Current CEEP Research On Key K-12 Issues Facing Indiana Public Schools

2008 Summer ISBA Member AcademyJuly 10, 2008

Terry Spradlin

2

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

3

CEEP Associates focus their broad spectrum of experience and capabilities to produce high impact

within the following "Areas of Excellence":

• Educational Evaluation

oEarly Childhood Education Evaluation

oLiteracy Evaluation

oMath, Science and Technology Evaluation

• Education Policy Research & Technical Assistance

• Health, Human Services & Community Development Evaluation

Contents

I. Virtual Education

II. School District Consolidation

III. Pre-Kindergarten Programs

IV. Full-day Kindergarten

V. Predictions for the 2009 General Assembly

4

I. Virtual Education

CEEP Report:

“Promises and Pitfalls of Virtual Education in the United States and Indiana”

June 13, 2008

http://www.ceep.indiana.edu/projects/PDF/PB_V6N6_Spring_2008_EPB.pdf

5

Promises and Pitfalls of Virtual Education in the United States and Indiana

• Virtual education is an emerging issue in the U.S. and Indianao In 2007, Indiana legislature eliminated funding for

two virtual charters approved through Ball State University and placed a two-year moratorium on virtual charter school funding

o In 2008, Indiana legislature passed HB 1246, creating an Interim Study Committee on K-12 Virtual Learning to study program availability, quality, standards, accreditation, pricing, and funding for virtual education in the state

6

Growth of Virtual Education

• Virtual education is growing 30% annually in the U.S.

• 42 states, including IN, have some form of virtual learning in place

• Currently, a total of 25 states have established or financed state-led virtual programs

• An estimated 1 million online enrollments in 2007

• As of January 2007, 173 cyber charters in 18 states serving over 92,000 students

7

Types of Virtual Education

• Two types of virtual education:o Supplemental

Allows for expanded course offerings, such as AP courses and credit recovery

Possible strategy to address teacher shortage Florida Virtual School served 52,000 students in 90

courses in 06-07

o Full-time Majority/entirety of courses offered online Provides full spectrum of school services Generally provides computer, Internet access, and

course materials free to student

8

Indiana Virtual Programs

• Indiana has several locally-initiated supplemental virtual programs:o Indiana Online Academy (administered by CIESC)o Indiana Virtual Schoolo Indiana University High School (provides both

supplemental and full-time programs)

• All three programs:o Use Indiana-certified teacherso Offer asynchronous courses which meet or exceed

Indiana state standardso Charge course fees (less than $300 per credit) to

student or school

9

Indiana Virtual Programs

• Indiana has no full-time virtual charter schools; however, Hoosier Academy combines elements of both virtual and traditional charterso Conditionally approved through Ball State University

and working in conjunction with K12 Inc.o Provides a blended curriculum consisting of a

combination of online course work at home and traditional classroom work at a physical learning facility

o Open to all K-10 Indiana students, but students must attend one of two physical locations in Indianapolis and Muncie twice a week

10

Pitfalls of Virtual Education

• Proper training and certification for teachers

• Equitable funding models

• Program quality and oversight

• Student accountability

• Student socialization

• Lack of explicit rules in Indiana

11

Policy Considerations

• State policy should ensure that virtual and traditional education options complement each other in the evolving education and workforce landscapes of the 21st century

• To ensure quality and oversight:o Require online courses to meet or exceed state

standardso Have online course titles/offerings approved by

SBOEo Mandate same high school graduation

requirements for all types of schools

12

Policy Considerations:Effective funding mechanisms

• Current education funding models, such as those based on seat-time, may not be viable for many virtual programs

• Potential models of funding distribution:o Distribution of funds based on a sliding scale of

expenditures which is based on expenditures of faculty, curriculum, and other educational services

o Distribution by course or credit to the various providers of students’ education where programs receive funding based upon student completion of courses

13

Policy Considerations:Accountability and Teacher Training

• To ensure effectiveness, virtual evaluation management tools that create transparency should be integrated into virtual programs to help identify strong and weak programs

