With the first meeting of the legislature's House budget committee to discuss K-12 funding set for Wednesday, AL.com takes a look at spending per student in Alabama's 137 school districts for the 2015-2016 school year, the latest year for which figures are available.

The most recent figures show that Alabama isn't investing much more money into education than it has in years past. In fact, when the numbers are adjusted for inflation, Alabama isn't even spending as much as it did in 2006, more than a decade ago.

That makes it a struggle for school officials who are trying to meet the needs of their communities, according to Dr. Eric Mackey, Executive Director of the School Superintendents of Alabama.

"Our problem's always been in this state, we talk about redirecting the money we already have," Mackey said. "And we just don't have a lot [of money]."

On average, for fiscal year 2016, which ended Sept. 30, 2016, Alabama taxpayers spent $9,213 per pupil to educate Alabama's 730,000-plus students. That includes $5,964 in state-provided funding, $1,314 in federal funding, and $1,936 in local taxpayer funding.

A decade ago, in fiscal year 2006, the total dollar amount was $7,609, making it look like Alabama is spending $1,600 more per student.

However, when you adjust for inflation, spending in 2006 was equivalent to $8,391 per student, and spending in 2016 equals $8,070 per student. In 2005, that inflation-adjusted amount was $8,077.

Adjusting the numbers for inflation is sobering, considering how much is expected of students and schools in addition to the changes in technology over the past 10 years.

In nationwide comparisons, Alabama generally shows up in the bottom third of all states. In 2015, the latest nationwide numbers available, only 11 states spent fewer dollars per student than Alabama did.

In the following graphic, the thin bar represents average spending per student in a chosen district. The wide bar represents the state average.

Per student spending is also referred to as per pupil expenditure or PPE, and that is how they are referred to in the interactive graphics. The numbers were provided by the Alabama state department of education.

The PPE amount leaves out capital expenditures like building new schools, and long-term debt payments. So these spending figures only include teachers, administrators, things that are used in schools, school-based activities in which students engage, operations and maintenance, and transportation.

These are inflation-adjusted figures using 2009 dollars, to allow a fairer comparison from year to year. [If you cannot see the dat, go here]

So, it's one thing to review spending by district over time. It's another thing to look at how districts stack up, one against another.

First, some school finance basics. Schools spend money from three buckets, generally.

The biggest bucket, for all but the wealthiest school districts, is state-provided funding. That money comes from Alabama's Education Trust Fund and averages 65 percent of per student spending.

Alabama hasn't changed the mechanism for doling out state dollars to students, known as the Foundation Program, since 1995. That's the year current interim state superintendent Dr. Ed Richardson was appointed to his first state superintendent position --- 22 years ago.

Few states still use a foundation-type program, according to a 2015 report on how states fund their schools.

Alabama's Foundation Program uses a formula, based on the previous year's student enrollment, to calculate how many teachers the state will fund. Allocations are also made for counselors, school nurses, principals, and assistant principals.

State funding is also provided for classroom needs, such as instructional materials, textbooks, professional development for teachers, and technology.

In addition to the Foundation Program allocation, the state provides additional money for various programs, mostly targeted for "at-risk" students.

The total amount of state funding, Foundation money plus targeted funding, provided to districts on a per student basis ranged from $5,290 in Vestavia Hills, a wealthy suburb of Birmingham, to $7,625 in Sumter County, in the Black Belt area of the state.

Rep. Terri Collins, R-Decatur, is a member of the House Ways and Means Committee and chair of the House Education Policy committee.

"I know that we've increased money for the Foundation Program steadily each year," Collins said, since fiscal year 2012, the first year Republicans had control of the budget process after being swept into the statehouse in the 2010 elections.

Collins said she is very proud that education hasn't had any proration since that time, either. That is due to state passage of the Rolling Reserve Act, which limits the amount of money that can be budgeted using a formula considering the past 15 years' receipts into the Education Trust Fund.

Critics of the Act say it artificially holds down education spending.

The next biggest pot of money contains locally-provided tax dollars. These dollars averaged 21 percent of the total spending, or $1,936 per student, but range from $664 per student in Autauga County which is just north of Montgomery county, to $7,001 per student in Mountain Brook, which shares borders with the city of Birmingham and is the wealthiest suburb in Alabama.

Those local tax dollars are a difference-maker, Mackey said. Those local tax dollars can be used to pay for additional teachers, such as art, music, world language, and other electives, he said. They also cover additional teachers in core classes to reduce class sizes.

Nearly 30 percent, or 119 of the 415 certified staff in Mountain Brook are paid for with local tax dollars, while 15 of Alabama's 137 school districts pay only one certified staff member from local tax dollars.

