The CPRE Wisconsin School Finance Adequacy Initiative: K-12 Education Today - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 101
About This Presentation

The CPRE Wisconsin School Finance Adequacy Initiative: K-12 Education Today


How much money per pupil is needed to educate students to Wisconsin's proficiency standards? ... Help us find our way through the thicket of Wisconsin SF data ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:69
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 102
Provided by: SarahAr6


Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: The CPRE Wisconsin School Finance Adequacy Initiative: K-12 Education Today

The CPRE Wisconsin School Finance Adequacy
Initiative K-12 Education Today
  • Allan Odden
  • Anabel Aportela, Sarah Archibald, and Michael
  • Consortium for Policy Research in Education
  • July 13, 2005

Our Goal
  • To conduct a school finance adequacy study, or
    what the Doyle Commission called, a cost-out
  • How much money per pupil is needed to educate
    students to Wisconsins proficiency standards?
  • There are many more details, but the above is the
    core of our Initiative

What We Will Produce
  • We will produce a per pupil number, with
    adjustments for varying pupil needs, and school
    and district contexts
  • We will show how this would work in a foundation
    school finance formula, that is funded with a
    combination of state and local dollars, and
    allows any district to spend above the foundation
    expenditure level if it wants to no limits on

What We Will Produce
  • We intend to build to a foundation level by
    showing resources for each school in the state,
  • We will have on our web site our proposed
    resources for every school in the state or most

Comparisons to Current Resources
  • You will probably want to know how what we will
    propose for each school compares with current
  • Very hard to do because we do not have school
    level resource data, and very hard even if we did
  • We would be willing to collect resources for a
    range of schools in a range of districts, if we
    had volunteers from the Task Force would
    require about 1 day of work with us per school

Roles of the Task Force
  • Understand what we are doing and communicate
    to/with their constituencies
  • Contextualize our approach to Wisconsin
  • Add important Wisconsin information, perspective
  • Tailor the recommendations to Wisconsin and its
    school system
  • Raise issues we may have overlooked

Roles of our Policy Analyst Advisors
  • Be our critical friends
  • Critique and help us improve our analyses
  • Provide additional insight from their own
    research and experiences
  • Keep us honest
  • Help us maintain our credibility with the
    Wisconsin education policy analysis community

Roles of the Work Group
  • Help us find our way through the thicket of
    Wisconsin SF data
  • Insure that our analyses use the right data and
    are on target
  • Help maintain good and clear communication
    between our UW-CPRE group and the key state
    agencies that conduct the official school finance
    analyses for the state

Task Force Members Concerns and Issues Related
to Wisconsin School Finance Adequacy
  1. Context of Wisconsin Education, Spending and
    Teacher Salaries
  2. Wisconsin Student Achievement
  3. Current School Finance System
  4. Equity Analysis
  5. Previous Wisconsin Adequacy Studies
  6. Our Approach to Wisconsin Adequacy

1. Wisconsin Context
Wisconsin State Population Since 1995
Increase of 8.45 since 1995
Source Department of Administration, State of
Population Growth Unevenly Distributed
  • Most growth is in four areas
  • The counties around Hudson, which are becoming
    commuting communities for the Twin Cities
  • Dane County and surrounding counties
  • SE Wisconsin, which is becoming more of a
    commuting community for the greater Chicago
  • In and around Green Bay