• Teaching in a virtual school setting takes different skills and strategies than in a traditional school setting

• Establish online teacher training requirements for pre-service teachers and include as a component of professional development for all teachers

• Create explicit licensing requirement for teaching online

14

II. School District Consolidation

CEEP Reports:“Assessing the Policy Environment for School Corporation

Collaboration, Cooperation, and Consolidation in Indiana”

July 18, 2007http://ceep.indiana.edu/projects/PDF/PB_V5N5.pdf

“2007 Public Opinion Survey on K-12 Education in Indiana”January 9, 2008

http://www.ceep.indiana.edu/projects/PDF/POS_Ed_IN_20080108.pdf

15

16

(Q9) To what extent do you agree or disagree with the perspective that the consolidation of smaller school districts in Indiana will save tax

dollars?

New Question in 2007

Respondents who believe to some extent that consolidation of school districts in Indiana will save tax dollars:

• All Respondents 49%

• White Residents 50%• Non-White Residents 45%

• High School or Less 44%• Some College 49%• College Grad or More 53%

16

17

(Q10) Would you support or oppose the school district in your community being consolidated with another district if there was only a slight possibility the consolidation would lower your tax

burden?

New Question in 2007

• All Respondents:Support 35% Oppose 59%

• White Residents :Support 33% Oppose 61%

• Minority Residents:Support 45% Oppose 51%

Support Declines with More Education:

• High School or Less 40%• Some College 38%• College Grad or More 28%

17

18

2007 Local Government Reform Commission Recommendations Concerning Schools

(Note: A total of 27 recommendations were issued on December 11, 2007; this Commission is often referred to as the Kernan-Shepard Commission)

Recommendation #11: Reorganize school districts to achieve a minimum student population of 2,000. Establish state standards and a county-based planning process similar to that established in 1959 legislation

Recommendation #12: Require that school corporation bonds be approved by the fiscal body of the municipal or county government containing the greatest proportion of assessed value in the school district

19

2007 Local Government Reform Commission Recommendations Concerning Schools

(continued)Recommendation #13: Prompt joint purchasing by schools

Recommendation #14: Conduct all non-partisan school elections during November in even years

20

Local Government Unit Trends in Indiana

1952 1962 1972 1982 1992 1997 2002

County 92 92 91 91 91 91 91

Township 1,008 1,008 1,008 1,008 1,008 1,008 1,008

City and Towns 541 547 546 564 566 569 567

School Districts 1,115 884 315 305 294 294 294

Special Districts (including libraries) 293 560 832 897 939 1,236 1,125

21

Descriptive Data

• In 2005-06, Indiana ranked 14th in the nation with the number of public school students at 1,035,074. The average number of students per school was 519, ranking the state 16th in this category. The national average was 498 students per building

• In 2005-06, Indiana ranked 18th (from largest to smallest) in the nation for its number of schools (1,993) and its number of corporations (364 including charter schools and co-ops)

22

Descriptive Data (continued)

• The average number of students per school corporation of 2,843 ranked the state 25th in the nation, just slightly above the national average of 2,824 students per school corporation

• According to the NCES Common Core of Data for the 2005-06 school year, Indiana had fewer teachers, guidance counselors, librarians, school building administrators, school district administrators, and administrative support staff than the national average, but more instructional aides, instructional coordinators/supervisors, and other support staff

23

District Enrollment Size (2007-08)

Corporations Compared to Counties

In Indiana:• The 10 smallest school corporations are in counties

where the total population is lower than 100,000 and the total number of school corps. range from 3 to 7

• The 10 largest school corporations are in counties where the total population is over 100,000 and the total number of school corps. range from 1 to 16

• 8 of the 10 smallest counties have only one school corporation

24

25

Perceived Benefits and Obstacles to Central Office Consolidation

Benefits ObstaclesEnhanced curricular opportunities Public perception/community

relationships

Shared/combined services, pooling of resources

Job loss

Savings of time Multiple boards

Potential cost savings No educational benefit

Better communication opportunity Accuracy of financial analysis

26

Texas School Consolidation Policy Study

• Research furnishes little evidence that consolidation controls costs or improves academic achievement (i.e., “bigger isn’t necessarily better”)

• Most studies concur that students perform better in smaller elementary and middle schools. Research on small high schools is inconclusive

*Patterson, C. (February 2006). School District Consolidation and Public School Efficiency: What Does the Research Say? Texas Public Policy Foundation, Center for Education Policy Studies.

