1. 1 CPRE Conference on School Finance, School Improvement and Teacher Compensation Beyond School Finance Adequacy: Linking School Funding to Improving Schools Allan Odden Co-Director, CPRE UW-Madison Chicago, February 21, 2007

2. 2 Evolution of School Finance u Equity for most of 20 th century u Adequacy from 1990 to 2005 u Today and in the future: Being more specific about adequacy –How to improve schools defined as boosting student academic performance –Resources needed to improve schools –How to use resources most effectively

3. 3 Three Bases of Knowledge u Emerging knowledge about how students learn complex materials: How People Learn u Emerging understanding of the resource dimensions of schools that double student performance u Knowledge of how to incorporate that knowledge into restructured school funding structures

4. 4 Knowledge of Learning and Teaching u How People Learn (Bransford) u How Students Learn: (Donovan & Bransford) –Mathematics in the Classroom –Science in the Classroom –History in the Classroom –Reading u What Teachers Should Learn and Be Able to Do –Darling-Hammond and John Bransford

5. 5 Theory of School Improvement u The Core –High quality instruction –Students exerting effort to learn to high standards u Recruiting and retaining high quality teachers –Why we launched a teacher compensation program u Classroom resources –Class size, formative assessments, rigorous curriculum –Teacher support and ongoing professional development u Other teacher, student supports; school, district and community leadership around high quality learning

6. 6 Aligning Resources with Learning

7. 7 Schools/Districts that have Aligned Resources with Learning u Dozens in Washington, Wisconsin, Illinois and Wyoming that CPRE has studied u Scores across the country u All have dramatically improved student academic performance, which we call doubling student performance u Very similar improvement strategies –Archibald presentation after lunch will detail

8. 8 Resource Needs for Doubling Performance: Evidence-Based Model u Evidence-based model provides resources for every element in the Framework for linking student learning to resources u See Table 1 in Finance Brief

9. 9 The Evidence Based Model: Students Ready for College, Work in the Global Economy, & Citizenship K-3: 15 to 1 4-12: 25 to 1

10. 10 Elem 20% Middle 20% High School 33% The Evidence Based Model: Students Ready for College, Work in the Global Economy, & Citizenship K-3: 15 to 1 4-12: 25 to 1

11. 11 Tutors and pupil support: 1 per 100 at risk Elem 20% Middle 20% High School 33% The Evidence Based Model: Students Ready for College, Work in the Global Economy, & Citizenship K-3: 15 to 1 4-12: 25 to 1 ELL 1 per 100

12. 12 Gifted Tutors and pupil support: 1 per 100 at risk Elem 20% Middle 20% High School 33% The Evidence Based Model: Students Ready for College, Work in the Global Economy, & Citizenship K-3: 15 to 1 4-12: 25 to 1 ELL 1 per 100

13. 13 Gifted Tutors and pupil support: 1 per 100 at risk Elem 20% Middle 20% High School 33% The Evidence Based Model: Students Ready for College, Work in the Global Economy, & Citizenship K-3: 15 to 1 4-12: 25 to 1 ELL 1 per 100

14. 14 Instructional Materials Pupil Support: Parent/Community Outreach/ Involvement Gifted Tutors and pupil support: 1 per 100 at risk Elem 20% Middle 20% High School 33% The Evidence Based Model: Students Ready for College, Work in the Global Economy, & Citizenship K-3: 15 to 1 4-12: 25 to 1 Teacher Compensation ELL 1 per 100 Technology

15. 15 Instructional Materials Pupil Support: Parent/Community Outreach/ Involvement Gifted Tutors and pupil support: 1 per 100 at risk Elem 20% Middle 20% High School 33% The Evidence Based Model: Students Ready for College, Work in the Global Economy, & Citizenship K-3: 15 to 1 4-12: 25 to 1 State and CESAs District Admin Site-based Leadership Teacher Compensation ELL 1 per 100 Technology

16. 16 Key New Resources from Evidence- Based Model u Intensive teacher training –Trainers –10 pupil-free days for teachers –Instructional coaches in all schools, all levels (SE) u Extended learning strategies –Tutoring (RT), extended days, academic summer school (RT), ESL help for ELL students (SE), special education u Full day kindergarten – strong evidence (RT, SE) u Smaller classes in K-3: 15 – randomized trials (RT) u Critical pupil support/parent outreach u Technology for schools (SE and RT)

