Determining the Cost of Education in New Jersey NJ Department of Education Presentation before the Joint Legislative Committee on Public School Funding.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
The PJP Approach Justin Silverstein and John Augenblick Augenblick, Palaich and Associates (APA) April 25,
Advertisements

Migrant Education Comprehensive Needs Assessment
Northeast Regional Program in Charles City Questions & Answers.
School Funding Formulas: A National Perspective Presentation to the Task Force on School Funding John Myers & Mark Fermanich, APA Consulting Salem, Oregon.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) “No Child Left Behind” Act of 2001 Public Law (NCLB) Brian Jeffries Office of Superintendent of.
Pennsylvania’s Continuous Improvement Process. Understanding AYP How much do you know about AYP?
1 The Federal No Child Left Behind Act and the Financial Impact on Manchester Public Schools Fiscal Year
How Other States Have Solved the Problem Connecticut School Funding Summit January 30, 2007 John L. Myers.
Achievement Analyses – Matched Cohort Groups Oklahoma A+ Schools® vs. Randomly Matched OKCPS Students  OKLAHOMA CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS  PLANNING, RESEARCH,
Determining Validity For Oklahoma’s Educational Accountability System Prepared for the American Educational Research Association (AERA) Oklahoma State.
Policy and Practice Implications for Secondary and Postsecondary Education and Employment for Youth With Disabilities September 18 and 19, 2003 Washington,
Presentation by Dr. Steven Frates, Director of Research July 21, 2010.
1 Education Finance and Adequacy Presentation to the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on Costing an Adequate Education (RSA 193-E:2-d) Room 100, State.
School Finance Adequacy: “Costing-Out” Studies Education Policy and Leadership Center May 24, 2006 John L. Myers.
Equity vs. Adequacy By: Jay Masterson. For 100 years…  School financing through local wealth and property taxes  Creates a situation if significant.
Determining the Cost of Education In Minnesota April 2006 John L. Myers Justin Silverstein.
The Special Education Leadership Training Project January, 2003 Mary Lynn Boscardin, Ph.D. Associate Professor Preston C. Green, III, Ed.D., J.D., Associate.
School Finance Partnership Beyond the Base: Adjusting for Unique District and Student Needs Mary Wickersham, Colorado Children’s Campaign.
Labor Statistics in the United States Grace York March 2004.
IDENTIFICATION 1 PROPOSED REGULATORY CHANGECOMMENTS Implement a four step ELL identification process to ensure holistic and individualized decisions can.
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIVERSE LEARNERS Susan Brody Hasazi Katharine S. Furney National Institute of Leadership, Disability, and Students Placed.
1 Children At Risk Program Legislative Audit Bureau April 2005.
Putting Hamilton County School Finance into Context David Eichenthal Ochs Center for Metropolitan Studies February 2009.
Reading Recovery: How Much Does It Cost? Christy Wall Harrelson Dr. G. Geer EDAD 684: School Finance-Ethics Spring 2011.
Our Children Are Our Future: No Child Left Behind No Child Left Behind Accountability and AYP A Archived Information.
1 State Aid to School Districts in New York State: An Overview Based on the Laws of 2007 State Aid Work Group New York State Education Department April.
Revising NJ’s School Funding Formula: A Tale of 3 Schools Kristi Schoppe, Mark Willis, Mike Diorio, Edwin Wargo MED 7201, School Finance & Facilities Professor.
The Bucks County Montessori Charter School PSSA Results, Local District Comparisons, and Year to Year Progressions.
Questions & Answers About AYP & PI answered on the video by: Rae Belisle, Dave Meaney Bill Padia & Maria Reyes July 2003.
2013 Legislative Session: Challenges and Outcomes Kathleen A. Conaboy Steve Canavero, PhD Nevada State Public Charter School Authority Presentation to.
AN OVERVIEW OF HOW OHIO FUNDS ITS SCHOOLS School Funding Legislative Service Commission April 2015.
K-12 School Spending and Performance Review Preliminary Report Joint Legislative Audit & Review Committee September 14, 2005 Stephanie Hoffman and Lisa.