Percent Population Growth Since 1995Top 20
Wisconsin Student Population Since 1995
Increase of 2.26 since 1995
Source Department of Public Instruction, State
of Wisconsin
School Districts in Declining Enrollment
Fiscal Year of Declining Enrollment Districts (Using Revenue Limit Definition) Percentage of All School Districts
1997-98 131 30.8
1998-99 163 38.3
1999-00 188 44.1
2000-01 193 45.3
2001-02 216 50.7
2002-03 232 54.5
2003-04 250 58.7
2004-05 267 62.7
Number of School Districts byTotal Enrollment,
Total Enrollment Number of Districts
10,000 11
5,000 9,999 17
4,000 4,999 13
3,000 3,999 24
2,000 2,999 42
1,000 1,999 106
500 999 128
1 499 101
Total Districts 442
426 districts, 16 Independent Charter schools
30 of Enrollment
30 of Enrollment
Source Department of Public Instruction, State
of Wisconsin
Student Enrollment and Diversity
Ethnicity 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004
Asian American 3.35 3.35 3.37
African American 10.15 10.36 10.52
Hispanic 4.96 5.38 5.83
American Indian 1.42 1.46 1.45
White 80.11 79.45 78.83
Source Department of Public Instruction, State
of Wisconsin
WI v. National School FinanceChange in Real
Exp. Per Pupil
Nation Wisconsin
1960-1970 69 66
1970-1980 22 16
1980-1990 48 60
1960-1990 206 So tripled! 209 So tripled!
1990-2000 7 11
WI v. Nation Expenditures
National Wisconsin WI Advantage
1981 2436 2670 9.6
1986 3555 3973 11
1991 5248 5946 14
1996 6103 7093 16
2001 7436 9043 22
2005 8554 9881 16
Wisconsin Per Pupil Expenditures1995-2005
Wisconsin Personal Income1995-2005
Percent Changes in Personal Income and Per Pupil
Increase in Expenditures Per pupil v. Increases
in Personal Income Per Capita
  • Annual increases in expenditures per pupil and
    Wisconsin personal income per capita tracked each
    other quite well from 1996 to 2001
  • After that, expenditures grew at a faster pace
    than personal income, but that divergence began
    to change in 2005, though we have only estimated
    data for 2005

Wisconsin and Surrounding StatesPer Pupil
Expenditures, 2004-2005
WI v. Nation Teacher Salaries
National Wisconsin WI Advantage
1981 17,602 17,607 0
1986 25,206 26,347 4.5
1991 33,015 33,100 0
1996 37,560 38,182 2
2001 42,988 41,646 - 3
2005 47,750 43,466 - 9
National Average Teacher Salaries1997-2003
Wisconsin Average Teacher SalariesV. National
Average 1997-2003
Wisconsin Average Teacher Salariesv. Surrounding
States 1997-2003
2. Student Achievement
Major Trends in Achievement
  1. Scores on Wisconsins state tests in terms of
    at or above proficiency are twice as high as on
    the NAEP tests, which have a common national
  2. Student test scores have not changed dramatically
    over the past 5-10 years
  3. About 80 of students score at or above
    proficiency on state tests and about 1/3 on NAEP

Major Trends in Achievement
  1. Yes, Wisconsin is above the national average, but
    the nation on average is educating only about 30
    of students to or above proficiency
  2. Using a rigorous national standard, Wisconsin has
    a long way to go to educate 80 students to or
    above proficiency
  3. According to the Education Trust, Wisconsins
    success with minority students is not good and
    the statewide achievement gap worsens from
    elementary, to middle to high school

Wisconsin 3rd Grade Reading Comprehension
Source Wisconsin Department of Public
National Assessment of Educational ProgressGrade
4 Reading1992-2003
Source NAEP
National Assessment of Educational ProgressGrade
4 Reading 2003
WKCE/WAA CombinedGrade 4 Mathematics2002-2004
Source Wisconsin Department of Public
National Assessment of Educational ProgressGrade
4 Mathematics1992-2003
Source NAEP
NAEP Mathematics Percent at or Above Proficient
Grade 4
WKCE/WAA CombinedGrade 8 Reading2002-2004
Source Wisconsin Department of Public
National Assessment of Educational ProgressGrade
8 Reading1998-2003
Source NAEP
NAEP Reading Percent at or Above Proficient
Grade 8
WKCE/WAA CombinedGrade 8 Mathematics2002-2004
Source Wisconsin Department of Public
National Assessment of Educational ProgressGrade
8 Mathematics1990-2003
Source NAEP
NAEP Mathematics Percent at or Above Proficient
Grade 8
WKCE/WAA CombinedGrade 10 Mathematics2002-2004
Source Wisconsin Department of Public
WKCE/WAA CombinedGrade 10 Reading2002-2004
Source Wisconsin Department of Public
3. Current Wisconsin Finance System
Wisconsin School Finance Structure2004-05
  • Tier 1 Focus here is property tax relief for all
  • Primary Guarantee GTB of 1.93 million for first
    1,000 of spending this requires about a 0.52
    mill tax rate
  • Tier 2
  • Secondary Guarantee GTB of around 98th
    percentile, but varies with funding level
    estimated at 1,006,510 for 2004-05
  • Secondary Cost Ceiling For spending up to a set
    level, that increased by law about 200-400 each
    year now set at 90 of statewide average shared
    cost per pupil about 7,782 for 2004-05, or 6.74
  • Almost all districts have shared costs today
    above the secondary cost ceiling, a fact that was
    not true in the 1990s as a later slide will show
  • So total mills for Tier 1 and Tier 2 is 7.26
  • Tier 3
  • Tertiary Guarantee GTB at state average about
    407,300 for 2004-05
  • No spending ceiling, and no penalty for districts
    with assessed value at or below the secondary
  • But for districts with wealth above that,
    negative aid that reduces Tier 2 aid at most down
    to zero Tier 1 aid stays the same and by law
    cannot be reduced by negative aid in Tier 3

