Rhode Island is on the right track. Educators and their many partners are working hard, with a sharpened focus on improving student performance. The achievement gaps outlined above, however, are large and will require sustained effort and attention to close. Three challenges loom as potential threats to our collective ability to fully implement Article 31. These challenges are establishing equity, building capacity and maintaining political will and support. Establishing Equity The General Assembly and the Governor took an important step toward establishing equity with the passage of Article 31. Article 31 allocated an additional $25 million in state aid, nearly $18 million of which was distributed to districts based on need. Of the total $25 million, roughly $17 million went to our four poorest districts – Central Falls, Pawtucket, Providence, and Woonsocket. Rhode Island’s progress toward establishing equity has been recognized at the national level. In Education Week’s 1998 Quality Counts report, Rhode Island received a "C" in the area of equity, as compared to a "D" last year.(3)However, substantial inequities still remain. Rhode Island’s average per pupil instructional expenditure is $3,781. This average instructional expenditure masks a considerable range. In 1996, total per pupil instructional expenditures when adjusted for student needs 4 ranged from a low of $2,884 in Central Falls to a high of $5,636 in Narragansett. 
Instructional dollars are also spent differently, depending on the needs of the students in a particular district. Chart 10 shows the general and targeted instructional expenditures per pupil in a sample of eight districts. The four districts on the left – Central Falls, Providence, Pawtucket and Woonsocket – have low per pupil expenditures relative to the state as a whole. The four districts on the right – Portsmouth, East Greenwich, Scituate and Barrington – have high per pupil expenditures relative to the state as a whole. Looking at this chart, you see that the four poorer districts spend considerably more on instructional programs for students with special needs than do the wealthier districts, while spending considerably less on the general instruction that all students receive. Poorer districts in Rhode Island are fiscally unable to meet the needs of all their students. Rhode Islanders, collectively, must address these disparities and their effects in order to help all students reach high standards. The need to address these disparities becomes especially apparent when we understand where Rhode Island’s students live."All Rhode Islanders - whether they still live in the cities or are among those who moved out to the suburbs after the second World War - share a common urban heritage. Likewise, the future of Rhode Island is inextricably linked with the destiny of its cities." The Urban Strategy Project. (1998). Strengthening Cities. Providence, RI: Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council, Executive Summary.
Chart 11 tracks relative tax capacity, relative effort and cumulative enrollment across districts.(5) Districts are ordered by their relative ability to fund education. The number beside the name of each district represents that district’s student population. The vertical line running down the chart marks the point at which 50 percent of the state’s total student enrollment is reached. Districts for which relative effort is greater than relative capacity are "maxed out" in terms of their ability to locally fund education. Looking at the chart you can see that with the exceptions of Bristol Warren and Coventry, all the districts to the left of the vertical line are "maxed out," and with the exception of Cranston, all the districts to the right of the vertical line are not. Cranston has a larger student population than Bristol Warren and Coventry combined. This means that over 50 percent of Rhode Island’s students live in the nine communities in which local effort already outstrips local capacity. These nine communities include eight of the ten (excluding Newport and Warwick) characterized as "urban" by the Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council’s Urban Strategy Project in its report Strengthening Cities.(6) These communities are challenged by deteriorating infrastructure, higher crime rates, greater needs for housing and other social services and high effective property tax rates. Addressing the needs of these communities will require not only additional support and targeted resources for education, but also, the report argues, more comprehensive efforts to coordinate state and local policies and programs, build strong neighborhoods, improve fiscal competiveness and infrastructure, and create jobs. Even within the eight urban communities, radically different needs exist. Central Falls, Pawtucket, Providence and Woonsocket, for example, have lower per pupil expenditures, greater concentrations of high need students and lower fiscal capacity than do the other four communities.GO TO: Return to the Statewide Analysis Home Page || Return to the Information Works Home Page |
