-3.3%
1.32
1.33
1.33
Ratio Weighted to
Unweighted Enrollment
By using weighted student counts in the calculation of our equity measures, APA accounts for the effect
of student need on variation in per student spending. As a result, the equity measures in this study
should indicate less variability than the study team found when using the unweighted counts. Any
remaining variation in spending will primarily be the result of other factors such as disparities in local
property wealth or tax effort. Comparing the results for per-student (unweighted) and weighted student
measures in Table B, the equity measures actually increase using weighted student counts. The ratio of
the maximum to minimum per-student expenditure increases from 2.00 to 2.13 in 2012-13. The
coefficient of variation also increases from .128 to .144.
These results indicate that the states school finance system also falls short of generally accepted
standards for vertical equity. In practical terms this means that Alabamas school finance formula is not
meeting the needs of students with learning challenges, such as at-risk students, limited English
proficiency students, and students with disabilities.
Fiscal Neutrality
As described above, fiscal neutrality measures the relationship between local wealth, generally defined
as property wealth, and per student expenditures. In a high-quality school finance system, this
relationship is minimized. A generally accepted principal of school finance is that where a family and
student live should not determine the level of resources available to support the students education.
APAs measure of fiscal neutrality is the correlation between local property wealth per student and
expenditures per student. A generally accepted standard is that a system is reasonably fiscal neutral if
this correlation is less than 0.50. In 2012-13, Alabamas correlation was 0.43, just within the limits of
APAs acceptable standard. However, the 2012-13 correlation represents an increase over both 2006-07
(0.39) and 2011-12 (0.38), contributing to the conclusion that the states school finance system is
becoming somewhat more inequitable over time in terms of fiscal neutrality.
31

Figure 2.1 below illustrates the relationship between property wealth and per-student spending. The
upward tilt of the line shows the positive relationship between a districts property wealth and perstudent spending.
Figure 2.1: Relationship between Wealth and Per-Student Spending, 2012-13
Current Expenditures Per Student
Relationship Between Wealth and

Spending Unweighted Students
$14,000
$12,000
$10,000
$8,000
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
$0
$0
$20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000$100,000$120,000$140,000$160,000

Property Wealth Per Student
In summary, this analysis finds that Alabamas school finance system has failed to meet, or by some
measures has barely met, generally accepted equity standards over the past seven years and has
become more inequitable over this same period of time when considering horizontal equity, vertical
equity and fiscal neutrality. The next question is: What are the real world ramifications of this
inequality?
Practical Implications of Inequality

APAs analysis, presented above, indicates that Alabamas school finance system is not as equitable as
desired, and in fact appears to be growing more inequitable over time. The question remains, then: In
what way does inequality in wealth and spending impact the education students receive in the
classroom? One way to answer this question is to look at the number of teachers available to instruct
students in the classroom and the change in teachers average salaries. Table E that follows presents the
number of teachers per 1,000 students, both unweighted and weighted, for the three years of APAs
analysis. To examine the availability of teachers, it is necessary to standardize the way teachers are
counted so that differences in the size of systems does not interfere with the analysis. To do this, APA
uses teachers per 1,000 students as the measure of how many teachers are available for instruction in
schools. As shown in Table E, in 2012-13, on average, there were 63.6 teachers for every 1,000 students,
down from 67.2 teachers in 2006-07. The number of teachers per 1,000 weighted students also fell
32

between 2006-07 and 2012-13. Also shown in Table 2.5, there were 49.0 teachers per 1,000 weighted
students in 2012-13 (as expected, the figure is lower than the number of teachers per 1,000 students
since the same number of teachers are serving a higher number of students once they have been
weighted to reflect their needs) compared to 50.6 teachers in 2006-07. The coefficients of variation for
both, .069 for unweighted students and .090 for weighted students, are relatively low, less than the
coefficient of variation for per student spending. Still, the coefficient of variation for weighted students
is somewhat higher than the coefficient for unweighted students, indicating that much of difference in
teacher numbers is a result of something other than student need.
Table 2.5: Teachers Per 1,000 Students and Average Teacher Salaries by Wealth Quintile
2006-07
Year
2011-12
2012-13
One Year
Change
Seven Year
Change
Teachers per 1,000 Students

Simple Average
67.2
0.069
63.4
0.073
63.6
0.069
0.3%
-5.4%
Teachers per 1,000 Weighted Students

Simple Average
50.6
0.091
47.3
0.092
49.0
0.090
3.6%
-3.2%
Average Teacher Salary

Simple Average
$43,263
0.036
$47,476
0.038
$47,235
0.035
-0.5%
9.2%
Source: Data provided by the Alabama Department of Education.
The average teacher salaries figures also have low coefficients of variation, .036 in 2006-07 and .035 in
2012-13. These are also considerably less than the coefficients of variation for per-student spending.
However, the earlier Table 2.3, which breaks out these same numbers by wealth quintiles, shows that
the districts in the highest quintile have 3.4 teachers more per 1,000 students in 2012-13 than those in
the lowest quintile. The need factor for districts in the highest quintile is slightly lower than that of the
lowest quintile, so the greater number of teachers in districts in the highest quintile is being driven by
other factors than student need. Similarly, the average teacher salary in the highest quintile, $48,309, is
$1,576 higher than the average salary in the lowest quintile. This suggests that higher-wealth and
higher-spending districts have the ability to hire more teachers and to pay them higher, more
competitive salaries than poorer districts.
Taken as a whole, this analysis suggests that Alabamas school finance system is inequitable when
assessed against commonly accepted equity measures.
33
III. Successful School District Approach to Determining Adequacy

Adequacy studies examine the resources needed by students, schools, and districts to enable them to
meet the state expectations. A number of approaches have been developed to examine these resource
needs. APA utilized both the successful schools approach and the professional judgment approach to
studying adequacy. The successful schools or successful school district (SSD) approach examines current
district spending in successful districts to determine what is needed to meet current performance levels,
while the professional judgment approach relies on the experience of educators to identify the
resources that are needed to ensure that all students can be successful and meet all state standards.
Adequacy studies examine both the base cost figure needed to meet state expectations and the
additional resources needed for students with special needs. A base cost figure represents the resources
needed for a student without special needs in a district without special circumstances. Special needs
students include those identified as having Special Education needs, those at risk of academic failure,
and English Language Learners (ELLs). The SSD approach is only used to identify the base cost figure, and
must be used in conjunction with the PJ approach to identify all the resources needed to meet state
standards for all students.
The SSD approach has three steps:
1. Identifying successful districts;
2. Determining a base cost spending figure for successful districts; and
3. Applying efficiency screens.
The remainder of the report describes each of the three steps and identifies the base cost figure derived
from the SSD approach.
Identifying Successful Districts

A school districts success or failure can be determined using any number of variables or criteria. It is
important to clarify that, for the purposes of this study, districts deemed successful are those that meet
specific, APA-selected criteria. There are, no doubt, other Alabama districts that could be identified as
successful or highly effective under different analysis criteria. For instance, researchers could identify
successful districts by surveying educators and other experts from around the state, by reviewing
performance on standardized tests, or by taking into account other measures like graduation or
attendance rates. Districts can also be viewed differently depending on whether the researcher focuses
on current performance or growth from year to year, or on whether the researchers defines success
through current or future goals.
APA understands that Alabama is shifting its accountability system to focus on the School Performance
Index (SPI), which replaces Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) as a measure of accountability. As part of the
new SPI focus, each district and school will have its own Annual Measurable Objectives (AMO). These
AMOs will set a six-year goal for student performance. At the current time, performance goals in the
new system have not been identified for schools or districts, and could not be used as selection criteria
for this study.
With this in mind, APA created a process that looked at absolute performance for the purpose of
identifying successful districts in Alabama. APA understands that this ignores districts that show large
34

growth gains. The study team felt, however, that creating our own approach to measuring performance
growth would only confuse the conversation around AMO performance. One of the benefits of using the
SSD approach is that this approach can be replicated easily in the future as new data becomes available.
Results from the new accountability system could inform selection of successful districts in the future.
To identify the successful districts for this study, APA identified any district that met two criteria:
1. The district meets the 2011-12 proficiency level for at least five of six grades, 3rd through 8th, on
both Math and Reading on the Alabama Reading and Mathematics Tests.
2. The district proficiency percentage was at least 0.25 standard deviations above the state mean
on all five 11th grade Alabama High School Graduation Exams.
In total, 13 districts were able to meet both criteria. The list of districts is in the table below.
Successful Schools
Arab City
Madison City
Auburn City
Mountain Brook City
Cullman City
Muscle Shoals City
Enterprise City
Vestavia Hills City
Guntersville City
Winfield City
Hartselle City
Trussville City
Homewood City
Determining a Base Cost Spending Figure for Successful Districts

As mentioned above, the SSD approach can only be used to examine the base cost spending for each of
the 13 successful districts. To gain more information around district efficiency, base cost spending for
each district is examined for three expenditure areas: instruction, administration, and building
maintenance and operations (M&O).
APA worked with ALSDE staff to collect expenditure data for the districts for the 2012-13 school year for
the three areas. The expenditure data provided included expenditures for students with special needs
and was not in a form that would allow for the calculation of a base cost figure. To get to base cost
expenditures, the spending for Special Education, at-risk, and English Language Learner students needed
to be removed. The ALSDE was able to provide actual Special Education expenditures for each of the
three expenditure areas. APA excluded these expenditures from totals in each area. Similar expenditure
information is not available for at-risk students or English Language Learners (not having expenditure
data at this level is common in many states).
When expenditure information is not available for a special needs category, an approach must be used
to estimate and remove the expenditures for that category. Instead of trying to calculate a spending
figure, APA applies a weight to estimate the amount that might be spent on these students. APA applied
a 0.25 weight for at-risk students and a 0.40 weight for ELL students. Weights in this application
represent the additional amount APA estimates might have been spent to serve students in each of the
categories. For example, the 0.25 weight represents 25 percent higher expenditures for at-risk students.
35

APA generated a weighted student count for each successful district by multiplying the at-risk counts for
the district by 0.25 and the ELL counts by 0.40, then adding the new counts to total enrollment to
generate a weighted student count. After Special Education expenditures had been removed, the
weighted student count was divided into the instructional and administrative expenditure totals for
each district. This generated an estimated per-student base cost figure for each district for both
instruction and administration. For building M&O, APA used unweighted enrollment to generate the
per-pupil figure, since expenditures for special needs students are not frequently attributed to this
category.
Applying Efficiency Screens
A base cost figure could be calculated for each of the three spending areas using the figures for all 13
districts. This would include each district, regardless of any measure of efficient use of resources. APA
believes an efficiency screen is an important part of determining which districts should be included in
the base cost calculation for each expenditure area. APA used the following metrics to explore
efficiency:
1. Instruction number of teachers per 1,000 weighted students;
2. Administration number of administrators per 1,000 weighted students; and
3. M&O overall M&O spending per student.
For each of the three areas, APA conducted a separate analysis designed to compare the 13 districts
with each other. APA did not make comparisons to other school districts in the state, since the priority
of this research (and this portion of the adequacy study) is to understand the spending of only those
districts deemed successful in producing the level of achievement described previously.
For both instruction and administration, APA measured district resource efficiency using a weighted
student enrollment count. This means that district enrollment numbers were adjusted to reflect district
special needs populations. Such populations can require significant extra resources for effective
education, and APA did not wish to identify any of the successful districts as being less efficient simply
because they had higher numbers of teachers or administrators on staff to meet students special
needs. Using enrollment data for each of the 13 districts, APA applied the following special need student
weights:
1.10 for Special Education students;

