1 / 41

Use of Resources in a Sample of Wisconsin Districts July 12, 2006

Use of Resources in a Sample of Wisconsin Districts July 12, 2006. Tim Schell, Waunakee Prepared for the Policy Advisory Task Force of the Wisconsin School Finance Adequacy Initiative. Questions we seek to answer:. What is the level of resources per pupil in Wisconsin?

ashtyn
Télécharger la présentation

Use of Resources in a Sample of Wisconsin Districts July 12, 2006

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Use of Resources in a Sample of Wisconsin DistrictsJuly 12, 2006 Tim Schell, Waunakee Prepared for the Policy Advisory Task Force of the Wisconsin School Finance Adequacy Initiative

  2. Questions we seek to answer: • What is the level of resources per pupil in Wisconsin? • What are the resource use patterns in the schools we studied and do they reflect the resources included in the proposed evidence-based funding model? • What happened with resource use patterns in another state after an adequacy school finance infusion of funds?

  3. Expenditures on Instruction • NEA estimates current operating expenditures per pupil for 2004-05 from all sources at $9,881 • In 2003, national average instructional expenditures as a percent of total current operating expenditures was 61.3% • Figure in Wisconsin was 61.8% • NCES: Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary Education: School Year 2002-03

  4. Expenditure on Instruction Compared to Neighboring States

  5. Resource Use in Wisconsin: A Preliminary Analysis Sample of Schools from 9 Districts • 9 Elementary Schools • 8 Middle Schools • 8 High Schools 16,716 K-12 Students September 2005 • Average 26.5% Free and Reduced-Price Lunch • Average 15.4% Special Education • Average 4.8% English Language Learners • Close to state averages.

  6. Geographic Distribution

  7. General Findings on Wisconsin School Uses of Resources • Modestly larger class sizes than model in core content areas at elementary and high schools. • More specialist teachers at high school and, especially, middle school levels. • Extremely few instructional coaches. • Much less teacher tutoring than model provides. • High number of instructional aides. • More school administration at middle and high school levels. • Lower level of pupil support resources than evidence-based model.

  8. Resource Use in the Average Sample School

  9. WI School Resource Uses:Building Administration

  10. WI School Resource Uses:Assistant Principal

  11. WI School Resource Uses:Principal + Assistant Principal

  12. School-based Administrative Resources • The evidence-based model and actual practice on principals are about the same – 1 principal for each school • The schools studied had more AP positions, due to the large size of the middle and high schools studied.

  13. WI School Resource Uses:Instructional Facilitators

  14. WI School Resource Uses:Instructional Facilitators • Though a few schools had instructional coaches, this was a rare resource • Current school finance system does not provide categorical resources for instructional coaches – and most schools that we studied did not have them. • Our research base indicates that the use of instructional coaches is a very high impact use of resources and is probably essential to sustained, substantial performance gains.

  15. WI School Resource Use: Students per Core Teacher

  16. WI School Resource Use: Students per Core Teacher • Elementary class sizes* were the smallest at 21, but above the model. • Middle school average core class sizes were larger , but similar to the model. • High school average core class sizes were higher and above the model. • The model provides more core teachers per student at the elementary and high school levels than existed in the schools studied.

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

  18. WI School Resource Use:Specialist Teachers per Student

  19. WI School Resource Use:Specialist Teachers per Student • There were more specialists in the schools studied, on average, than the evidence-based model would provide. • Fewer elementary specialists now than under the model. • Many more middle level specialists now than under the model. • More high school specialists now than under the model.

  20. WI School Resource Uses: Instructional Aides • 15 Library Aides • 7 Tutorial Aides • 18 ELL Aides • 104 Special Educ. Resource Room Aides • 40 Other Instructional Aides = Total of 184 Instructional and Extra Help Aides

  21. WI School Resource Uses: Instructional Aides • The sample schools had almost 200 more instructional aides than the evidence-based model, which provides no instructional aides.

  22. WI School Resource Uses: Tutors

  23. WI School Resource Uses: Tutors • There were fewer tutors in the sampled schools, even though many had federal Title 1 money and state categorical dollars; however, there were relatively more tutors in the WI sample than we have found in schools in other states • The evidence-based model provides substantial tutor resources and tutoring by a licensed teacher is the highest impact extra help strategy.