17. 17 Key Resources to Double Performance u Small classes K-3 u Intensive, ongoing professional development, with more days of training and school-based instructional coaches – 1 per subject area u Extra help strategies: –1-1, 1-3 tutoring, extended day and summer school u Use of time to emphasize core resources: –Mathematics, science, reading/writing/comprehension, history, world language

18. 18 Do Districts and Schools Spend New Dollars on These Key Resources? u First, in most places we don’t know –Fiscal reporting systems do not provide this kind of information –Why CPRE developed: »Professional development cost structure framework »Operating expenditure cost reporting framework u Second, where it has been studied: NO –New dollars are spent primarily on raising teacher salaries, lowering class sizes, adding electives, and expanding pupil support services (social workers, etc.) –And few districts/schools spend extant resources on appropriately small classes, instructional coaches, tutors for struggling students, nor focus on the core subjects

19. 19 Criticisms of the Evidence u There are some who criticize the evidence-based approach –Claim we select only the positive studies –Claim the evidence is not strong –Even refute the evidence from randomized trials such as the Tennessee STAR study u Our response: –Reference list makes our claims transparent –If evidence from randomized trials is not accepted, what is? –Proof is in the schools’ doubling performance –We conclude this is a solid place to start »With the resources in the evidence-based model, most schools could dramatically improve student performance, in most cases doubling that performance. Start there, enhance evidence base over time including more effective and efficient strategies

20. 20 Costs of This Model u Modest u Within 2-9 percent of the national average expenditure per pupil (ADA/ENR) – would be at that average if NCLB and IDEA were fully funded u Costs only 9 percent more in Wisconsin u Costs much more in low spending states like Arizona and Arkansas u Costs less than states like Connecticut, New Jersey and New York now spend

21. 21 Wisconsin School Funding Model Reflecting These Recommendations u Foundation expenditure of $8400, which includes class sizes of 15 in K-3, instructional coaches, summer school, etc. u $750 per pupil for census funding of special ed, plus $115 per pupil to fully fund all high cost special ed students u Categorical programs: –$700 per free and reduced price lunch student for tutors –$700 per free and reduced price lunch student for additional pupil support –$600 per free and reduced price lunch student for extended day programs –$700 per ELL student for ESL instruction

22. 22 Key Challenges -- Several u Are educators willing to focus on “core” subjects and spend less time and effort on electives? u Do educators feel a sufficient sense of urgency to engage in the school restructuring and resource reallocation that launching this “doubling performance” agenda would require? u Do educators know about and believe in these approaches to designing a more powerful school and deploying dollar and time resources? u Is there leadership – educator, political or business – to launch, support and fund these efforts?

23. 23 u My general conclusion to these questions is not really.

24. 24 Where Does This Leave US? u I would focus adequate funding efforts on the resources in the evidence-based model as a solid foundation for claiming that school funding is “adequate.” u We know that such resources are adequate to allow many if not most schools to double performance in the next 3-7 years.

25. 25 Other Policy Implications 1. Have districts and schools use our professional development cost framework to conduct a professional development fiscal audit to identify extant PD investments and uses a)Identifies PD resources that could be reallocated to focused training and coaching, on improving instruction in the core subjects 2. Have states, districts and schools use our expenditure reporting framework to identify how resources – time, staff and dollars – are used at the school level by educational strategy a)Identifies possibilities for larger resource reallocation b)Understand that the most potential for resource reallocation are the dollars spent on instruction so the “65% solution” that advocates for getting more spent on instruction is not much of a solution

26. 26 Other Policy Implications 3. Launch studies of schools’ doubling performance in your state a.Identify the processes that are used b.Identify the resources that are needed c.Both a and b give state specific data for school redesign and how to use resources more effectively d.Calibrate the school finance system to provide those resources 4. Create strategies to incent more schools to engage in the processes of doubling performance a)Might need a leadership group like Kentucky’s Prichard Committee b)Might need to place restrictions on use of SOME resources: class size of 15 K-3, instructional coaches, tutors c)Redesign the teacher compensation system to provide adequate teacher salary levels, incentives for subject area and school shortages, raises based on factors known to boost value added student learning, and annual bonuses for improving student achievement