School district spending analysis—Fiscal year 2021

Glossary of key terms

  • Spending areas
  • District demographic information
  • District peer groups
  • Spending area calculations
  • Operationa efficiency measure calculations
  • Average teacher salary and other measures
Throughout this analysis, we use certain key terms and categories when describing and analyzing school district spending. These terms and categories are from the U.S. Department of Education’s (DOE) National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), which prescribes requirements for district and state reporting, providing the ability to compare individual Arizona school districts’ spending to Arizona peer districts’ averages and Arizona’s spending to national averages, as well as monitor Arizona’s and individual Arizona districts’ spending over time.1 Specifically, total spending represents a district’s combined operational and nonoperational spending, which are broken down by their respective areas below. Operational spending, which is the focus of many of the graphics on the State and individual district results pages, includes instructional spending as well as spending for student support, instruction support, administration, plant operations, food service, and transportation. The colors labeling each operational area below mirror the colors labeling the areas on the State and individual district results pages.

Total spending:

Total spending represents districts' combined operational spending and nonoperational spending.

Operational spending

Operational spending includes costs school districts incurred for their day-to-day operations in these 7 categories:

Instruction

Teachers, teachers’ aides, substitute teachers, graders, guest lecturers, general instructional supplies, instructional aids, field trips, athletics, co-curricular activities, and tuition

Student support

Counselors, audiologists, speech pathologists, nurses, social workers, and attendance services

Instruction support

Librarians, teacher training, curriculum development, special education directors, media specialists, and instruction-related technology services

Administration

Superintendents, principals, business managers, clerical, and other staff who perform accounting, payroll, purchasing, warehousing, printing, human resource activities, and administrative technology services; and other costs related to these services and the governing board

Plant operations

Equipment repair, building maintenance, custodial services, groundskeeping, and security; and costs for heating, cooling, lighting, and property insurance

Food service

Food supplies and other costs related to preparing, transporting, and serving meals and snacks

Transportation

Costs related to maintaining buses and transporting students to and from school and school activities

Nonoperational spending

Nonoperational spending includes costs school districts incurred to acquire capital assets (such as purchasing or leasing land, buildings, and equipment), interest, and programs such as adult education and community service that are outside the scope of preschool through grade 12 education, but excludes principal payments on bond debt.2 Nonoperational spending includes costs in these 4 categories:

Land and buildings

Purchasing or leasing land and existing buildings, constructing and renovating school buildings, and improving school grounds

Equipment

Purchasing or leasing initial, additional, and replacement equipment, such as furniture, vehicles, and technology-related hardware and noninstructional software

Interest

Interest on long and short-term debt

Other

Remaining nonoperational spending, primarily consisting of adult education, community service programs, and civic activities
1
Since 2001, revisions in expenditure-reporting requirements or clarifications were made to the Arizona Uniform Chart of Accounts for school districts to comply with changes made to the federal chart of accounts or other federal and State reporting requirement changes. Our definitions of key terms and categories have followed these requirements.
2
We include the expenditures districts make with bond revenues for the acquisition or improvement of capital assets in nonoperational spending, but we exclude the principal payments districts make to repay the bond debt so as not to double-count expenditures in total spending.

County

Our analysis of Arizona Department of Education (ADE)-provided county data. For district boundaries encompassing more than 1 county, the county in which the district office resides is presented.

Peer group

To compare districts’ operational spending, we developed operational peer groups. See the District peer groups section below.

Legislative district(s)

Our analysis of school district and legislative district boundaries.

Location

Our analysis of the NCES’ fiscal year 2020 (the most recent year for available data) urban-centric locale codes that use geocoding and population information to assign a designation based on proximity to population clusters. The 4 main categories are city, suburb, town, and rural.

Number of schools

Our analysis of ADE-provided, district-reported attending average daily membership (ADM) reports and Arizona Department of Administration School Facilities Oversight Board (ADOA-SFOB) district-wide building reports.

Graduation rate

For districts serving high school students, the fiscal year 2020 (the most recent year for available data) 4-year cohort graduation rates obtained from ADE in August 2021. The State average is the fiscal year 2020 graduation rate reported by ADE.

Students attending

Our analysis of ADE-provided, district-reported attending ADM counts. ADM numbers are rounded to the nearest whole number.

Size

District sizes were categorized as follows:

Size Students attending
Very small Fewer than 200
Small 200 to 499
Medium-small 500 to 1,199
Medium 1,200 to 1,999
Medium-large 2,000 to 5,999
Large 6,000 to 14,999
Very-large 15,000+

5-year change in students attending

Our analysis of ADE-provided, district-reported attending ADM counts for fiscal years 2016 and 2021.

Special education population

Our analysis of ADE-provided, district-reported special education unduplicated attending ADM counts and ADE-provided, district-reported total attending ADM counts. The district and State percentages were calculated by dividing special education ADM by total ADM.

English learner population

Our analysis of ADE-provided, district-reported English learner unduplicated attending ADM counts and ADE-provided, district-reported total attending ADM counts. The district and State percentages were calculated by dividing English learner ADM by total ADM.

