1. 1 (c) 2008 The McGraw Hill Companies Adequate Staffing and Resources for Americas Schools School Finance: A Policy Perspective, 4e Chapter 4

2. 2 (c) 2008 The McGraw Hill Companies Adequate Staffing and Resources for Americas Schools 1.The Components of Adequacy 2.Issues Involved in Determining Adequate School Resources 3.Adequate Staffing and Resource Needs for Prototypical Schools 4.Adjustments for Students with Special- Needs

3. 3 (c) 2008 The McGraw Hill Companies What Comprises Educational Adequacy? The expectations included in a states curriculum standards The standards included in the state testing system The standards implied by NCLB and the states accountability system Sufficient funding to provide the resources identified in the prototypical schools

4. 4 (c) 2008 The McGraw Hill Companies Some Variables Involved in Determining Adequate School Resources 1.Preschool Programs and Services 2.Student Count for Calculating State Aid 3.Full-Day Kindergarten 4.School Size

5. 5 (c) 2008 The McGraw Hill Companies Adequate Staffing For Core Programs in Americas Schools Core teachers/class size: –15 to 1 in K-3 (reality 20/23 to 1) –25 to 1 in 4-12 (reality 4-8, 9-12 skewed with AP offerings) Fractional teacher units/grouping students for instruction – multiage groupings (what is a.8 teacher?) Teacher for special subjects/planning time –20% more for elementary and middle schools –33% more for high schools Instructional Facilitators/School-based coaches/Mentors –one for every 200 students

6. 6 (c) 2008 The McGraw Hill Companies Adequate Staffing For Americas Schools Adequate resources for struggling students are part of the prototypical model –1 tutor for every 100 FRL students –1 ELL teacher for every 100 ELL students –Census funding of special education (eg 3.0 FTE for mild disabilities in 432 kid school) –Summer school and Extended Day 1 teacher for every 15 students (number eligible calculated by FRL students/2 – not all need it) Federal programs on top of these resources – on slides following prototypical schools

7. 7 (c) 2008 The McGraw Hill Companies Prototypic K-5 School 432 Students, 50% FRL, 10% ELL, 12% (low for Northeast) Special Education, Full-Day K Core Teachers24 Specialist Teachers20% more: 4.8 Instructional Facilitators2.2 Teacher Tutors1 for every 100 FRL: 2.16 ELL Teachers1 for every 100 ELL:.43 Extended Day Teachers1.8 Summer School1.8 Teachers for children with mild disabilities 3

8. 8 (c) 2008 The McGraw Hill Companies Prototypic K-5 School, continued Severely disabled100% state reimbursement Gifted and Talented$25/student Substitutes5% of all teachers Pupil Support Staff1 for every 100 FRL: 2.16 Non-instructional aides2.0 Librarians/media1.0 Principal1.0 School site secretary2.0

9. 9 (c) 2008 The McGraw Hill Companies Prototypic K-5 School, continued Professional Development Facilitators, Planning Time,10 summer days + $100/pupil Technology$250/pupil Instructional Materials$140/pupil Student Activities$200/pupil

10. 10 (c) 2008 The McGraw Hill Companies Prototypic Middle School 450 Students, 50% FRL, 10% ELL, 12% Special Education Core Teachers18 Specialist Teachers20% more: 3.6 Instructional Facilitators2.25 Teacher Tutors1 for every 100 FRL: 2.25 ELL Teachers1 for every 100 ELL:.45 Extended Day Teachers1.875 Summer School1.875 Mildly Disabled3

11. 11 (c) 2008 The McGraw Hill Companies Prototypic Middle School, continued Severely disabled100% state reimbursement Gifted and Talented$25/student Substitutes5% of all teachers Pupil Support Staff1 for every 100 FRL + 1.0 guidance: 3.25 Non-instructional aides2.0 Librarians/media1.0 Principal1.0 School site secretary2.0

12. 12 (c) 2008 The McGraw Hill Companies Prototypic Middle School, continued Professional Development Facilitators, Planning Time,10 summer days + $100/pupil Technology$250/pupil Instructional Materials$140/pupil Student Activities$200/pupil

13. 13 (c) 2008 The McGraw Hill Companies Prototypic High School 600 Students, 50% FRL, 10% ELL, 12% Special Education Core Teachers24 Specialist Teachers33% more: 8.0 Instructional Facilitators3.0 Teacher Tutors1 for every 100 FRL: 3.0 ELL Teachers1 for every 100 ELL:.60 Extended Day Teachers2.5 Summer School2.5 Mildly Disabled4

14. 14 (c) 2008 The McGraw Hill Companies Prototypic High School, continued Severely disabled100% state reimbursement Gifted and Talented$25/student Substitutes5% of all teachers Pupil Support Staff1 for every 100 FRL + 1.0 guidance: 5.4 Non-instructional aides3.0 Librarians/media1.0 Principal1.0 School site secretary3.0

