 |
Home | Contact Us | Press Room | Site Overview | Help | Login | Register |
 |
 |
| About NCSL | State & Federal Issues | Legislatures | Legislative Staff | Meetings | Bookstore | Legislators & Staff Only |
| NCSL Home > State & Federal Issues: Issue Areas > Education > | Add to MyNCSL |
National Center on Education FinanceEducation Finance Seminar
|
|
http://edwapp.doe.state.fl.us/doe/ http://data.fldoe.org/performanceProfiles/K12/ http://www.fldoe.org/sunshine_connections/ http://roi.fldoe.org/ http://www.facts.org/ |
Session: Illinois--State Efforts to Control Tuition Increases
Over the last couple of years, state legislators have been interested in programs that lock in tuition rates or that cap tuition increases. One program that has received national attention is HB1118, the Illinois Truth in Tuition Law. Passed in 2003, the law was a response to significant decreases in state appropriations and double digit increases in tutition. The program applies to tuition only; each institution sets it's own tuition levels; tuition is fixed for four years, and if a student changes majors, tuition is adjusted accordingly. Strengths of the program include predictability of tuition levels that may encourage students to finish in four years. On the other hand, the tuition levels do not reflect actual costs, transfers tuition risk from students and families to institutions, and may discourage students who don't finish in four years from completing their degree. In addition, the system is confusing in that there are different levels of tuition for students in each class. The program is too new to assess impact. But states are looking at similar programs--among them Colorado, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri and Texas. Also, several states have established caps on tuition increases, usually around 3 percent per year.
Speaker: Julie Davis Bell, National Conference of State Legislatures, Colorado
Session: Funding Education: What is the Return on Investment?
This session featured new information collected by The College Board (www.collegeboard.com) and reported in it's new publication, Education Pays. Rather than thinking of education funding strictly in terms of the annual costs, policymakers should consider the other investments that come with a better education population. College Board Economist Sandy Baum made the following points about the investment in education:
- College graduates earn more and pay more taxes than high school graduates
- College graduates are more financially independent and rely less on public services and subsidies
- College graduates have higher levels of civic participation than high school graduates
- The investment in higher education has a high rate of return for both individuals and society as a whole.
Speaker: Sandy Baum, The College Board, Washington, D.C.
Handout: Funding Education PowerPoint
Session: School Finance 101
This session was a primer for state legislators on the basics of school finance policy. The Power Point presentations provided by the two main speakers are listed below.
Speakers: John Myers, Augenblick, Palaich and Associates, Denver
Michael Griffith, Education Commission of the States, DenverHandouts: Myers PowerPoint
Griffith PowerPoint
Session: Investing in Teaching Quality
To improve public education, states must improve teaching. Put quite simply, good teaching matters most to student academic achievement. James Guthrie, professor of public policy and education at Vanderbilt University, summarized new research on teaching quality. Existing research has powerfully demonstrated that teacher effectiveness has a dramatic impact on student achievement, especially for high-risk children. In Tennessee for example, researchers found that, all else being equal, students assigned to the most effective teachers for three years in a row performed 50 percentile points higher on a 100-point scale than comparable students assigned to the least effective teachers for three years in a row. In another prominent study published in 2002, researchers concluded from extensive data in Texas that having a high-quality teacher throughout elementary school can "substantially offset or even eliminate the disadvantage of low socio-economic background." This study also found that teacher quality accounted for a 7 percent variance in student performance — a high figure.
As states move into a new era of educational reform, highlighted by the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, the impact of teaching quality has increasingly been measured by student academic achievement. Good teachers get students to learn. A great deal of research is being conducted in order to determine which teachers get results — and what qualities those teachers possess — in hopes of crafting policies that will lead more teachers to similar success. However, there is much known now about policies and efforts that can improve teaching quality and student achievement. Alabama for example, has taken several important steps to improving teaching quality in the state. The establishment of and investment in the Alabama Reading Initiative (ARI), which has a strong staff development component, is an important example of the state’s initial commitment to teaching quality .
