Enhancing Student Performance Through Adequate Resources in Wyoming Schools

1. The Use of Educational Resources in Wyoming:Updated Report to theWyoming Legislature’s Joint Interim Education Committee October 28, 2008 by Allan Odden, Lawrence O. Picus, Michelle Turner Mangan, Mike Goetz & Anabel Aportela

2. Goal of Wyoming Funding Formula • Provide adequate resources to all schools and districts • Districts and schools use the resource to improve student achievement • We call dramatic improvements in student learning a “doubling” of performance

3. Ten Steps to Double Performance • Analyze state testing data to determine performance status • Set higher goals • Adopt a new curriculum • Engage in data-based decision making with formative and benchmark assessments • Invest in on-going professional development

4. Ten Steps to Double Performance • Focus class time more efficiently • Provide multiple interventions for struggling students • Create professional learning communities • Empower leaders to support instructional improvement • Take advantage of external expertise

5. Core Instructional Elements of the Wyoming Funding Model • Small class sizes • 16 elementary (K-5) • 21 secondary (6-12) • High quality instruction • Professional development • School-based instructional facilitators

6. Core Instructional Elements of the Wyoming Funding Model • Sequenced and integrated strategies – continuum of services -- to help struggling children meet state standards • Tutoring • Extended days • Summer school • Special education with no budget cap

7. Core Instructional Elements of the Wyoming Funding Model • Substantial resources for • Instructional materials, at sufficient levels to buy any number of formative assessments: NWEA, DIBELS, Wireless Generation • Technology

9. Research Questions • How are actual resource patterns in Wyoming aligned with or different from the resource use strategies that are used in the Wyoming Funding Model? • What are the current instructional improvement strategies at the school-level in Wyoming?

10. Instructional Strategies and the Use of Resources At the School Level Findings

11. Methodology • 334 Schools visited in Year 1 (n=254) & Year 2 (n=80) • 189 Elementary • 71 Middle • 74 High Schools • 15 are alternative learning environment (ALE) schools • Results based on 319 non-ALE, elementary, middle, & high schools. • In-person interviews with principals & superintendents to collect schools’ staffing and fiscal resources • Quantitative analyses and case studies

12. Updated Sample Characteristics

13. Elementary Schools < 49: 17 49-96: 72 >96: 275 Average Number of Students in Updated Sample Schools* Middle Schools < 49: 24 49-105: 61 >105: 406 High Schools < 49: 38 49-105: 80 >105: 449 *Does not include alternative schools data

14. Overall Findings in General • About same level of school administration • Somewhat fewer core class teachers • More elective classes and teachers • More instructional aides • Much less tutoring • Much less librarian resources • Less pupil support • About the same instructional facilitators

15. Instructional Time* • Average Instructional Day: 5 hrs, 57 min • Average Class Length • Math: 1 hr, 5 minutes • Reading (Elementary): 1hr, 45 minutes • English/LA (Mid/High): 1 hr, 10 minutes • Soc. Studies & Science (each) • (Elementary): 31 minutes • (Mid/High): 55 minutes *Does not include alternative schools data

16. Average Resources in ElementarySchools* with More than 96 Students *Does not include alternative schools data

17. Average Resources in Elementary Schools* with 49-96 Students *Does not include alternative schools data

18. Average Resources in Elementary Schools* with Less than 49 Students *Does not include alternative schools data

19. Key Findings on Resource Use in Elementary Schools • Compared to the Wyoming Funding Model, large elementary schools have: • Slightly less school site administration • Fewer core and specialist teachers • More aides • Fewer certifiedtutors • Less than half the certifiedlibrary and media staff • More pupil support

20. Average School-Level Resources in Middle Schools* with More than 105 Students *Does not include alternative schools data

21. Average School-Level Resources in Middle Schools* with 49-105 Students *Does not include alternative schools data

22. Average School-Level Resources in Middle Schools* with Less than 49 Students *Does not include alternative schools data

23. Key Findings on Resource Use in Middle Schools • Compared to the Wyoming Funding Model, large middle schools have: • About the same level of school administration • Fewer core teachers • More specialist teachers • More aides • Fewer tutors • Less certifiedlibrary and media staff • Less pupil support

24. Average School-Level Resources in High Schools* with More than 105 Students *Does not include alternative schools data

25. Average School-Level Resources in High Schools* with 49-105 Students *Does not include alternative schools data

26. Average School-Level Resources in High Schools* with Less than 49 Students *Does not include alternative schools data

27. Key Findings on Resource Use in High Schools • Compared to the Wyoming Funding Model, large high schools have: • Similar amounts of administration (Principals & assistant principals) • Fewer core teachers • More specialist teachers • More aides • 2/3 fewer certified tutors • 2/3 fewer certified librarian and media staff • Less pupil support • Double the number of secretaries

28. Students per Core Teacher (Excludes Small & AlternativeSchools data) Actual student to teacher ratios are slightly larger than the model in elementary and middle schools, and about the same as the model level in high schools. But there are wide ranges in actual practice.

29. Core Teachers in Sample Schools (Excludes Small& Alternative Schools Data) 510.7 fewer core teachers than provided by the funding model

30. Number of Instructional Aides* *Does not include small or alternative schools data Model does not fund instructional aides

31. Students Per Core TeacherMedium and Large Elementary

32. Students Per Core TeacherMedium and Large Middle School

33. Students Per Core TeacherMedium and Large High School

34. Number of Tutors* We found substantially fewer certifiedtutors to provide extra help to struggling students, especially in middle and high schools *Does not include small or alternative schools data

35. Average Number of Instructional Facilitators in Medium and Large Schools Actual instructional facilitators loosely mirrored the level funded through the categorical program (about two thirds of model level).

36. Updated Findings Related to Instructional Improvement (319 non-ALE schools) • Fewer core teachers than model funds in large schools • Specialist Teachers in large schools • Elementary -- About 26% fewer than funded • Middle schools -- About 30% more than funded • High schools -- About 57% more than funded • Large number of aides despite no funding • Substantially fewer certifiedtutors than funded

37. Updated Findings Related to Instructional Improvement (319 non-ALE schools) • Instructional facilitators • Observed at less than even the estimated funding level in all three school levels • This is a categorical not a block grant program • School administrators employed at a slightly lower level than funded by the model

38. Tentative Conclusions • The observed resource use patterns: • Appear to represent a different theory about how to boost student achievement • Less professional development • More electives • More classroom aides dealing with academic needs • Are different from evidence-based resource use patterns to double student performance observed in Wyoming and other states

39. State-Level Expenditure And Salary Analysis Summary of Findings

40. Expenditure Analysis: General Conclusions and Implications • Five year change in total expenditures is 44% • Five year change in expenditures per pupil is 43.5% • Percent spent on instruction has remained about the same • Compensation as a percent of instruction has increased by 1.42%

41. Findings on Salaries • Dramatic increase in teacher salaries in last two years • Model funds more positions than districts employ with block grant funds • Difference may have led to higher salaries than anticipated in the model

42. State-Level Expenditure Analysis Findings

43. Total Expenditures: 2002-03 to 2006-07

44. Total Expenditures Per Pupil: 2002-03 to 2006-07

45. Expenditures by Function: 2002-03 to 2006-07

46. Percent of Expenditures By Function: 2002-03 to 2006-07

47. Total Compensation as a Percent of Instruction

48. Salary Analysis Findings

49. Changes in Student Enrollment: 2002-03 to 2006-07

50. State Total Teacher FTE: 2002-03 to 2006-07