15. 15 (c) 2008 The McGraw Hill Companies Prototypic High School, continued Professional Development Facilitators, Planning Time,10 summer days + $100/pupil Technology$250/pupil Instructional Materials$175/pupil Student Activities$250/pupil

16. 16 (c) 2008 The McGraw Hill Companies Adjustments for Student Needs Adjustments for Students with Special Needs are necessary because: –Students with special needs are not distributed evenly across school districts (i.e., low income students tend to be concentrated in large urban or small rural communities and numbers of students with disabilities are often higher in suburban districts that have developed effective programs or have more knowledgeable parents) –The prices districts face in providing additional services for students with special needs vary considerably

17. 17 (c) 2008 The McGraw Hill Companies Adjustments for Student Needs Because of these discrepancies between districts, a state role is necessary -- adequacy model includes these resources In most states, this generally takes the form of special adjustments to regular school finance formulas and separate categorical programs

18. 18 (c) 2008 The McGraw Hill Companies Special Needs of Students Three major categories of special needs: –Compensatory education - slow achievers, usually indicated by an income factor, such as eligible for free and/or reduced lunch – yes, not all low income students are slow learners, but it is a good general-need indicator –Children with disabilities –English language learner (formerly limited- English-proficient)

19. 19 (c) 2008 The McGraw Hill Companies Issues Related to Children with Disablities Such students require additional service in order to achieve to performance standards, or the goals of their IEP Goal is to provide extra resources for these additional services in ways that do not stimulate undesired behavior – labeling students so district receives extra money –No perfect way to do this

20. 20 (c) 2008 The McGraw Hill Companies Issues in Determining Costs of Programs for Children with Disablities (1) Defining student eligibility (2) Identifying appropriate services (3) Determining the appropriate placement (4) Calculating state and local cost shares –The Resource Cost Model (RCM) –Parrish and Chambers

21. 21 (c) 2008 The McGraw Hill Companies Resource Cost Model (RCM) an approach to organizing information on how resources in a social service enterprise are organized for service delivery. The unit of analysis is the service delivery system (e.g., a third grade self-contained classroom, a pull-out program for reading instruction, or a departmentalized class in mathematics), and the components of service delivery are the specific resource inputs (e.g., teacher time, classroom space, computers, and textbooks). A service delivery system is a collection or combination of resources (i.e., inputs) that is specifically organized to provide a certain service to a target population of students or clients.

22. 22 (c) 2008 The McGraw Hill Companies Two General Approaches to Formula Adjustments for Students with Special Needs Full state funding State-local cost sharing

23. 23 (c) 2008 The McGraw Hill Companies Full State Funding - The state covers the entire cost of providing the additional services. Local districts document the extra costs and submit a reimbursement claim to the state each year (or alternatively, under the forward-funded model, districts submit an application for reimbursement of estimated costs). –requires rigorous state oversight –local districts have a fiscal incentive to develop and implement comprehensive, high-quality programs. –if the state had neither cost controls nor regulatory guidelines that monitored local programs, state costs could soar

24. 24 (c) 2008 The McGraw Hill Companies State-Local Cost Sharing States have created several types: –categorical flat grant –excess-cost reimbursement –pupil weights –census funding –poverty adjustment

25. 25 (c) 2008 The McGraw Hill Companies Various Funding Structures Flat grants – what the federal IDEA program essentially does Service provision – teachers, materials by some type of class size Cost reimbursement – full or partial Weighted students All can be made mathematically equivalent

26. 26 (c) 2008 The McGraw Hill Companies Big Policy Issue on Funding Formula Structure Categorical program route – so all districts rich or poor receive the additional funding –Or add some wealth equalizing element, so 100% cost reimbursement only for the poorest district and less for all others? Weighted students –Which means that all districts above the zero aid district receive no assistance

27. 27 (c) 2008 The McGraw Hill Companies Big Issue on Which Students to Target Disabled, ELL, poverty Or just disabled and poverty, under the argument that the only ELL students who are poor really need extra services – that educated, middle class ELL students pick up the English in a regular class Differentiate disabled? Or consider as a group, or divide into two groups – low incidence and high incidence

28. 28 (c) 2008 The McGraw Hill Companies Census Funding for the Disabled For years, most programs for the disabled identified various categories of disability, or levels of service required – lo, med, hi But rising numbers of high incidence lower cost learning disabled students (and children who were at one time considered low incidence-ASD) Huge cost pressures for children with complex needs or medically fragile New approach today – census funding

29. 29 (c) 2008 The McGraw Hill Companies Census Funding Assume incidence of learning disabled or the high incidence, lower cost is the same in all districts, perhaps with a poverty modifier Provide all districts with the same level of extra dollars – require them to provide service but do not monitor spending –No stimulus to over or under identify –Hold accountable for learning results Then state fully funds all low incidence, high need, high cost disabilities (good intent not likely to occur)

30. 30 (c) 2008 The McGraw Hill Companies Standard Pupil Need Weights Really need to identify what programs work and identify their costs Typical weights: –Disabilities: extra 0.9 overall cost/weight –Low income: extra 0.20-0.25 weight –English language learner: extra 0.20-0.25 weight –Gifted and talented -.25??