0.75 for English Language Learners (ELLs); and
0.40 for At-risk students (using the number of free and reduced price lunch students as a proxy).
The study team estimated these weights by looking at a variety of studies APA has conducted across the
country on the added costs of educating students with identified needs to meet state and federal
performance standards. The weights used here are higher than those used to calculate per-pupil
expenditure figures, as discussed earlier in the report. The weights are higher here because they
represent additional amounts that might be needed, based on APAs previous studies. The early weights
were an estimate of what might be spent under the current finance system. Using these higher weights
36

is the most conservative approach to examining the efficiency of a districts use of staff. For each of the
13 districts, the special needs student populations were multiplied by the higher weights to generate a
higher, weighted enrollment number. The study team then divided the number of teachers (for
instruction) and administrators (for administration) by the weighted enrollment number to generate
weighted numbers of teachers and administrators per 1,000 students. APA did not conduct this
weighting analysis for building M&O spending, since such spending is not typically considered to be
directly related to student academic performance for adequacy study purposes. Put differently, districts
that spend more on M&O would not usually spend this increased amount in response to higher numbers
of special need students.
Once the study team had determined weighted enrollment numbers for each of the 13 districts,
statistical analysis was applied to identify those successful districts that appear to be more efficient at
using resource than their peers. For each of the three spending categories (instruction, administration,
and M&O), APA used a 1.5 standard deviation above the average to identify and eliminate the highestresourced districts and a 2.0 standard deviation below the average to identify and eliminate the lowestresourced districts. These figures each represent one standard deviation on either side of the average,
which typically encompasses two-thirds of all cases when values are distributed normally. The more
lenient standard was used to eliminate low-spending districts, because the main point of the exercise
was to identify efficient districts. Including a measure to exclude potentially extreme low spenders,
however, is still important; it eliminates data outliers unrelated to efficiency.
In each of the three spending categories, APA conducted a separate analysis of the 13 districts,
identifying only those districts that remained after the standard deviations were applied. One district
was excluded in each of the three spending categories for being inefficient. No districts were excluded
for being overly efficient. APA looked at 12 districts to create the average base spending figure in each
of the three categories. The final figures were:
1. Instruction $5,386;
2. Administration $977; and
3. Building M&O $807.
This results in a total base cost figure for 2012-13 of $7,170. The figure represents what the 13 districts
spent at the base level in 2012-13, excluding spending for Special Education, at-risk, and ELL students.
Adjustments would need to be made above the base to account for the additional costs of serving these
students. Additionally, the figure would need to be adjusted for inflation to be used in future years.
37
IV. Professional Judgment Approach to Adequacy

The professional judgment (PJ) approach relies on the assumptions that experienced educators can
specify the resources representative schools and school districts need in order to meet state standards,
and that the costs of such resources can be determined based on a set of prices specific to those
resources. Resources discussed include school-level personnel, non-personnel, additional supports and
services, technology, and district-level resources.
These resources are first identified for students with no identified special needs, which allows for the
calculation of a base cost. The PJ approach then identifies which resources, above and beyond the
base resources, are needed to serve students with identified needs, including: Special Education
students; English language learners (ELLs); at-risk students (using free and reduced lunch as a proxy);
CTE students, gifted students, and preschoolers. These additional resources are then represented as a
series of adjustments, or weights, relative to the base cost.
The PJ approach is distinct from the successful schools approach presented in the prior section in that
the PJ approach is able to identify of resources for such special needs students and also able to address
future standards and performance expectations.
Creating Representative Schools and Districts

Representative schools are designed using statewide average characteristics to represent schools across
the state. To the extent that all of the schools in Alabama would be reasonably well-represented by a
single set of representative schools, a representative district would be sufficient to estimate funding
adequacy. However, due to the existing variations among Alabama school districts, APA needed to
examine multiple representative districts using multiple PJ panels. To properly reflect the differences
between districts, each PJ panel focused on representative schools and/or districts of different
configurations and sizes. Districts in Alabama were divided into four size categories: under 2,000
students (Very Small); 2,000-4,999 students (Small); 5,000-9,999 students (Moderate); and 10,000 and
over students (Large). APA used statewide averages to then determine the representative student
demographics. For Special Education, APA used three levels to represent the varying degrees of support
students need based on the presence of disabilities and Individualized Education Plans (IEPs). The
representative districts used to represent the four Alabama district categories in this studys PJ approach
are shown in Table 4.1.
38

Table 4.1: Representative Districts
Very Small
Small
Moderate
Large
1,600
3,250
7,850
20,800
58%
928
1,885
4,553
12,064
ELL
3%
48
98
236
624
Special Education- Mild
7%
112
228
550
1,456
Special Education- Moderate
3%
48
98
236
624
Special Education- Severe
1%
16
33
79
208
Gifted
8%
128
260
628
1,664
Enrollment
Identified Need Populations
At-Risk
APA then looked at the average school characteristics of each group, including size and grade
configuration, to determine what representative schools were needed to represent the variations across
the state. Based on this review APA identified a need to look at resources for a range of schools: one
elementary school (450 students); two middle schools (400 and 600 students); two high schools (500
and 1,000 students); one K-8 (350 students) and one K-12 (500 students). Table 4.2 shows the
representative schools APA used in this study.
Table 4.2: Representative Schools
Configuration
Enrollment
Students per grade
Identified Need Populations
At-Risk (58%)
ELL (3%)
Special Education- Mild (7%)
Special Education- Mod. (3%)
Special Education- Severe (1%)
Gifted (8%)
Elem.
School
Small
Middle
School
Large
Middle
School
Small
High
School
Large
High
School
K-5
450
75
6-8
400
133
6-8
600
200
9-12
500
125
9-12
1,000
250
K-8
350
39
K-12
500
38
261
14
32
14
5
232
12
28
12
4
348
18
42
18
6
290
15
35
15
5
580
30
70
30
10
203
11
25
11
4
290
15
35
15
5
36
32
48
40
80
28
40
K-8
K-12
APA created the representative schools and districts this way so the schools would closely resemble
actual schools and districts across the state. This allowed PJ panelists to comfortably estimate what
resources were needed, since the schools and districts look familiar. At the same time, the approach
developed per-student figures that can be applied in each unique district and school in Alabama based
on real enrollment figures and demographics.
39
Professional Judgment Panel Design

Based on APAs experience using the PJ approach in other states, the study team felt that it was best to
use multiple levels of PJ panels. There are several reasons to use multiple panels: (1) multiple panels
allow for the separation of school-level resources (which include such things as teachers, supplies,
materials, and professional development) from district-level resources (which include such things as
facility maintenance and operation, insurance, and school board activities); (2) multiple panels can study
schools and districts of varying sizes, allowing the study team to determine whether size has an impact
on cost; and (3) APA believes strongly in having each panels work reviewed by another panel.
The PJ Panel structure in Alabama was designed as follows:
(1) School-level panels.
APA first held four school-level panels based upon grade level (elementary, middle, high school,
and K-8/K-12). Each of these panels focused on the resources needed to serve students with no
special needs, and then identified the additional resources needed to serve at-risk students.
(2) Special Needs panels.
Next, four Special Needs panels were held to review the work of the previous panels and then
identify the additional resources needed to serve Special Education, ELL and gifted students.
(3) District panels.
The next round of panels included four district-level panels (Very Small, Small, Moderate, and
Large). These district-level panels reviewed the work of the previous school-level and Special
Needs panels and then identified the needed district-level resources.
(4) Additional topic area panels.
APA also held two additional panels focused on specific topic areas: alternative education and
Career and Technical Education (CTE). The alternative education panel reviewed the additional
programs identified by prior panels to serve struggling students, then identified the resources
needed to have an alternative education setting (which may be a separate school or a program
within a school, depending on district). The CTE panel reviewed the resources prior panels had
identified for secondary schools to ensure CTE courses could be offered. The CTE panel also
identified the resources needed to have a separate CTE center.
(5) Statewide panel.
APA held a final, statewide panel to review the work of all previous panels to attempt to resolve
any of the remaining inconsistencies that arose across panels.
Panels each had between 6 and 8 participants, including a combination of classroom teachers,
principals, personnel who provide services to students with special needs, superintendents, technology
specialists, and school business officials. In total, more than 80 panelists participated in 15 PJ panels. A
list of panel members is provided in Appendix A to this report.
40

APA worked with ALSDE staff to recruit panel participants. APA first provided ALSDE with a list of the
types of participants needed to serve on each panel. ALSDE staff then contacted districts, and district
staff nominated educators they believed would be best able to help APA identify the resources needed
to ensure student success.
Panels were held from October 2013 to May 2014 in Montgomery at the ALSDE offices. Panelists were
not compensated for their participation, though meals were provided.
Summarizing Alabama State Standards

Prior to the commencement of any PJ panel discussions, all panelists first reviewed a specific set of APAprepared background materials and instructions. Panelists were instructed that their task was to identify
the resources needed to meet all Alabama standards. APA prepared a brief summary document of these
standards and shared the document with panelists (Appendix B). The document was not meant to be
exhaustive, as all panel participants were experienced educators in Alabama; instead, it was meant to
highlight key expectations and recently revised expectations, such as Alabamas new accountability
system and its proposed graduation guidelines. The summary document also provided panelists with a
copy of the new proposed graduation requirements, which had not yet been approved when the APA
study began. Panelists were instructed to use the summary document, in conjunction with their
knowledge of other critical education policies and practices in Alabama, to guide their allocations of
resources needed to increase the number of Alabama students meeting or exceeding standards. The
instructions and background information used at the PJ panels can be found in Appendix C.
Using the Evidence-Based Approach to Strengthen PJ Work

In a number of states, the Evidence-Based (EB) approach to adequacy has been used to fully cost-out an
adequate education. APA feels that the EB approach can strengthen the PJ approach by serving as a
starting point for the PJ panelists discussions. Panelists were presented with applicable figures from the
EB approach, which they could then adjust as they saw fit to best suit Alabama.6
The following tables summarize the initial personnel resources from the EB approach. There were a
number of position categories where the EB work did recommend that such personnel be present, but
did not indicate a recommended level; such cases are denoted with Recommended in place of a
figure. EB figures were identified for schools of 500, so figures were modified to fit the school sizes used
in APAs work. Tables 4.3A through 4.3D identify the EB starting points for the panels.
APA used the most recent work of prominent researchers in the Evidence-based approach, Picus, Odden and
Associates as our evidence base.
41
Table 4.3A: Elementary Evidence-Based Starting Personnel Figures
Position
Classroom Teachers
Other Teachers
Instructional Facilitator (Coach)
Librarians/Media Specialists
Technology Specialists
Pupil Support Staff
- Counselors
- Nurses
- Psychologists
- Social Worker
- Family Liaison
Instructional Aides
Clerical/Data Entry
Principal
Assistant Principal
Duty Aides
Substitutes
Evidence-Based
Starting Figures
(450 students)
26.0
Rec.
2.3
1.0
1.0
Rec.
Rec.
2.0
1.0
Rec.
10 days/ teacher
Table 4.3B: Middle School Evidence-Based Starting Personnel Figures
Position
Teachers
Pupil Support Staff
- Counselors
- Nurses
- Psychologists
- Social Worker
- Family Liaison
Instructional Aides
Clerical/Data Entry
Principal
Assistant Principal
Duty Aides
Substitutes
Evidence-Based
Starting Figures
(400 students)
16.0
1.6
1.0
1.0
Evidence-Based
Starting Figures
(600 students)
24.0
2.4
1.0
1.0
1.6
Rec.
2.4
Rec.
Rec.
Rec.
2.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
Rec.
10 days/ teacher
Rec.
10 days/ teacher
42
Table 4.3C: High School Evidence-Based Starting Personnel Figures
Position
Teachers
Pupil Support Staff
- Counselors
- Nurses
- Psychologists
- Social Worker
- Family Liaison
Instructional Aides
Clerical/Data Entry
Principal
Assistant Principal
Duty Aides
Substitutes
Evidence-Based
Starting Figures
(500 students)
20.0
2.5
1.0
1.0
Evidence-Based
Starting Figures
(1,000 students)
40.0
5.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
Rec.
4.0
Rec.
Rec.
Rec.
3.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
Rec.
10 days/ teacher
Rec.
10 days/ teacher
Table 4.3D: K-8 and K-12 School Evidence-Based Starting Personnel Figures
Position
Classroom Teachers
Other Teachers
Pupil Support Staff
- Counselors
- Nurses
- Psychologists
- Social Worker
- Family Liaison
Instructional Aides
Clerical/Data Entry
Principal
Assistant Principal
Duty Aides
Substitutes
Evidence-Based
Starting Figures
(K-8:
350 students)
18.2
Rec.
1.8
1.0
1.0
Evidence-Based
Starting Figures
(K-12:
500 students)
24.4
Rec.
2.5
1.0
1.0
Rec.
Rec.
Rec.
Rec.
2.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
Rec.
10 days/ teacher
Rec.
10 days/ teacher
43

The EB approach also identifies a set of non-personnel cost figures that APA also shared with panelists,
shown in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4: Evidence-Based Starting Figures for School-Level Non-Personnel Costs
EB-based Starting Figures
Cost Category
Elementary
School
Middle
School
High
School
10 days per
teacher;
$100 per
student
10 days per
teacher;
$100 per
student
10 days per
teacher;
$100 per
student
Supplies & Materials
$200 per
student
$200 per
student
$200 per
student
Student Activities
$250 per
student
$250 per
student
$250 per
student
Professional Development
It is important to note that the EB work used in this study did not identify resources beyond the schoollevel items listed above (e.g. district-level resources). As such, the work of the expert panel cannot be
used as is to cost-out the full needs of a school district. Instead, APA used the EB work as a starting point
to create discussion within the PJ panels.
Professional Judgment Panel Procedures

