Education Standing Committee

2006 NCSL Spring Forum
Hyatt Regency Capitol Hill
April 6-8, 2006
Washington, D.C.

Summaries of the NCSL Education Committee Sessions

The NCSL Education Standing Committee met at the 2006 NCSL Spring Forum to discuss current and pressing issues at the state and federal level. Here are the summaries from sessions held at that meeting.

Disproportionate Federal Funds: Impact of Federally-owned Property on the Tax Base of Local School Districts

Senator Thomas Hatch, Utah
Yvette Tetreault, Federal Funds Information for States, Washington, D.C.

Yvette Tetreault, Analyst at Federal Funds Information for States (FFIS), summarized the effects of federally-owned lands on the tax base of local school districts in the western states. Public education relies heavily on state and local property tax revenues. State and local governments are compensated for the presence of federally-owned land within their borders. Many of these payments provide funds for local school districts. The Bureau of Land Management administers several programs, through which the funds are distributed to states based on a formula. There will be a 6 percent decrease from FY06 to FY07 in federal land payments to states. Currently growth in per pupil funding in the 37 eastern states is at 68 percent, however in the 13 western states it is significantly less at 35 percent. Federally-owned lands in the west are the root of the discrepancy in per pupil funding among eastern and western states. Federal land ownership in the 13 western states is 51.9 percent compared to only 4.1 percent in the 37 eastern states. The loss of tax revenue from these lands has had a significant impact on the funding of local school districts. The website for Federal Funds Information for States is http://www.ffis.org

Providing Students with 21^st Century Skills

This session covered various topics, K-20, that have to do with preparing students for the 21^st century. These two publications give a comprehensive explanation of 21st century skills: 21^st Century Skills and High School Reform: http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/documents/P21_report.pdf and A Policymakers Guide to 21^st Century Skills: http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/images/stories/otherdocs/P21_Policy_Paper.pdf

David Byer (Apple) and Barbara Stein (NEA) representing the Partnership for 21st Century Skills (P21)

P21’s mission is to act as the national catalyst to ask policymakers, “what are the sets of skills kids need to contribute as citizens”.
Standards should be the baseline, not the ceiling for student achievement.
United States is falling behind other industrialized countries in achievement, reasoning, and critical thinking skills.

P21 suggests the model for education be changed to a model for the 21^st century

a. Emphasize core subjects
b. Emphasize Learning Skills
c. Use 21st Century Tools to Develop Learning Skills
d. Teach and Learn in a 21st Century Context
e. Teach and Learn 21st Century Content
f. Use 21^st Century Assessments that Measure 21^st Century Skills

Accountability must be aligned with what’s important to know in the 21^st century
P21 hoping to develop a critical mass of states, as the driver of education policy, to adopt a 21^st century agenda

State policymakers should consider the following To Do List

a. Initiate a dialogue with all stakeholders about the skills that are important for a 21^st century citizen
b. Analyze the P21 framework and tailor is for your own state
c. Investigate the potential to work with governor, advisory board, etc, to include all decision-makers in the process

Steve Paine, Superintendent of Schools for West Virginia, summarized how WV is going about implementing a 21^st century skills agenda.

WV realized it needed to go through a rigorous, yet reasonable process of setting standards.
WV went about gaining support from the legislature, governor, educators, etc.
Developed and offered a model leadership institute for principals in the summer.
Conducted an audit of WV’s content standards and objectives, realized there wasn’t enough rigor, so will now revise them to add rigor.
Developed a Technology Strategic Work Plan.
West Virginia Website: http://wvde.state.wv.us/news/1137/

Don Langenberg (Chancellor Emeritus at U. of Maryland) described the Professional Science Masters (PSM) degree.

The PSM trains graduates who love science or math but don’t want to do research.
Degrees are typically designed to be “science-plus”, meaning science or math is the foundation of knowledge, but additional courses in business, information technology, or policy supplement the curriculum.
The PSM degree trains scientists who can also manage and run projects.
NCSL’s PSM website: http://www.ncsl.org/programs/educ/STEMPSMdegree.htm
PSM website: http://www.sciencemasters.com/

Carol Lynch (Council of Graduate Schools) summarized federal legislation that addresses America’s competitiveness.