Pay for performance has surfaced around methods of improving teaching quality. Performance reward plans are increasingly discussed in education. There are now federal grants to encourage local districts to experiment. Entire states, such as Texas, are designing teacher pay for performance plans. A few large districts such as Houston and Denver are in the beginning stages of paying teachers bonuses for elevated student achievement. Good ideas such as competition and performance rewards need to be carefully tailored to local circumstances. This calls for leadership. State policymakers, board members, superintendents, principals, and teachers, when prompted, can render local schools better. Charter schools can be a catalyst for motivating just such local reform leadership but this is also an area that states have moved at different paces with very different results.
Speaker: James Guthrie, Professor of Public Policy and Education, Vanderbilt University, Tennessee
Session: Filling the Gaps: The Need for Thinking K-16
There is renewed interest by policymakers in making K-16 policy connections in their states. High school is now more about being ready for post-seconday education--and less about simply obtaining a high school degree. Joni Finney, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education provided a framework for states considering the development or realignment of state policies to better reflect a K-16 model. Those elements are finance and budget, governance (a structure that facilitates smooth transfer between the K-K-12 and higher ed system), alignment of high school curriculum with college coursework (especially the requirements of a rigorous high school curriculum), data systems to track students through the system, and an accountability system that allows you to use the data to measure student progress.
The featured speaker of this session was John Tapogna of ECONorthwest (www.econw.com) who provided a business model to the finance/budgeting component. In Oregon, the business community has helped develop a model for analyzing state expenditures in two "buckets": K-20 stand alone programs (such as Head Start, alternative ed programs) and K-20 supplements to regular education (such as English as a Second Language (ESL), K-12 student transportation). Typically state budgets look at large buckets of money--and there is very little state policymakers can tell about spending and performance. Rather than looking at billion dollar expenditures, Oregon has created a transparent performance-based education budget that spans the pre K-20 continuum, reports annual, in addition to biennial appropriations and historic expenditures, outlines available per-student funding from all public and private sources, and established explicit performance expectations for each program.
Speakers: Joni Finney, National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, California
John Tapogna, ECONorthwest, OregonHandout: ECON PowerPoint
Session: Funding Technology: Why Should States Invest?
This session examined what states are doing to support technology in the schools and what we're learning about the return on the investment, in terms of student achievement. Here are the key points made by each speaker.
Bill Thomas, Director of Technology for the Southern Regional Education Board, Georgia (SREB website: www.sreb.org/programs/EdTech/edtechindex.asp)
- The world today is dramatically different, and student perceptions of school have declined in recent decades as schools do not reflect the world students
live in.- States should consider funding education technology because federal funds have been dramatically cut, and could be eliminated entirely by 2007
(Bush budget proposal)- Education is looking for alternative solutions outside the traditional strategies of delivering essential elements for learning; i.e., virtual schools offer highly qualified teachers anywhere in the country.
Julie Young, CEO of Florida Virtual School, Florida (FLVS Website: http://www.flvs.net/)
- Florida Virtual School (FLVS) is the first publicly funded virtual school district in the nation. It was begun to meet several state needs; the inability to offer the number of Advanced Placement classes in all areas of the state, and the state’s shortage of teachers. FLVS employs 300 teachers from 11 different states.
- FLVS is designed to offer additional opportunities for success – not the same environment as a classroom.
- Teachers work from home and are evaluated according to student results.
- FLVS has the sustainability and permanence of a regular district, except that the school is only funded if the student completes a course and earns a D grade or better.
- State saves money using FLVS b/c students are able to work at their own pace on coursework, meaning entire grades aren’t repeated (which costs money) and students could finish early.
- The money the state saves is not in the per pupil cost, but by providing curriculum to the entire state to leverage economies of scale.
- 40% of FLVS students are minorities. Their test scores are equal to the nation and better than the state’s.
Representative Joe Tolson, North Carolina (Business Education Technology Alliance: http://www.betanc.com/)
- Students today are in competition with people all over the world. The United States has no choice but to fund and use technology, or risk dragging behind international competitors.
- North Carolina has invested $25 million/year over the last 5 years in education technology.
- Business Education Technology Alliance (BETA), a group made up of business and education leaders, was given $150 thousand to explore the state’s ability to offer virtual learning, and the state plans to fully fund the plan in 2007.