27

Kansas – Policy Paper on School Consolidation

• The benefits of small schools is one of the promising areas of research in education o Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation have invested

more than $750 million in touting the benefits of smaller schools, or “smaller learning communities,” whether in rural or urban settings

o As a result, across the country some school districts are getting smaller rather than larger

*Laplante, J. (December 2005). School Consolidation: An Ineffective Way of Improving Education. Policy Paper. Flint Hills Center for Public Policy.

28

Academic Drawbacks to Consolidation

• Brasington (2004) found that doubling school size caused school performance to fall by one percentage point

• Berry (2004) determined that increasing the average size of a school by 100 students was associated with a 3.7% decline in earnings by high school graduates

• In this light, consolidation does not appear to help prepare students for their futures

29

Variables Contributing to High Achievement

• Little evidence that corporation consolidation has a positive or negative effect on student achievement

• Most significant variables that contribute to high student achievement include: smaller class sizes, effective professional development, highly qualified teachers, and a handful of socioeconomic factors -- primarily family income

• These relationships are complex and have a point of diminishing returns (e.g., class size)

30

Financial Impact of Consolidation

• Minimal cost savings o Savings possible by moving from a very small district to a

district with 1,000 – 4,000 studentso Consolidation can create districts too large that result in

increase administrative costs, larger class size ratios, and lower student achievement

• Andrew Coulson, at the Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom, has done research on optimal district size in five stateso Results have variedo New York districts are most efficient at 2,280 studentso An optimal size could not ultimately be determined in

Michigan

Financial Impact of Consolidation (continued)

• In a doctoral dissertation, Tim Zimmer, finds that according to one cost model for Indiana, the optimal student enrollment is 1,030 students with a cost of $9,824 per student. Diseconomies emerge beyond the optimal.

• If consolidation is considered, it is only consistent that deconsolidation be open to discussion.

• According to his data analysis of Indiana school corporations, student performance is optimal with enrollments between 1,000 and 3,000 students, and peaks at an enrollment level of 2,238 students

Tim Zimmer. Doctoral Dissertation. Purdue University: West Lafayette, IN. 31

32

Financial Impact of Consolidation (continued)

• Research from Dr. Lowell Rose suggested that there is a statistically insignificant relationship between the size (ADM) of a school corporation and the expenditures per student in that corporation 0 10000 20000 30000 40000

ADM

6000

8000

10000

12000

ADM$

Spearman’s rho = -.19, p < .001

33

Unintended Consequences

• Possible unintended consequences of consolidation include:

o Loss of community identity

o Impact on funding formula

o Changes to AYP and PL 221 category placements

34

• The Indiana General Assembly delayed funding for the FinMARS Plan until at least 2009; however, it provided $150,000/year for the Indiana School Business Official Leadership Academy

• This academy is to ensure that business and finance officials in each corporation are equipped with adequate analysis, communication, and leadership skills to maximize the efficient use of resources

• Also appropriated $100,000 for school corporation consolidation feasibility studies. A total of four studies underway in Randolph, White, and Delaware Counties

• From July 1 through July 15, 2008, the IDOE is accepting grant proposals for studies being conducted during the 2008-09 school year

Legislative Funding (HEA 1001-2007)

35

Findings and Recommendations

1. Consolidation has no proven impact on student achievement

2. Some research suggests optimal school and school corporation sizes exist (i.e., smaller schools in bigger districts); however, research is inconsistent and inclusive

3. At best, limited research available that indicates meaningful cost savings are realized from consolidation on a systemic basis