Once panelists were provided with instructions and background information to guide their efforts (as
described previously), PJ panels convened and followed a specific procedure. At least two APA staff
attended each panel meeting to facilitate the discussion and to take notes about the level of resources
needed as well as the rationales behind participant decisions. Panelists were frequently reminded that
they should be identifying the resources needed to meet state standards in the most efficient way
possible without sacrificing quality.
Each panel discussed the following school-level resource needs:
1. Personnel, including classroom teachers, other teachers, psychologists, counselors, librarians,
teacher aides, administrators, nurses, etc.;
2. Other personnel costs, including the use of substitute teachers and time for professional
development;
3. Non-personnel costs, such as supplies, materials and equipment costs (including textbook
replacement and consumables), plus the costs of offering extracurricular activities;
4. Non-traditional programs and services, including before- and after-school programs, preschool,
and summer school programs; and
5. Technology, including hardware, software, and licensing fees.
District-level panels also addressed the following district-level resource needs:
44

1. Personnel, including central office administrators, special programs directors and coordinators,
and support staff; and
2. Non-personnel costs, such as maintenance and operation, insurance, safety and security,
adoption of textbooks, assessment, contract services, and out-of-district placements.
PJ panels first identified the above resources for students with no special needs, and then addressed the
additional resources needed to serve special needs students (at-risk, Special Education, ELL, gifted).
Keeping these costs separate allowed for the creation of a base cost and additional special needs
weights (discussed in greater detail later in this report).
As described in the previous section, APA provided PJ panelists with EB figures to use as a starting point
in their discussions. In the categories of personnel where panelists were given research-based figures,
the panelists reviewed and adjusted these figures to better fit whichever representative school they
were looking at and to meet the unique state requirements of Alabama. Panelists then added additional
personnel, as needed, in the categories without research-based figures, also with the goal of meeting
state standards.
It is important to note that capital, transportation, food services, adult education, and community
services were excluded from consideration. For a variety of reasons, these elements pose difficulties to
data-gathering and are generally too cost-specific to the characteristics of an individual district to be
useful in a PJ adequacy analysis.
For each panel, the figures APA recorded represent consensus among members. At the time of the
meetings, no participant (either panel member or APA staff member) had a precise idea of the costs of
resources being identified. (APAs costing of resources took place at a later date.) This is not to say that
panel members were unaware that higher levels of resources would produce higher base cost figures or
weights. However, without specific price information and knowledge of how other panels were
proceeding, it would have been impossible for any individual or panel to suggest resource levels that
would lead to specific base cost figures or weights, much less to costs that were relatively higher or
lower than others.
Professional Judgment Results

This section reviews the results of the PJ groups in Alabama, including some of the raw resources the
groups identified, the prices attached to those resources, and the costs produced by combining resource
quantities and resource prices. Specifically, this section:
1. Discusses the resource needs identified by the PJ groups for representative schools and districts
to meet academic standards;
2. Identifies associated prices for the resources; and
3. Applies the prices to the identified resources to generate a series of school-level, district-level,
and total base costs and added costs for students with special needs.
45

While panels varied in the resources they identified as necessary for an adequate education, there were
several key recommendations across panels:
Small class sizes, with student-to-teacher ratios of 15:1 in K-1st grade, 18:1 in 2nd-3rd grade, and
25:1 in 4th-12th grade;
Professional development, instructional coaches, and teacher planning time;
Student support (counselors, social workers, interventionists);
Before- and after-school programs, school-level summer school for struggling students,
alternative and CTE settings;
Technology-rich learning environments, including 1:1 student devices in 3rd grade and up and the
associated IT support;
Sufficient staff to serve Special Education, ELL and gifted students; and
Preschool for all four-year-olds.
It should be noted that the resources PJ panels identified here are examples of how funds might be used
to organize programs and services in representative situations. APA cannot emphasize strongly enough
that the resources identified are not the only ways to organize programs and services to meet state
standards. Instead, the purpose of the exercise is to estimate the overall cost of adequacy not to
determine the best way to organize schools and districts.
School-Level Personnel
PJ panels discussed and recommended staffing, including:
Instructional staff, including teachers, instructional aides, instructional coaches, interventionists,

librarian/media specialists, and technology specialists;
Pupil support staff, including counselors, nurses, and social workers;
Administrative staff, including principals, assistant principals, bookkeepers, attendance
monitors, registrars, and clerical/secretarial staff; and
Other staff members, including school resource officers, security officers, in-school suspension
teachers, and media aides.
Tables 4.5A through 4.5D first identify the district size category represented, the school size, and the
panel-recommended average class size. The tables then identify the personnel on a full-time equivalent
(FTE) basis needed to serve all students, regardless of need, at the elementary, middle, high school, K-8,
and K-12 settings (base education). Subsequent tables identify the additional personnel needed to serve
special needs students.
46

Table 4.5A: Elementary School Personnel, as Recommended by Alabama PJ Panels, Base Education
District Size Category
School Size
Recommended Average Class Size
Instructional Staff
Classroom Teachers
Other Teachers (art, music, PE, etc.)
Teacher Tutor/Interventionist
Pupil Support Staff
Counselors
Nurses
Social Worker
Administrative Staff
Principal
Assistant Principal
Bookkeeper
Clerical/secretarial
Other Staff
School resource officers
Security Guard
Very Small, Small,

Moderate, and
Large
K-5, 450 students
Grades K-1: 18 to 1
Grades 2-3: 21 to 1
Grades 4-5: 25 to 1
24.3
4.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
As noted previously, a single elementary school of 450 students was needed to represent the four
school districts. The panelists identified the need for an average class size of 18:1 in K-1st grade, 21:1 in
2nd-3rd grade, and 25:1 in 4th-5th grade, calling for a total of 24.3 classroom teachers. Panelists also
identified four other teachers to teach special subjects like art, music, and PE, and to allow for sufficient
planning and collaboration time for classroom teachers. The panelists also identified additional
instructional staff, pupil support staff, administrative staff, and other staff.
47

Table 4.5B: Middle School Personnel, as Recommended by Alabama PJ Panels, Base Education
School Configuration and Size
Schedule
Very Small,
Small
6-8,
400 students
25 to 1
8 period day;
teachers
teaching 6
periods
Moderate,
Large
6-8,
600 students
25 to 1
8 period day;
teachers
teaching 6
periods
Instructional Staff
Teachers
21.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
32.0
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.3
2.0
1.0
0.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Pupil Support Staff
Counselors
Nurses
Social Worker
Principal
Assistant Principal
Bookkeeper
Attendance
Clerical/Data Entry
Other Staff
SRO
In School Suspension
Media Aide
For middle school grades, panelists felt that 25:1 was an appropriate average class size.. Panelists also
based their staffing of middle school grades on an eight-period day, with teachers teaching six classes a
day to allow for two periods of planning time. This resulted in a total of 21.3 teachers in the small
middle school and 32.0 teachers in the large middle school. Note that, for middle school grades, the
number of all teachers needed is shown as a single figure (whereas for elementary school grades,
panelists divided teachers between classroom and specials teachers). This level of resourcing would also
allow for a block schedule of four blocks, with teachers teaching three out of four blocks. The panelists
also identified additional pupil supports, administrators, and other staff.
48

Table 4.5C: High School Personnel, as Recommended by Alabama PJ Panels, Base Education
Schedule
Very Small,
Small
9-12,
600 students
Moderate,
Large
9-12,
1,000 students
25 to 1
25 to 1
8 period day;
teachers
teaching 6
periods
8 period day;
teachers
teaching 6
periods
Instructional Staff
Teachers
26.7
1.0
1.0
1.0
53.3
2.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
0.3
4.0
1.0
0.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
Pupil Support Staff
Counselors
Nurses
Social Worker
Principal
Assistant Principal
Bookkeeper
Attendance
Clerical/Data Entry
Other Staff
SRO
Security Guards
Media Aide
For high schools, panelists kept the same schedule and average class size of 25:1 that they used for the
middle schools, knowing that some classes would be smaller and others would be larger. Panelists felt
that upper grade classes focused on postsecondary and workforce readiness (like AP or CTE classes)
should be kept small, but that larger classes like PE sections could balance this out and still maintain an
average class size of 25 students per one teacher. The panelists also identified additional pupil supports,
administrators, and other staff.
49

Table 4.5D: K-8 and K-12 School Personnel as Recommended by Alabama PJ Panels, Base Education
Schedule
Very Small- Large

K-8,
350 students
Very Small- Large

K-12,
500 students
Grades K-1: 18 to 1
Grades 2-3: 21 to 1
Grades 4-12: 25 to 1
8 period day;
teachers teaching
6 periods
(secondary grades)
Grades K-1: 18 to 1
Grades 2-3: 21 to 1
Grades 4-12: 25 to 1
8 period day;
teachers teaching 6
periods (secondary
grades)
21.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
31.4
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.3
2.0
1.0
0.3
1.0
0.5
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.5
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Instructional Staff
Teachers
Pupil Support Staff
Counselors
Nurses
Social Worker
Principal
Assistant Principal
Bookkeeper
Attendance
Clerical/Data Entry
Other Staff
SRO
Security Guards
Media Aide
For K-8 and K-12 schools, class sizes and scheduling were comparable to the elementary, middle and
high schools already discussed, with similar staff for pupil support, administration, and other positions.
Tables 4.6A through 4.6F identify the resources needed to serve at-risk, ELL, Special Education, and
gifted students. It is important to note that these are school-level personnel, even though some of the
positions needed to serve Special Education students (e.g. occupational therapists, physical therapists,
etc.) were identified at the district level.
50

Table 4.6A: Additional Personnel Needed to Serve At-Risk Students
School Level
Small
Middle
School
Large
Middle
School
Small
High
School
Large
High
School
K-8
6-8,
400
students
6-8,
600
students
9-12,
500
students
9-12,
1,000
students
K-8,
350
students
232
students
348
students
290
students
580
students
203
students
2.6
2.3
3.5
2.9
5.8
2.0
2.9
0.8
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.6
1.0
1.2
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
Elem.
School
School Configuration
and Size
# of At-Risk Students
K-5,
450
student
s
261
student
s
K-12
K-12,
500
student
s
290
student
s
Instructional Staff
Interventionists
Pupil Support Staff
Social Worker
Assistant Principal
Panelists identified the need for interventionists to serve at-risk students at a ratio of 100:1, in addition
to the extra support social workers and assistant principals can provide at-risk students.
Table 4.6B: Additional Personnel Needed to Serve ELL Students
School Level
and Size
# of ELL Students
Elem.
School
K-5,
450
student
s
14
student
s
Small
Middle
School
Large
Middle
School
Small
High
School
Large
High
School
K-8
6-8,
400
students
6-8,
600
students
9-12,
500
students
9-12,
1,000
students
K-8,
350
students
12
students
18
students
15
students
30
students
11
students
0.4
0.6
0.5
1.0
0.4
K-12
K-12,
500
student
s
15
student
s
Instructional Staff
ELL Teachers
0.5
0.5
Panelists identified the need for ELL teachers at a ratio, or caseload, of 30:1 to serve ELL students. These
teachers would also handle parent communication, assist with translation needs, and have access to
additional translation and interpretation support at the district level.
51
Table 4.6C: Additional Personnel Needed to Serve Mild Special Education Students
School Level
Elem.
School
Small
Middle
School
Large
Middle
School
Small
High
School
Large
High
School
K-8
School
Configuration and
Size
K-5,
450
students
6-8,
400
students
6-8,
600
students
9-12,
500
students
9-12,
1,000
students
K-8,
350
students
# of Mild Special
Education Students
32
students
28
students
42
students
35
students
70
students
25
students
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.7
1.7
1.4
1.4
2.8
2.8
1.0
1.0
1.4
1.4
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.1
0.2
K-12
K-12,
500
student
s
35
student
s
Instructional Staff
Special Ed Teachers
Instructional Aides
Pupil Support Staff
Speech
For mild Special Education students, panelists felt there should be a teacher ratio, or caseload, of 25:1,
with an instructional aide paired with each teacher. Panelists also identified the need for additional
support from speech therapists. This need was highest in elementary schools and grades, since the
proportion of students with identified speech needs greatly decreases in secondary grades.
Table 4.6D: Additional Personnel Needed to Serve Moderate Special Education Students
School Level
and Size
# of Moderate
Special Education
Students
Small
Middle
School
Large
Middle
School
Small
High
School
Large
High
School
K-8
6-8,
400
students
6-8,
600
students
9-12,
500
students
9-12,
1,000
students
K-8,
350
students
12
students
18
students
15
students
30
students
11
students
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.2
1.8
1.8
1.5
1.5
3.0
3.0
1.1
1.1
1.5
1.5
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Elem.
School
K-5,
450
student
s
14
student
s
K-12
K-12,
500
student
s
15
student
s
Instructional Staff
Special Ed Teachers
Instructional Aides
Pupil Support Staff
Speech
52