- Learn North Carolina offers courses for teachers on the internet.
- The state faces the challenge of ensuring that all the state agencies that have their hand in education and technology are working together.
- Local Education Agency's (LEA) are now asking for a technology facilitator/technician in every LEA. The price tag would likely be $135 million.
Representative Brian Baker, Missouri (MO HB919, Establishing Missouri Virtual Public School: http://www.house.state.mo.us/bills051/bills/hb919.htm)
- Missouri decided they needed to examine the atmosphere students live in because it doesn’t look the same as it does in schools. Schools are not offering what the outside world is offering.
- MO offers the enhancing Missouri’s Instructional Networked Teaching Strategies (eMINTS) program, which teaches teachers how to use technology so they can effectively integrate it into the classroom. It has expanded to seven states and is being used by universities in teacher preparation programs.
- Missouri is considering legislation that will fund a state-wide virtual school. The state aid portion of per pupil funding (PPF) will be given to the virtual school, allowing the local school to keep the local portion of funding. Five.five million dollars will serve 1,000 students.
- Although the initial investment will be pricey, the long term effect of virtual learning will lower the cost of providing quality education to more students.
Session: American Higher Education: Still the World's Best?
This session looked at some major and worrisome trends in state higher education policy, specifically trends in funding, tuition and financial aid, and trends in student completion. Joni Finney, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education pointed out that the figures are confusing: on the one hand, the amount of state dollars appropriated to higher education has increased over the last decade, but higher education's share of the state budget has decreased. That means that the question is not about the absolute amount of state dollars funding higher education, but the volatility or stability of those funds. Tuition is now making up a larger share of the total funding for higher education than ten years ago. The cost of tuition has outpaced family ability to pay.
Cheryl Blanco from the the Western Interstate Commission on Higher Education led our discussion about the "leaky" student pipeline. In the United States, for every 100 9th graders, 68 students graduate from high school four years later; 40 students immediately enter college; 27 students are still enrolled in their second year; 18 students gradate with AD of BA six year later. States perform differently on the pipeline, and states can find their pipeline data at the National Center's web site (www.highereducation.org). Paying attention to the leaks in the student pipeline can help state legislators understand where the state problems lie and how to focus policy solutions.
Representative Rick Miera, chair of the New Mexico Education Committee, reported on that state's success in 2006 in funding the student need-based scholarship program and providing support for maintenance and construction.
Speakers: Joni Finney, National center for Public Policy and Higher Education, California
Cheryl Blanco, Western Interstate Commission on Higher Education, Colorado
Representative Rick Miera, New Mexico
Session: Ten Years of Education Reform: How Have We Done?
This session featured a presentation by Christopher Swanson, a researcher with Education Week who helped produce the annual Quality Counts report. To see the report, go to www.edweek.org/rc/articles/2004/10/15/qc-archive.html
Session: After-School Programs: Costs and Benefits
Christianne Lind of The Finance Project summarized the current data on afterschool program costs and efficacy. Most recent studies point to many positive outcomes from quality afterschool programs including improved standardized test scores and grades, increased attendance, reduced drop-out rates, and increased engagement in academics. In order to achieve gains, program evaluations indicate the importance of quality programs with clear goals expressed in the program's curriculum. There is a small and inconsistent body of data concerning program costs (reported to be between $449 to $7,160 per pupil annually) but best estimates place most programs in the range of $1,300 to $2,400 per pupil, not including facilities. Many programs also receive in-kind resources which may or may not be a reported cost. In calculating program costs for large-scale state programs, facility and staff expenses should be considered as the most costly part of programs but transportation can also be a major expense and, in some cases, a critical factor to ensure attendance. Ms. Lind distributed a recent Finance Project compilation that summarizes information on the costs of afterschool programs and details several studies of program costs. This publication can be accessed at: http://www.financeproject.org/documents/Revisedexecutivesummary.pdf. A lively discussion followed the presentation with questions on more precise cost estimates, participation levels in major state programs, and data on what states are currently spending on afterschool. There were also some questions and discussion around how afterschool fits into school finance formulas, whether academic-focused programs were the most effective or appropriate models for children in afterschool hours, how afterschool programs with extended day learning compare in terms of efficacy, and the relationship between NCLB tutoring requirements and afterschool.
