Download
1 / 87
870 likes | 1.02k Vues
A CEEP Research Update on Hot Topics in K-12 Education Policy. ISBA/IAPSS 58 th Annual Fall Conference October 1, 2007 Terry Spradlin. About the Center for Evaluation & Education Policy.
E N D
A CEEP Research Update on Hot Topics in K-12 Education Policy ISBA/IAPSS 58th Annual Fall Conference October 1, 2007 Terry Spradlin
About the Center for • Evaluation & Education Policy • The Center for Evaluation & Education Policy (CEEP) is a client-focused, self-funded research center associated with the School of Education at Indiana University. • CEEP provides a wide range of evaluation and nonpartisan policy research services to policymakers, governmental entities, and non-profit organizations. • CEEP is continually looking for new opportunities to help inform, influence, and shape the development of P-16 education • policy not only in Indiana, but across the nation.
Table of Contents • The Achievement Gap • Pre-Kindergarten Programs • Full-Day Kindergarten • School Consolidation and Shared Services • Predictions for the 2008 General Assembly All resources available upon request.
I. The Achievement Gap in Indiana CEEP Report: “Is the Achievement Gap in Indiana Narrowing?” 9/19/2005 http://ceep.indiana.edu/projects/PDF/Achievement_Gap_091405.pdf
Achievement Gap Study Overview • Not only timely, but most complete picture of Indiana’s achievement gap since a state review in 2003. • Report examined multiple performance measures over time by race/ethnicity, income, English proficiency, and special needs categories. • Primary sources of data: IDOE, College Board, NCES.
The Good News • When examining aggregate results over time, Indiana schools can boast progress in a variety of important areas, including: Core 40 and Academic Honors Diploma Completion, SAT and ACT scores, participation in and achievement on AP tests, and ISTEP+ scores. • Hoosiers’ participation in higher education is also steadily increasing. • Particularly encouraging is the upward performance of Indiana’s Grade 4 and 8 students in the areas of mathematics and science on the NAEP and TIMSS assessments. Grade 4 students, for example, scored the second highest of all participants internationally on the TIMSS science assessment in 2003. Grade 4 students ranked 7th nationally in mathematics on the 2007 NAEP. • Overall, Indiana’s K-12 education system effectively serves a majority of our students.
The Not-So-Good News • Unfortunately, a significant number of poor, minority, LEP, and special education students in Indiana’s K-12 public education system are not succeeding academically and are falling through the cracks. • Indiana has significant achievement gaps that exist whether examining results by race/ethnicity, income, English proficiency, or disability. • The achievement gaps have narrowed only marginally since the state embarked on a series of comprehensive school reform initiatives beginning in the late 1980s, including revisions to the school funding formula that account for certain at-risk factors.
Grade 4 NAEP Reading Gap in Percent Achieving at or Above Basic
Grade 3 ISTEP+ Percent Passing Eng/LA & Math by Special Education
Grade 10 ISTEP+ Percent Passing Eng/LA & Math by Special Education
Conclusions • The achievement gap is a not only a school and classroom issue, but a societal issue that must be addressed by a broad array of stakeholders that extends beyond educators, including the governor, policymakers, business and industry, labor, clergy, and parents. 2) Parents and the larger community must increase the value they place on elementary and secondary education and become more engaged in supporting student learning. A strong social support system that values and promotes academic achievement is essential to reducing the achievement gaps.
Conclusions (cont’d) 3)State and local leaders must acknowledge and address the impact that issues such as the high rates of mobility, increasing levels of poverty, poor nutrition, and restricted access to quality healthcare have on student achievement. Effective economic development, fiscal management, and public health policies will contribute to a reduction of the K-12 academic achievement gaps.
CEEP Recommendations 1) Emphasize the role of state leadership. 2) Fulfill the recommendations of the P-16 Plan. 3) Promote early childhood education. 4) Support full-day kindergarten for all at-risk children. 5) Expand effective reading programs to all elementary classes.
CEEP Recommendations (cont’d) 6) Examine middle school issues, particularly suspension and expulsion trends, and conduct an assessment of student engagement. 7) Continue the push to redesign high schools. • Revisit school improvement plan process. • Emphasize teacher quality. • Raise academic expectations.
IDOE Policy Strategies • Supplemental Education Services- free tutoring services for free or reduced-price lunch students to pass the ISTEP+. • Public Charter Schools Program- federal grant for start-up of high quality charter schools that serve diverse populations.
