 |
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 |
Education Program
Westin Tabor Center Denver, Colorado February 16-18, 2007 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 4:00 pm - 5:00 pm |
Colorado Higher Education Vouchers: How Are They Working?In 2004 the Colorado legislature passed Senate Bill 189, known as the College Opportunity Fund (COF), which completely revamped the way the state funds higher education. Instead of paying universities directly, each Colorado student must now apply for and receive a stipend, which the state then forwards to the university. The stipend is $80/credit hour, and has a cap of 145 credits per individual, unless a waiver is granted for more credits by the Colorado Commission of Higher Education (CCHE). SB189 also required participating institutions – all universities, 2 community college systems, and two private universities – to enter into performance contracts with the state that define, among other things, indicators of quality and how they will do additional outreach to underrepresented students. Finally, SB189 also required the Department of Education to market college opportunities to Colorado students beginning in the 7th grade. COF was passed primarily for two reasons: to make students aware that the state is subsidizing their college education, and to save higher education from further budget cuts. Several factors have led to severe decreases in state spending for higher education, including two unique constitutional amendments passed in the last decade: TABOR, or the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, which places a strict revenue limit on the state budget, and Amendment 23, which mandates yearly increases in K-12 spending. Prior to these combined forces, Colorado spent 20 percent of its state budget on higher education while it now currently spends less than 10 percent. By giving students a stipend rather than directly paying the universities, the money was not counted in TABOR’s limit. Colorado still remains 49th in the United States in funding higher education, as the COF did not designate any new money for higher education, but simply restructured how universities are paid. Nearly 3.6 percent of students that could have qualified for the COF stipend did not apply or receive it. CCHE has discovered that in part, students whose employers pay for school have avoided applying. Speakers:
|
Supporting Adult LearnersThis session focused on the population of students over the age of 22, which continues to increase in its share of postsecondary enrollments. This poses significant challenges for both institutions and state policymakers. It is critical that they work together to help adult learners reach successful outcomes. Adult learners have a different set of needs that often require special attention. Cheryl Blanco from the Council for Adult and Experiential Learning (CAEL) facilitated this informal roundtable discussion. Participants were given the opportunity to share experiences from their states and learn from their peers. An area of particular emphasis was the development of state Lifelong Learning Accounts (LiLAs), an innovative way for states to help adult learners with the costs associated with improving their education. More information on LiLA’s and other adult education topics can be found on the CAEL website. http://www.cael.org/. Speakers:
| |
Saturday, February 17 | |
| 9:00 am - 10:15 am |
School Finance 101, Part 1School finance wizards John Augenblick and John Myers teamed up for a power session that delivered the ABCs of state-level school finance. The design of the session aimed to provide school-finance-newcomers the basic elements that comprise a state’s role in funding K-12 public education. To start, Mr. Myers provided an overview of the many different characteristics of K-12 education across the several states, including the total number of students, schools, and school districts in the United States. Additionally, he offered details on the total per annum expenditure for K-12 education in the U.S. The session then turned to what a “good” school finance system looks like. Augenblick and Myers provided ten characteristics of a “good” school finance system, noting that opinions still differ on the details of these characteristics. The team then addressed some of the basic questions that arise when states provide funding for public schools, e.g., Who is the recipient of state aid? How do you count students? What drives the allocation of state aid? What are the basic formula alternatives? And, how do you measure the fiscal capacity of school districts? Mr. Myers concluded the session by providing an update on school finance litigation, reviewing recent decisions in Kansas, Montana, New Jersey and New York. How Do You Know A Good School Finance System Speakers:
|
Educating Teachers: Are We Getting Our Money's Worth?Representative Takumi introduced speakers and discussed the importance of preparing high quality teachers to improve student achievement. He sited the many policies that states put into place in order to recruit and retain good teachers, but pointed out these teachers must be well-prepared first. Dr. Arthur Levine, who recently left the presidency of Teachers College at Columbia University to become president of the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation, introduced his most recent study that concludes that the nation’s teacher education programs are inadequately preparing their graduates to meet the realities of today’s standards-based, accountability driven classrooms, in which the primary measure of success is student achievement. He argues that a majority of teacher education graduates are prepared in university-based programs that suffer from low admission and graduation standards. Both state and accreditation standards for maintaining quality are ineffective. He pointed out several model programs from across the country, reviewed “criteria for excellence” on which to