Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Funding Matrix And Foundation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
How Arkansas’s funding matrix and foundation aid shape per‑pupil dollars, BLR data show
Summary
Bureau of Legislative Research staff presented committee members with the components and calculations behind the funding matrix, showing foundation funding about $3 billion, per‑pupil spending around $9,900 (≈84% of national average) and how URT/local revenue affects districts differently.
Nell Smith of the Bureau of Legislative Research walked the Senate Education Committee through how Arkansas calculates the state foundation funding rate using a staffing‑and‑resource “matrix” and how foundation, categorical and other state funds interact to produce per‑student funding.
Smith said foundation funding (state + local) provides roughly $3,000,000,000 to schools and explained the three basic state funding types: foundation funding (equal per student and unrestricted), categorical funding (restricted for specified purposes such as English‑language learners, alternative learning environment and Enhanced Student Achievement), and other state funds (student growth, declining enrollment, isolated funding). She told the committee foundation funding accounts for about 54% of the total funding districts receive.
Using district examples, Smith illustrated variability: a property‑poor district may receive substantial state aid to reach the statutory per‑student rate, while high‑URT districts such as Nemo Vista generate enough local revenue that they do not need state foundation aid and can exceed the foundation rate. She explained the matrix models a prototypical 500‑student district and aggregates school‑level staffing, school resources and district‑level costs to produce a per‑student figure.
Smith also presented assessment and achievement data, noting Arkansas per‑pupil spending is roughly $9,900 (about 84% of the national average) with the state’s rank around the mid‑30s; she pointed out achievement gaps persist by income and race but are generally smaller than national gaps.
Committee members asked detailed follow‑ups about extracurriculars, the 500‑student prototype and how URT (uniform rate of tax) is collected and redistributed.