Wisconsin School Finance Structure2004-05
  • Revenue Limits
  • Each year each district can increase its revenues
    per pupil by a fixed amount set by law, which
    ranged from 190 per pupil in 1993-94 to 241 for
    2004-05 it can increase revenues above this only
    with a referendum with a simple majority
    approval whatever is approved is rolled into the
    districts shared cost for the next school year.
    Districts with shared costs below 7,800 in
    2004-05 could increase spending to that level
    without a referendum.
  • Qualified Economic Offer
  • If an increase in salary and benefits cannot be
    agreed to during collective bargaining, the
    district can impose a QEO if it offers at least
    an increase of 3.8 percent in salary and
    benefits, excluding the extra costs of the
    education units and degrees. Recently health
    care costs have increased at a rate higher than 4
    percent so can eat up all dollars in a QEO.

Categories of Districts ReceivingGeneral
Equalization Aid in 2004-05
  • Category Number of Districts of Total
  • Positive Primary Secondary Aid 18 4.2
  • Positive Primary, Secondary Tertiary Aid 249
  • Negative Tertiary Aid 117 27.5
  • Primary Aid Only 37 8.7
  • Special Adjustment Aid Only 5 1.2
  • Total 426 100.0

Additional WI School Funding Programs
  • State School Aid Appropriation 2004-05 Funding
  • 1. General Equalization Aid
  • 2. Special Education Aid 320,771,600
  • SAGE Aid 95,029,600
  • Milwaukee Parental Choice Program
  • 5. Integration Aid (Chapter 220)
  • 6. Milwaukee/Racine Charter School Program
  • 7. Transportation Aid 17,742,500
  • 8. Special Adjustment Aid
  • 9. Tuition Payments Aid 9,741,000
  • 10. Bilingual-Bicultural Aid
  • Includes 60 million from
    transportation fund (Segregated Fund) and
  • MPCP (45) and MRCSP (100) funds
  • 55 of funding is from state and 45 from
    Milwaukee Public Schools
  • (MPS) general equalization aid reduction
  • 100 of funding is from general equalization
    aid reduction to all 426
  • school districts

  • 4. Wisconsin Equity Analysis

Wisconsin School Finance Equity
  • 1. The two key equity statistics indicating
    degree of equal dollars per pupil are the
    coefficient of variation (CV) and McLoone Index
  • CV benchmark is less than or equal to 10
  • McLoone benchmark is greater than or equal to 95
  • 2. The key equity statistic for the linkage
    between dollars per pupil and property wealth per
    pupil is the wealth elasticity
  • Wealth elasticity benchmark is less than or equal
    to 10

Wisconsin Status on Equity Goal of Equal
SpendingEquity StatisticsAid Years 1990-91
through 2002-03
Both CV and McLoone generally within equity
benchmarks over the 1990s
Wisconsins Status on Equity Goal of Equal
AccessFiscal Neutrality StatisticsAid Years
1990-91 through 2002-03
Wealth elasticity fell to below 10 over the 1990s
Summary Data for Wisconsin School Finance1990-91
through 1998-99 Aid YearsGTB Levels, Shared Cost
Ceilings Percentile Rankings
Primary guarantee covered most students, as did
the secondary guarantee, beginning in 1996-97,
making it one of the highest GTB programs in the
Summary Data for Wisconsin School Finance1990-91
through 1997-98 Aid YearsGTB Levels, Shared Cost
Ceilings, Minimum Aid Districts Percentile
Top shared cost ceiling used to cover large
percentage of students, but began to drop in the
1990s and now covers only about 2 of students
  • Do these equity trends hold today as well?