For moderate Special Education students, panelists felt there should be a teacher ratio, or caseload, of
10:1, with an instructional aide paired with each teacher. Panelists also identified a need for support
from speech therapists, though this need decreased in later grades. Additional services for these
students, such as support from occupational or physical therapists, was also identified as a need, though
panelists felt that these additional services should be provided through district-level positions, shared
across schools. Later tables will present these positions at the district level.
4.6E: Additional Personnel Needed to Serve Severe Special Education Students
School Level
Elem.
School
Small
Middle
School
Large
Middle
School
Small
High
School
Large
High
School
K-8
School
Configuration and
Size
K-5,
450
students
6-8,
400
students
6-8,
600
students
9-12,
500
students
9-12,
1,000
students
K-8,
350
students
# of Mild Special
Education Students
5
students
4
students
6
students
5
students
10
students
4
students
1.0
2.0
0.8
1.6
1.2
2.4
1.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
0.8
1.6
1.0
2.0
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
K-12
K-12,
500
student
s
5
student
s
Instructional Staff
Special Ed Teachers
Instructional Aides
Pupil Support Staff
Speech
For severe Special Education students, panelists felt there should be a teacher ratio, or caseload, of 5:1,
with two additional instructional aides for every five students. Panelists also identified a need for
support from speech therapists. Other support positions needed to serve these students were identified
at the district level.
Table 4.6F: Additional Personnel Needed to Serve Gifted Students
Elem.
School
Small
Middle
School
and Size
K-5,
450
students
6-8,
400
students
# of Gifted Students
36
students
32
students
1.0
1.0
School Level
Large
Middle
School
6-8,
600
student
s
48
student
s
Small
High
School
Large
High
School
K-8
9-12,
500
students
9-12,
1,000
students
K-8,
350
students
40
students
80
students
28
students
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
K-12
K-12,
500
student
s
40
student
s
Instructional Staff
0.5
Teacher/Coordinator
53

Panelists felt that every elementary and middle school, regardless of size, needed a full-time gifted
teacher or coordinator, and every high school needed a half-time gifted teacher or coordinator.
School-level Non-Personnel Costs
Aside from personnel needs, the figures in Table 4.7 show other school resource needs, including needs
associated with instructional supplies and materials, equipment, assessment, student activities (sports,
extracurricular activities, field trips, etc.) professional development, and assessment. Many of these
costs were standardized during the final in-state overview panel. To develop estimates, panelists at this
final panel reviewed the various approaches previous panels had taken, and considered existing data on
what districts currently spend. Textbook costs and student activities are two items that panelists felt
increased in cost in later grades. All figures shown for identified need populations are in addition to base
figures, and are only applied to the students and the additional staff in those categories.
Table 4.7: School-Level Non-Personnel Costs
Base
Education
Mild
Special
Education
Mod.
Special
Education
Severe
Special
Education
10
days/
teacher
$100/
student
10 days/
teacher
10 days/
teacher
10 days/
teacher
$100/
student
$100/
student
$100/
student
10
days/
teacher
$1,000/
student
10 days/
teacher
10 days/
teacher
10 days/
teacher
$1,000/
student
$1,000/
student
$1,000/
student
$100/
student
$100/
student
$100/
student
$100/
student
At-Risk
ELL
10
days/
teacher
$100/
student
10
days/
teacher
Gifted
Professional
Development
Days per
teacher
PD supplies and
training costs
Substitutes
Classroom
Supplies
Supplies,
Materials, and
Equipment
Textbooks
Library Materials
Special Ed
Equipment
10 days/
teacher
$100/
student
10 days/
teacher
$1,000/
teacher
$50/
student
Elem.
$100/
student;
Secondar
y $150/
student
$250/
teacher
$100/
student
10
days/
teacher
$100/
student
10
days/
teacher
$1,000/
student
$150/
student
$2,000/
student
54
Assessment
$15/
student
Technology
Licensing
$100/
student
Student Activities
Safety & Security

Office Supplies
$150/
student
Elem $25/
student;
Secondar
y$250/
student
$20/
student
$15/
student
$1,740
total
$50/
student
$20/
student
$50/
student
$15/
student
One item shown separately is professional development, including both additional days per teacher and
an additional amount (shown as a per student figure) to cover professional development costs like
materials, hired trainers, or conference fees. The attention to this particular cost area reflects the strong
opinion of most panels that one of the most important contributors to the future success of schools is
the assurance that teachers have time to: become familiar with their students, form strong working
relationships with their colleagues, participate in enrichment programs, visit other schools, take part in
training sessions, and improve their knowledge of curriculum, technology, and research.
Across states, the use of a standards-based reform approach is increasingly widespread. In APAs
experience, this trend has led educators and policymakers to conclude that teachers and other school
personnel need many more opportunities, and much more time, to engage in serious professional
development. Such development is needed in education, perhaps even more than in other professions.
Educators need opportunities that go well beyond what is traditionally provided for them in schools. In
Alabamas case, panelists found it necessary to add 10 additional days per year devoted to professional
development. These 10 days were recommended in addition to any days already stipulated in existing
teacher contracts, plus $100 per student for other associated costs.
School-Level Additional Programs
Tables 4.8A through 4.8C indicate other programs such as a preschool, before- and after-school
programs, and summer school the panels felt were needed to ensure that schools could meet Alabama
state standards. Programs are shown as elementary, middle and high school programs, with the K-8 and
K-12 schools having the given programs for their grade configurations. Tables 4.8D and 4.8E identify
resources for alternative and Career and Technical (CTE) settings, which can be either school-based or
district-based.
Many of these programs are designed with the belief that investments that are made early, even before
kindergarten, will alleviate the need for some services later on. Other programs are designed to
supplement services in higher grades, particularly for at-risk students, or to comply with service
requirements for Special Education students.
55

It is important to note that, while the APA study did not include transportation, panelists felt that
additional transportation (e.g. a second bus pickup for students in an after-school program) was
necessary for things like before- and after-school programs and summer school to be possible.
Table 4.8A: Elementary Additional Programs
Type of Student Served
All 4 year
olds
Percentage of Identified
Populations Served
100%
eligible
Special
Ed
Preschoo
l
All 3 and
4 years
olds
100%
eligible
full day, 5
days a
week
full day, 5
days a
week
2 hours a
day, 5
days a
week
(1/2 day,
4 days a
week, 3
weeks), 2
sessions
18:1 ratio
1/ 6
classroom
teachers
6:1 ratio
15:1 ratio
15:1 ratio
Preschoo
l
Program Specifics (length of

program, length of day)
Personnel
Teachers
Specials Teachers
Nurses
Instructional Aides
Coordinator
Speech
OT/PT
Other Costs
Professional Development
-Days per teacher
-Other PD costs
Beforeor AfterSchool
Summer
School
At-Risk
At-Risk
75%
50%
1.0
1:1
teacher to
aide ratio
0.25
1:1
teacher to
aide ratio
3.0
Extended
School
Year (ESY)
Moderate/
Severe
Special Ed
as identified
in IEP
1/2 day, 4
days a
week, 8
weeks
6:1 ratio
1.0
3.0
1:1 teacher
to aide ratio
1.0
1.0
10 days/
teacher
$100/
student
10 days/
teacher
$100/
student
56

$1,000/
teacher
$50/
student
Teacher Classroom Supplies

Supplies, Materials and
Equipment
$1,000/
teacher
$50/
student
Snacks
$25/
student
$135/
student
$25/
student
Programs panelists identified for elementary grade students include: preschool for all students; beforeand after-school programs and summer school for struggling students (estimated as a percentage of atrisk students, but not limited to these at-risk, free and reduced price lunch students); preschool for all
three- and four-year-old identified Special Education students; and Extended School Year (ESY) for
Special Education students with who have ESY listed in their IEPs.
Table 4.8B: Middle School Additional Programs

After-School
Summer School
ESY
At-Risk
At-Risk
Moderate/ Severe
Special Ed
Populations Served
50%
50%
As identified by IEP
1 hour a day
4 weeks, half a day, 4

days- 2 sessions
3 days a week, 4 hrs.

a day, 6 weeks
Program Specifics (length

of program, length of day)
Personnel
Teachers
Nurses
Instructional Aides
Speech
Other Costs
Student Activities
30:1 ratio
15:1 ratio
6:1 ratio
1.0
6:1 ratio
0.5
$40/student
Programs panelists identified for middle school students included after-school programs and summer
school for struggling students, as well as ESY for Special Education students with ESY listed in their IEPs.
Table 4.8C: High School Additional Programs
AfterSchool
Summer
School
At- Risk
At- Risk
Populations Served
50%
50%
1 hour a day
4 weeks, 1/2
day, 4 days,
2 sessions
Program Specifics (length

of program, length of day)
ESY
Detention
Saturday
School
Moderate/ Severe
Special Ed
As identified by
IEP
3 days a week, 4
hrs. a day, 6
weeks
Personnel
57

Teachers
Nurses
Instructional Aides
Speech
Other Costs
Student Activities
Stipend Cost
30:1 ratio
15:1 ratio
6:1 ratio
1.0
6:1 ratio
1.0
$40/student
$1,500
$1,500
Programs panelists identified for high school students included after-school and summer school for
struggling students, as well as ESY for Special Education students with ESY listed in their IEPs. Panelists
also recommended detention and Saturday school and indicated a total stipend amount of $1,500 for
both programs.
Table 4.8D: Alternative Education Programs
School Size
Schedule
Alternative School
Alternative Program
within a School
125 students
20 to 1
30 students
20 to 1
4 period day;
teachers teaching 3
periods
4 period day;
teachers teaching 3
periods
Instructional Staff
Teachers
Interventionists
Instructional Aides
8.3
2.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
0.5
1.0
0.5
1.0
0.3
1.0
Pupil Support Staff
Counselors
Nurses
Social Worker
0.3
Principal
Attendance
Clerical/Data Entry
1.0
1.0
1.0
Other Staff
SRO
Other Costs
1.0
1.0
58

Professional Development- days per teacher
Professional Development- per student
Substitutes
Supplies, Materials and Equipment
Textbooks
Equipment
Technology Licensing
Assessment
Student Activities
Safety & Security
Technology Hardware
10 days/ teacher
$100/ student
10 days/ teacher
$200/ student
$150/ student
10 days/ teacher
$100/ student
10 days/ teacher
$200/ student
$150/student
$200/student
$20/ student
$366/ student
Table 4.8E: Career and Technical Education Programs

CTE Center
School Size
Schedule
500 students taking 2

classes a day
18 to 1
4 period day; teachers
teaching 3 periods
CTE Program
within a School
-
Instructional Staff
Teachers
Instructional Aides
18.5
1.0
Pupil Support Staff
Counselors
Nurses
1.0
1.0
Principal
Clerical/Data Entry
1.0
1.0
Other Staff
SRO
Other Costs
Professional Development- days per teacher
Professional Development- per student
Substitutes
Classroom Supplies
CTE Consumables, Equipment Maintenance
1.0
10 days/ teacher
$100/ student
10 days/ teacher
$1,400/ teacher
$542/ student
$542/ student
59

and Replacement
Office Supplies
Technology Hardware
$5/ student
$95/ student
For CTE programs, panelists indicated that a number of CTE courses, particularly advanced sections,
required lower classes to ensure student safety. For center-based programs, panelists recommended an
average class size of 18:1. For school-based programs, panelists felt that the staffing recommended in
other panels was sufficient to allow for the smaller classes needed. Costs for school-based programs,
then, were not personnel driven, but were instead based on the costs of consumables and the costs of
maintaining and replacing CTE equipment. APA worked with ALSDE staff to develop average per-student
cost estimates for the line items of consumables and equipment maintenance and replacement for
average programs.
School-level Technology Hardware
Tables 4.9A through 4.9D show the technology needs of each school. Panelists called for an array of
technology to be available in classrooms, computer labs, media centers, and to be available for teachers
and administrative staff. Of particular note, panelists recommended one-to-one mobile devices (tablets,
netbooks, or similar) for students, beginning in 3rd grade.
Table 4.9A: Elementary School Technology Hardware
Hardware Item
# of Units Needed
Administration/Main Office
Computers
Laptops
Mobile Devices
Smartphones
Printers
Large Scale Copier/Printer
Mobile Hotspot
Servers
1 per office staff member

1 per administrator
1 per administrator
1 per administrator
5 total
2 total
1 total
2 total
Faculty
Desktops
Mobile Devices
1 per professional
1 per professional
Classroom
Computers
Printers
Visual Presentation Systems
Sound System with Microphones
Document Cameras
5 per classroom
1 per classroom
1 per classroom
1 per classroom
1 per classroom
Mobile Computer Lab(s)- 3 Mobile Labs
60

