Ensuring Better Use of School Finance Reform Dollars: Lessons from Kentucky, New Jersey, Texas and Arkansas

1. Ensuring Better Use of School Finance Reform Dollars: Lessons from Kentucky, New Jersey, Texas and Arkansas Lawrence O. Picus USC Rossier School of Education Michelle Turner Mangan CPRE UW-Madison Lawrence O. Picus and Associates

2. Session Overview • Trends in School/District Response to Finance Reform • Early CPRE Findings in KY, TX and NJ • Application of the Evidence Based Model in Arkansas • Implications for future research and policy

3. Early Findings in Three States • Kentucky • Rose v. Council for Better Education • First “adequacy” decision • Dramatic restructuring of KY Education • Funding (SEEK) • Assessment • Outcome • More funds • Improved student performance • Recent adequacy ruling in new suit

4. Early Findings in Three States • Texas • Edgewood case • Perot reforms • State assessment system • Data availability • Recent court case and Legislative actions • Results • More funding • Greater Equity • No clear improvement in performance

5. Early Findings in Three States • New Jersey • Cahill v. Robinson • Abbott Case • Changes in spending patterns • Foundation program adequate for Success for All program • Abbott districts’ funding equal to high spending districts • Findings • High spending • Student performance

6. Conclusions from Studies of the 1990s • Equity Findings • School finance equity improved in most states • States generally “equalized up” • Wealthy districts shifted from low tax high spending to high tax high spending • Poor districts went from high tax low spending to low tax low spending

7. Conclusions About the Use of Education Dollars • Steady increase in per pupil spending • Consistent pattern of expenditures over time, location, and expenditure level • Change in composition of instruction expenditures • Administration is not overly large • Increase in spending not matched by increases in student achievement

8. Conclusions from Early Adequacy Implementation • Districts often did not follow model recommendations in making spending decisions • There are many existing programs that “work” to improve student learning • Need to think about “resources” not dollars

9. Pupil Support: Parent/Community Outreach/ Involvement K-3: 15 to 1 4-12: 25 to 1 Elem 20% Middle 20% High School 33% Tutors and pupil support: 1 per 100 at risk Gifted Site-based Leadership The Evidence Based Model: Students Ready for College, Work in the Global Economy, & Citizenship Teacher Compensation Professional Development Specialized Education Extended Support Specialists Core Summer School Extended Day ELL 1 per 100 Special Education Gifted 10 Extra Days of PD Instructional Materials Technology Trainers Career & Technical Education District Admin Instructional Coaches State and CESAs

10. What happened after school finance reform in Arkansas? Changes resulting from Act 59: 2004 to 2006 • Local Revenue up 14% • State Revenue up 68% • Categorical Revenue increased from $10 per student to $400 per student • Total Revenue up 42% • Current Expenditures up 20% • Expenditures closer to the national average

11. Did Arkansas Schools Use New Funds Effectively? • School level fiscal data were not available • Lawrence O. Picus and Associates Contracted to study school uses of resources • Study Goals • Identify how resources are used by educational strategies • Identify the strategies built into the Arkansas funding model

12. Resource Use in Arkansas: A Preliminary Analysis Random Sample of 107 schools • 55 Elementary • 17 Middle • 35 High Schools 48,132 Students • Average 53% NSL • Average 13% Special Education • Average 5% ELL

13. AR School Resource Use: Instructional Time • Average Instructional Day: 6 hours, 13 min. • Average Class Length • Math: 64 minutes • Reading (Elementary): 1 hour, 53 minutes • English/LA (Mid/High): 57 minutes • Soc. Studies & Science (Mid/High): 53 min. ea.

14. Resource Use in the Average School in the Total Sample

15. Arkansas: Actual Resource Use in the Sample

16. AR School Resource Use: Students per Core Teacher

17. AR School Resource Use: Core Teachers in Sample Schools

18. AR School Resource Uses: Instructional Aides • 37 Library Aides • 49 Resource Room Aides • 20 ELL Aides • 52 Other Extra Help Aides • 61 Special Education Inclusion Aides • 57 Special Ed. Resource Room Aides • 113 Other Instructional Aides = Total of 389 Instructional Aides

19. AR School Resource Uses: Tutors

20. Arkansas: The High School Schedule • Trends • Lots of electives and a 7 period day • Football, basketball, & baseball as classes in addition to physical education

21. Teacher Beginning and Average Salaries Rose • Beginning Teacher Salaries • New teacher salary 2003-04 = $27,218 • New teacher salary 2004-05 = $30,070 • Average Teacher Salaries • Average teacher salary 2003-04 = $39,409 • Average teacher salary 2004-05 = $41,489 • Most Change Was in the Smallest and Poorest Districts

22. What Happened in Arkansas? • Increased resources based on Evidence Based Model • Districts were not required to use resources according to the model • Districts did not use new resources for the evidence-based, high impact strategies

23. What Happened in Arkansas? • Class Size • Elementary class size averaged 20 with funding for 23 • Middle school class size averaged 25 with funding for 25 • High school class sizes averaged 29 with funding for 25 • Specialist Teachers • Sample schools had 815 specialists • Total was 40% of core teachers • Model provided 399 or 20% of core teachers

24. What Happened in Arkansas? • Instructional Coaches • Schools averaged 0.20 instructional coaches for every 200 students • The model funded 1 coach per 200 students • Instructional coaches may have been present in the districts, but were not available at the school level • Teacher Tutors • Schools averaged 0.15 tutors for every 100 poverty students • The model funded 1 per 100 • Rather than using the resources for extra help, many local educators wanted to use the “extra help” resources for smaller classes and higher salaries, neither of which provides extrahelp for struggling students.

25. What Happened in Arkansas? • Teacher Salaries • Most districts increased teacher salaries • They used the dollars provided for extra training days in the model • But few expanded systemic professional development. • Weak leadership at all levels (school, district, intermediate and state) to support strategies known to double student performance

26. What Should Happen Now • Put some constraints on use of some resources: • NSL money focused on tutoring • Instructional facilitators • Mount a statewide leadership and capacity development strategy to “double” student performance over the next ten years

27. Our Work in Other States • Washington • Developed an Evidence Based Model • Successful District Study • Wyoming • Recalibration of funding model • Comprehensive assessment of school and district use of resources in partnership with University of Wyoming

28. Insuring Better Use of School Finance Reform Dollars: Lessons from Kentucky, New Jersey, Texas and Arkansas Supplemental Graphics

29. Arkansas Beginning Teacher Salary by District Size

30. Arkansas Beginning Teacher Salary by Assessed Valuation Per Pupil

31. Arkansas Average Teacher Salary by District Size

32. Arkansas Average Teacher Salary by Assessed Valuation Per Pupil

33. Arkansas Districts Increased the Number of Contract Days