Exploring Alternate AYP Designs for Assessment and Accountability Systems 1 Dr. J.P. Beaudoin, CEO, Research in Action, Inc. Dr. Patricia Abeyta, Bureau.
1 State Board of Education. 2 Pennsylvania Education Policy Forum Western PA Breakfast Series Background on State Board authority, composition and membership.
Cost-of-Education Index Study Presentation to the Joint Committee on Public School Finance January 24, 2002.
Education and Equality of Opportunity
1 Watertown Public Schools Assessment Reports 2010 Ann Koufman-Frederick and Administrative Council School Committee Meetings Oct, Nov, Dec, 2010 Part.
(c) 2008 The McGraw ‑ Hill Companies 1 School District Budgeting.
Title I and Families. Purpose of Meeting According to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, schools are required to host an Annual Meeting to explain.
March 7, 2013 Texas Education Agency | Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Performance Reporting Accountability Policy Advisory Committee.
State Board of Education Costing-Out Study Robert E. Feir, Project Manager PASBO // March 15, 2007.
MFP 101: Seven Easy Steps to Understanding the Minimum Foundation Program Formula LEADS Conference July 26, 2006.
1 The New York State Education Department New York State’s Student Data Collection and Reporting System.
Children With Disabilities Enrolled by Their Parents in Private Schools 34 CFR §§ Equitable Participation (EP) Child Find Free and Appropriate.
Public Finance Seminar Spring 2015, Professor Yinger Cost Indexes and Pupil Weights.
MEAP / MME New Cut Scores Gill Elementary February 2012.
NJ ASSESSMENTS CYCLE II REPORT GRADES 3-8 and 11 October 30, 2008 Haddonfield Public Schools.
Exceptional Lives: Special Education in Today’s Schools, 6e ISBN: © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Chapter 2 Ensuring Progress.
No Child Left Behind. HISTORY President Lyndon B. Johnson signs Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 1965 Title I and ESEA coordinated through Improving.
Introduction to the New Washington State Achievement Index Jack B. Monpas-Huber, Ph.D. Director of Assessment & Student Information Board of Directors.
1 Cohort Graduation Rate October 1, 2010 Jonathan Wiens and Sara Berscheit Office of Assessment and Information Services Oregon Department of Education.
Title I, Part A Program Title I, Part A provides educational services to schools with high percentages of children from low-income families by providing.
Ensuring Progress in the General Education Curriculum ED 222 Spring 2010.
1 West Contra Costa Unified School District January 31, Second Interim Financial Report.
ELL Program Advisory Group December 1, TWO PHASES of WORK ELL Program Advisory Group PHASE ONE 1/1/2016As Specified in HB Criteria Determine.
Presentation to the Rhode Island Association of School Committees: A Comparative Analysis of Education Governance in Rhode Island and Massachusetts John.
1 A Presentation by The State Board of Education with assistance from the Department of Education December, 2002 Essential Programs & Services Funding.
FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL INFLUENCE ON EDUCATION.
Presented by: Frank Ciloski, Sherry Hutchins, Barb Light, Val Masuga, Amy Metz, Michelle Ribant, Kevin Richard, Kristina Rider, and Helena Shepard.
Presentation to the Nevada Council to Establish Academic Standards Proposed Math I and Math II End of Course Cut Scores December 22, 2015 Carson City,
Aim: Does the US need to reform the educational system? Do Now: Make a list of the best aspects of the education you receive and make a list of the worst.
Ridgefield Public Schools data presentation Part I
Ridgefield Public Schools data presentation Part II
2007 Article VII # ELFA 8 Education, Labor, and Family Assistance
Public Finance Seminar Spring 2017, Professor Yinger
Update on Foundation Budget Review Commission
Public Finance Seminar Spring 2019, Professor Yinger
Public Finance Seminar Spring 2019, Professor Yinger
The True Cost of Educating a Child in Michigan
Public Finance Seminar Spring 2017, Professor Yinger
Presentation transcript:

Determining the Cost of Education in New Jersey NJ Department of Education Presentation before the Joint Legislative Committee on Public School Funding Reform October 24, 2006