Wisconsin School Finance 2005
Table Results
  • Variation in property wealth per pupil, 409,766
    in lowest spending decile to 798,840 in highest
  • Note average wealth in highest spending decile
    is far below the secondary guarantee of
  • Variation in school tax rates, from 7.07 mills in
    lowest spending decile to 10.62 in highest
    spending decile, with an average of 8.74 mills
    for shared costs
  • Variation in shared costs per pupil, from 7720
    to 9973, with average of 8527
  • Note average shared costs per pupil in lowest
    decile of 7720 is higher than current operating
    expenditures per pupil for 19 states in 2004-05.
  • Also note most shared costs above Tier 2 shared
    costs of 7782
  • New school finance problem high wealth, high
    tax rates and high dollars per pupil, rather than
    the old problem of low wealth, high tax rates
    and low dollars as well as high wealth, low tax
    rates and high dollars per pupil
  • Factor most strongly linked to higher spending
    the local school tax rate

Wisconsin Equity
Wisconsin School Finance Equity
  • 1. The two key equity statistics indicating
    degree of equal dollars per pupil are the
    coefficient of variation (CV) and McLoone Index
  • CV benchmark is less than or equal to 10
  • CV in 2005 is 8.3, better than the benchmark
  • McLoone benchmark is greater than or equal to 95
  • McLoone in 2005 is 2005 is 95.2, better than the
  • 2. The key equity statistic for the linkage
    between dollars per pupil and property wealth per
    pupil is the wealth elasticity
  • Wealth elasticity benchmark is less than or equal
    to 10
  • Wealth elasticity in 2005 is 5.1, better than
    the benchmark
  • 3. So generally, Wisconsin school finance beats
    all the standard equity benchmarks

Wisconsin School Finance Equity
  • When adjustments are made for pupil need
    disabled (0.9), poverty (0.25) and ELL (0.2), all
    equity statistics worsen
  • When adjustments are made for the varying
    purchasing power of the education dollar using
    the NCES GCEI, all equity statistics worsen
  • When adjustments are made for both, some equity
    statistics no longer meet the benchmarks CV
    rises to 11.5
  • So WI school finance equity is pretty good but
    more robust recognition for pupil needs is

  • Previous
  • Adequacy Studies in Wisconsin

Four Methods of Determining the Cost of an
Adequate Education
  • Successful District Approach
  • Cost Function Approach
  • Professional Judgment Approach (Called the
    Resource Cost Model in the 1980s)
  • Evidence-Based Approach

Reschovsky and Imazekis Economic Cost Function
for WI
  • Per-pupil expenditures are specified as a
    function of
  • public school outputs
  • a set of input prices
  • student, family and neighborhood characteristics,
  • a set of unobserved characteristics of the school

Reschovsky and Imazekis Economic Cost Function
for WI
  • Outputs used for this study include
  • value-added achievement scores from Wisconsin
    8th and 10th graders
  • number of advanced courses offered in high
  • but no measures of elementary achievement
  • Teacher salaries comprise the largest share of
    input prices used, but they used a figure for a
    teacher with a given set of characteristics so
    the salary differed by school district, but
    quality was held constant

Reschovsky and Imazekis Economic Cost Function
for WI
  • This model includes a count of students with
    characteristics associated with higher costs to
  • Number of students qualifying for free or reduced
    price lunch or other public assistance programs
  • Number of students identified as limited English
  • The percentage of students classified as having
    any disability
  • The percentage of students who are autistic,
    deaf, or deaf/blind

Reschovsky and Imazekis Economic Cost Function
for WI
  • Finally, the model also includes two district
    characteristics associated with varying costs
  • the proportion of each districts students in
    high school as opposed to elementary school, to
    help account for the possibility that more
    resources are needed for high school than at the
    elementary level.
  • district enrollment and the square of district
    enrollment, to account for the economies and
    diseconomies of scale associated with large and
    small districts, respectively.

