BLR report: matrix math, staffing patterns and gaps in mental‑health access highlighted

Nell Smith, administrator and research data analyst with the Bureau of Legislative Research, briefed the Senate Education Committee on a resource allocation report that compares districts’ actual spending with the matrix‑based funding levels that underlie foundation funding.

Smith explained the matrix calculation: the matrix lists staffing for a prototypical 500‑student school, multiplies FTE counts by a salary and benefits package (the report cited a matrix teacher salary+benefits package of $65,811, with a base salary component near $52,386), then divides by 500 to produce per‑student funding amounts. She said classroom teachers are the largest single matrix component and that the matrix funds roughly $3,300 per student for classroom teachers in the prototypical school model.

The report finds mixed alignment between matrix funding and district spending. Smith said districts spend at or above the matrix for about half the staffing lines when counting all funding sources, but when looking only at foundation funds many districts spend less than the matrix level and instead use federal or categorical funds (including special‑education and Title I funds) to cover services. Charter schools generally spent less per student on instructional staff and more on administrative staff than traditional districts.

Smith flagged librarians and waivers as a distinctive Arkansas pattern: the matrix funds about 0.85 FTE librarians per 500 students, but Arkansas districts collectively employ nearly 1.0 FTE librarian per 500 students—well above the national average. She noted that most charter schools and 43 districts have waivers from statutory librarian requirements, but many districts still report librarian spending above the matrix level.

On mental health, Smith told the committee that school‑based therapy is typically delivered by outside providers and billed to students’ insurance (Medicaid or private insurance), which makes district expenditures a poor proxy for access to therapists. Her team’s data show many districts have few or no therapists meeting recommended ratios; principals reported insufficient community providers, high therapist turnover and parental consent barriers.

Committee members asked where administrative salaries appear in the report, whether NSL/ESA or other non‑foundation funds used to pay salaries create recurring obligations, and how districts manage one‑time bonuses. Smith said district practices vary, noted allowable NSL uses can include salary supports or bonuses, and emphasized that some funding uses may not recur year to year.

The presentation concluded with discussion about small‑district inefficiencies (smaller schools carry fixed staffing costs), class‑size differences by district size, and next steps for parts 2 and 3 of the BLR analysis; committee members thanked Smith for her work and she noted she is leaving BLR for a position at the health department.