M E M O R A N D U M March 1,2006

TO:

FROM:

The Honorable Chair and Members of The School Board of Miami-Dade Countv, Florida - .

Rudolph F. Crew, Superintendent of Schools

SUBJECT: PROPOSED CLASS SIZE REQUIREMENT MODIFICATION AND POLICY BRIEF TRANSMITTAL REGARDING THE "65% SPENDING SOLUTION"

The Florida Legislature is proposing a modification to the Constitutional Class Size Requirement. A joint resolution has been filed in both chambers to amend the method by which class size compliance is calculated. Under the proposed language, class size would be calculated by district average with no individual classroom having a student-teacher ratio of more than five students over the current constitutional cap. The joint resolution also revises the current requirement to measure class size compliance by classroom and instead measures compliance based on the student-teacher ratio. This change would allow districts to use co- teaching, team teaching, and other innovative methods to comply with class size reduction.

The joint resolution requires the Legislature to continue to provide sufficient funds to reduce the district average class size by at least two students per year until the school district average class size for each of the grade groupings meets the specified class size requirements. If the joint resolution received approval by the electors in the November 2006 election, the class size calculations would not be measured at the class level, but would continue to be measured at a district-wide average.

Additionally, the proposed joint resolution requires that by the beginning of the 2009-2010 school year, and for each subsequent school year, all school districts must expend at least 65 percent of total funds received for expenditures directly related to classroom instruction. For purposes of this Constitutional amendment, the joint resolution does not define "total funds" or "classroom instruction." Instead, the joint resolution provides that both "total funds" and "classroom instruction" will be defined by general law. If the joint resolution were to be approved by the electors in the November 2006 election, implementing legislation would determine the details of what constitutes "total funds" and expenditures on "classroom instruction" and compliance requirements.

Attached for your review is a copy of the policy brief prepared by staff on the merits of the proposed spending requirement. Three states have adopted the 65 percent expenditure requirement as legislative policy; Florida would be the first state to elevate the mandate to a constitutional requirement. Standard & Poor's has weighed in on the debate and analyzed data in the nine states that are currently considering implementing this expenditure requirement and found no correlation between the percentage of funds that districts spend on instruction and the percentage of students who score proficient or higher on state reading and math tests. Furthermore, in other states the 65% Solution, as it has been coined, narrowly defines classroom instruction to include classroom teachers, paraprofessionals in the classrooms, equipment in the classroom and instructional materials. Media specialists, counselors, and other student services provided would not be included.

Page I of 2

HB 447, sponsored by Representative Pickens, House Education Appropriations Chair, has passed two committees; House Choice and Innovation Education Committee and House Education Appropriations. The Senate version, SB 1150, filed by Senator Pruitt, Senate Appropriations Chair, has not been heard yet in committee.

Should you have any questions or need additional information please contact Mr. Alberto M. Carvalho, Associate Superintendent, Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, Grants Administration, and Community Services at 305 995-2532.

Attachment

cc: Superintendent's Cabinet School Board Attorney Dr. Magaly C. Abrahante lraida R. Mendez-Cartaya Dr. Linda D. Brown Principals PTAlPTSA Citizens Coalition for Public Education Employee Groups

Page 2 of 2

'.-?--'

Schod Year 2W-06 , ; ..;;-'Z? -

::;- ! <r,> +*- ,*

Research Update 65% Spending "Solution"

Inside this I _ _ .e: MiamLDade Co~ng Pubbc Schoo,

Kansas School Boards Resist 65% Goal, Find Per-Pupil Spending Bigger Fador : Delining Effective Spending: Do Academic and Student Supports Count? 3

A New Mandate for Schools? Local Constraints in Meeting a $400 Gap 3

National PTA: One-Size-Frts-All Solution Is 'Fatally flawed"

Florida May Be First to Put "65% Solution" in Constitution The Florida Legislature is considering a This Research Update reviews evidence of ballot amendment requiring school claims* relating to the 65% requirement. boards to allocate at least 65% of thei Will student peFformance budgets to expenses "directly related to 1 with more rrsources in c,assrmms? the classroom-" This ~ r o ~ o s a l , which National studies find no evidence to sup supporters call the "65% Solution," is port this assumption. (See below and p. 2) advocated as a national goal by a pri- vate Washington-based organization, 2 Can raise cfassroom First Class Education ("FCE"). FCE by 696 without ;lddi@oml funds? urges all 50 states and the District of Proponents assert Florida can increase Columbia to enact the requirement into classroom spending from 59% to 65%, law by the end of 2008. but this is true only if the Legislature d e

fines academic and student supports as While three states have adopted the llnrelated to the classroom. (See p. 3) 65% target as a legislative policy or ex the new funding come ecutive order. Florida is among the first 3 from 'Wasteful" administrative to consider mandating the goal in its No, Florida's entire administrative budget State Constitution. If placed On the is only 7% for all levels, and district-level