IDOE Policy Strategies (cont.) • Corporations with overrepresentation develop local improvement plans. • TEAM Leadership Academy to address unique needs of urban high-poverty, low-performing schools. • Title I School Improvement Grants to help schools increase academic achievement in students.
IDOE Local Policy Option Recommendations • Break down achievement data. • Use research-based instruction to meet needs of low achieving groups. • Create Freshman Academies to address needs at pivotal time for potential dropouts. • Provide instructional time and support for students needing additional time to achieve.
IDOE Local Policy Option Recommendations (cont.) • Use technology to support students who need extra assistance. • Reduce class size to help meet individual student needs. • Create Professional Learning Communities to continuously examine and address issues.
II. Pre-Kindergarten Programs CEEP/IIDC Report: “Closing the Achievement Gap Series: Part I Is Indiana Ready for State-Sponsored Prekindergarten Programs?” August 7, 2006 http://ceep.indiana.edu/projects/PDF/PB_V4N7_Summer_2006_Prekindergarten.pdf
Benefits of Pre-K Participation (cont.) • Research indicates that a child’s first years of life are a period of “opportunity and vulnerability for healthy physical, emotional, social, and cognitive development” (Karoly, Kilburn, & Cannon). • Cost-benefit analyses indicated that prekindergarten programs produce economic returns between $4 to $16 for every $1 invested in the programs. • “Politicians have a choice to make. They can do things like build sports stadiums that offer virtually no economic return, or they can invest in early education programs with a 16% rate of return” Art Rolnick, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
National Snapshot of Pre-K Programs • In 2004-05, 38 states (excluding Indiana) offered state-funded pre-k programs. • Approx. $4.2 billion was spent on pre-k program in the last fiscal year and 30 governors have called for increased pre-k spending this year. • These states served 11% of all 3 and 4-year-olds in participating states. • States offer these programs as strategy to close achievement gaps. • Some states offer expanded services to at-risk students to ensure accountability goals are met.
Indiana Snapshot of Pre-K Programs • In 2005, 100,196 children, or 38% or children ages 3 and older, participated in center-based early education (nursery school, preschool, child care centers, registered ministries, prekindergarten; excludes child care homes) in Indiana. • Approximately, 21,000 were enrolled in a school-based prekindergarten program. • Of these children, 47% were served in a public school setting and 53% were served in a private school setting. Thus, about approximately 10,000 three- and four-year-old children are served in prekindergarten by a public school. * Data from the Census Bureau: Indiana Enrollment in Early Education 2005
Indiana Snapshot of Pre-K Programs (cont.) • The state has taken several steps to improve the education and preparedness of its students, including support for early childhood education initiatives. • However, state support for publicly-funded pre-k programs is lacking. • Despite this, 190 of Indiana’s 293 school corporations and three charter schools provided some type of pre-k program during the 2005-06 school year, including preschool special education services.
Considerations of Pre-K Programs:NIEER’s Evidence-Based Program Standards • Programs that do not implement evidence-based standards do not achieve desired outcomes. • The evidence-based standards include: • Comprehensive early learning standards. • Teachers with bachelor’s degrees. • Teachers with specialized training in prekindergarten. • Assistant teachers with Child Development Associate or equivalent degree. • Inservice training for minimum 15 hours per year. • Maximum class size of 20 students. • Staff-child ratio of 1 to 10 or fewer. • Required screening for vision, hearing, health and minimum of 1 family support activity. • At least 1 meal per day. • Required monitoring through site visits. NOTE: NIEER is the National Institute for Early Education Research.
Considerations of Pre-K Programs • Along with the standards, states should monitor how local programs are implementing these standards. • Monitoring ensures that: • Funds are used responsibly. • Data are available to promote program improvement and ensure best possible educational experience. • The goals and outcomes of the program are being met.
Considerations of Pre-K Programs • States with pre-k programs typically use a mixture of state, federal, local, and private funding sources as well as parent fees. • States provide the core of program funding, most commonly from general revenue, dedicated funds, or school funding formulas. • Section 62 of State Budget bill (HEA 1001-2007) calls for the creation of a prekindergarten pilot program to be administered by IDOE, but provided no funding for this purpose.
Considerations of Pre-K Programs • The cost of pre-k education in Indiana would depend on which children would be eligible and the scope of services to be offered. • Half-day pre-k programs for approximately 19,220 4-year-olds who are at risk, would cost $68,250,220 at a rate of $3,551 per child. • The same program expanded to all 4-year-olds would cost $156,567,141 at the same rate.