Speaker: Christianne Lind, The Finance Project, Washington, D.C.
Handout: Afterschool PowePoint
Session: Where's the Money? Looking Inside Schools, Districts and the Desk Drawer
Resource Allocation. The focus of this session was identifying strategies, policies and practices that can result in more effective use of resources and incentives and minimize those strategies and actions that currently exist that are counterproductive to effective leadership. In other words, this session discussed state and local policies that may either enhance or restrict education leaders’ ability to make effective decisions or offer incentives for productively allocating fiscal or human resources. State legislators can learn a lot about resource allocation and school budgets by truly understanding a school budget and looking at a spreadsheet.
Once schools are provided their block grant allocations, they need to create a staffing plan and provide for other costs. The key to this process is a listing of positions and their costs. James Lytle of the Trenton, New Jersey Public Schools said ....we use an average cost for each position. For example, K-8 teachers cost $51,500 plus $11,500 for benefits or $63,000. Similarly, principals cost $110,000, secretaries $42,000, paraprofessionals $33,000, and so on. The number of teachers required is determined by class size and planning period requirements, which in turn reflect contract provisions and local preferences (e.g., reduced class size in grades 1-3). Schools may "purchase" additional positions, including specialist teachers, nurses, a social worker, an assistant principal, and other staff if they choose and can afford to do so. A key to the process is careful staff utilization and student scheduling. How many teachers, for example, have quasi-administrative, non-teaching duties rather than instructional assignments, and how many classes are below capacity? Other items provided by the school during budget development include books, materials, supplies, equipment purchases and rentals, staff development, summer programs, after-school programs. The central office and board have an obligation to review the school budgets before final adoption to ensure that proposed expenditures reflect priorities and that no legal or contractual obligations have been overlooked. Once the board approves the school's budget, it has authorized the programs and services the budget includes.
What incentives are there for districts to adopt this approach? When schools have the type of control that site-based budgeting provides, they quickly become more strategic about using resources. For example, savings from energy conservation, more efficient scheduling or reduced special education referrals can be redirected toward more effective programs and services. State legislatures, schools, boards need to have a sense of what the minimum cost of operating a school within contract and legal requirements would be. Anything above that cost is being spent for discretionary purposes, whether for reduced class size in first grade or advanced placement classes at a high school. Those discretionary choices need to be continually reexamined and funds redirected if schools are going to commit to continuous improvement. To put it differently, the bulk of the money to fund school improvement is often already within the school.
Decentralized budgeting allows schools the opportunity to purchase books, materials and supplies in a timely manner. If a teacher needs specimens for a lab next week, or a set of paperbacks as follow-up on a topic, then both purchases should be possible on a day's notice. Teachers need to have a sense that the purpose of money provided for books and materials is to ensure good teaching, not to see how much can be saved to reduce next year's costs. And, schools need to budget enough for these books and materials so that teachers aren't told in February that there is no money for paper. In addition, the board needs to provide flexible spending mechanisms, including petty cash accounts at each school and on-line requisition systems. Another benefit of this approach to budgeting is that state legislators become much more sensitized and realistic about the costs of schooling, and are more able to provide cogent arguments about whether district resources are being well spent.
What controls need to be in place? In order to move to school-site budgeting, districts need good audit policies and procedures. School staff need to know accounting codes, funding sources and spread sheets. They need to be sure that staff are being charged to the correct funding sources, that overtime is carefully monitored and charged, and that requests for new equipment are made with the foreknowledge that money has been allocated to purchase it.
What problems can be anticipated? Giving schools control over resources means that employee positions are likely to be eliminated. These decisions may cause tension within schools and require understanding from employee representative organizations and support from personnel offices.