Congress and the President’s budget proposal include increases in funding for research, immigration revisions, and various educational initiatives, all aimed at keeping America the leader in a global economy.
The PACE act particularly emphasizes teacher recruitment and retention, while the National Innovation Act targets increases in the number of students seeking science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) degrees.
Increasing and enhancing PSM degrees is another provision of the National Innovation Act.
Comparison of federal initiatives: http://www.tap2015.org/resource/ASTRA.pdf

Federal Funding for Special Education

Bruce Hunter, American Association of School Administrators, Virginia
Paul Kong, Office of Senator Chuck Hagel, Nebraska

The federal government originally promised to fund 40 percent of the student services mandated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Yet federal funding has never come close to meeting this original goal. And because special education costs are approximately double that of regular education costs, even meeting the goal of funding 40 percent of average per pupil expenditures (APPE) would still require states to pay the vast majority (an estimated 80percent) of IDEA-required expenses. Many organizations, including NCSL and the American Association of School Administrators (AASA) have policy statements concerning this unfunded mandate to the states and have been monitoring congressional activity that would address the funding gap. Senator Chuck Hagel (NE) and Representative Charlie Bass (NH) have each proposed legislation to increase federal funding for special education. More than 50 policy and education organizations and disability interest groups have endorsed this legislation, including NCSL. Bi-partisan Congressional support is also strong; the senate bill has 25 co-sponsors while the house version has 75 co-sponsors. Bruce Hunter of the American Association of School Administrators and Paul Kong from Senator Chuck Hagel's office provided details on this legislation and its chance for passage in the current legislative session. In addition, David Shreve discussed NCSL's current policy statement, "Federal Funding for Special Education" which is slated to expire this year. This policy will be reviewed by the Education Committee at NCSL's Annual Meeting in August.

Teacher Incentive Fund to Provide Federal Dollars for Compensation Reform

John Myers, Augenblick, Palaich and Associates, Colorado
M. René Islas, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C.

The U.S. Department of Education is interested in advancing innovative approaches to linking student achievement and teacher and principal reward. To this end, the Teacher Incentive Fund has been established, which will provide a total of $100 million in grants to qualifying states and school districts for the purposes of implementing and evaluating teacher compensation programs. M. René Islas, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, U.S. Department of Education, described this initiative and answered questions about teacher compensation. Details on the granting process were released on May 1, 2006 and can be found at: http://www.ed.gov/programs/teacherincentive/index.html

Money in the Classroom: The 65 Percent Solution and Other Options

Ed Muir, American Federation of Teachers, Washington, D.C.
Tim Mooney, First Class Education, Washington, D.C.

The 65 Percent Solution originates from First Class Education, which aims for all 50 states and the District of Columbia to reallocate school spending so that at least 65 cents on every dollar goes directly into the classroom - on books and teacher pay - by the end of 2008.

The concept is taking hold in many states but little attention has been given to the realities of how different schools are across the country. The "65 percent solution" has already swept the state capitols in Texas, Kansas, and Louisiana. Earlier this month in one state example, Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue (R) introduced legislation, joining 17 other states that have proposed bills to meet that 65 percent threshold. Currently, the national average classroom spending is about 61.5 cents on the dollar, according to the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). Other governors such as Minnesota's Tim Pawlenty, and Florida's Jeb Bush are also behind the plan. Meanwhile, education researchers question whether it will make a difference in raising student test scores. Some critics, including American Federation of Teachers, say it violates the local control model of funding schools by adding new state standards that do not allow for flexibility.

In the view of First Class Education, the 65 percent solution addresses discontent taxpayers and teachers have about how money gets spent inside the classroom. The 65 percent solution originated after it was found that the five states with the highest student standardized test scores (Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Minnesota, and Connecticut) on average spent 64.1 percent in the classroom. The five worst- scoring states (Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, New Mexico, and the District of Columbia) on average spent 59.5 percent in the classroom. Georgia ranked 13th, spending about 63 cents on every dollar. The Georgia proposal uses the federal definition for classroom funding, which includes textbooks, teacher salaries, field trips, and special education as classroom expenses, but excludes "support" or "outside" funding of speech therapists, librarians, and administrators. Its proponents say the plan is not a punitive measure and that Georgia school districts would have time to achieve the goal. They would be required to increase spending by two percent a year until they reach 65 percent. If the plan is passed, school districts that now meet academic standards and spend less than 65 percent in the classroom would be eligible for a waiver.