Recommendations • Build on existing foundations for studying and planning publicly-funded pre-k programs. • Identify and agree upon the purpose, goals, and desired outcomes of a publicly-funded pre-k program. • Examine service delivery options that build on existing pre-k programs and phase in services statewide. • Link the level of funding for a statewide pre-k program with the desired program goals and outcomes. • Identify a funding source that is stable and continuous. • Determine and commit to a state and local governance system for pre-k programs.
III. Full-Day Kindergarten CEEP Report: “Short-Lived Gains or Enduring Benefits? The Long-Term Impact of FDK” April 2005 http://www.ceep.indiana.edu/projects/PDF/PB_Spring_2005_Full_Day_Kindergarten.pdf
Additional CEEP Research on FDK CEEP Report conducted for IAPSS: “The Effects of Full Day Versus Half Day Kindergarten: Review and Analysis of National and Indiana Data” January 9, 2004 http://www.ceep.indiana.edu/projects/PDF/FDK_report_final.pdf
Full-Day Kindergarten Grant State Budget (HEA 1001-2007) increases the state full-day kindergarten grant program to $33.5 million in the 2007-08 school year and $58.5 million in the 2008-09 school year – up from $8.5 million annually. Deadline to apply for grants was June 15, 2007.
Full-Day Kindergarten Grant: Eligibility Eligibility for 2006-07 school year: Any school corporation or charter school; No demographic makeup considered; School must include five hours of instructional time for 180 days during the school year; School must meet academic standards of Indiana Code Title 20 and State Board of Education rules adopted pursuant to IC 20.
Full-Day Kindergarten Grant: Allocations Grant amount is equal to the total state appropriation divided by the total number of FDK students funded by the grants during 2007-08 school year. Maximum = $2,500/Student Minimum = $440/Student Assuming all public school corporations and charter schools choose to participate As of June 26, 2007, 243 school corporations and 20 charter schools received the grant. Each school will receive an estimated $665 per student, with an estimated 50,000 students in FDK as a result of the grant.
Full-Day Kindergarten Grant: Supplemental Funding If state FDK grant funding is insufficient, general funds and/or voluntary parent fees (authorized by SECTION 9 of state budget bill) may be used to fully fund program. Title I funds may also be used in combination with state funds; however, special rules apply. School corporations must follow either Title I-Like Model or Fair Share Model if Title I funds are used in conjunction with state funds for FDK.
Full-Day Kindergarten Grant:Supplement, Not Supplant Section 1120A of ESEA demands that federal Title I funds only be used to supplement the amount of non-federal funds available for the education of students participating in Title-I programs. Section 1120A also states that an SEA or LEA may not use the federal funds to take place of (supplant) funds that would have been spent on Title I students in the absence of Title I funds.
Full-Day Kindergarten Grant:Title I-Like Model Requires that all students participating through Title I funds be categorized as “educationally at-risk.” Corporation could use Title I funds to provide full-day kindergarten for Title I students and use state grant funding to provide full-day kindergarten in non-Title I schools to students who are deemed educationally at-risk, or Title I-Like. Those students who are not deemed educationally at-risk are not eligible for either Title I or Title I-Like funding and must be funded by parent fees as federal or state funding would violate the supplant provision in ESEA 1120A.
Full-Day Kindergarten Grant:Fair Share Model Assumption: state grant FDK funds are insufficient to provide FDK for all students within a corporation or charter school. How does this model work? One-half of the day would be supported by state and local general fund dollars. Part of the second half of the day would be supported by the state FDK Grant. Title I students would have Title I funds used to support the remaining part of the day determined by the following formula. Non-eligible students would need to be funded by additional parent fees.
Full-Day Kindergarten Grant:Fair Share Model Funding Model (to determine how much Title I money can be used): Compute the total costs for the second half of the day. Subtract FDK grant money (per pupil amount times number of pupils) Divide remainder by number of pupils. Multiply Step 3 by the number of Title I-eligible pupils. This is the amount of Title I money available.
CEEP Research on FDK: Longitudinal Study Objectives • CEEP is in the third year of a multi-year longitudinal study, funded by the U.S. DOE, comparing both the short- and long-term impacts of FDK on students’ academic outcomes as compared to the traditional half-day. • The study reports student scores on achievement tests from three different elementary schools within two school corporations in Indiana, Richland-Bean Blossom Community School Corporation and Monroe County Community School Corporation. • In the 2005-06 school year, the first year of the study, 16 classrooms (4 FDK and 12 HDK) were included. Students were randomly assigned to either the full-day or half-day programs.