Poverty rate

Our analysis of U.S. Census Bureau fiscal year 2020 (the most recent year for available data) Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates published in December 2021. District and State poverty rates were calculated by dividing the number of children 5 to 17 years old who were living at or below the federal poverty level by the total number of children 5 to 17 years old living in the district or State.

To compare districts’ administration, plant operations, and food service spending measures relative to peer groups’, we developed operational peer groups using district size, type, and location because these factors are associated with school districts’ spending measures in these areas. The 7 district size categories are defined above in the District demographic information section. The 2 district type categories are elementary and high school/unified. We grouped union high school districts with unified districts because both districts serve high school students. The 2 location categories are cities/suburbs and town/rural areas. The U.S. Census Bureau classifies districts by distance and population density into 4 main categories: city, suburb, town, and rural. We grouped together districts located in city and suburban areas and grouped together districts located in town and rural areas. Considering these 3 factors, we created 12 operational peer groups to compare district operations in administration, plant operations, and food service operations. These peer groups are labeled Operational 1 through 12, and each includes between 8 and 58 districts.
Operational peer group 1
Type
Unified and Union High School
Location
Cities and suburbs
Size
Very large
Number of districts
11
Operational peer group 2
Type
Unified and Union High School
Location
Cities and suburbs
Size
Large
Number of districts
11
Operational peer group 3
Type
Unified and Union High School
Location
Cities and suburbs
Size
Medium-large and Medium
Number of districts
13
Operational peer group 4
Type
Unified and Union High School
Location
Towns and rural areas
Size
Large and Medium-large
Number of districts
16
Operational peer group 5
Type
Unified and Union High School
Location
Towns and rural areas
Size
Medium
Number of districts
18
Operational peer group 6
Type
Unified and Union High School
Location
Towns and rural areas
Size
Medium-small
Number of districts
15
Operational peer group 7
Type
Unified and Union High School
Location
Towns and rural areas
Size
Small
Number of districts
17
Operational peer group 8
Type
Elementary School
Location
Cities and suburbs
Size
Very large and Large
Number of districts
11
Operational peer group 9
Type
Elementary School
Location
Cities and suburbs
Size
Medium-large, Medium, and Medium-small
Number of districts
18
Operational peer group 10
Type
Elementary School
Location
Towns and rural areas
Size
Medium-large, Medium, and Medium-small
Number of districts
11
Operational peer group 11
Type
Elementary School
Location
Towns and rural areas
Size
Small
Number of districts
8
Operational peer group 12
Type
Elementary School, Unified, and Union High School
Location
Towns and rural areas
Size
Very small
Number of districts
58
Operational peer group number Type Location Size Number of districts
1 Unified and Union High School Cities and suburbs Very large 11
2 Unified and Union High School Cities and suburbs Large 11
3 Unified and Union High School Cities and suburbs Medium-large and Medium 13
4 Unified and Union High School Towns and rural areas Large and Medium-large 16
5 Unified and Union High School Towns and rural areas Medium 18
6 Unified and Union High School Towns and rural areas Medium-small 15
7 Unified and Union High School Towns and rural areas Small 17
8 Elementary School Cities and suburbs Very large and Large 11
9 Elementary School Cities and suburbs Medium-large, Medium, and Medium-small 18
10 Elementary School Towns and rural areas Medium-large, Medium, and Medium-small 11
11 Elementary School Towns and rural areas Small 8
12 Elementary School, Unified, and Union High School Towns and rural areas Very small 58
To see a full listing of the districts included in each operational peer group, see our downloadable data file on the Resources page. Some districts are excluded from the peer average for certain operational measures because their extreme values would skew the peer average. The following districts are excluded from the peer average for all operational measures because their extreme values would skew the peer average: Baboquivari USD, Chinle USD, Fountain Hills USD, Ft. Thomas USD, Grand Canyon USD, Hillside ESD, Kayenta USD, Mobile ESD, Phoenix ESD, Phoenix UHSD, Piñon USD, Red Mesa USD, Sacaton ESD, Sanders USD, Sentinel ESD, and Whiteriver USD. Further, if we determined that a district’s information for a specific measure is not reliable (NR), we excluded it from peer averages for measures using that data.

Spending by operational area

Our analysis of spending in each operational area divided by total operational spending, using district-reported accounting data and Annual Financial Reports (AFRs). The peer average instructional spending percentages were calculated by adding individual districts’ instructional spending percentages and dividing by the number of districts in each peer group. The classroom spending percentages were calculated by adding individual districts’ instructional, student support, and instruction support percentages. The nonclassroom spending percentages were calculated by adding individual districts’ administration, plant operations, food service, and transportation percentages. On the State results page, we also include a breakdown of the spending in the nonclassroom areas of administration, plant operations, food service, and transportation by category to help provide additional context as to what districts are generally spending on when allocating funds to those areas.

Instructional spending percentage highlights

Our analysis of district-reported accounting data and AFRs for fiscal years 2001 through 2021. When a district’s lowest or highest percentage value occurred in multiple years, the most recent year was reported.

