Senate committee hears study showing weak links between district/school size and most student outcomes; small districts can still offer diverse programs

An Education Committee presentation on the state'funded study of district and school size concluded that, in Arkansas, size alone explains relatively little of the variation in many educational outcomes.

"My name is Bob Shock with Education Finance Decisions out of Pennsylvania," said Bob Shock, the lead presenter, who described a literature review and analyses of Arkansas Department of Education data and Arkansas Activities Association records. Shock said the team ran scatterplots and correlation coefficients on dozens of district and school variables and found that most correlations were weak (many below 0.4), though certain spending categories show some economies of scale.

Justin Silverstein, the study coordinator, told the committee the team completed case studies and a district survey and that a separate WestEd statistical analysis linking student characteristics and outcomes will be layered into the final report. "We are actually hoping to move up our ability to present that probably not the next meeting but I believe the meeting after where we will dig a little deeper into some of those relationships," Silverstein said.

Key takeaways from the presentations included:

- Operational efficiency: Shock said per‑pupil expenditures show wide variation among small districts and a modest trend toward greater consistency in larger districts; one scatterplot returned a correlation near ‑0.07 for district enrollment versus total per‑pupil expenditures.

- Curriculum and extracurriculars: Larger districts tend to offer more sections and more athletics/nonathletic activities, but many small districts also provide diverse programs. Shock emphasized that while larger high schools may offer more AP or specialized computer science sections, "many small districts are offering as many programs as the larger districts." The presenters noted participation rates can be high in smaller settings when measured as a share of enrollment.

- Personnel and turnover: The presenters reported a weak positive relationship between district size and workforce stability, with smaller districts often showing higher attrition and lower starting salaries for new teachers. That pattern, they said, can make recruitment for specialized positions (speech pathologists, audiologists, certain CTE staff) more difficult.

- Discipline and equity questions: Senator Chesterfield asked whether disciplinary incidents had been broken down by race and gender; Shock and Silverstein agreed that the team could produce such disaggregation. Chesterfield said, "according to what I've been told in studies, a disproportionate number of black males are expelled from school," and asked the team to examine those patterns in Arkansas; presenters said they could include those breakdowns in subsequent analysis.

- Online access: Committee members pressed for analysis of broadband and online learning access after pandemic‑era disruptions; Justin Silverstein and the team said the case studies already flagged connectivity gaps and that the team will incorporate that evidence.

- Funding and policy implications: Several members asked whether the study will produce funding recommendations. Silverstein said the current work benchmarks the system and will "inform your all's work to think about changing your system," but it does not yet include specific dollar recommendations. He said any policy suggestions would be presented with supporting context.

- Best practices and facility planning: Shock reviewed policies in other states (North Carolina, Arizona, Florida, Kentucky) on school‑size guidelines, facility master plans and class‑size rules and noted North Carolina's long history of explicit size guidance as a model for discussion.

- Small and isolated districts: Amanda (presenter) summarized how states adjust formulas for small or isolated districts (size adjustments, density adjustments, transportation/sparsity funding, "necessarily small school" considerations). She said Arkansas currently operates several allotments tied to isolation, special needs and transportation and that roughly 29 districts receive one or more of those targeted allotments.

The committee did not take new formal actions on policy at the meeting. Chairs directed presenters to provide follow‑up materials (including the WestEd analysis and requested disaggregations) and scheduled the Department of Education to present the next morning at 9:00. The committee adjourned without making funding decisions.

The study team said their next report will add deeper statistical modeling and subgroup analysis; committee members asked the team to emphasize equity, broadband access, and the fiscal and transportation trade‑offs involved in any proposals.