judge the quality of programs, and set forth his five-point plan for improving programs and changing teacher education policy. His report in its entirety can be accessed at http://www.edschools.org/pdf/Educating_Teachers_Report.pdf. Dr. Sharon Robinson, President and CEO of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, responded to Dr. Levine’s findings and recommendations. She acknowledged that the findings are sobering and that she takes them very seriously. She said that she welcomes her colleagues efforts to improve the quality of teacher education because it is so important to the success of our nation’s teachers. She discussed ongoing efforts by her organization and others to improve teacher preparation. She also talked specifically about the importance of state policymakers – specifically state legislators – in getting involved in efforts to make changes. She said that there is a clear role for legislators at the table to discuss reform and pointed to specific policy options for legislators to consider, including supporting and building teaching into a profession, improving accountability, and providing adequate resources for higher education generally, and specifically for colleges of education. Dr. Robinson’s official response to the report can be accessed at http://aacte.org/News/Response_Report_Educating_School_Teachers.pdf. Moderator: Representative Roy Takumi, Hawaii Speakers:
| |
State Policies to Enhance ProductivityJoni Finney of the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, laid out the case for state higher education policy that is focused on productivity. She defined productivity as improving the educational capatal of the state. The US needs a more highly educated citizenry to meet global economic challenges, to meet future workforce needs, to improve economic circumstances and quality of life of the nation's citizens, but the United States is falling behind other countries in terms of overall higher education performance. Of 100 ninth graders, only 18 will graduate in a timely manner from college with an associates or bachelors degree. Dennis Jones laid out a framework for thinking about state policy to promote higher education productivity.
President Larry Penley of Colorado State University offered his perspectives on productivity. Presidents, he argue, approach productivity as a private good, rather than as a public good. Rather than a focus on recruiting the best and brightest students and evading accountability, universities need to recognize the relationship between education and economic prosperity and focus on the quality of the labor supply and the quality of ideas generated. At Colorado State University there is a focus on access and success (i.e., increasing low income students and increasing graduation rates), a focus on education outcomes (creating measures of the quality of the education received), a focus on economic prosperity and quality of life (via research ventures), and the adoption of a for-profit model to create new programs outside the expensive infrastructure of the University (to create lower cost programs with better student outcomes). Moderator: Joni Finney, National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, California Speakers:
| |
| 10:30 am - 11:45 am |
School Finance 101, Part 2This session focused on three topics: school finance adequacy, alternative approaches to teacher compensation, and the fiscal impact of enrollment changes. Mr. Augenblick provided some background on why “adequacy” was relevant in school finance systems. He mentioned that before statewide adequacy lawsuits, academics spoke theoretically of adequacy on a national level. Then, in the early 1990s, Kentucky’s school finance litigation produced the modern notion of adequacy when the state’s supreme court said it matters little what disparities exist between districts so long as each district has adequate funding. At this point in history, school finance experts began to ask the question: How much money is adequate? He described four different approaches that have evolved in an attempt to answer this befuddling question: 1) Professional Judgment (PJ), 2) Successful School District (SSD), 3) Evidenced-Based (EB), and 4) Cost Function (CF). He then noted that the objective of each approach is to determine the base cost. The PJ approach assumes that experienced educators can specify the resources schools need to meet state standards. The SSD approach assumes that a base cost can be inferred from examining the basic spending of districts that meet some standard using available data. This approach was developed in Ohio and is really the only approach that can address efficiency because the approach eliminates districts that meet most state standards by spending large amounts of money. The EB approach relies on evidence about how to help schools improve, not meet a standard. Finally, the CF approach usually requires large amounts of data that are typically not available, and it uses statistical procedures that are difficult for policy maker to utilize. The session then turned to alternative approaches to teacher compensation. The different approaches include career ladders, pay for knowledge and skills, teacher advancement programs, tiered licensure, and Denver’s ProComp. Lastly, the session turned to the fiscal impact of changes in a district’s student enrollment. Because student counts are a driving factor in most school finance formula, there is a consensus that these changes have some fiscal impact, i.e., the marginal cost of losing or gaining an additional student. Speakers:
|