*Oo6 ballot and approved by coats are less than half the U.S. average. voters, the Legislature will define class- Without new funds, a 6% increase will re-

m o p u * room-related expenses, and school dis- quire seNlce that could impact R d C t M g i * o u r s ~ r r l s !he u n ~ tricks that fall short of the 65% spending other federal or state manda . (See p

requirement will face penalties.

Grants Administrati on.

1 Standard & Poor's Questions Bottom Une

' blbarto M. C h l k ;' assocaatl?Sup~nten&mt

1 ' I ~ idaR . nrmrlsz- 1 ;! AdmirrWWe Director

1 , 1501) Biscayne Boulevard " Miami.FL33132 -1 Phone: 305-995-1497

I '- k 305-995-1514

Research excerpts with cltatlons omitted The issues & lmpllcatkns af the '65 Percent Solutkn' Standard & Poor's SchoolMatters (Fall, 2005) http://csd.org~csdrpdc/pdfs/65~aper-~~hooImatter~. pdf (reprinted by permission)

Interestingly, the 65 Percent Solution comes at a time when many education reform initiatives place their emphasis on measurable student outcomes, as opposed to financial inputs. Yet, the 65 Percent Solution is an input-driven initia- tive, without any measurable outcome, such as a quantified achievement goal or targeted return on resources. This raises the question of whether there is empirical evidence that allocating more money to instruction will necessarily re- -ult in higher student achievement,.,.

" m h e ~ is no minimum p d i n g ahcation that is a 'silver bulbt' solution for ihpmving student achievement.. .; the data reveal no sig- nzJ;Cant re/ation.sh+ behveen instrw~h~oonal pending at 65% or any other level and strl- dent petfomnce. "

Standard & Poor's analysis of data in nine states that are currently considering insti- tuting a 65 Percent Solution shows no sig- nificant positive correlation between the percentage of funds that districts spend on instruction and the percentage of stu- dents who score proficient or higher on state reading and math tests. Although there are a number of districts that spend

(Continued on page 4) -.

age 2

Kansas School Boards Resist 65% Goal, Flnd Per-Pupll Spendlng Blgger Factor Research excerpts fmm Kansas Assoclatlon of School Boards 65 pmmk Wutron or Gimmick? Focus on Publlc Education (Sept 2005) www.kasb.org/legis/actionplan/65percentpdf

The 2005 [Kansas] Legislature passed a state "policy goal" of spending 65 percent of educational dollars on instruction using the federal government's budget defi- nition. Like many simple ideas that sound attractive at first, the proposal is already creating questions and confusion, and, if pursued, will likely end up harming education more than it helps ....

operations and maintenance. The only practical way to shift funding for small schools is to close school build- ings and consolidate districts to reduce overhead ....

Large districts spend more on counselors, social work- ers, nurses, resource officers and security. They al- ready have lower administration and overhead be- cause of economies of scale. The only way to achieve the 65 percent target is to cut services that have been proven to benefit students.

I- 3y Instruction] struction 7 Rank Per Pupil Do states that spend the highesl Vhat about local control? Kan- percentage on instruction have as has traditionally allowed lo- the highest NAEP perf~rmance? I. New York 68.7% 18 $11,961 cal school boards, elected by No. Just four of the 10 states that 2. Maine 67.1% 16 $9,344 voters in each district, to decide spend the highest percentage on 1- how to spend money. The 65 instruction also rank in the top 4. Rhodelsland 64.6% 34 $10,349 percent mandate tells every 10 on NAEP [National Assess- 5.Tennessee 64.6% 43 $6,118 community what its priorities ment of Education Progress] must be, regardless of local cir- reading and math tests. Four of 7. Utah 64.1% 36 $4,838 cumstances. For instance, dis- the 10 states, including Kansas, tricts with higher transportation spending the lowest percentage 9. Nebraska 63.8% $8,074 costs would have to spend less on instruction also rank in the top on other student services to fit 1 0 in NAEP performance .... vithin the 35 percent allowed