Laptops
25 per mobile lab
Media Center
Computers
Digital Video Cameras/Cameras
Printers
Barcode Scanners
Laminators
Die Cut Sets
10 total
3 total
3 total
3 total
2 total
2 total
Other
Switches/Routers
$5,000
Mobile devices (3-5 grade)
1 per student, grades 3-5
Headsets (K-2)
1 per student, K-2
Table 4.9B: Middle School Technology Hardware
Hardware Item
# of Units Needed
Computers
Laptops
Mobile Devices
Smartphones
Printers
Mobile Hotspot
Servers

1 per administrator
1 per administrator
1 per administrator
5 total
2 total
1 total
2 total in Small Middle School,
2 total in Large Middle School
Faculty
Desktops
Mobile Devices
1 per professional
1 per professional
Classroom
Computers
Printers
Document Cameras
1 per classroom
1 per classroom
1 per classroom
1 per classroom
1 per classroom
Fixed Computer Lab(s)- 1 Fixed

Lab in Small Middle School, 2 Fixed
Labs in Large Middle School
Computers
Printers
25 per fixed lab

1 per fixed lab
1 per fixed lab
61

Document Cameras
1 per fixed lab
Media Center
Computers
Printers
10 total
13 total
3 total
Other
Switches/Routers
Mobile devices
$5,000
1 per student
Table 4.9C: High School Technology Hardware

Hardware Item
# of Units Needed
Computers
Laptops
Mobile Devices
Smartphones
Printers
Mobile Hotspot
Servers

1 per administrator
1 per administrator
1 per administrator
2 total
3 total in Small High School,
6 total in Large High School
1 total
1 total in Small High School,
2 total in Large High School
Faculty
Desktops
Mobile Devices
1 per professional
1 per professional
Classroom
Computers
Printers
Document Cameras
1 per classroom
1 per classroom
1 per classroom
1 per classroom
1 per classroom

Labs in Small High School, 6 Fixed
Labs in Large High School
Computers
Printers
32 per fixed lab

1 per fixed lab
62

Document Cameras
1 per fixed lab

1 per fixed lab
Media Center
Computers
Printers
10 total
32 total
1 total
Other
Switches/Routers
Mobile devices
$5,000
1 per student
Table 4.9D: K-8 and K-12 School Technology Hardware

Hardware Item
# of Units Needed
Computers
Laptops
Mobile Devices
Smartphones
Printers
Mobile Hotspot
Servers

1 per administrator
1 per administrator
1 per administrator
2 total
2 total
1 total
2 total
Faculty
Desktops
Mobile Devices
1 per professional
1 per professional
Classroom
Computers
Printers
Document Cameras
1 per classroom
1 per classroom
1 per classroom
1 per classroom
1 per classroom

Lab in K-8 School, 2 Fixed Labs in
K-12 School
Computers
Printers
30 per fixed lab

1 per fixed lab
63

Document Cameras
1 per fixed lab

1 per fixed lab
Mobile Computer Lab(s)- 1 Fixed

Lab in K-8 School, 1 Fixed Lab in K12 School
Laptops
25 per fixed lab
Media Center
Computers
Printers
10 total
30 total
1 total
Other
Switches/Routers
Mobile devices
$5,000
1 per student, 3rd grade and up
District-Level Resources
Panelists also identified the resources needed at the district level to support schools. Table 4.10A shows
the personnel resources needed for all students (base education).
It is important to note that different districts often use different position titles, or levels of personnel, to
fulfill the same functions or roles. For example, one district may have a Chief Financial Officer, while in
another district that same function might be filled by a Business Manager or a Director. Therefore, if a
district does not have a staff member in each personnel category below, it does not necessarily mean
that the district does not have someone to fill that function or role.
Table 4.10A: District Personnel Resources, Base Education
District Size
District Enrollment
Number of Schools
Elementary
Middle
High
K-8/K-12
District Personnel
Superintendent
Assistant Superintendent
Director
Coordinator/Supervisor
Chief Financial Officer
Business Manager
Clerical/Data Entry/Clerk
Data Manager
Very Small
1,600
Small
3,250
Moderate
7,850
Large
20,800
1
1
1
1
3
1
2
1
7
2
2
3
18
7
7
3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
4.5
1.0
1.0
7.0
6.0
1.0
1.0
3.5
7.0
8.0
1.0
1.0
4.0
7.0
23.0
1.0
5.0
47.5
64

IT Manager
IT Technicians
Home Bound
Lead Nurse
Public Relations/Communication
Board Secretary
Curriculum Specialist/Coaches
School Accountants
Auditors
Truancy Officer
1.0
1.0
4.0
7.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
14.0
1.0
35.0
3.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
1.0
9.0
2.0
2.0
0.3
0.7
1.6
4.2
Panelists also addressed the district-level costs incurred to support schools. Such costs include building
maintenance and operation (M&O); district-level technology licensing and hardware; insurance; legal
fees; and equipment replacement. As noted previously, transportation and capital were not a part of
this study.
To determine costs, panel members reviewed ALSDE-provided existing district expenditure figures and
also referred to their own backgrounds in education. Panelists then determined costs in addition to the
costs shown at the school level. Certain categories, such as textbooks or substitutes, were already
addressed at the school level, and are therefore not shown here.
Table 4.10B identifies the additional non-personnel costs at the district level for base education.
District Size
Cost Area
Building M&O
Security
Technology
Licensing
District Technology
Insurance
Legal
School Board
Assessment
Table 4.10B: District Non-Personnel Costs, Based Education

Very Small
Small
Moderate
Large
$1,280,000
($800 per student)
$2,600,000
($800 per student)
$6,280,000
($800 per student)
$16,640,000
($800 per student)
$32,000
($20 per student)
$96,000
($60 per student)
$40,000
($25 per student)
$96,000
($60 per student)
$32,000
($20 per student)
$50,000
(flat amount)
$48,000
($30 per student)
$65,000
($20 per student)
$195,000
($60 per student)
$81,250
($25 per student)
$162,500
($60 per student)
$65,000
($20 per student)
$50,000
(flat amount)
$97,500
($30 per student)
$157,000
($20 per student)
$471,000
($60 per student)
$196,250
($25 per student)
$314,000
($40 per student)
$157,000
($20 per student)
$50,000
(flat amount)
$235,500
($30 per student)
$416,000
($20 per student)
$1,248,000
($60 per student)
$520,000
($25 per student)
$832,000
($40 per student)
$416,000
($20 per student)
$50,000
(flat amount)
$624,000
($30 per student)
65
Postage/Office
Supplies/Incidental
Equipment
Replacement
Contracted Services
$20,000
(about $12 per
student)
$24,000
($15 per student)
$16,000
($10 per student)
$40,000
(about $12 per
student)
$48,750
($15 per student)
$32,500
($10 per student)
$60,000
(about $8
per student)
$117,750
($15 per student)
$78,500
($10 per student)
$80,000
(about $4
per student)
$312,000
($15 per student)
$208,000
($10 per student)
Tables 4.11A through 4.11D show the additional district-level resources needed to serve at-risk, ELL,
Special Education, and gifted students.
Table 4.11A: Additional District Resources to Serve At-Risk Students

District Size
At-Risk Student Count
Very Small
Small
Moderate
Large
928
1,885
4,553
12,064
Personnel
0.25
0.5
1.0
2.0
Clerical/Data Entry
0.15
0.3
0.5
1.0
Panelists identified the need for district-level coordination and clerical support for at-risk students,
particularly to manage Title I.
Table 4.11B: Additional District Resources to Serve ELL Students
District Size
ELL Student Count
Very Small
Small
Moderate
Large
48
98
236
624
Personnel
0.25
0.3
0.5
Translator/Interpreter
0.25
0.5
1.0
Clerical/Data Entry
0.15
0.2
0.3
1.0
2.0
0.5
Panelists identified the need for district-level coordination and clerical support for ELL students, as well
as translation support. These supports, shown here as an FTE, could also be filled through contracted
services.
Table 4.11C: Additional District Resources to Serve Special Education Students
District Size
Special Education Student Count
Personnel
Very Small
176
Small
358
Moderate
864
Large
2,288
66

0.8
Director
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.5
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
3.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.0
5.0
3.0
6.0
5.0
1.0
10.0
6.0
3.0
3.0
$75,000
$20,000
$10,000
$50,000
$50,000
$15,000
$150,000
$75,000
$25,000
$250,000
$120,000
$50,000
Clerical/Data Entry
0.4
OT/PT Therapists
Additional Therapists
Psychologists
Psychometrists
Nurses
Job/Transitions Coach
Behavior Specialist
Other Cost Areas

Contract Services
Legal
Adaptive Technology
Panelists also identified additional personnel and related costs for Special Education students, regardless
of level (so not disaggregated by mild, moderate, or severe Special Education needs). These resources
included district-level leadership, coordination, and clerical support. Resources also included staff to
provide student support services, such as nurses; occupational and physical therapists; psychometrists;
transition coaches; and behavior specialists. Please note that while the Very Small district did not have
FTE for certain positions, that district had a higher contract service amount to cover these roles.
Table 4.11D: Additional District Resources to Serve Gifted Students
District Size
ELL Student Count
Personnel
Clerical/Data Entry
Very Small
128
Small
260
Moderate
628
Large
1,664
1.0
0.5
Panelists felt that, in most districts, school-level staffing was sufficient to address gifted student needs.
In the largest district, panelists did identify the need for district-level coordination and clerical support
to serve gifted students.
Applying Resource Prices
Once the panels had completed their work, APA undertook the process of costing-out the resources
identified above. The primary prices needed to complete this costing-out were the salaries and benefits
of personnel and the prices assigned to different kinds of technology hardware. See Appendix D for
more detail on these primary prices.
For personnel salaries, APA used ALSDE data on statewide average salaries for different personnel
categories, and then applied an additional benefit amount of $11,000 to all positions. In determining
technology costs, APA assumed equipment would be replaced every four years for the majority of
67

hardware items. APA used prices that had been reviewed by ALSDE staff. See Appendix E for more detail
on personnel salaries.
School-Level and District-Level Costs
Table 4.12, shown below, lists the base costs for each representative school, disaggregated into costs for
personnel, professional development, non-personnel, and technology. The table also shows the
additional costs above and beyond the base for identified special needs students, including preschool
students, at-risk students, ELLs, Special Education students, and gifted students. Note that resources for
alternative settings are included as part of at-risk costs and weights. Additional costs for CTE students
are shown separately, as CTE programs could be either school- or district-based.
School-level Costs, Base
Table 4.12: School-Level Base Costs

Small
Large
Small
Elem.
Middle
Middle
High
School
School
School
School
$6,948
$6,742
$6,295
$6,575
Personnel Costs
$6,143
$5,690
Professional
$135
$129
Development
Non-Personnel Costs
$409
$670
Technology
$260
$253
Additional Costs for Identified Students
Preschool
$8,502
At-Risk
$2,688
$1,841
ELL
$2,796
$2,816
$5,869
$5,241
Special Education- Mod.
$12,189 $11,901
$33,502 $32,534
Gifted
$2,042
$2,262
Large
High
School
$6,125
K-8
K-12
$7,001
$6,997
$5,261
$5,510
$5,063
$6,157
$6,061
$129
$129
$129
$133
$134
$670
$235
$669
$267
$669
$264
$479
$232
$581
$221
$1,661
$2,768
$5,119
$11,684
$31,519
$1,568
$1,673
$2,787
$5,253
$11,420
$31,677
$965
- $8,502 $8,502
$1,627 $2,198 $1,901
$2,729 $2,830 $2,787
$5,122 $5,340 $5,253
$11,105 $11,641 $11,420
$31,545 $33,732 $33,005
$532 $2,571 $1,830
It is important to be careful in drawing conclusions based on school-level costs, since such costs exclude
district-level costs, and since different panels included different costs at the school and district levels. It
is the combination of school and district costs that reflect the true, total costs of providing services.
Combining school and district costs allows for the most appropriate comparisons across school districts
of different sizes.
68

Additional district-level costs, including costs for administration, building maintenance and operation
(M&O), insurance, legal expenditures, school board expenses, and other central office purchases, were
also identified as part of the base cost.
There are some district-level costs associated with students with identified needs. These district-level
costs may reflect the need for a specialized facility, such as an alternative school in a larger district
(which would be attributed to the costs for at-risk students). These costs could also reflect the need for
Special Education central services, including diagnostic services or other services shared across schools.
In the case of Special Education, it was impossible to discern which district-level costs were associated
with mild, moderate, or severe levels of Special Education. Thus, a single district-level figure is
presented.
Table 4.13 presents the district-level cost figures by size category.
Table 4.13: District-Level Base Costs

Very Small
Small
Moderate
District-level Costs, Base
$1,722
$1,685
$1,420
Additional District-level Costs for Special Needs Students
At-Risk
$296
$294
$331
ELL
$824
$544
$443
Special Education
$1,957
$1,631
$1,299
Gifted
-
Large
$1,490
$325
$335
$1,498
$59
Additional district-level resources were not identified for preschool.