Reschovsky and Imazekis Economic Cost Function
for WI
  • The cost function is then set to a target level
    of performance, which was set equal to the
    performance of the average district
  • An amount is estimated to educate an average
    student in an average spending district
  • 6370 in 1994-95 dollars (8125)
  • Cost indices are calculated for each district,
    which, when multiplied by the average cost, yield
    the estimated cost for educating students to an
    adequate level in that district

Reschovsky and Imazekis Economic Cost Function
for WI
  • Cost indices for WI range from 0.5 to 4.24
  • Milwaukee is the district with the highest index,
    so the cost to educate its pupils is equal to
    6370 x 4.24 27,008 (34,486 in 2005)
  • Authors note that this is without a measure of
    efficiency when one is added to account for all
    factors that lead spending to be higher,
    including the number of low-income students
    served, it reduces Milwaukees index to 1.81,
    lowering the per-pupil to 11,530 (14,723 in
    2005 dollars)

IWF/Normans Professional Judgment Model
  • Began with review of research to identify core
    resource issues
  • Convened a panel of educational experts in
    December of 1998 to make recommendations about
    those issues
  • Surveyed WI principals and a sample of teachers
    to get their input on what is necessary to teach
    students to standards
  • The panel of experts convened in May 1999 used
    research, survey data, and their own expertise to
    make resource recommendations

Resource Recommendations of IWF Expert Panel in
May of 1999
Elementary Middle High
Class size 15 K-3 20 4-5 20 20
School Size 350 500 600-1000
Classroom Materials and Technology 1 computer/4 students tech training support 1 computer/4 students tech training support 1 computer/4 students tech training support
Curriculum Mandatory full day K-5 arts Broad curriculum with FL Arts Advanced FL and core options arts
Support Services Remedial/ESL teachers guidance, social work Plus special ed specialists and school psychologist Plus .5 specialist for gifted and .5 for at-risk students
Staff Development Staff Development coordinator in school Release time needed 1 hr/day 0.5 Staff development specialist
IWF/Normans Professional Judgment Model
  • The result was a basic per-pupil foundation
    amount of 8500 in 2000-01 (9345 in 2005), plus
  • 3200 (3518) for low-income students
  • 700 (770) for rural districts
  • 120 (132) for all districts for help with the
    implementation of new programs
  • Full-state funding of special education and
    limited English proficiency programs

Comparing the Numbers (2005)
Reschovsky Imazekis Cost Function Norman/IWF Professional Judgment
Average student in average district 8,125 9,330
Additional per low-income student 12,932 (extra weight of 1.59) 3,518
Low-income student in average district 21,066 12,848
Student in Milwaukee 34,486 14,719
Student in White Lake 27,167 12,719
  • 6. CPRE Wisconsin
  • School Finance Adequacy Initiative

School Finance Shifted with State Standards Based
Reform (and NCLB)
  • Message of Standards-Based Education Reform
  • Teach students to high standards
  • Requires a doubling or tripling of results!
  • To accomplish this goal, need to focus on
    instructional, staffing, management and other
    strategies that combined will boost student
  • Begin to do this with extant money, so .
  • Imperative first to use current money better
  • Adequacy provides the option of asking for more
    money but from the position of first
    restructuring and reallocating

School Finance Shift
  • Provide adequacy and improve equity
  • Reposition school finance from technical arena of
    formulas to supportive center of the education
    system -- NRC panel report
  • What works and how much does it cost?
  • How much money is needed to teach all students to
    performance levels, including both extant and any
    new resources, which likely will be required
    except in New Jersey and Connecticut

Vincent v. Voight Case Virtually Created a WI
Adequacy Standard
  • School finance system must provide resources
    adequate to educate students to or above
    proficiency standards in mathematics, science,
    social studies and reading/language arts, and to
    provide instruction in art, music, and physical
  • A rigorous standard because, according to NAEP
    standards, Wisconsin educates only about 35 of
    students to proficiency in mathematics and
    reading in grades 4 and 8, and probably less in
    high school grades

Change in School Finance
  • State funds an adequate amount staff for
    effective strategies and salary levels and
    structures to recruit and retain high quality
    staff probably through a foundation type of
  • Districts provide schools an adequate amount via
    needs-based funding formula
  • Schools reallocate dollars to more effective,
    school-wide educational strategies
  • System reinforces these school finance shifts
    with incentives and strategies to improve
    instructional quality so teachers can
    successfully teach students to standards
    including new forms of compensation