Dr "non-instruction." Does the amount of spending matter more than percentage I Conclusion: Base accountability spent on instruction? Yes. The on academic results. Kansas top 10 states on NAEP reading schools welcome financial ac- and math achievement spend ar ountability - accountability average of $9,016 per pupil, 01 lased on student performance. 36 percent more than the bottorr, ,,. ,,, JL 9-/,o,v Aansas ranks among the top 10 ($6,860). On the other hand, 4.6. Oklahoma 57.9% 41 $6,092 states in performance while the top 10 NAEP states spend an 47. oho 57.4% 19 $8,632 spending below the national av- average of 61.5 percent on in- erage. The real problem is that struction, compared to an aver- 49. Wchigan 57.0% 26 $8,781 current spending is not enough age of 60.7 percent for the bot- 50. New Mexico 55.5% 49 $7,125 to help the most disadvantaged tom 10, a difference of less than Bverag.e 57.9% 22.6 $7,334 1 students reach high academic 1 percent. Highest and Lowest States in Percent Spent Standards.

on Instruction, with 2003 NAEP Rank What changes would 65 percent ,,,, ,,, Spending more on instruction, require? The 65 percent goal NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF EDUCATION PROGRESS at the expense of other areas, was adopted without any analysis does not improve student per- of what it would mean for Kansas schools. Last year, it formance or allow better performance at a lower cost. would have required cutting about $180 million from It DOES leave out programs and services that DO im- the programs and services listed previously to shift to prove performance and would require most Kansas dis- instruction. But that would have a very different impact tricts to cut programs, positions and even close based on types and sizes of schools .... schools. As a "goal," the 65 percent solution is just a

gimmick that sounds good until you look at the facts. Small schools spend less on student and instructional As a mandate, it could do serious harm by cutting other suppstrt and mQre on administration, transportation, importantfunctions.

:hool Year 2005-06

Defining Effective Spending: Do Academic and Student Supports Count?

- - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - www.~.org/ia-ptagositionsti1138312705671.html Librantns &Me&- p---

What is considered to be "in the classroom" expenses was defined by the National Center for Education Statis- Teacher Training

tics in 1980. There have been significant changes in in- Nurses & Gumekors

struction costs in the past 25 4

Excerpt from Natlonal PTA posttlon statement a the E dmce: National Parent Teacher Association (PTA) Amdentic & S P n d a t Sumport

.1 --..w&

integral part of the strategy to Teachers & Paraprofessionals teach reading to students with LEstructiod Supplies speech problems. Health care Clamroom Equipment Trrrpodon & Fuel such as nursing services is not in- S ~ o h . Field T&s. Arb cluded although it is an instrue ~ e e d s T ~ & I . . . -- -

. - - - - - - - - - - . . . tional cost, not a medical cost, ac- cording to the U.S. Supreme Court.... What's more, school libraries and librarians are not included in the definition of instruction but uniforms for the football team are.

A New Mandate for Schools? Local Constraints in Meeting a $400 Gap 81 If a 65% spending requirement is defined narrowly, and Option 2: Reduce Florida's below-average admini academic and student supports are not related to the tive costs. This is not a viable solution in Flo . classroom, no Florida school board would be in compli- While "wasteful" administrative costs are a frequently:;,- ance. Florida districts spend about 59% on direct instruc- mentioned target for savings, school and district add - tion, but to reach 65% they would need an additional ministration combined account for just 7% of the edu":

, , $400 per student (as of 2003). cation budget ($461 per student) versus the 6%:: ji: ts,aaa - From where will this money come? spending gap ($400 per student). Moreover, ~lorida's' ,

administrative costs are already $150 below the U.S. Option 1: Increase total spending average, and district-level expenses are less than half by 6% over inflation. The simplest the national average ($73 vs. $163, or 45%).

$%am - F choice is if the Florida Legislature . t i

raises per-pupil spending at least Option 3: Reduce or streamline services, without unf-, , ;' I $400 on top of annual inflation in- dermining other educational mandates. Flori creases. Florida's annual education schools spend less than their national counterparts

$3,000 - spending as of 2003 is more than most categories of spending. In fact, Florida reach $1,500 below the U.S. average, of the U.S. average in only two categories, instructi which $1,100 is reflected in below- staff support and food services. These and other average instructional spending (see vices could face scrutiny and possible cuts if Flor~ graphic). A $400 increase helps re- adopts a Constitutional spending requirement.