Table 4.14: CTE Costs
School-based program
Center-based program
$542
$8,627
Per-pupil costs at center-based programs are based on a 1.0 FTE student. Given that most students
would take less than a full day of courses at a CTE center, this weight would be reduced in proportion to
the number of classes students actually take.
Total Base Costs and Weights
APA calculated a weighted school-level base cost figure for each district size category. To do this, APA
used school-level cost figures for each grade configuration (Table 4.12), along with the distribution of
students at each grade level (based on state data). APA took this same approach to create a combined
at-risk, ELL, Special Education (Mild, Moderate, and Severe), and gifted figure for each size category.
69

APA then added district-level costs from Table 4.13 and CTE costs from Table 4.14 to develop total base
costs and weights for each identified student population. These figures are shown in Table 4.15.
Table 4.15: Total Base Costs and Additional Weights
Very Small
Base
Weights
Preschool
At-Risk
ELL
Special Education- Moderate
Gifted
CTE, school-based
CTE, center-based
Small
Moderate
Large
$8,510
$8,500
$8,041
$8,072
0.20
0.29
0.43
0.88
1.62
4.07
0.20
0.06
-
0.20
0.29
0.39
0.84
1.59
4.05
0.21
0.06
-
0.23
0.31
0.40
0.84
1.62
4.22
0.20
0.07
0.25
0.24
0.31
0.38
0.86
1.64
4.22
0.20
0.07
0.25
As table 4.15 shows, the base cost in each district size category varied minimally from $8,510 to 8,041.
Similarly, weights in each identified category were nearly identical across all districts.
70
V. Modeling Adequacy Results

Base Cost
After undertaking the work for the successful schools and professional judgment approaches described
in the previous chapters, APA was able to develop two possible base cost figures a SSD base of $7,170,
and a PJ base of $8,072. It is important to reiterate the difference between the two base cost figures.
Though these two cost figures can be compared on a dollar to dollar basis, they are the result of
different analytic processes and represent different levels of outcome achievement. The successful
schools base cost figure represents what the districts identified as most successful in the current system
spent to get the current level of performance and not necessarily the amount they would need to spend
to fully meet all of Alabamas standards and requirements. The professional judgment base figure, on
the other hand, represents the resources that professional educators indicate are needed to fully meet
all of the states standards and requirements, including ensuring success for all students; a performance
level that is not being fully meet today.
Adjustments
The base cost figures must be paired with the adjustments, or weights, for identified student groups to
create the final set of figures for the costing out study. Resources for preschool, mild Special Education,
moderate Special Education, severe Special Education, at-risk students, English Language Learners,
gifted and CTE students were identified by the PJ panels and are presented as weights. For example, a
0.50 weight, means that the student requires 50 percent more resources above the base cost to be able
to meet the performance standards and expectations. If the base cost figure is $8,072 then serving such
a student that receives the .50 weight would require the base plus an additional $4,036. The table below
identifies the weights generated during the professional judgment process, adjusted for outside
resources available. For modeling purposes, three separate weights for Special Education levels have
been combined into a single weight so costs can be modeled based upon available Special Education
count information.
Table 5.1
Base Costs and Weights for Modeling Adequacy Results
Successful School District Base Cost
Professional Judgment Base Cost
Weights
ELL
At- Risk
Special Education
Gifted
Preschool
CTE
$7,170
$8,072
0.50
0.30
1.10
0.20
0.24
0.07
Note that for CTE, for the purposes of modeling we will be using the school-based CTE weight as APA did
not have separate FTE counts for students that attend center-based programs. Further, Alabama
71

policymakers would need to determine how funding for such programs would work, given that funds
may need to be redirected from the home school to the center program based upon the
proportionate time spent by a student in each setting.
Applied to Alabama School Districts

Using the base cost figure and weights identified in the prior section, the resource needs for every
district in Alabama can be modeled. APA used 2012-13 data both on district demographics and
expenditures as provided by ALSDE to model adequacy figures and create a comparison to recent actual
figures. In all instances, we excluded costs for transportation, capital and food service.
APA ran the model under four scenarios: using both the SSD and PJ base cost figures, both with and
without the addition of a possible size adjustment to account for differences in resource needs based
upon district size. As discussed previously the SSD base cost figure is $7,170 and the PJ cost figure is
$8,072, both in 2012-13 figures. In order to create a needed resource level for each district, shown as a
total amount of needed funding, APA applied the base costs and weights described previously to
demographic data for each district under each of the four scenarios.
Estimated 2012-13 adequacy figures are shown in Table 5.2 below.
Table 5.2
2012-13 Adequacy Estimates, Compared to Actual Spending
Successful School District
Current
Expenditures
Without Size
Adjustment
With Size
Adjustment
$5,274.3
$562.5
$49.9
$929.8
$76.9
$5,365.2
$562.5
$49.9
$929.8
$76.9
Professional Judgment
Without Size
Adjustment
With Size
Adjustment
Adequacy Estimate (totals in millions)

Base
Special Education
ELL
At-Risk
CTE
$5,937.8
$633.2
$70.2
$1,046.8
$86.6
$6,040.1
$633.2
$70.2
$1,046.8
$86.6
Total
$5,681.2
$6,905.8
$6,984.3
$7,774.6
-Per Student
$7,723
$9,388
$9,495
$10,569
Difference between Adequacy Estimate and Comparable Spending (total in millions)
Difference
-$1,224.6
-$1,303.1
-$2,093.4
-Per Student
-$1,665
-$1,772
-$2,846
-Percentage
21.6%
22.9%
36.9%
$7,790.3
$10,590
-$2,109.1
-$2,867
37.1%
Based upon 2012-13 expenditure information provided to APA, districts spent $5,681.2 million.
Comparatively, the SSD total is between $6,905.8 to $6,984.3 million, and the PJ totals of between
$7,774.6 and $7,790.3 million. As such, adequacy figures range from 22 to 37 percent higher than
comparable actual spending in 2012-13.
72

Please note that in the above modeling figures, costs for gifted students and preschool students are not
included. ALSDE did not have figures for the number of students that a gifted weight would be
applicable to, so we could not model these costs but would recommend the use of a gifted weight if an
identification process was in place. Further, during the update PJ panelists discussed the need for access
to pre-k for all four year olds. Based upon PJ panel resource recommendations, this intervention would
be $8,502 per preschooler.
Looking in further detail of the adequacy figures, APA examined estimates in relation to wealth quintiles,
similar to the comparison done in the Section II for the equity analysis. Tables 5.3 and 5.4 first look at
successful schools figures by wealth quintile; for this analysis, we use the adequacy figures that include a
size adjustment. Then Tables 5.5 and 5.6 similarly looks at professional judgment figures by wealth
quintile. Also, note we included all 134 districts that existed in 2012-13 instead of the 131 districts
included in the equity study, and as a result, figures may vary slightly from those presented in Section II.
Table 5.3
2012-13 SSD Adequacy Estimates by Wealth Quintile, All Districts
Wealth Quintile
Low <----------------------------------------------------------->
High
Quintile Quintile Quintile Quintile Quintile
1
2
3
4
5
School District Characteristics
Average Wealth of Districts
$34,243 $47,858 $58,839 $74,842 $110,329
Number of Districts
27
27
27
27
26
Number of Students
84,184 105,881 127,571 190,521
227,268
Adequacy Estimate (totals in millions)
Base Cost
$620.4
$776.9
$936.4 $1,387.1 $1,644.3
Special Education
$61.7
$74.6
$99.2
$145.5
$181.4
At-Risk
$113.5
$127.8
$157.7
$241.6
$289.2
ELL
$8.0
$6.4
$6.1
$15.0
$14.3
CTE
$9.5
$12.0
$14.4
$19.0
$22.1
Total
$813.2
$997.7 $1,213.9 $1,808.2 $2,151.3
-Per Student
$9,659
$9,423
$9,502
$9,491
$9,466
Actual, Comparable Spending (total in millions)
Total
$618.3
$765.3
$99.0 $1,444.3 $1,920.3
-Per Student
$7,345
$7,228
$7,303
$7,581
$8,449
Difference between Adequacy Estimate and Comparable Spending (total in millions)
Total
-$194.9
-$232.4
-$363.9
-$231.0
$1,114.9
-Per Student
-$2,314
-$2,195
-$2,199
-$1,910
-$1,017
Total
$64,885
134
735,605
$5,365.2
$562.5
$929.8
$49.9
$76.9
$6,984.3
$9,495
$5,681.2
$7,723
-$1,303.1
-$1,772
73

As shown in Table 5.3, average per student adequacy estimates were $9,495, but varied between $9,466
in districts with the highest wealth, and up to $9,659 in districts with the lowest wealth. This is
attributable to the higher student need experienced in these districts. Also as clearly articulated during
the equity study, comparable spending is correlated with wealth, so the difference between adequacy
and actual spending varied between $1,017 in districts with the highest wealth to more than double that
($2,314) in districts with the lowest wealth.
Table 5.4
2012-13 SSD Adequacy Estimates by Wealth Quintile,
Disaggregated by Spending Over/Under Adequacy Estimates
Wealth Quintile
Low <----------------------------------------------------------->
High
Quintile
Quintile Quintile Quintile Quintile
1
2
3
4
5
Districts Currently Spending More Than Adequacy Estimates
Number of Districts
Number of Students
-
Total
1
1,705
5
5,167
6
52,872
Total Spending Over Adequacy

Estimate
$17.9
$446.3
$464.3
Per Student Spending Over

Adequacy Estimate
$1,020
$1,082
$1,080
Districts Currently Spending Less Than Adequacy Estimates

Number of Districts
27
27
27
Number of Students
84,184
105,881 127,571
26
188,816
21
176,101
128
682,733
Total Spending Under

Adequacy Estimate
Per Student Spending Under
Adequacy Estimate
$194.9
$232.4
$280.9
$365.6
$286.5
$1,360.1
-$2,315
-$2,195
-$2,198
-$1,936
-$1,627
-$1,992
Table 5.4 then considers whether districts are spending more or less than the adequacy estimates would
indicate is necessary. Using the successful schools approach, six districts in the higher wealth quintiles
currently are spending more than adequacy; on average, this additional spending is $1,080 more per
student. By disaggregating the districts that are spending above, the variance in adequate spending vs.
current between wealth quintiles for districts that are spending less than adequacy is reduced, but still
present.
74
Table 5.5
2012-13 PJ Adequacy Estimates by Wealth Quintile, All Districts
Wealth Quintile
Low <----------------------------------------------------------->
High
1
2
3
4
5
School District Characteristics
Average Wealth of Districts
$34,243 $47,858
Number of Districts
27
27
Number of Students
84,184 105,881
Costing-Out Estimate (totals in millions)
Base Cost
$698.5
$874.7
Special Education
$69.5
$84.0
At-Risk
$127.8
$143.9
ELL
$11.3
$9.0
CTE
$10.7
$13.5
Total
$907.0 $1,111.5
-Per Student
$10,774 $10,498
Actual, Comparable Spending (total in millions)
Total
$618.3
$765.3
-Per Student
$7,345
$7,228
Total
$58,839
27
127,571
$74,842
27
190,521
$110,329
26
227,268
$64,885
134
735,605
$1,054.2
$111.7
$177.6
$8.6
$16.2
$1,352.1
$10,584
$1,561.6
$163.8
$272.0
$21.1
$21.4
$2,018.5
$10,595
$1,851.1
$204.3
$325.5
$20.2
$24.9
$2,401.1
$10,565
$6,040.1
$633.2
$1,046.8
$70.2
$86.6
$7,790.3
$10,590
$99.0
$7,303
$1,444.3
$7,581
$1,920.3
$8,449
$5,681.2
$7,723
Difference between Adequacy Estimate and Comparable Spending(total in millions)

Total
-$288.7
-$346.2
-$574.2
-$480.8
$1,253.1
-Per Student
-$3,429
-$3,270
-$3,281
-$3,014
-$2,116
$2,109.1
-$2,867
Next, Table 5.5 similarly compares adequacy estimates to actual spending as in Table 5.3, but this time
using the professional judgment approach. Adequacy estimates with the PJ approach ranged between
$10,565 to $10,774. The difference between adequacy estimates and current spending ranged between
$2,116 less in districts with the highest wealth, up to $3,349 less in districts with the lowest wealth.
75
Table 5.6
2012-13 PJ Adequacy Estimates by Wealth Quintile,
Disaggregated by Spending Over/Under Adequacy Estimates
Wealth Quintile
Low <------------------------------------------------------------>
High
1
2
3
4
5
Districts Currently Spending More Than Adequacy Estimates
Number of Districts
4
Number of Students
28,420
Total
4
28,421
Total Spending Over Adequacy