4. Thus, consolidation should be encouraged on a case-by-case basis only, not mandated on a wholesale basis (e.g. state of Maine). In particular, consolidation may be beneficial for the smallest school corporations with proper strategic planning. (A case can be made to consolidate districts with less than 1,000 students; less compelling the bigger the target population)

36

5. Encourage corporations to participate in the feasibility study program funded by the Indiana General Assembly

6. Encourage the IGA to fund implementation grants after feasibility studies concluded

7. Implications of consolidation on AYP and PL 221 categories should be addressed

8. Shared services hold considerable promise and should be a point of emphasis

9. School corporations should be given incentives to save by allowing inter-fund transfers of documented savings to GF to provide more money for classroom instruction

Findings and Recommendations

37

Continuum of District Consolidation Strategies

TotalConsolidation

AdministrativeConsolidation

Everything:Districts, schools,services

SharedServices

Administration, Services, not schools

Services

What’s

consolidated?

Research

Verdict? Little evidence of

achievement or savings effects

Limited evidence of benefits for small districts

Evidence of considerable savings

38

III. Pre-Kindergarten Programs

CEEP/IIDC Report:

“Closing the Achievement Gap Series: Part IIs Indiana Ready for State-Sponsored Prekindergarten

Programs?”

August 7, 2006

http://ceep.indiana.edu/projects/PDF/PB_V4N7_Summer_2006_Prekindergarten.pdf

39

Benefits of Pre-K Participation

Educational

Lower special education referral rates

Up to a 41 percent reduction in special education placements.

Reduced grade retention rates Up to a 40 percent reduction in grade retentions

Improved academic performance Higher performance on intelligence and achievement tests through age 27.

Increased educational attainment Higher high school completion rates and higher rates of college attendance.

Social

Reduced crime rate Lower arrest rates through age 40 and reduced arrests for violent offenses.

Reduced social services usage Lower rates of social services usage at ages 27 and 40.

Reduced child abuse and neglect 51 percent reduction in maltreatment of own children.

EconomicIncreased earnings Higher median monthly and annual earnings at ages 27

and 40.

Increased employment rate and job skill level

Higher employment rate at ages 21, 27, and 40.Higher rate of employment in skilled jobs at age 21.

40

Benefits of Pre-K Participation (continued)

• 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

41

National Snapshot of Pre-K Programs

• In 2006-07, 38 states (excluding Indiana) offered state-funded pre-k programs

• Approximately $3.7 billion was spent by state governments

• These states serve 1,008,597 3- and 4-year olds, over an 8% increase from the previous year

• 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

42

Indiana Snapshot of Pre-K Programs

• In 2005, 40% of all 3- and 4-year olds (or approximately 101,694 children) participated in center-based early education (nursery school, preschool, child care centers, registered ministries, prekindergarten; excludes child care homes) in Indiana

• Of these children, 49% were served in a public school setting. Thus, about approximately 50,000 3- and 4-year-old children are served in prekindergarten by a public school

• 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

* Data from the Census Bureau: Indiana Enrollment in Early Education 2006

43

Indiana Snapshot of Pre-K Programs (continued)

• 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 absent

• Despite this, there were 93 school corporations and three charter schools that provided some type of pre-k education (not including preschool special education) during the 2006-07 school year

44

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:

o Comprehensive early learning standardso Teachers with bachelor’s degreeso Teachers with specialized training in prekindergarteno Assistant teachers with Child Development Associate or equivalent

degreeo In-service training for minimum 15 hours per yearo Maximum class size of 20 studentso Staff-child ratio of 1 to 10 or fewero Required screening for vision, hearing, health and minimum of 1

family support activityo At least 1 meal per dayo Required monitoring through site visits

NOTE: NIEER is the National Institute for Early Education Research.