Investing in Technology for the 21st CenturyMary Ann Wolf from State Education Technology Directors Association, provided statistics on how the U.S. is losing high-tech jobs and falling behind globally in math, science and engineering. She gave examples of how states like North Carolina, Texas, West Virginia, Missouri, Utah and Maine and Washington DC are implementing systemic changes to incorporate technology into their education systems to meet this challenge. She shared the dramatic results that Utah is getting with its eMINTS program. She talked about the irony that, while President Bush has highlighted American competitiveness and the need for STEM education, his current proposed budget would eliminate the only federal funding dedicated to educational technology noting that the “job is done.” She outlined current federal and state sources of funding for education technology. She ended by noting that the job is far from complete and that state leadership is critical to improving education technology. She suggested that legislators work with the state education agencies, provide dedicated funding sources requiring systematic approach, broaden the definition of materials, support teachers’ professional development through communities of learning and coaches, and maximize the potential of systems and infrastructure. Kent Tamsen, Colorado’s former director of education technology and current director of technology for Widefield School District in Colorado Spring, presented information on implementing technology at the state and district level. He discussed the current strategies in Colorado and outlined Education Technology-Information Literacy (ET-IL) plans that are required of all school districts. These include a needs assessment; statement of goals, objectives, and strategies; collaboration and integration; professional development plan; policies and procedures; technology infrastructure and support; budget; action plan; evaluation plan; and 21st century skills. These ideally link to other plans such as e-Rate and accreditation. He discussed the federal funding received for education technology in Colorado but pointed out that the state provides no state funding and has in fact eliminated the state director of education technology position. He also provided examples of technology’s impact on student achievement in his school district. Speakers:
| |
Developing a State Higher Education Agenda: Making the CaseThis session focused on making the case for a state public agenda for higher education that defines clear state goals and links higher education outcomes to state economic growth. The importance of improving higher education is gaining national attention and states play a pivotal role in this reform movement. Panelists discussed the role legislators can play in developing defining and implementing a public agenda for higher education. The panel included Pat Callan, National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, John Immerwahr, Office of Academic Affairs, Villanova University and Assemblyman Craig Stanley, New Jersey. Assemblyman Stanley shared his insights as a member of the NCSL Blue Ribbon Commission on Higher Education, which was of particular interest to the legislative participants. Speakers:
| |
What Works to Reduce the Achievement Gap?There is some good news regarding the nation’s achievement gap, namely, the gap in 4th grade reading and math scores are narrowing. The lesson we should learn from this is that when we focus as a country on a goal, we will see improvement. We now have traction on the problems in elementary school. However, the bad news is that students are exiting high school with weaker skills in math and reading. High school students are graduating worse prepared for college than students were a few decades ago. The United States ranks low in math achievement compared to most developed countries. More than 50 percent of kids are doing very poor in problem-solving skills. We know that gaps between minorities and low-income kids are already present when students enter school. However, inequitable policies further exaggerate and contribute to the gaps. This is reflected in additional statistics. For example, 75 percent of upper-and upper-middle income individuals have a college degree, while only 9 percent of low income individuals have a college degree. However, while these are disturbing trends, there are schools that have high levels of low-income and minority students and have high levels of student achievement. There are ten powerful lessons to learn from these high performers. High performing schools:
These successful schools are doing well DESPITE inequitable school funding systems. For example, despite the fact that the Maryland legislature appropriated an additional $1.2 bilion to education, district expenditures on at-risk kids actually went down by approximately $22 million. States need to require districts to be accountable for spending more equitably. Also, Title I funding from the federal government is extremely inequitable because the formula for funding states depends on how much states themselves spend on education. Therefore, the poorer states get less federal Title I money. Speaker:
| |
| 2:30 pm - 3:30 pm |
Recruiting and Retaining Effective Teachers: The Role of Compensation and IncentivesResearch has indicated that teacher quality is the single most important school-related factor in improving student achievement. With this information, policymakers are working hard to recruit and retain high quality teachers. Several states are calling for reform and establishing teacher performance pay programs. Denver's ProComp system is the product of a four-year pilot that earned support from the majority of teachers and taxpayers who funded the effort. In 1999, Denver Public Schools (DPS) and the Denver Classroom Teachers Association (DCTA) reached an impasse during collective bargaining over a proposal to tie compensation to student academic growth. T he Pay for Performance Pilot studied the relationship between teaching, assessing growth in student learning and teacher compensation. A Design Team of two teachers and two administrators oversaw the planning, implementation and evaluation of the pilot. In addition to the pilot, a study, conducted by the Community Training and Assistance Center of Boston, led DPA and DCTA to