Estimate
$22.6
$22.6
Per Student Spending Over

Adequacy Estimate
$795
$795
Districts Currently Spending Less Than Adequacy Estimates

Number of Districts
27
27
27
Number of Students
84,184 105,881 127,571
27
190,521
22
198,848
130
707,185
Total Spending Under

Adequacy Estimate
$288.7
$346.2
$419.1
$574.2
$503.5
$2,131.7
Per Student Spending Under

Adequacy Estimate
$3,429
$3,270
$3,281
$3,014
$2,532
$3,014
As shown in Table 5.6, 4 districts in the highest wealth quintile are spending higher that the professional
judgment adequacy figures ($795 more per student). After separating these districts, there still existed
about a$1,000 per student variance between wealth quintiles when looking at adequacy vs. actual
spending for the remaining districts.
76
VI. Considerations for Creating a Funding Formula

APA recognizes that the adequacy estimates represent an increase in needed funding-either state or
local- of about a 20 percent (under the successful schools approach) to 35 percent (under the
professional judgment approach), and that is a sizable financial challenge for Alabama to overcome that
may not be possible at this time. APA recommends that Alabama consider a phase in approach to
meeting adequacy and improving equity in districts. This could entail a number of possibilities:
Consider shifting from the current funding model to a weighted student-based funding model
The figures discussed in Section V were used to determine total funding levels for each district. While
this current analysis does not contain modeling of a full funding formula, the base costs and weights
could be used to create a student-based funding formula. Such a formula would be a considerable shift
from the model currently used in Alabama, but it would meet a number of the basic requirements of a
strong funding formula as described at the beginning of this report:
The allocation of state support is positively related to the needs of school systems, where needs
reflect the uncontrollable demographic characteristics of students and school systems.
School systems have a reasonable amount of flexibility to spend the revenues they obtain as
they want, provided they are meeting, or making acceptable progress toward meeting, state
education standards and student academic performance expectations.
Consider equalizing local tax efforts

The equity study demonstrated that there are differences in school districts abilities to generate local
revenues above the school finance formula. This raises a question about whether all districts should
have the opportunity to generate the same level of additional revenue and whether the state could
equalize these additional tax efforts as part of the foundation program, similar to how Alabama
equalizes capital funds. A few states currently use a supplementary program to equalize the ability of
districts to provide local funds beyond those required (or expected) under the foundation program;
these approaches, sometimes referred to as second tiers, provide an incentive for districts to
contribute local revenue and do so in such a way that the amount of per student revenue generated per
unit of tax effort (such as a penny per hundred dollars of assessed property valuation) is similar across
most districts. This power equalization is accomplished through formulas that provide matching state
aid for local support, inversely related to wealth. For example, in Georgia, the state provides matching
aid for every mill of tax effort a district makes above the five mills required in the foundation program,
with the match designed to guarantee that all districts will obtain as much revenue per student as the
district at the 90th percentile of all districts in terms of wealth.
77

An equalization model would further meet a number of the requirements for a strong finance formula
identified at the beginning of this report, including that systems have a similar opportunity to generate
revenues to reach adequate spending levels.
Consider introducing additional revenue to fund education
Adequacy estimates can be used as target levels that can be phased in over a number of years. APA
would recommend first starting with the successful schools approach figures that represent what it
takes for districts to meet todays level of success and eventually targeting the professional judgment
approach levels that represent the resources needed to ensure all students can meet state standards.
Further, Alabama could choose to target resources to the weights associated with special needs first, or
raise the base funding for all students first.
Overall, this evaluation of Alabamas school finance system was designed to address the structure,
equity, and adequacy of the system. The suggestions in this section were intended to provide
improvements in each of these areas. Shifting to a weighted, student-based formula would improve the
overall structure and provide a solid foundation to address student equity and adequacy issues. The
addition of a second tier equalization model for operational funding would address fiscal equity. While
the study team acknowledges the level of new funding suggested by the adequacy studies is significant
and may not be made available easily, changing the overall structure of the finance system would have
immediate impacts and ensure that any new funding that is introduced is distributed in an equitable
manner.
78
Appendix A- Professional Judgment Panel Participants

District/ALSDE
Alabaster City
Albertville City
Alexander City
ALSDE
ALSDE
ALSDE
ALSDE
ALSDE
ALSDE
ALSDE
ALSDE
ALSDE
Andalusia City
Auburn City
Auburn City
Auburn City
Auburn City
Autaguga County
Autauga County
Autauga County
Baldwin County
Bibb County
Birmingham
Birmingham City
Blount County
Brewton City
Bullock County
Chambers County
Cherokee County
Chilton County
Chilton County
Clay County
Conecuh County
Crenshaw County
Dale County
Dale County
Dale County
Panelist
Rachea Simms
Tim Tidmore
Jose Reyes
Crystal Richardson
Dely Roberts
Dennis Coe
Erika Richburg
Joe Eiland
Kay Warfield
Lisa Highfield
Mary Simon
Philip Cleveland
Sonja Hines
Dennis Veronese
Pete Forster
Rick Rainer
Sandy Resa
Richard Dennis
Kerry Puckett
Tisha Scott-Addison
Carol Palumbo
Lauren Butts
Arthur Watts
Ezra Shine
Mark Hitt
Lynn Smith
Peggy Goodwin
Sharon Weldon
Jimmy Myrick
Steven Yeargan
Tommy Glasscock
Jared Wesley
Raye Lambert
Tracy Baines
Ben Baker
Donny Bynum
Lisa Till
79

District/ALSDE
Dale County
Dothan City
Dothan City
Elba City
Elmore
Elmore County
Elmore County
Elmore County
Florence
Geneva City
Geneva City
Hale County
Hoover City
Houston
Houston County
Jasper City
Jefferson County
Jefferson County
Lauderdale County
Lowndes County
Macon County
Macon County
Madison City
Marengo County
Marshall
Midfield City
Mobile County
Montgomery County
Montgomery County
Oneonta City
Opp City
Oxford City
Oxford County
Perry County
Phenix City
Piedmont City
Pike County
Pike County
Russell County
Panelist
Patrick Cain
Paula Dean
Terry Scott
Kayla Harrison
Cindy Veazey
Andre Harrison
Jeff Langham
Sherry Spigener
Connie Wallace
Cheri Cox
Stephen Swann
James Essex
Cathy Antee
Matt Swann
Kerry Bedsole
Susan Chandler
Keith Lankford
Sheila Jones
Emily Lambert
Marc Nicholas
Monica Hasley
Tiffany Dorn
Robby Parker
Lander Fisher
Annie Spike
Susan Harvill
Melanie Turner
Katrina Johnson
Ron Glover
Keith Bender
Sharon Spurlin
Eric Burrage
Khristie Goodwin
Charlette Oglesby
Lisa Coleman
Grace Strott
Avery Embry
Jennifer Hornsby
Mesha Patrick
80

District/ALSDE
Saraland City
Shelby County
Shelby County
Shelby County
Sylacauga City
Talladega County
Talladega County
Tallapoosa County
Tallasee
Tarrant City
Troy City
Trussville City
Tuscaloosa City
Vestavia
Vestavia City
Washington County
Wilcox County
Panelist
Ashley Lomax
Larry Haynes
Lynn Cook
Marla Aldrich
Bobby Hall
Avery Embry
William Byron Brasher
Tom Cochran
Michael D. Smithart
Lynn Burch
Teresa Sims
Herb Hicks
Robert Coates
Andrea Coleman
Wes Gordon
Harold Crouch
Roshonda Jackson
81
Appendix B- Summary of Alabama Standards

Minimum Number of days of instruction
The Flexible School Calendar Act of 2012 mandated a start and end date for the school calendar. It also
allowed for a 1,080-hour school year as opposed to mandating a 180-day school year. As a result, all
school systems in Alabama started school on August 20 (the earliest day allowed) and will end their
school years on either May 23 or 24.
In order to receive foundation program funds, school districts must provide a school year of at least 180
days, or hourly equivalent.7
First day of instruction no earlier than the Monday two calendar weeks before Labor Day, and last day of
instruction shall be no later than the Friday immediately before Memorial Day.8
Attendance Records
Every child between the ages of 7 and 17 shall be required to attend a public school, private school,
church school9
Five days into school year, and every week thereafter, schools must report enrollment records of all 716 year old children in their school (does not apply to church schools). 10
Attendance registry must be kept, showing enrollment and absences for each day of school year.11
Graduation Requirements12
Alabama High School Graduation Exam (AHSGE) plus:
English Language Arts 4 credits (English 9, 10, 11, 12)

Mathematics 4 credits (Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II with Trigonometry, 1 mathematics elective
course from the Alabama Course of Study, Mathematics)
Science 4 credits (A Physical Science, Biology, 2 science elective courses from the Alabama Course of
Study: Science)
Social Studies 4 credits (World History to the Present; US History to 1977; US History from 1877 to the
Present; Government [ credit], Economics [ credit])
1 credit of Physical Education, 2 credits of a Foreign Language, credit of each of Health Education, Arts
Education and Computer education, plus 3- elective credits.
An online course/experience.
Al. Code. 290-2-1.01(3): http://www.alabamaadministrativecode.state.al.us/docs/ed/290-2-1.pdf

http://www.savealabamasummers.org/pdf/Final%20Version%20of%20HB%20360%20%20Flexible%20School%20Calendar%20Act%20of%202012.pdf
9 http://www.legislature.state.al.us/codeofalabama/1975/16-28-3.htm
12 https://www.alsde.edu/general/QuickFacts_12-13.pdf
8
82

Assessments (there is a new assessment timeline you will need to use)
13
Educator Evaluation
A professional growth evaluation system for teachers and leaders that includes multiple measures of
student growth and achievement and provide research-based professional growth opportunities for
13
ESEA waiver, page 40: https://docs.alsde.edu/documents/908/Alabama%20Flex%20Request.pdf
83

Alabamas teachers and leaders based on their individual and collective Professional Learning Plans is
under development.
All educators (regular classroom teachers, all special educators [including psychometricians/
psychologists, Pre-K special educators, speech-language pathologists, special educators that teach
students who generally take the Alabama Alternate Assessment], school librarians, school counselors,
Alabama Reading Initiative (ARI) reading coaches) will be formatively evaluated using the EDUCATE
Alabama online process beginning August 2011.
Linked to Alabama Quality Teaching Standards (AQTS)14: (1) Content Knowledge; (2) Teaching and
Learning; (3) Literacy; (4) Diversity; (5) Professionalism. There are a total of 29 indicators as part of
these five standards. Alabama does not link student achievement data to teacher or leader
evaluation.
Evaluation process required annually for non-tenured teachers. Once tenure earned, at discretion of
evaluator, can be placed on multi-year evaluation cycle consisting of a full, basic evaluation followed by
one or a maximum of two years of activities and reflections in accordance with an annual Professional
Learning Plan (PLP).
If not using EDUCATEAlabama, LEAs can develop their own system, providing that ALSDE approves
system. Of 134 LEAs, only 4 developed their own.
Accreditation
School Accreditation
Every public school and private school, except church schools, shall carry out a system of physical
education, the character of which shall conform to the program or course outlined by the Department
of Education.15
Each local board of education shall requirethat students in grades seven to 12, inclusive, receive
instruction in parental responsibilities; in the importance of an education and the consequences of not
obtaining a high school diploma; and instruction regarding how to study.16
All students enrolled in health classes in the tenth grade in the public schools of Alabama shall receive
instruction in the techniques of cardiopulmonary resuscitation, hereinafter referred to as "CPR."
Requirements for Foundation Program Funding:17
10 mill ad valorem, or equivalent.