Speaker: James Lytle, Trenton Public Schools, New Jersey
Session: Special Education: Implications of New IDEA Provisions
Lou Danielson, director of the Research to Practice Division in the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) presented a summary of response to intervention (RTI), which is promoted in the most recent reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). RTI is conceived as an alternative to the more commonly used discrepancy model of identifying learning disabilities, which diagnoses a specific learning disability based on a significant discrepancy between a child's abilities and achievement. Under the recent IDEA reauthorization, states can neither require school districts to use the discrepancy model, nor prohibit school districts from using RTI. RTI Includes early assessment and monitoring of students' learning progress in particular subject areas, such as reading. Interventions are given to those students who are not making adequate gains with more intense levels of interventions given as needed. With early appropriate intervention, many students will return to an appropriate learning rate. Those that do not are eventually diagnosed with a learning disability and receive all services and supports under IDEA. Many legislators had questions about the decision point at which students receive IDEA-mandated services, under this method. Additional issues discussed include teacher-training, the selection of appropriate interventions, and data tracking and problem-solving for students with difficulties. The different in costs this method will require were also discussed although no comprehensive cost analysis has been published.
Speaker: Lou Danielson, Office of Special Education Programs, US. Department of Education, Washington, D.C.
Session: ENLACE--A Model for Expanding College Access
This session gave a general overview of the ENgaging LAtino Communities for Education (ENLACE) program and highlighted the Hillsborough County program based at the University of South Florida. It was noted that the program increased students state mandated tests scores by 40 percent in reading and 50 percent in math. The program also realized an 80 percent increase in the number of their high school students enrolled in Advanced Placement courses. Representative Rick Miera from New Mexico shared information about recent legislation passed in his state to support ENLACE programming at the policy level.
Speakers: Donna Parrino, ENLACE Hillsborough County, University of South Florida
Alex Chough, National Council for Community and Education Partnerships, Washington, D.C.
Representative Rick Miera, New MexicoHandouts: ENLACEPres1
ENLACEPres2More Information:
National Conference of State Legislatures
University of So. Florida/ENLACE of Hillsborough County
National Council for Community and Educational Partnerships
W.K. Kellogg Foundationwww.ncsl.org/programs/educ/EnlaceMain.htm
www.usf.edu/enlace
www.edpartnerships.org
www.wkkf.org/enlace
Session: NCSL Interagency CADRE Meeting: Interagency Connections to Adequacy and Innovation
This was the third meeting of NCSL's Interagency legislative cadre, which is sponsored by the IDEA Partnership, an investment funded by the Office of Special Education programs (OSEP) and directed by the National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE). Joanne Cashman, Director of the IDEA Partnership, opened the meeting with a summary of the purpose of NCSL's cadre. The NCSL cadre is growing and currently includes 40 legislators from 26 states with an interest in interagency approaches to special education. The current meeting covered several topics including; connections of interagency collaboration to issues in school finance adequacy, Vermont's model of collaborative work in infant and children's mental health, legislative participation in larger communities of practice, and strategies to inform and further cadre work, including technical assistance to specific states.
Brenda Bean presented on Vermont's Children's Upstream Services (CUPS) initiative, which strives to strengthen the behavioral health of families with young children and increase the number of children entering kindergarten with solid emotional and social skills. CUPS providers serve families in a number of ways including home-based and childcare-based services and consultation to early care and education providers. Currently, a number of agencies including the Vermont Department of Education and Department of Children and Families, are collaborating on designing education and training on core mental health competencies for the state's mental health providers. The Cadre also heard from members, Senator Ed Olson (SD) and Representative RaeAnn Kelsch (ND), who discussed their participation in the National Community of Practice on School Based Mental Health. Olson and Kelsch attended the organization's annual meeting and have regular communication with other members from this community of practice. Finally, future activities for the Cadre were discussed. Cadre members have opportunities to become actively involved in other communities of practice or participate in discussion on specific policy issue areas including special education financing issues, and other issues related to IDEA reauthorization. The cadre currently has space for a few additional legislators. Contact Jennifer Stedron at NCSL, Denver.
© 2008 National Conference of State Legislatures, All Rights Reserved
Denver Office: Tel: 303-364-7700 | Fax: 303-364-7800 | 7700 East First Place | Denver, CO 80230 | Map
Washington Office: Tel: 202-624-5400 | Fax: 202-737-1069 | 444 North Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 515 | Washington, D.C. 20001