Percentage point change in spending by area

Our analysis of the change in the percentage spent in each operational area between fiscal years 2016 and 2021, and between fiscal years 2020 and 2021 using district-reported accounting data and AFRs.

Per pupil spending by area

  • District

    Our analysis of fiscal years 2020 and 2021 operational and nonoperational spending divided by the number of students, using district-reported accounting data and AFRs, and ADE-provided, district-reported attending ADM data.

  • Peer average

    Our analysis of operational peer districts’ per pupil spending. The peer group averages exclude districts with extreme or unreliable values and were calculated by averaging individual districts’ per pupil spending in each operational and nonoperational area.

  • State average

    Our analysis of district-reported accounting data and AFRs, and ADE-provided, district-reported attending ADM data. The State’s per pupil amounts were calculated by dividing total spending in each operational and nonoperational area by the total ADM.

  • National average

    NCES’ fiscal year 2019 data, the most recently available national data.

Operational measures relative to peer averages

We compared some district operational spending measures to peer group averages. We identified whether the district’s spending measures were very low/very high, low/high, or comparable to its peer averages and indicated the determination by a color bar for each spending measure. The operational measures and relativity to peer group averages are explained in more detail below. In addition, for the 58 very small districts, we provided comparative information but did not identify the relativity with a color bar because these districts’ spending patterns are highly variable and result in less meaningful group averages. The peer averages were calculated by averaging individual districts’ numbers for each measure. Some districts were excluded from peer averages for certain operational measures because their extreme values would skew the peer average. The following criteria were used to determine the operational measures relative to peer averages:
  • Very low—Lower than the peer average by more than 15 percent.
  • Low—Lower than the peer average by 5.01 to 15 percent.
  • Comparable—Within 5 percent of the peer average.
  • High—Higher than the peer average by 5.01 to 15 percent.
  • Very high—Higher than the peer average by more than 15 percent.

Administration

  • Spending per pupil

    Our analysis of administrative spending divided by the number of students, using district-reported accounting data and ADE-provided, district-reported attending ADM data.

  • Students per administrative position

    The number of students divided by the number of administrative full-time equivalent employees (FTEs), using ADE-provided, district-reported attending ADM data and district-reported information on the School District Employee Report.

Plant operations

  • Spending per square foot

    Our analysis of plant operations and maintenance spending divided by the total square footage, using district-reported accounting data and ADOA-SFOB-provided, district-confirmed, district-wide square foot totals.

  • Square footage per student

    Our analysis of the total square footage divided by the number of students, using ADOA-SFOB-provided and district-confirmed, district-wide square foot totals and ADE-provided, district-reported attending ADM data.

Food service

  • Spending per meal

    Our analysis of food service spending divided by the total number of meals served, using district-reported accounting data and AFRs.

  • Meals per student

    Our analysis of the total number of meals served divided by the number of students, using AFRs and ADE-provided, district-reported attending ADM data.

Transportation

  • Spending per mile

    Our analysis of transportation spending divided by the total miles driven, using district-reported accounting data and ADE-provided, district-reported transportation route reports.

  • Spending per rider

    Our analysis of transportation spending divided by the total eligible riders transported, using district-reported accounting data and ADE-provided, district-reported transportation route reports.

Average teacher salary

Our analysis of total operational spending for certified teacher salaries (excluding salaries for substitute teachers) for fiscal years 2017 through 2021 from district-reported accounting data and the total number of certified teacher FTEs from district-reported Classroom Site Fund Narrative Results Summaries (CSF Narratives). The average teacher salary is based on total salaries paid related to teaching duties, including Proposition 301 monies, but does not include any salaries paid for additional duties such as cocurricular activities and athletics. The district and State averages were calculated by dividing the total teacher salaries by the total certified teacher FTEs. If an individual district’s average teacher salary graphic has a discontinuous trend line, it means the data is not reliable for particular years.

Amount from Prop 301

Our analysis of the total Proposition 301 (Classroom Site Fund) monies for fiscal years 2017 through 2021 spent on teacher salaries and the total number of certified teacher FTEs from district-reported accounting data and CSF Narratives. The district and State averages were calculated by totaling the Proposition 301 amount paid to teachers and dividing by the total certified teacher FTEs.

Students per teacher

Our analysis of ADE-provided, district-reported attending ADM data and certified teacher FTEs as reported by districts on their CSF Narratives for fiscal years 2017 through 2021. The district and State ratios were calculated by dividing total attending ADM by total certified teacher FTEs.

Average years of teacher experience

Our analysis of district-reported certified teacher FTEs and years of experience obtained from ADE for fiscal years 2017 through 2021. The years of experience includes the actual, uncapped number of years of experience for each certified teacher. The district and State years of experience were calculated by dividing the total number of years of experience by the total certified teacher FTEs.

Percentage of teachers in first 3 years

Our analysis of district-reported certified teacher FTEs and years of experience obtained from ADE for fiscal years 2017 through 2021. The district and State percentages were calculated by dividing the number of certified teachers in their first 3 years by the total number of certified teachers.