Proposed building program detailing location of all present and proposed buildings
14
http://alex.state.al.us/browseallStand.php
http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeofAlabama/1975/16-40-1.htm
16 http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeofAlabama/1975/16-40-1.1.htm
17 Ala. Code 16-13-231
15
84
Proposed transportation program

Professional Development program
Technology program
Program for the provision of services to students with disabilities and gifted students
Program for the provision of vocational educational services
Program for the provision of educational services to at-risk students
School Performance Index (SPI)

The SPI replaces the AYP for accountability. Also, according to Alabama Act 2012-402 schools must be
given a grade of A through F based only in part on the achievement gains and achievement gap. Growth
is the leading indicator of progress. Organized around strategic priorities: Alabama 2020 Learners,
Alabama 2020 Support Systems; Alabama 2020 Professionals, and Alabama 2020 Schools and Systems.
Plan 2020: College- and/or Career-Ready for All
Alabama 2020
Learners
Achievement
(Proficiency)
Alabama 2020
Support
Systems
Program
Reviews
Alabama 2020
Professionals
Alabama 2020
2020
Schools/Districts
Schools and
Systems
Percent Effective
Teachers
Local Indicator(s)
=
Gap
Learning Gains
(Growth)
Graduation
Rate
Percent Effective
Leaders
Overall School
Performance
Index (using data
from each
category)
Attendance
Rate
College-/CareerReadiness
Schools with less than 95 percent participation in mathematics or reading/English language arts will fail
to make their performance target. Schools not meeting the 95 percent tested rule will be identified and
reported in the accountability results, and there will be consequences (pg. 45 of waiver).
Annual Measurable Objectives every school and district will have their own benchmark data. Schools
will set a goal over a 6 year period to cut in half the number of students that are not proficient.
85
Additional Requirements for Students with Identified Needs

Requirements for Special Education Students
School districts must develop and implement procedures to identify, locate and evaluate children in
their jurisdiction that need special education services. Children age birth to 21 are included, regardless
of the severity of their disability.18
Public agencies must develop and implement procedures to ensure that all eligible children have an
appropriate IEP based on the childs unique needs and not on the childs disability. This includes children
placed in or referred to a private school or facility by the public agency.19
Preschool for Special Education Students
There is hereby established a preschool special education program for children with disabilities, ages 3
through 5 years, inclusive. All county and city local education agencies are required to provide free
appropriate public education for all eligible children with disabilities, ages 3 through 5years, inclusive, in
accordance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.20
Participation of Students with Disabilities in State Assessment System
Public agencies must develop and implement procedures to ensure that every child with a disability is
provided the opportunity to participate in the same state and district-wide assessments as his or her
nondisabled peers. The IEP Team must also determine appropriate accommodations, if necessary, for
the child's participation.21
Requirements for Gifted Students
Each school board must submit to the State Board of Education, for its review and approval, a longrange plan for providing appropriate instruction and special services for exceptional children. The plan
must include such provisions as may be appropriate for:
(1) Establishment of special education classes, instruction, curricula, facilities, equipment and
special services;
(2) Utilization of teachers and other personnel;
(3) Attendance requirements for exceptional children;
(4) Services for exceptional children whose condition will not permit them to profit or benefit from
any kind of school program, such as day care, recreation programs and other services and
facilities; and
(5) Payment of tuition and other costs for attendance at appropriate semipublic or private schools
or institutions which may be able to provide appropriate services for all or some exceptional
children in comparison with that which can be provided through the school system;
18
Board of Education Rules 290-8-9-.01: https://docs.alsde.edu/documents/65/1-AAC%20290-8-9%20%205-19-2011.pdf

https://docs.alsde.edu/documents/65/1-AAC%20290-8-9%20%205-19-2011.pdf
20 http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeofAlabama/1975/16-39A-2.htm
21 https://docs.alsde.edu/documents/65/1-AAC%20290-8-9%20%205-19-2011.pdf
19
86

(6) The enrollment of exceptional children at appropriate state institutions for such children, which
enrollment shall relieve the school board from any further responsibility for any such child
during the period of such enrollment .22
In providing for the instruction of exceptional children, the school boards shall utilize regular school
facilities and adapt them to the needs of exceptional children, except as otherwise provided herein. No
exceptional child shall be segregated and taught apart from other non-exceptional children until a
careful study of the child's case has been made and evidence obtained which indicates that such
segregation would be for the exceptional child's benefit or is necessary because of difficulties involved in
teaching the child in a regular school program.23
Gifted Education Plan (GEP)
Each gifted student receiving pull-out services, must have a written plan that describes the services to
be provided. GEPs are not required for students receiving services other than pull-out unless there is a
specific need. If GEPs are not written for students receiving services in the general education classroom
a plan for monitoring the services must be included in the LEA Plan for Gifted.24
Requirements for Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Students
Each LEA in Alabama must develop and implement a Comprehensive English Learner (EL) Plan for serving
students who are limited-English proficient and immigrant students, where one or more students are
determined to need support. At a minimum, the local plan must describe programs and activities that will
be developed, implemented, and administered to ensure that ELs acquire academic language as part of
the core academic program. Also, the plan must address accountability, parental notification and
community participation, data collection requirements, consultation with teachers, school administrators
and parents, the LEAs educational theory and goals for its program of services, the LEAs methods for
identifying and assessing the students to be included, procedures for exiting students from the English
language instruction educational program and for monitoring their progress, and the method for
evaluating the effectiveness of the program. 25
22
Ala. Code 16-39-6: http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeofAlabama/1975/16-39-6.htm

Ala. Code 16-39-8: http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeofAlabama/1975/16-39-8.htm
24 https://docs.alsde.edu/documents/65/AAC%20Gifted%20Code_5-14-2009.pdf
25 http://alex.state.al.us/ell/?q=node/42
23
87
Appendix C- Background and Instructions for PJ Panels

INSTRUCTIONS TO ALABAMA
PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT PANEL MEMBERS
Augenblick, Palaich and Associates
Denver, Colorado
Montgomery, Alabama
[Date of panel]
The work you are doing today is part of a Costing Out Study being conducted in Alabama on
behalf of the Alabama State Department of Education. It relies on your professional experience to
identify the resources needed so that all students, schools, and districts can fulfill all state standards.
Below you will find a number of instructions to help you in this process. It is important to remember
that you are not being tasked to build your Dream School. Instead, you are being asked to identify the
resources needed to meet the specific standards and requirements that the state expects students,
schools and districts to fulfill. You should allocate resources as efficiently as possible without sacrificing
quality.
1.
You are a member of a panel that is being asked to design how programs and services will be
delivered in representative school and district settings. These panels are being used to identify
the resources that schools and districts with a particular set of demographic characteristics
should have in order to meet a specific set of input requirements and output objectives.
2.
[Short description of prior panels held; varied by panel]
3.
Today you will be serving on the [name of panel; varied by panel].
4.
The characteristics of the representative schools and districts are identified for each, including:
(1) grade span; (2) enrollment; and (3) the proportion of at-risk students (based on those
students eligible for free/reduced price lunch), Special Education students; English as a Second
Language (ESL), and gifted students.
5.
The input requirements and outcome objectives that need to be accomplished by the
representative school(s) are those required by the state. These requirements or objectives can
be described broadly as education opportunities, programs, services or as levels of education
performance. You will be provided a short summary of state expectations and performance
standards; it is not meant to be exhaustive of all requirements that the state requires schools
and districts to fulfill, but instead should be considered a refresher or reminder.
88

6.
In designing the representative school(s), we need you to provide some very specific
information so that we can calculate the cost of the resources that are needed to fulfill the
indicated requirements or objectives. The fact that we need that information should not
constrain you in any way in designing the program of the representative school(s). Your job is to
create a set of programs, curriculums, or services designed to serve students with particular
needs in such a way that the indicated requirements/objectives can be fulfilled. Use your
experience and expertise to organize personnel, supplies and materials, and technology in an
efficient way you feel confident will produce the desired outcomes.
7.
For this process, the following statements are true about the representative school(s) and the
conditions in which they exist:
Teachers:
You should assume that you can attract and retain qualified personnel and that
you can employ people on a part-time basis if needed (based on tenths of a fulltime equivalent person).
Facilities:
You should assume that the representative school has sufficient space and the
technology infrastructure to meet the requirements of the program you design.
Revenues:
You should not be concerned about where revenues will come from to pay for
the program you design. Do not worry about federal or state requirements that
may be associated with certain types of funding. You should not think about
whatever revenues might be available in the school or district in which you now
work or about any of the revenue constraints that might exist on those
revenues.
Programs:
You may create new programs or services that do not presently exist that you
believe address the challenges that arise in schools. You should assume that
such programs or services are in place and that no additional time is needed for
them to produce the results you expect of them. For example, if you create
after-school programs or pre-school programs to serve some students, you
should assume that such programs will achieve their intended results, possibly
reducing the need for other programs or services that might have otherwise
been needed.
89
Appendix D- ALSDE-Provided Statewide Average Salaries

Benefit Amount
Benefit Rate
Average Number of Contract Days
Substitute Daily Rate
$9,360
19.49%
187
$65
School-Level Salaries
Position Title
Instructional Staff
Teachers
Teacher Tutor/ Interventionist
Instructional Aides
Pupil Support Staff
Counselors
Nurses
Psychologists
Psychometrists
Social Worker
Family Liaison
Speech
OT/PT
Other Services
Principal
Assistant Principal
Bookkeeper
Attendance
Clerical/Data Entry
Other Staff
Security Guards
Media Aide
Coordinator
Graduation Coach
Average Salary
Average Salary +
Benefit Amount
$48,254
$52,297
$48,254
$53,042
$52,297
$20,277
$67,018
$67,018
$71,849
$72,740
$71,849
$33,589
$56,677
$43,149
$54,836
$58,342
$48,046
$20,277
$49,869
$54,505
$54,505
$77,084
$60,919
$74,884
$79,073
$66,770
$33,589
$68,948
$74,487
$74,487
$83,663
$68,283
$32,205
$29,124
$29,932
$109,329
$90,951
$47,842
$44,161
$45,126
$25,876
$19,485
$20,277
$55,867
$20,277
$40,279
$32,643
$33,589
$76,115
$33,589
90

District Salaries
Position Title
Superintendent
Assistant Superintendent
Director
Chief School Finance Officer
Business Manager
Clerical/Data Entry/Clerk
Data Manager
IT Manager
IT Technicians
Psychologist
Psychometrist
Home Bound Teacher
Job/Transitions Coach
Lead Nurse
Public Relations/Communication
Board Secretary
Curriculum Specialist/Coaches
School Accountants
Auditors
Truancy Officer
Speech Therapists
OT/PT Therapists
Additional Therapists
Nurses
Translator/Interpreter
Behavior Specialist
Average Salary
$127,391
$108,883
$79,488
$55,867
$84,108
$84,108
$29,932
$55,867
$76,619
$41,646
$54,836
$58,342
$48,254
$52,297
$43,149
$55,867
$30,475
$52,297
$47,860
$47,860
$48,046
$49,869
$54,505
$35,908
$43,149
$38,279
$56,677
Average Salary +
Benefit Amount
$161,580
$139,464
$104,340
$76,115
$109,861
$109,861
$45,126
$76,115
$100,912
$59,123
$74,884
$79,073
$67,018
$71,849
$60,919
$76,115
$45,775
$71,849
$66,547
$66,547
$66,770
$68,948
$74,487
$52,267
$60,919
$55,100
$77,084
91
Appendix E- Technology Hardware Prices (Reviewed by ALSDE)

Cost per Unit
Replacement Cycle
Annual Price
Computers, Staff
Laptops, Staff
Mobile Devices
Smartphone
Printers
Hotspot
Fax machine
Servers
$1,000
$1,200
$500
$300
$300
$15,000
$200
$150
$15,000
4
4
4
2
4
8
4
5
5
$1,000
$500
4
4
$250
$900
$300
$1,000
$1,000
$300
4
4
4
4
4
$225
$900
$300
$1,000
4
4
4
$225
$1,000
$300
4
4
$250
$900
$400
$300
$200
$3,000
$3,000
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
4
$225
$250
$300
$125
$150
$75
$1,875
$50
$30
$3,000
Faculty
Desktops, Staff
Mobile Devices
$125
Classroom
Computers, Student
Printers
Visual Presentation System
Sound System with Microphone
Document Camera
$75
$250
$250
$75
Computer Lab(s)- Fixed

Computers
Printer
Visual Presentation System
$75
$250
Computer Lab(s)- Mobile

Laptops
Printers
$75
Media Center
Computers
Printer
Barcode Scanners
Laminator
Die Cut sets
Other
Switches/Routers
Mobile Devices
Headsets
$5,000 per school

$500
$50
$100
$75
$50
$750
$750
$1,000 per school
$125
$13
92
Appendix F- References
Berne, R. & Stiefel, L. (1984). The measurement of equity in school finance. Baltimore, MD: The Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Downes, T. A. & Stiefel, L. (2008). Measuring equity and adequacy in school finance. In H. F. Ladd & E. B.
Fiske (Eds), Handbook of research in education finance and policy (pp. 222-237). New York, NY:
Routledge.
93

Equity and Adequacy in Alabama Schools and Districts

Cargado por

Información del documento

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Equity and Adequacy in Alabama Schools and Districts

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Equity and Adequacy in Alabama

Schools and Districts