1 Background DOE decided that there was a need to explore new school funding formula Entered contract with Augenblick, Palaich and Associates (formerly Augenblick & Myers) in 2002 Chose to use two methods to estimate the cost of education

2 Successful School Districts (SSD) Establish measurable criteria by which districts are deemed successful Identify districts that meet that criteria Calculate general education expenditures for districts meeting that criteria Method should not be used to determine costs of students with special needs

3 Professional Judgment Panels (PJP) Develop educational goals Construct prototype school districts Have education professionals identify resources needed to meet educational goals Determine the cost of specified resources Apply costs to all school districts and calculate weights for special needs students

4 Outline of Discussion Discussion of Dr. Augenblick’s work with DOE Summary of final PJP resources Explanation of how cost of PJP resources were determined Summary of Successful School Districts analysis Questions

5 Role of Augenblick, Palaich and Associates Assist DOE in the implementation of two methods for determining cost of education Provide advice on implementing SSD method Facilitate PJP meetings Advise DOE personnel in calculating the cost of PJP resources Create formulas to calculate foundation amount for all districts and weights for special needs students

6 Five Steps of PJP Implementation Determine student outcome goals Define prototype districts Convene panel meetings Provide DOE with resources for costing purposes Translate resource costs into base cost formulas and special needs weights

7 Step 1 – Determine Outcome Goals NJ educational goals defined by DOE based on three factors Core Curriculum Content Standards No Child Left Behind AYP requirements State specified graduation requirements

8 Step 2 – Define Prototype Districts Review data of school district demographics Size Student Characteristics Based on review, created six prototype districts Two K through 8 Four K through 12 Allowed for varying rates of low-income and limited English proficiency students Special education rates consistent across districts

9 Step 3 – Hold Panel Meetings First meeting included seven DOE staff members Second meeting included approximately 40 school district representatives divided across five panels Third meeting included eight school district representatives

10 Brief Summary of PJP Resources General Education Special Education Limited English Proficiency At-Risk Resources are not intended to be prescriptive

11 Step 4 – Costing Out Panel results given to NJ DOE DOE responsible for determining the cost of PJP resources Provided advice on analytic decisions as needed

12 Step 5 – Creating Base Cost Formulas and Student Weights Six base per pupil costs translated into a series of equations used to determine base cost for each school district Student weights calculated as the ratio of additional cost for special populations relative to base cost

13 Determining the Cost of PJP Resources Personnel resources specified as FTEs Certificated staff salaries determined by median salary in certificated staff data Non-certificated staff salaries determined by median salaries in the State Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates (Bureau of Labor Statistics) Benefit rate equals 20 percent of salaries Non-personnel resources recorded in different terms

14 Additional Cost Adjustments School level PJP costs used to identify costs associated with grade spans not included in PJP process Separate cost analysis conducted to identify additional cost of county vocational districts

15 Basic Education Costs in Prototype Districts Very Small K - 8 Small K - 8 Small K – 12 Mod. K - 12 Large K - 12 Very Large K – 12 Base Cost $10,057$7,863$8,775$8,215$8,136$8,016 Adj. Base Cost $8,460$7,223

16 Special Needs Weights K - 8K – 12 Special Education Speech Only Mod. Impairment Severe Impairment Ext. School Year Prek Disabled At-Risk Education LEP

17 Other District Adjustments District TypeAdditional Weight Grade K – 6No additional weight Grade Grade County Vocational0.20

18 Geographic Cost of Education Index Developed by Dr. Jay Chambers for NCES Accounts for multiple factors that affect the cost of hiring comparably skilled professionals including: Housing costs Work environment

19 Successful School Districts Analysis Success criteria defined by student performance on Statewide assessments Analysis limited to K – 8 and K – 12 districts to allow for comparison to PJP results Alternative criteria that incorporated broader range of factors (e.g., attendance and dropout rates) did not substantially alter results

20 SSD Results 305 school districts identified as successful 75 percent of K – 8 districts 64 percent of K – 12 districts Per-pupil costs were consistent with PJP results $8,004 for K – 8 districts, 9 percent higher than the median PJP for K – 8 districts $8,493, almost identical to the median PJP for K – 12 districts