45

• 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 (2006 estimate)

• The same program expanded to all 4-year-olds would cost $156,567,141 at the same rate (2006 estimate)

Considerations of Pre-K Programs (continued)

Considerations of Pre-K Programs (continued)

• The Economic Policy Institute released a study on the costs and benefits of pre-k programs

• In Indiana, a targeted program, serving only 3- and 4-year olds from families in the lowest quarter of the income distribution, would pay for itself within 8 years

• The annual cost of the program in 2008 would be $211 million

• By 2050, the program would cost $598 million, but the benefits would equal $5.9 billion in the same year

• The ratio of total benefits to costs in 2050 is 9.8 to 1

46

47

Recommendations

1. Build on existing foundations for studying and planning publicly-funded pre-k programs

2. Identify and agree upon the purpose, goals, and desired outcomes of a publicly-funded pre-k program

3. Examine service delivery options that build on existing pre-k programs and phase in services statewide

4. Link the level of funding for a statewide pre-k program with the desired program goals and outcomes

5. Identify a funding source that is stable and continuous6. Determine and commit to a state and local

governance system for pre-k programs

48

IV. Full-Day KindergartenCEEP 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

49

Additional CEEP Research on FDK

CEEP Report conducted for IAPSS:

“The Effects of Full Day Versus Half DayKindergarten: Review and Analysis of National and Indiana Data”

January 9, 2004

http://www.ceep.indiana.edu/projects/PDF/FDK_report_final.pdf

50

Full-Day Kindergarten Grant• State Budget (HEA 1001-2007) increased 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 for the 2008-09 school year May 2, 2008

51

Full-Day Kindergarten Grant: Eligibility

• Eligibility for 2008-09 school year:o Any school corporation or charter schoolo No demographic makeup consideredo School must include five hours of instructional time

for 180 days during the school yearo School must meet academic standards of Indiana

Code Title 20 and State Board of Education rules adopted pursuant to IC 20

52

Full-Day Kindergarten Grant: Allocations

• Actual grant amount is dependent on how many FDK students are present on “count day” in September

• Grant amount per student is equal to the total state appropriation divided by the total number of FDK students statewide

• As of June 25,2008, 291 school corporations and 28 charter schools applied to receive the grants. The grants will fund an estimated 2,681 FDK classrooms

• Based on applications submitted May 2, 2008 to the IDOE, there will be an estimated 56,468 FDK students (approximately 75% of all kindergarten students statewide) for the 2008-09 school year, making the grant $1,047 per student

53

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

54

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 Funding

55http://www.doe.in.gov/TitleI/pdf/funding_fdk.pdf

V. Predictions for the 2009 General Assembly

56

• Virtual education, FDK funding, and school corporation consolidation are expected to be hot topics in this upcoming session

• Other issues may include: moving school board elections to November; an appointed state superintendent of public instruction; modifications to the 2008 voter referendum law concerning school construction; school choice; privatization of Hoosier Lottery to fund Hoosier Hope Scholarships; and of course school funding

School Funding Issues

• Full funding for FDK = $160 million• School transportation funding issues: 1) Move to state

funding system? 2) Rising fuel costs driving costs up to exceed 5% cap

• Formula issues: 1) What level of funding increase can be expected? 2) Will per pupil funding inequities between corporations be eliminated? How will the Complexity Index, growth factor, deghoster mechanism, and vocational and special education funding change, if at all?

• Fiscal year/school year budgeting implementation: 6-month or 18-month transition period?

57

School Board Elections

• Local Government Reform Commission Recommendation #14: Conduct all non-partisan school elections during November in even years

• 2008 legislation: HB 1373 and SB 002 (passed the Senate with a 34-13 vote)

58

Study Committee Issues

• The Interim Study Committee on Education Matters will be considering several issues:o A review of high school athletic steroid testingo The feasibility making the Indiana Technology Fund

a continuing appropriationo Making recommendations to the General Assembly

for a formula to fund school transportation costso College readinesso K-12 virtual learning and related issues of standards,

funding, etc.

59

CEEP Contact Information

Terry E. Spradlin, MPAAssociate Director

509 East Third Street

Bloomington, Indiana 47401-3654

812-855-4438

Fax: 812-856-5890

http://ceep.indiana.edu

60