Nationally, public opinion finds the school reform measure attractive. A Harris Interactive Poll last November showed that 70 to 80 percent of all demographic groups backed the 65 percent solution and the politicians who bring it to the table. However, in many cases the nation does not exactly know if they are voting for a theory based on ideal circumstances. Generalizations take place in such public poling that do not account for vast differences between urban and suburban schools and districts. Other state policymakers, national organizations and education researchers are not in support of this 65 percent plan. The average US school district now spends 81 percent of its budget on personnel, including teachers, support staff, and administrators. A "one-size-fits-all" limit at the state level would compromise the existing system of local control over how money gets spent. Concern surrounds what is considered "outside" the realm of 65 percent. Many times services which help the most at-risk kids such as English Language Learners (ELL), special education and library support would fall outside. Although nationwide statistics show a correlation between percentage of money spent statewide and standardized test scores, that correlation is not clear at the local district level. Thus far, there is no solid evidence as to, if all other things are equal, that a school district spending 70 percent in the classroom as opposed to a school district spending 60 percent has higher performance,

The Future of Higher Education

Representative Denise Merrill, Connecticut, Co-chair, NCSL Blue Ribbon Commmission on Higher Education
Representative Rob Kreibich, Wisconsin, Co-chair, NCSL Blue Ribbon Commission on Higher Education
Terry Hartle, American Council on Education, Washington, D.C.
Paul Lingenfelter, State Higher Education Executive Officers, Colorado

This session examined the current state of higher education in the states, what the future holds, and whether states are prepared. Education Committee members were also briefed on the current work of NCSL’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Higher Education, as well as some of the key trends in higher education policy. Members also received an update on the work of the Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education. Speakers included Terry Hartle, Senior Vice President for Government and Public Affairs, American Council on Education, Washington, D.C. and Paul Lingenfelter, President State Higher Education Executive Officers, Boulder, Colorado and NCSL Blue Ribbon Commission Co-Chairs Representative Robin Kreibich, Wisconsin and Representative Denise Merrill, Connecticut. The NCSL Blue Ribbon Commission on Higher Education website is http://www.ncsl.org/programs/educ/BRCOverview.htm

Paul Lingenfelter's PowerPoint

Graduation Rates and Dropout Recovery

Delegate Ana Sol Gutierrrez, Maryland
Bridget Curran, National Governors Association, Washington, D.C.
Nancy Martin, American Youth Policy Forum, Washington, D.C.

Delegate Gutierrez began the presentation by making the point that accurate reporting of high school graduation rates is critically important to improving our public schools. When graduation rates are calculated based on enrollment and diploma data, approximately 68-70 percent of all students who enter 9th grade will graduate "on time" with a regular diploma in the 12th grade. White students tend to graduate at a slightly higher rate (75 percent), while Black, Latino and Native Americans only have about a 50-50 chance of earning a real diploma. Black, Latino and Native American males fare even worse with rates of 43 percent, and 48 percent respectively. Yet, because of misleading and inaccurate reporting of graduation rates, the public remains largely unaware of this educational and civil rights crisis. To address this misleading and reporting of graduation rates, Delegate Gutierrez and others introduced legislation in the Maryland legislature that defined the basic formula and terminology for calculating graduation rates using a four-year adjusted cohort. The legislation is modeled after the National Governors Association Graduation Rate Compact, which was signed by all 50 governors. The Maryland legislation was enacted as Senate Bill 59 and signed by Governor Ehrlich on May 2, 2006.

Bridget Curran spoke in more detail about the National Governors Association Graduation Rate Compact. The compact aims to standardize how dropouts and graduation rates are calculated across states. All 50 governors have agreed to adopt the standard definition of graduation in order to more accurately report the number of high school dropouts. Using this definition, states will track a cohort of ninth graders through high school graduation.

Nancy Martin discussed dropout recovery efforts in various states. She highlighted the economic and social need to get dropouts to complete their diploma. She also gave several examples of what states have done in terms of prevention and recovery of dropouts.

Resources: http://mlis.state.md.us
-www.nga.org./center/edu
http://www.aypf.org/publications/WhateverItTakes.htm