$a,o#a - duce this deficit, but a smaller raise would force districts to seek reduc- At the same time, school district spending decision tions in other budget categories. are constrained by an array of mandates, includi

federal and state accountabil $1,H0 - for learning gains, transportation

US m -1 *a- for all students, free or reduced school lunch costs for eligible students, accommodations and

* -- support for students with disabili- ' ties, and numerous public safety

- . - -Ur

National PTA: OneSlze-Fits-All Solution Is "Fatally fla Excerpts from Natlonel M A posltlon statement National Parent Teacher association (PTA) www.pta.orglia_pta~ansa1238312T05671.html

However, the 65 Percent Solution is fatally flawed for three reasons:

1) the initiative gives the appearance of increasing National PTA believes that it is critical for S ~ ~ O O ~ S to direct classroom spending but does not in fact increase every dolbr possible to C ~ ~ S S ~ O O ~ instt-u~tion. National funding for public education at all; PTA believes, however, that the 65. Percent Solution is fa- tally flawed and will hinder, not help our nation's schools 2) a one-size frts all model is unworkable in [a] country

in accomplishing the goal of providing that has 5 1 state education systems including the

well-rounded, high-quality education. bia and over 14,000 school districts that are as unique as snowflakes;

The 65 Percent Solution is being pro 3) independent research shows moted by a newly formed organization, "...t/le 6.jI'ercerlt S~~/ iJ t ;~~i l that student performance does not First Class Education (FCE). The goal ~ d ; r c ~ s arbitran re,srriL.tiu~~.s noticeably or consistently increase cited by FCE is laudable, "require that , , , ,tat,s ;rnd Jistr;'.ts t/la7t at 65 percent or any other minimum at l e t 65 Percent of what tmPaYem

;l,-C ii/rcAiJ<v slrllgg/;rlg to percentage spent on instruction .... spend on K-2-12 education actually makes its way into the classroom." 111ake ends meet nit11 the National PTA's Position

FCE s ~ g g . 8 5 ~ three benefits Ii~zu'red r e ~ ~ l i r ~ ~ s the] 113 1-L.. " To accomplish the goal of providing

of the 65 Percent ~oiution: every child with a well-rounded, highquality education, adequate

1) increasing the amount of money funding must be provided and spent in the classroom without increasing taxes; schools must be held accountable for ensuring that all

2) reducing the amount spent on "wasteful" administra- children succeed. The 65 Percent Solution does neither. tive by making districts accountable for how The 65 Percent Solution is an inputdriven initiative, with- they spend their money; and out any measurable outcome, such as student achieve-

ment, student retention, or return on resources. What's 3, student Performance focusing On class- mo,, the 65 Percent Solution places arbitrary restric-

room activities. tions on states and districts that are already struggling to -- - National PTA believes that it is critical for schools to direct make ends meet with the limited resourcei they have. every dollar possible to classroom instruction. -

Bottom Une (Contimedfrom page I )

'TSlome ofthe highest$arf0mng aYstpzcts @end kss than 65% and some ofthe bwst-Momng dzjtn&s spend more....

more than 65% on instruction and achieve above-average 7 i o ~ M a forred change in resource aII0cadion proficiency levels, there are many districts that exceed be detpz'menkzl to the ktntn~s'pe@onna?ice?" the 65% goal and achieve below-average proficiency rates. Interestingly, some of the highest-performing dis- Concdusion and Further Considerations tricts spend less than 65% and some of the lowest- Standard & Poor's analy~is reveals that there is no mini- pelforming districts spend more than 65%. Student per- mum spending allocation that is a "silver bullet" solution formance does not noticeably or consistently increase at for improving student achievement- Spending more on 65%, or any other percentage spent on instruction .... instruction is generally thought to help raise test scores;

however, the data reveal no significant relationship be- Just as there is no observable relationship between tween instructional spending at 65% or any other level spending more than 65% on instruction and high student and student performance. While the data do not support performance, there is also no significant correlation be- mandating a minimum instructional spending threshold tween spending any minimum percentage on instruction applied uniformly across all districts, monitoring the per- and student performance .... However, these findings do centage districts allocate to instruction is a useful bench- not suggest that "money doesn't matter," or that school mark in assessing the district's return on resources.... districts should not dedicate as much of their resources as possible to the classroom. This is a laudable goal, but Que~tions for Policymakers: ... If you support implement- the percentage allocated to instruction may need to vary 1% a 65 percent solution in your state, what are your from one district to another for legitimate reasons. For goals in doing SO? ...If some of the state's highest per- example, districtsp fixed costs and discretionary spending forming districts spend less than 65% On "~laS~r00m in-

may vary significantly .... struetion," could a forced change in resource allocation be detrimental to the districts' performance?