Arkansas Senate Education Committee hears ADE briefing on school spending, special education and staffing

Little Rock — The Senate Education Committee received a detailed briefing from the Arkansas Department of Education on how school districts spend foundation and other funds, with presenters telling members that actual expenditures often exceed the matrix foundation amounts and that special education costs are substantially higher when federal and local sources are included.

Julie Holt of the bureau told committee members the presentation focused on spending patterns, categorical funds and how districts use supplemental streams of money. "Spending on the right things matters," Holt said, summarizing the research team's major takeaway that successful schools tend to invest more in human capital — instructional staff and student supports — and in resources directly tied to instruction.

Holt walked the committee through matrix lines for staffing and resources, showing for example that districts and charters draw on IDEA, Medicaid and other federal funds to cover special education teacher costs. "When you take into account other fund sources, they're spending nearly $140 more per pupil" for special education teachers, she said, and later that per‑student costs for students with disabilities can rise to about $7,700 when all services (speech, therapy, transportation) are included.

Committee members pressed for detail on several points. A member asked how free and reduced‑price lunch counts are defined; Holt replied that the counts used in the analysis represent families at 135% of the federal poverty level or below and that some districts offer universal free meals while counts are frozen for four years before recalculation. On whether Arkansas uses direct certification tied to SNAP eligibility, Holt said that direct certification is not used statewide.

Senator Chesterfield asked whether waivers that allow schools to operate without certain certified staff affect student performance; Holt said prior analyses produced mixed results and that the impact appears to be most pronounced in high free‑and‑reduced populations.

Presenters noted the one‑time effect of federal COVID‑era ESSER funds on technology and substitute spending: Holt said about $135 million of technology spending was ESSER‑driven and that ESSER also inflated substitute‑related expenditures in 2021. She also highlighted a policy shift that moved responsibility and federal Medicaid funding for some pre‑K special education services from early‑intervention centers to districts, increasing district expenditures.

The presentation included regional and demographic breakdowns. Holt said successful schools were identified through a regression model comparing predicted and actual achievement and that those schools are not always the highest absolute performers but outperform expectations given student characteristics. Committee members asked for the methodological details and were told the regression formula and lists of identified schools are in the methodologies binder provided to members.

The briefing concluded with a summary chart showing that, when all funding sources are counted, many matrix lines are funded at higher levels in actual district spending but supervisory aids remain one area where spending lags the foundation amount. Members requested follow‑up materials, including enrollment overlays and redacted survey responses.

The committee paused the spending briefing for time and scheduled the remainder for a subsequent meeting.