Determining an Adequate Fiscal Base
  • Difficult, could argue this is THE school finance
    research issue today
  • And currently, there are many approaches
  • Successful district approach expenditures where
    students meet performance targets (IL, OH, KS)
  • Economic cost function research NY, WI, TX, IL,
  • Professional judgment on quality inputs WY, WI,
    MD, KY, SC, NY, MS, NB, KS, MT 2nd generation
    approaches needed
  • Evidence-based approach NJ, KY, AR, AZ, WY
    and in the future, Wisconsin

Determining an Adequate Fiscal Base
  • Successful district and cost function approaches
    produce an expenditure number but no information
    on how the dollars would be used
  • Professional judgment and evidence-based
    approaches provide both an expenditure number and
    information on how the dollars could be used, or
    at least how the expenditure number was determined

Successful District
  • Use expenditure and achievement data to identify
    successful districts -- districts that produce
    desired results
  • Eliminate unusual districts from analysis
    very high wealth, very large, very small, very
    high spending, etc.
  • From the reduced universe, find districts that
    actually produce the performance desired, e.g.,
    have gt70 of children scoring at or above
    proficiency on the state test
  • Calculate a weighted average of the
    expenditures per pupil for these districts, as
    well as their average SES characteristics --
    minority, poverty (usually free and reduced
    price lunch), ELL, etc.
  • Assume that if these districts can meet a state
    performance benchmark, other districts could too
  • Use the calculated expenditure as the expenditure
    in a foundation school finance formula
  • Adjust the calculated expenditure per pupil for
    the special needs of other districts small
    rural, sparse, large urban, etc.

Successful District
  • Advantages
  • Provides a clear link between a /PUPIL level and
    a result level
  • Relatively simple and straightforward
    policymakers can understand the method
  • Draws from actual state districts
  • Disadvantages
  • Too many atypical districts excluded from
  • The successful districts are usually relatively
    homogeneous, urban/ rural districts
  • Results are difficult to adjust for larger
    (gt2500 students) urban and poorer rural areas,
    and thus often are hotly debated
  • Results can be manipulated
  • Also does not identify the educational delivery
  • Is not now being used by any state
    disadvantages have led to too much controversy

Cost Function
  • Economic approach using regression analysis to
    identify the cost (/pupil) to produce an outcome
  • Dependent variable expenditures per pupil,
    which can be used as the foundation expenditure
  • Independent variables characteristics of
    students and districts ( disabled, ELL,
    poverty, size, sparsity, geographic price
    indices, performance level desired, etc.)
  • Average expenditure varies with performance level
  • Calculate an overall cost adjustment to account
    for district and student needs
  • Results are simple an average expenditure and
    an overall cost adjustment

Cost Function
  • Advantages
  • Clearly links a cost level to a result level
  • Sophisticated
  • Accounts for most key factors that impact costs
  • Disadvantages
  • Complicated few policymakers understand or trust
    the methodology and not used in any state
  • Some scholars question the methodology
  • Provides a dollar amount but no indication of a
    delivery strategy
  • Also assumes no resource reallocation of existing
  • Huge increments for low income/ELL students 4
  • times the average for Milwaukee

Next two approaches get inside the Black Box of
  • Identify the educational delivery strategies that
    can produce the desired results
  • This means creating detailed specifications of
    resources needed to support the delivery
  • At the school level
  • Need prototypic designs for each of elementary,
    middle and high schools
  • To the degree possible, the designs must be
    supported by research and evidence-based best
    practices that produce improvements in student
  • Much more detailed specifications and costing
    than are included in most general education
    reform recommendations

Professional Judgment
  • Education professionals make judgments on what is
    needed at the school level to teach students to
    proficiency standards
  • Panels of teachers and administrators identify
    the resource needs for prototypical elementary,
    middle and high schools
  • State panels review and revise the proposals of
    various local/regional panels
  • State panels also create prototypical district

Professional Judgment
  • Advantages
  • Draws from the expertise of the best educators in
    the state, and perhaps from around the country
  • Proposals tailored to the state context
  • Disadvantages
  • Reflects just professional judgments, no clear
    link to student learning gains
  • Being somewhat co-opted as the word gets out,
    meaning many proposals are too generous
  • And too many professional judgment panels unable
    to identify evidence or research that
    supports their proposals, which often reflect
    personal belief or personal philosophy