Those dollars also pay teachers to take on additional duties, like overseeing a Chess club or a Scholar's Bowl. All of those activities equal additional opportunities for students where local money abounds.

The third pot of money contains federal funds. That pot averaged 14 percent, or $1,314 per student statewide, though the range is from $123 per student in Pike Road City, a suburb of Montgomery, to $3,037 per student in Barbour County in southeast Alabama where it makes up nearly 30 percent of the district's overall funding.

Federal funds are typically targeted at populations, including, for example, students in poverty and in special education. Federal funds also pay for the school lunch program.

Which Alabama districts spent the most in 2016?

No surprises here.

The biggest spenders were Mountain Brook schools, averaging $12,811 per student. The district that spent the least: Autauga County schools at $7,615 per student.

It's not hard to imagine what opportunities that extra $5,200 might afford a student in Mountain Brook.

Here's a look at the map of Alabama's school districts. The darker green indicates higher levels of spending. Hover over a district for more information. [If you cannot see the map, go here.]

Here's a look at Alabama's school districts, with spending broken down into those three pots: state, federal, and local dollars. [If you cannot see the chart, go here.]

Does the amount of spending matter?

How public schools are funded is a hot topic, with a number of states embroiled in state litigation, having been ordered to determine a better way to fund schools, to send more money to schools, or both.

Washington, Kansas, and Pennsylvania are three of the states dominating recent school funding headlines.

One of the questions that is often asked is whether more spending means better student outcomes. Researchers can argue either side of that argument.

The complexity of factors that are in play inside schools makes it difficult to generalize whether more money always equals better outcomes.

Some districts, like Mountain Brook schools, who average spending nearly $13,000 per student, have great student outcomes overall.

Other districts, like Greene County in west Alabama, whose spending averages just under $12,000, struggle to achieve the same student outcomes when using similar measures.

The total amount of spending certainly matters, but how that money is spent matters a lot, Mackey said.

And different areas of the state have different needs, he said. Rural areas are looking for ways to increase their investment in workforce and career tech opportunities for their students, Mackey said.

Other districts, Mackey said, are looking for ways to pay for wraparound services and increased costs in special education.

And investing money in teachers and students is crucial to improving student outcomes, he said.

Former state superintendent Dr. Tommy Bice commissioned a study in 2013 at a cost of nearly $350,000 that showed Alabama's state-provided funding did not afford a basic, or adequate education.

Additionally, the study found the mechanism for distributing funding was inequitable, short-changing those school districts that had little capacity to tax themselves to collect more money for schools. The results were presented to the state board of education in September 2015.

Without acting on the study, the state department shelved it. Though it was never formally presented to lawmakers, it is unclear if it was ever shared in any form with them.

What is clear is that the results were never acted on.

APA Consulting, which has worked in all 50 states and provided framework for building equitable school funding systems across the country, estimated the state should send 20 to 35 percent more in state funding just to reach adequate levels, to provide a minimally adequate education that met the expectations of families and communities.

APA also found the state's method of doling out dollars was inequitable because it didn't recognize the different needs of students and recommended using a statewide formula to do so.

Thirty-seven states use a student-based funding formula, the type APA recommended, according to a 2015 report from EdBuild, a national nonprofit focused on finding ways to bring fairness to state education funding.

A student-based funding formula calculates a base amount for all students, and allocates additional funding for the cost of educating specific groups of students.

Research shows it simply takes more money to educate some students, consultants said at the time.

For example, in the study, APA recommended an additional 30 percent of the base amount be added for each "at risk" student, which includes students in poverty and students who are learning the English language.

House budget committee member Collins said lawmakers have looked at what it would take to move to a weighted-student funding formula, but said the state doesn't currently have a longitudinal data system, which she said is needed to create such a formula.

Alabama has an aversion to increasing taxes, though, so it's likely money would just be moved from one area to another, Mackey said, which doesn't accomplish much.

When asked what he wished people who don't have kids in Alabama's public schools understood about per pupil spending, Mackey said he wished people understood how much more schools do for kids now.

"When people look at those raw numbers," Mackey said, "they don't realize what schools are doing now compared to what schools used to do."

Using the analogy of how much more expensive cars are now than they were 20 years ago, Mackey said that's due in part to the additional technology in cars, safety features like air bags and anti-lock brakes. All of those improvements just cost more money, he said.

In a similar way, schools have made investments in technology, infrastructure, additional safety measures, in addition to the wraparound supports and health services mentioned previously. All of that costs more money, too.

"The main purpose is still for kids to learn to read and do math and be able to move on and be good citizens," he said, "but there is so much more now involved."