  24. WI School Resource Uses: Pupil Support (Guidance, Social Workers, Nurses, etc.)

  25. WI School Resource Uses: Pupil Support • The various pupil support, family outreach resources in the sample schools were modestly below what the model would provide

  26. WI School Resource Uses: Librarians

  27. WI School Resource Uses: Librarians • Sample schools seemed to be short on librarians – there was less than 1 librarian for each school whereas the evidence based model provides a librarian for every school, except the very small schools

  28. General Conclusions • WI class sizes are modestly larger, except at middle level. • WI Schools had more specialist/elective teachers, except at elementary level. • WI schools had modestly less pupil support resources. • WI schools had substantially more instructional aides. • WI schools had substantially fewer instructional coaches and teacher tutors, both very high impact strategies.

  29. Average Study Elementary School Avg 451 PK+, 418 K+, 26.5% FRL, 16.6% SWD, 3.9% ELL

  30. Average Study Middle School Avg. 564, 30.2% FRL, 14.6% SWD, 4.9% ELL

  31. Average Study High School Avg. 1,055, 24.5% FRL, 15.2% SWD, 5.2% ELL

  32. As Wisconsin moves forward, what can it learn from Arkansas? • If Wisconsin were to implement over time the elements of the evidence-based model: • Should it provide resources as a block grant and give districts discretion over their use? • Or should it regulate some or all of the uses of the funds? • A recent study in Arkansas provides some clues.

  33. What Happened in Arkansas? • The 2004 Arkansas School Finance Adequacy reform increased school resources based on the Arkansas version of the Evidence-Based model. • The legislature did not require districts to use the resources according to the model; it deferred to the judgment of local educators • Did local school systems use the resources for the evidence-based, high impact strategies in the evidence-based model? Not Really.

  34. What Happened in Arkansas? • In a study of 107 schools, we found that: • In terms of class size: • Elementary class sizes averaged 20 while the model provided funding for 23 • Middle school class sizes averaged 25 with funding for 25 • High school class sizes averaged 29 versus funding for 25. • Schools had an average of 815 specialist or elective teachers, about 40% above core teachers, whereas the model provided 399 or 20% above core teachers.

  35. What Happened in Arkansas? • Schools had an average of 0.20 instructional coaches for every 200 students, while the model funded 1 per 200. • A number of principals asked where the instructional coaches were, but they were not in their schools.

  36. What Happened in Arkansas? • Schools had an average of 0.15 teacher tutors for every 100 poverty students, while the model funded 1 per 100, and 2/100 for districts with 70-90% poverty concentration, and 3/100 for poverty concentration above 90%. • Rather than using the resources for extra help, many local educators wanted to use the extra help resources for preschool, smaller classes, and higher salaries, neither of which provides extrahelp for struggling students.

  37. What Happened in Arkansas? • Most districts increased teacher salaries by the dollars for the extra days for training the model provided • Few expanded systemic professional development. • There was weak leadership at all levels around the strategies known to double student performance.

  38. What Should Happen Now -- in Arkansas and in Wisconsin? • Put constraints on use of some resources: • FRPL money focused on tutoring and some other programs. • Instructional facilitators. • Mount a statewide leadership and capacity development strategy to “double” student performance over the next ten years. • Advocate benchmarking practice vs. most successful Wisconsin schools and the first section of the Evidence Based Report.

  39. Six Steps to Doubling Results • We know how to double student academic performance • Examples around the country show how student achievement results can be doubled • Aldine (TX), Long Beach (CA), Newport News (VA), Madison (WI) • See first section of Evidence-Based report

  40. The Evidence-Based Model • Produces a completely re-engineered school • Think of a hybrid car but not a hover-mobile • The Prius gets twice the gas mileage of a traditional car, but still looks like a car • It is a re-engineered car with double performance • Built on strategies that are evidence-based • Evidence that each strategy has boosted student academic achievement • Assumes reallocation of all extant resources to the elements of the model

  41. Discussion and Questions

More Related