Ensuring Better Use of School Finance Reform Dollars: Lessons from Kentucky, New Jersey, Texas and Arkansas Lawrence O. Picus USC Rossier School of Education

Ensuring Better Use of School Finance Reform Dollars:

Lessons from Kentucky, New Jersey, Texas and Arkansas

Lawrence O. PicusUSC Rossier School of Education

Michelle Turner ManganCPRE UW-Madison

Lawrence O. Picus and Associates

Lawrence Picus and Michelle Turner Mangan

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


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



• 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



• 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


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


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


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


Instructional Materials

Pupil Support: Parent/CommunityOutreach/Involvement

Gifted

Tutors and pupil support:1 per 100 at risk

Elem 20%

Middle20%

High School 33%

The Evidence Based Model:Students Ready for College, Work in the Global Economy, & Citizenship

K-3: 15 to 14-12: 25 to 1

State and CESAs

District Admin Site-based Leadership

TeacherCompensation

ELL1 per100

Technology


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


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


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


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.


Resource Use in the Average School in the Total Sample

Staffing Funding Model Sample

Principal 0.90 0.97*

Instr. Facilitator 2.25 0.45

Secretary 1.80 1.51**

Core Teachers 18.66 18.55

Spec. Teachers 3.73 7.62

Tutors 2.69 0.31***

Librarian 0.63 0.93

Pupil Support 2.25 3.51


Arkansas: Actual Resource Use in the Sample

Staffing Funding Model Actual

Principal 96 104

Asst. Principal 0 63

Instr. Facilitator 241 49

Core Teachers 1,997 1,984

Spec. Teachers 399 815

Instructional Aides 0 389

Tutors 288 34

Librarian 67 99

Pupil Support 241 376


AR School Resource Use: Students per Core Teacher

State Funding Model

Actual

Elementary 23:1Range (13-24):1

Average 20:1

Middle 25:1Range (11-35):1

Average 25:1

High 25:1Range (10-41):1

Average 29:1


AR School Resource Use: Core Teachers in Sample Schools

State Funding Model

Actual

Elementary 897 1,007

Middle 299 308

High 801 669

TOTAL 1,997 1,984


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


AR School Resource Uses: Tutors

NSL Concentration

State Funding Model Actual in Sample

< 70%1 Tutor for Every 100

Students = 17717

70-89%2 Tutors for Every 100

Students = 9315

≥90%3 Tutors for Every 100

Students = 182

TOTAL 288 34


Arkansas: The High School Schedule

• Trends • Lots of electives and a 7 period day

• Football, basketball, & baseball as classes in addition to physical education


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


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


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


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 extra help for struggling students.


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


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


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

Insuring Better Use of School Finance Reform Dollars:

Lessons from Kentucky, New Jersey, Texas and Arkansas

Supplemental

Graphics


Arkansas Beginning Teacher Salary by District Size

$28,318

$24,299

$27,523

$31,704

$4,000

$8,000

$12,000

$16,000

$20,000

$24,000

$28,000

$32,000

$36,000

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 G10

District Size Deciles (1= lowest ADM; 10 = highest ADM)

Beg

inn

ing

Teach

er

Sala

ry

.

2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 B


Arkansas Beginning Teacher Salary by Assessed Valuation Per Pupil

$28,213

$27,465

$29,652

$30,663

$4,000

$8,000

$12,000

$16,000

$20,000

$24,000

$28,000

$32,000

$36,000

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 G10

Property Wealth Deciles (1= lowest wealth; 10 = highest wealth)

Beg

inn

ing

Teach

er

Sala

ry

.

2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 B


Arkansas Average Teacher Salary by District Size

$44,043

$31,858

$35,939

$45,174

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

$40,000

$45,000

$50,000

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 G10

District Size Deciles (1= lowest ADM; 10 = highest ADM)

Avera

ge T

each

er

Sala

ry

.

2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 B


Arkansas Average Teacher Salary by Assessed Valuation Per Pupil

$41,487$37,051

$39,924

$43,540

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

$40,000

$45,000

$50,000

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 G10

Property Wealth Deciles (1= lowest wealth; 10 = highest wealth)

Avera

ge T

each

er

Sala

ry

.

2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 B


Arkansas Districts Increased the Number of Contract Days

185 185 185

186

190 190

192

195 195

180

182

184

186

188

190

192

194

196

2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

Year

Nu

mb

er

of

Da

ys

in

Co

ntr

ac

t

Minimum

Average

Maximum

Documents

Ensuring Better Use of School Finance Reform Dollars: Lessons from Kentucky, New Jersey, Texas and Arkansas Lawrence O. Picus USC Rossier School of Education