31. 31 (c) 2008 The McGraw Hill Companies Distribution Formulas for and Costs of Compensatory Education Programs The federal government allocates funds to states on the basis of: – the number of low-income children in each county (based on biennial census data), and –the state's per-pupil expenditures for elementary and secondary education (with an upper and lower limit on the amount that the state expenditure could deviate from the national average) The funds are then suballocated on the basis of the poor-child population in each district

32. 32 (c) 2008 The McGraw Hill Companies Distribution Formulas for and Costs of Compensatory Education Programs Once the funds have been allocated to the district, districts must distribute them among the schools in that district Districts must rank all of their schools in terms of poverty levels (using one of the 5 methods specified by Title I: census, free and reduced-price lunch eligibility, children in families receiving income or medical assistance, etc.) Once all the schools in a given district are ranked according to poverty level, the district is required to serve all schools with 75 percent poverty and higher

33. 33 (c) 2008 The McGraw Hill Companies Problems in Identifying the Costs of Compensatory Education There is wide variation in spending levels because Title I does not specify the types or levels of services that should be provided Many programs today are schoolwide – makes it difficult to determine how much is spent on the low-income children in a school

34. 34 (c) 2008 The McGraw Hill Companies Problems in Identifying the Costs of Compensatory Education Because high poverty schools are most likely to use their funds for schoolwide programs, it is difficult to discern where more intensive programs exist and whether these programs are most effective The era of standards-based reform has resulted in additional programs to raise the achievement of low performing students

35. 35 (c) 2008 The McGraw Hill Companies Costs and Formulas for Financing Programs and Services for Children who are English Language Learners Five variables influence the costs: (1) student eligibility (2) minimum number of LEP students required to trigger provision of a bilingual education program (3) instructional approach used (4) transition into the regular program (5) class size

36. 36 (c) 2008 The McGraw Hill Companies Costs and Formulas for Financing Programs and Services for Children who are English Language Learners A score on some type of English language proficiency test usually determines student eligibility – states use different tests and select different cut-off points for eligibility Most states require a school to have a minimum number of students in a grade level in order to provide a bilingual education program Class size in many states is limited The instructional approach and transition policies affect the level of services provided The instructional approach used is a major determinant of program costs

37. 37 (c) 2008 The McGraw Hill Companies Costs and Formulas for Financing Programs and Services for Children who are English Language Learners The major extra costs of bilingual education, based on research on the most effective instructional approach are: –An ESL teacher –Intensive staff development in sheltered English instruction –Additional materials both in the native language of the student and for mediating the sheltered English instructional approach Most studies of bilingual education program costs reflect these levels of costs

38. 38 (c) 2008 The McGraw Hill Companies Sheltered English Instruction an instructional approach that engages ELLs above the beginner level in developing grade-level content-area knowledge, academic skills, and increased English proficiency. In sheltered English classes, teachers use clear, direct, simple English and a wide range of scaffolding strategies to communicate meaningful input in the content area to students. Learning activities that connect new content to students' prior knowledge, that require collaboration among students, and that spiral through curriculum material, offer ELLs the grade-level content instruction of their English-speaking peers, while adapting lesson delivery to suit their English proficiency level.

39. 39 (c) 2008 The McGraw Hill Companies Costs and Formulas for Financing Special Education Programs and Services Three key issues related to determining special-education program costs: –the level of program quality –identification of services - whether to include administrative services –how the number of students is determined – whether by head count or full-time equivalents

40. 40 (c) 2008 The McGraw Hill Companies Development of Special Needs Programs Compensatory Education –Began in 1965 with the passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA); Title I provides grants to local school districts on the basis of the number of students from families with incomes below the poverty level –In 2001, ESEA was reauthorized and given the name No Child Left Behind

41. 41 (c) 2008 The McGraw Hill Companies Development of Special Needs Programs Bilingual Education –In 1974 Lau v. Nichols held that it was discriminatory to place non-English speaking students in classes where the language of instruction was English. –In 1967, just prior to the Lau ruling, Title VII was added to the federal ESEA program. Title VII provided funds for districts to design and implement bilingual education programs. –The population of LEP students is growing at a rapid rate.

42. 42 (c) 2008 The McGraw Hill Companies Development of Special Needs Programs Special Education –In 1972, Pennsylvania Association of Retarded Children v. Pennsylvania (PARC) a PA court held that district actions prohibiting disabled students from attending local public schools violated the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution –In 1975, Congress enacted what is now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This program made access to a free, appropriate, public education program a legal right of all children. In order to receive any federal education dollars, states have to demonstrate that they are providing appropriate special- education services to all disabled children.