This page gives residents an apples-to-apples look at how New Providence compares with six peer districts using verified per-pupil ACFR data. A rank of 1st means the highest per-student spending in that category among the seven-district peer group. A lower spending rank is not automatically a bad sign. In New Providence’s case, it should be viewed alongside student performance and whether the district is delivering strong results without spending at the level of some peers.
New Providence has the lowest total cost per pupil in the peer group and the lowest total instruction spend, but that does not automatically suggest underperformance or neglect. When lower spending exists alongside comparatively strong proficiency, it can also point to a district that is getting more out of each dollar than some of its peers. That makes the district’s few high-cost outliers more important to examine, not less.
New Providence’s classroom spending profile is clearly lower than its peers. On its own, that might raise concern. But if proficiency remains comparatively strong, residents should read this less as a warning sign and more as a prompt to ask how the district is structuring instruction and whether those choices are working better than higher-spending models elsewhere.
New Providence spends less than its peers in several core instructional categories, but the district’s broader academic picture matters here. If performance is holding up or outperforming districts that spend more, the takeaway is not simply that New Providence is “behind.” It may mean the district is operating more efficiently in core instruction than some higher-cost peers.
This is where New Providence becomes especially interesting. A district that is low-spending overall but ranks at the top in total administration should not be described as simply cheap or lean. It suggests the district may be controlling costs in some areas while allowing others to run high.
The real tension in New Providence’s profile is not that it spends less overall. It is that a lower-cost district with solid performance still ranks 1st in total administration and 1st in admin information tech. That does not erase the district’s efficient overall profile, but it does create a legitimate question about whether those particular overhead categories are proportionate.
New Providence’s special education picture is unusually split, with several lowest-ranked categories and a few lines at the very top.
This is one of the most uneven sections on the page. New Providence ranks 1st of 7 in both learning & language disabilities and other school placement, but also ranks 7th of 7 in total special education, resource room, autism, and other support (extra services).
These categories reflect counseling, activities, health services, library/media, bilingual support, and remedial services.
Student-support spending is mixed. Athletics ranks 2nd of 7 and cocurricular activities ranks 3rd of 7, but health services ranks 7th of 7 and basic skills/remedial ranks 6th of 7.
This is one of New Providence’s strongest sections. Several administrative categories rank near the top, including total administration itself.
New Providence ranks 1st of 7 in admin information tech and 1st of 7 in total administration overall, even while ranking at the bottom in legal fees and central services and near the bottom in school administration. This is another category-composition story, not a simple one-line conclusion.
These are the costs of running the district day to day: transportation, security, facility maintenance, custodial services, and grounds.
Operations is a relatively low-spending section for New Providence. Transportation, security, facility maintenance, and grounds all rank near the bottom, while custodial services ranks 7th of 7.
These charts show not just where New Providence ranks in 2025, but how spending has moved over time relative to the seven-district average.

New Providence ranks 7th of 7 overall on total per-pupil cost.

Total instruction ranks 7th of 7 in 2025.

Regular classroom instruction ranks 7th of 7.

Staff training lands 4th of 7.

Textbook spending ranks 7th of 7.

This category ranks 7th of 7.

Total special education ranks 7th of 7.

Resource room spending ranks 7th of 7.

Out-of-district placement ranks 1st of 7.

Child study teams ranks 6th of 7.

Autism services rank 7th of 7.

Speech-related services rank 4th of 7.

This category ranks 1st of 7.

This category ranks 7th of 7.

Cocurricular activities rank 3rd of 7.

Athletics ranks 2nd of 7 among peers.

Guidance spending ranks 4th of 7.

Health services rank 7th of 7.

Library/media spending ranks 4th of 7.

Basic skills/remedial ranks 6th of 7.

Bilingual education ranks 5th of 7.

This line item ranks 3rd of 7.

School administration ranks 6th of 7.

Central services rank 7th of 7.

Administrative information technology ranks 1st of 7.

Legal fees rank 7th of 7.

Employee benefits rank 3rd of 7.

This broader admin bucket ranks 3rd of 7.

Total administration ranks 1st of 7 overall.

Transportation ranks 6th of 7.

Security ranks 6th of 7 and uses a 2022-2025 per-pupil trend.

Facility maintenance ranks 6th of 7.

Custodial services rank 7th of 7.

Grounds spending ranks 6th of 7.