Evidence-Based Model
  • Draws from research and evidence-based best
    practices to identify those educational delivery
    strategies and their resource needs that are
    linked to student learning gains
  • Attempts to back each resource recommendation
    with reference to research and/or best practices
  • Given the development of several comprehensive
    school reforms, can draw from those designs,
    which themselves often are based on compilations
    of research-supported practices
  • Can also draw from a synthesis of the best
    professional judgment panels
  • Can speed up and therefore reduce the cost of
    conducting an adequacy study
  • Squares with the evidence-based practice
    required by No Child Left Behind

Evidence-Based Model
  • Advantages
  • Produces a detailed staffing for prototypic
    schools to address all key educational issues,
    with all proposals having a research and/or best
    practices base
  • Draws from previous research and adequacy studies
    already conducted around the country each
    element has an evidence rationale
  • Avoids educator predilection to make proposals on
    individual philosophy rather than engage in
    evidence-based practice
  • Parsimonious but robust a Ford -- not a
    Cadillac not a Yugo
  • Generally, additional costs are less than other
  • Disadvantages
  • Not all school elements have a research base, or
    a strong research base
  • Should not stand alone needs a state panel of
    leading educators and policymakers to review and
    tailor to any particular state context
  • Hard to link all recommendations combined to a
    specific performance
  • target

Outcome of Latter Two Approaches
  • Prototypical school designs staffing needs
  • Elementary
  • Middle or Intermediate
  • High School
  • Estimated cost per pupil of each prototype
  • Estimate of the student, district and price
    adjustments needed
  • Provides resources adequate to enable
    schools/districts to determine most powerful
    educational strategy

Components of Prototypical Elementary, Middle
High Schools
  • School size
  • Administration
  • Regular instruction class size
  • Specialist instruction/planning prep
  • Instructional materials, textbooks, library books
  • Strategy for struggling students disabled, low
    income, ESL, GATE such resources will vary by
    incidence of such students in each school
    tutoring, ELL, extended day, summer school
  • Professional development
  • Pupil support

Key School Components
  • Technology school computers software
    including upgrading and maintenance costs
  • Student activities
  • Secretarial
  • Operations and maintenance
  • Food services
  • PLUS
  • District design
  • Preschool
  • New Performance Pay Structure and salary levels
  • Adjustments for all prototypic designs for
    schools with more and fewer students, and with
    greater and lesser poverty, so each design is
    tailored to size and demographics of each school

Arkansas Prototypic School Resources(School unit
of 500 students)
  • 1 Principal
  • Longer teacher year 10 days more for summer
    training institutes
  • 2.5 Instructional Facilitators
  • 20-25 Teachers (class size of 15 K-3, 25 4-12)
  • 4-6 Specialist Teachers art, music, pe, library
    prep time more for HS
  • Strategy for struggling students base of 1
    Reading Tutor one position for each 20 poverty
    40 more for low income ELL
  • Census funding for most disabilities full state
    funding for severe disabilities
  • Parent outreach/student support -- 1 for each 20
    poverty 1counselor in middle school and 2
    counselors in secondary schools
  • 250/pupil for technology -- hardware and
  • 250/pupil for texts and other equipment and
  • 50/pupil for professional development trainers
  • Supervisory aides for lunch, playground and bus

Wisconsin Prototypical School Resources
  • A draft report will be prepared with preliminary
    recommendations for all program elements for
    prototypical schools for the next meeting
  • This report and modifications will be discussed
    at the October and January meetings
  • Costs and possible school finance structures of
    final recommendations will be presented at an
    April meeting

Adjustments for the Second Year
  • Labor market study focusing at least on Milwaukee
    adequate levels of teacher salary
  • Probably propose a new type of knowledge and
    skills-based salary schedule as a better vehicle
    for providing pay increases
  • Assess benefits, largely health benefits, and
    propose a more efficient approach

Adjustments for the Second Year
  • Possible additional topics
  • Geographic price indices
  • Income factor to the property wealth per pupil
  • Central office design to complement the various
    school prototype designs
  • Maybe designs for operations and maintenance

The Adequacy Initiative
GOAL From Equity To Adequacy
Equal Access to Tax Base
Sufficient Spending for High-Standards Education
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)