decided that a new teacher compensation agreement could not be based on student objectives alone. In 2001, the Joint Task Force on Teacher Compensation was formed and charged to design a new comprehensive pay system for teachers based, in part, on the insights and learnings from the Design Team managing the pilot and the CTAC research study. The Task Force, composed of teachers, principals, central office administrators and community members, was charged with developing an equitable and affordable salary system for teachers based, in part, on the academic achievement of students. Draft recommendations were shared with teachers and administrators in Spring 2003. The final recommendations were incorporated into the overall plan submitted to the Board of Education and members of the DCTA in early 2004. The final plan, which was named the Professional Compensation Plan for Teachers, or ProComp, was approved in 2004. Voters subsequently approved funding for the program in 2005. Denver's ProComp system was fully funded in January 2005. Current teachers can opt into the system, while new teachers are required to join. For more information on Denver's ProComp plan, and its specific components, click on the following link http://denverprocomp.org/generalinformation. Several others states, including Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Mississippi and Texas are looking into pay for performance models during the 2007 legislative session. Check on the link below to access the Top Pay for Top Teachers article featured in the September 2006 edition of State Legislatures magazine. http://www.ncsl.org/legis/pubs/slmag/2006/06SLSep06_TopPay.pdf Moderator: Michelle Exstrom, NCSL, Colorado Speaker:
|
College Tuition for Undocumented StudentsThis session took a balanced look at the issue of state tuition policies as they relate to unauthorized immigrant students. Lamar Bailey, National Conference of State Legislatures, opened the session with a presentation outlining the key issues and legislation dealing with this issue. The presentation also featured data on the number of undocumented students graduating from U.S. High Schools each year. The presentation was followed by a panel discussion with Senator Ray Aguilar, Nebraska and Representative Deena Horst, Kansas and moderated by Carlos Valverde, NCSL. Each shared the challenges they faced coming to a consensus on this issue in their states and what the outcome was. Participants also shared experiences in their states, this included Representative Dora Olivo, Texas, which is the only state that allows undocumented students to receive states financial aid along with in-state tuition. Moderator: Carlos Valverde, NCSL, Colorado Speakers:
| |
Investing in Successful Middle SchoolsSue Swain and Al Summers from the National Middle School Association (NMSA) spoke about the NMSA's new report, "Success in the Middle: A Policymakers Guide to Achieving Quality Middle Level Education." Research shows that the middle school years -- ages 10 to 14 -- are a time of more change in a life than any time other than ages 0 to 3, and that the decisions made during these years begin to set who young people become in life. The report finds that there is a wealth of research on what is necessary for successful middle schools, and that clear policy recommendations can be made at each level of government, especially with regard to preparing educators to work specifically with middle school students. NMSA's "Essential Characteristics of Effective Middle Level Schools", policy recommendations, and additional information about middle school students can be found at http://www.msna.org/. Speakers:
| |
| 3:45 pm - 4:45 pm |
Changing Directions: Aligning Appropriations, Tuition and Financial AidThis session examined how states can better align higher education fiscal policy, specifically policy regarding higher education appropriations, tuition, and financial aid. Paul Lingenfelter, President of the State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO) began the session with a series of graphs that examine how appropriations, tuition, and financial aid connect together to create an overall picture of state support of higher education. However, these three policies are typically considered by legislators in separate conversations at separate times. As part of a major effort by the Western Interstate Commission on Higher Education, fifteen states are working on higher education reform that better aligns appropriations, tuition and financial aid. For descriptions of the state activities and for an excellent series of background papers on the topic, visit http://www.wiche.edu/Policy/Changing_direction/. Speaker:
|
Funding High School RedesignAlex Medler of the Colorado Children’s Campaign shared his expertise on funding high school redesign. The CCC previously housed Colorado’s Small Schools Initiative, which coordinated and provided technical assistance to several redesigned schools in the Denver metro area. First, Alex described ten functions that can drive costs:
Then he talked about elements within each function that drive cost. For example, the cost of planning varies widely depending on whether the school is new or a smaller division of an existing school. School leadership searches can be quite costly for a new school, and the cost of facilities depends greatly on whether an existing school can be retrofitted or if a new building is needed. Alex’s presentation is attached. Speaker:
| |
Costs of No Child Left Behind Act ImplementationDavid Shreve presented and answered questions on NCLB’s fiscal impact on the states. First, the discussion addressed under what constitutional authority Congress acted to pass and implement NCLB and whether it was an unfunded mandate. He stated that while it was enacted under the spending clause provision of the U.S. Constitution and is not technically an unfunded mandate, NCLB may, nonetheless, violate two spending provisions established by the U.S. Supreme Court. The discussion then turned to the types of costs states incur from NCLB implementation and the types of federal funding available to the states. Mr. Shreve provided data estimating that an average of between four and six percent of states’ education budgets go toward just complying with the administrative requirements of NCLB. The discussion then turned to the changes over the last five years in federal funding for K-12 education. Speaker:
| |
Sunday, February 18 | |
| 8:00 am - 10:30 am |
Funding Education in an Era of Tax LimitsThe focus of the discussion centered around how tax limits impact education funding, specifically focusing on Colorado's Tax Payer Bill of Rights (TABOR), the nation's most stringent tax and expenditure limitation. In 1992, Colorado voters adopted a set of constitutional provisions to limit revenue growth for the state and local governments and to require that any tax increase in state or local government (counties, cities, towns, school districts and special districts) must be approved by the voters. TABOR is principally a revenue limit, not a spending limit. It limits revenue the state government can retain from all sources except federal funds in a year to the previous year's allowed collections plus a percentage adjustment equal to the percentage growth in population plus the inflation rate. Consequently, when revenues fall, the following year's limit on collections is still based on the allowed collections of the previous year. The result is that in years following a recession, allowed revenues will grow only from the worst revenue collection year of the recession to the extent allowed by rate of population growth and inflation. Any revenues received in excess of this limit must be refunded to the voters. TABOR also allows citizens to vote to allow the state to keep the excess revenue. In 2000, voters approved Amendment 23 which allows the state government to retain as much of a TABOR surplus as necessary to fund the K-12. Amendment 23 requires state per pupil funding to grow annually by at least the rate of inflation, enrollment growth plus one percent through 2011. Colorado's early experience with TABOR was successful because of the very rapid demographic and economic growth of the state in the 1990s due, in part, to substantial migration (30 percent population growth from 1990 to 2000) and the rapid expansion of the electronics and telecommunications industries in the state. Taxpayers saw substantial "TABOR reduction checks" as revenues were returned to them. The General Assembly reduced personal income and sales tax rates to reduce surplus (returnable) revenues. Contraction in electronics and telecommunications industries occurred rapidly in 2000 and 2001, shrinking the state economy and tax collections. Personal income grew only 2 percent from 2002 to 2003, the sixth worst rate in the country, when the national average was 2.8 percent. State employment shrank by 1 percent from 2002 to 2003, again the sixth worst rate in the country, when the national average was -0.1 percent. The state's budget problems were made worse by the interaction of Amendment 23 -- an additional constitutional provision. K-12 funding now accounts for 40 percent of the Colorado General Fund budget. In 2005, voters passed a five-year reprieve from the spending limits of the TABOR amendment. The revenue is to be specifically used for public K-12 and higher education, health care and transportation. Proponent Arguments Proponents of TABOR argue that the stringent limitations force the state and local governments to set tougher priorities. They believe that a market driven approach will not only increase workforce productivity, but it will create incentives to bolster efficiency and introduce competition. Proponents advocate for greater government accountability by implementing priority based budgeting and by requiring voter approval of revenue coming in and going out of the state's coffer. Proponents also believe TABOR forces government to look at more creative ways to get things done Opponent Arguments Opponents fear TABOR is making representative democracy a thing of the past as the state is relying less and less on elected officials. Opponents core issue with TABOR is its dependence on the inflation rate. They argue that this artificial rate is not a true measure of what's happening in the economy in terms of growth and productivity. Opponents view TABOR as an obstacle in education reform since the legislature had to overhaul the way they fund higher education to remove it from TABOR's restrictions. TABOR opponents argue that the role of government is to prepare a productive workforce and engaged citizenry, provide a safety net for low-income citizens, provide public safety and provide transportation. They then beg the question -- How well are we doing in these areas? Moderator: Representative Denise Merrill, Connecticut Debaters:
|
Measuring Up 2006: Are Your States Competitive?Mikyung Ryu from the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education spoke about the Center's third Measuring Up report, "Measuring Up 2006: The National Report Card on Higher Education". The report finds that, since the early 1990s, preparation for college has continued to improve; that college enrollment rates have remained flat; that there have been some modest gains in the proportion of students completing degrees and certificates; and that college affordability continued to decline -- so that most American families need a great share of their income to pay for college. The report uses international comparisons to evaluate state higher education policy, and assigns each state a letter grade on their higher education system. The Center's National Report Card, the State Report Card for each of the 50 states, and International Comparative Data for the 50 states and the U.S. is available at http://www.highereducation.org/. Speaker:
| |
© 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
