State Per-Pupil Expenditures
This map compares states by per-pupil expenditure; click on the map to view the data and rank for each state. The Federal Education Budget Project's analysis of the relevant data appears below.
|
|
|
- Interstate inequities in annual per-pupil expenditure are dramatic, particularly when aggregated. [1] The top five spending states in the country—New Jersey, New York, Vermont, Connecticut, and Massachusetts—spend, on average, twice as much per-pupil as the bottom five spending states—Utah, Idaho, Arizona, Oklahoma, and Mississippi.
New Jersey, with the highest per-pupil expenditure, spends almost $8,000 more each year on an individual student than Utah, with the lowest per-pupil expenditure. For a single classroom with an average size of 25 pupils, this translates into an annual spending disparity of almost $200,000. For an entire elementary school with an average size of 482 students [2], the annual spending disparity reaches $3.8 million. School finance inequity is starkest at the high school level: an average high school in New Jersey of around 816 students [3] spends $6.5 million more each year than an average high school in Utah.
Interstate inequities in per-pupil expenditure are regional in nature. The Northeast spends significantly more on each student than the rest of the country—on average, around $2,500 more per-pupil than the Midwest, and around $3,350 more per-pupil than the South and the West. Eight of the top 10 spending states are located in the Northeast. Southern states spend, on average, the least on public education, although many of the Western states are also near the bottom. Of the bottom 10 spending states, six are located in the South and four are located in the West. [4]
In the South, both Mississippi and Tennessee spend less than $6,550 per-pupil. Compare this to students in New York State and New Jersey, who receive almost $13,000—approximately twice as much funding—for their education each year. While a small portion of this disparity may be attributed to the cost of services, it is unlikely that Mississippi schools can provide an education comparable to schools in New York State with $6,693 less funding for each student. Per-pupil expenditure is roughly correlated with student achievement. In general, states with high per-pupil expenditure outperform states with low per-pupil expenditure on national achievement tests. While the correlation is not perfect, a positive correlation between per-pupil expenditure and student achievement exists. However, there are a few exceptions of states that spend a lot per-pupil but score poorly on achievement tests. For example, Alaska ranks seventh in spending, but 34th and 30th in 8th grade reading and math proficiency respectively. Student outcomes are also dependent on how the money is spent.
In the top five spending states, 36.7% of 8th grade students are proficient in reading on average and 34.7% are proficient in math. Compare this to the bottom five spending states, where an average of only 24.6% of 8th grade students are proficient in reading and 23.9% are proficient in math.
In student terms, Massachusetts, which ranks fifth in per-pupil expenditure, has 185,000 more reading-proficient 8th graders (approximately 20% of the school population) and 222,000 more math-proficient 8th graders (approximately 23% of the school population) than similar-sized Tennessee, which ranks 44th in per-pupil expenditure. Per-pupil expenditure is also roughly correlated with student poverty. In general, the larger the percentage of poor students in the state, the less a state spends on education. While per-pupil expenditure is also related to fiscal effort, the amount of taxable wealth in a state (i.e. fiscal capacity) plays a substantial role in per pupil spending. More students in poverty indicates less aggregate family income available for tax contributions, which usually translates into a lower statewide per-pupil expenditure level. In the top five spending states, 14.8% of the student population is living in poverty, in comparison to 18.3% of the student population in the bottom five spending states.
[1] Statewide per-pupil expenditure includes all amounts of money paid out by a school system, including construction services, equipment, and facilities acquisition. Per-pupil expenditure data is collected by the U.S. Census Bureau in its Annual Survey of Government Finances. The data used here is from the 2003-04 school year and excludes expenditures paid out for the retirement of debt, purchase of securities, extension of loans, and agency transactions.
[2] National Center for Education Statistics estimate
[3] National Center for Education Statistics estimate
[4] Based on Census Bureau-designated regions. Northeast: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont. Midwest: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Wisconsin. South: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia. West: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming
Per-Pupil Expenditure. Statewide per-pupil expenditure equals the total amount of revenue paid out by school systems in the state divided by total school enrollment. It includes funds from federal, state, and local sources and funds spent on day to day operating expenses, such as teacher salaries, and capital expenses, such as school construction.
School Finance Inequity. School finance equity figures presented reflect a definition contained in Title I of the No Child Left Behind Act. That definition examines the differences in per-pupil spending among school districts across a given state. The per-pupil expenditure for every school district is compared to the average per-pupil expenditure for the state and weighted according to size and poverty level.
Indirect Aid. Indirect aid is support provided for school districts through the federal tax code. For example, a community can use local property taxes to finance local schools, and it costs taxpayers less because local property taxes are deductible on federal income tax returns.
Direct Aid. Direct aid is education funding that comes from the federal government and is distributed directly to states and then given to individual school districts. The two largest direct aid funding streams are the federal Title I program for disadvantaged students and the IDEA special education program for children with disabilities.
Title I. Title I of the No Child Left Behind Act authorizes direct aid from the federal government to states and school districts to support the additional education needs of children from low-income families.
IDEA. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) authorizes direct aid from the federal government to states and school districts to support the additional education needs of children with disabilities.
Student Poverty Rate. The student poverty rate reflects the number of children in a state ages 5 to 17 living beneath the Census Bureau's poverty line. In 2004, the poverty income threshold for a family of four was $19,157.
Achievement. State-defined proficiency standards of what students should know and be able to do in each grade are developed separately by each state. States use these standards to test and assess whether students are performing adequately, as required under the No Child Left Behind Act.
Nationally-defined proficiency standards of what students should know and be able to do are developed by the National Assessment Governing Board. The Board administers a national test to a representative sample of students-the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)-that measures whether students are performing at grade level.
Percentage figures presented reflect the proportion of students learning at grade level according to state NCLB and national NAEP standards, respectively.
Post new comment