A CEEP Research Update on Hot Topics in K-12 Education Policy

ISBA/IAPSS 58th Annual Fall ConferenceOctober 1, 2007

Terry Spradlin

2

About the Center for Evaluation & Education Policy

• The Center for Evaluation & Education Policy (CEEP) is a client-focused, self-funded research center associated with the School of Education at Indiana University.

• CEEP provides a wide range of evaluation and nonpartisan policy research services to policymakers, governmental

entities, and non-profit organizations.• CEEP is continually looking for new opportunities to help

inform, influence, and shape the development of P-16 education policy not only in Indiana, but across the nation.

3

Table of Contents

I. The Achievement Gap

II. Pre-Kindergarten Programs

III. Full-Day Kindergarten

IV. School Consolidation and Shared Services

V. Predictions for the 2008 General Assembly

All resources available upon request.

4

I. The Achievement Gap in Indiana

CEEP Report:

“Is the Achievement Gap in Indiana Narrowing?”

9/19/2005

http://ceep.indiana.edu/projects/PDF/Achievement_Gap_091405.pdf

5

Achievement Gap Study Overview

• Not only timely, but most complete picture of Indiana’s achievement gap since a state review in 2003.

• Report examined multiple performance measures over time by race/ethnicity, income, English proficiency, and special needs categories.

• Primary sources of data: IDOE, College Board, NCES.

6

The Good News

• When examining aggregate results over time, Indiana schools can boast progress in a variety of important areas, including: Core 40 and Academic Honors Diploma Completion, SAT and ACT scores, participation in and achievement on AP tests, and ISTEP+ scores.

• Hoosiers’ participation in higher education is also steadily increasing.

• Particularly encouraging is the upward performance of Indiana’s Grade 4 and 8 students in the areas of mathematics and science on the NAEP and TIMSS assessments. Grade 4 students, for example, scored the second highest of all participants internationally on the TIMSS science assessment in 2003. Grade 4 students ranked 7th nationally in mathematics on the 2007 NAEP.

• Overall, Indiana’s K-12 education system effectively serves a majority of our students.

7

The Not-So-Good News

• Unfortunately, a significant number of poor, minority, LEP, and special education students in Indiana’s K-12 public education system are not succeeding academically and are falling through the cracks.

• Indiana has significant achievement gaps that exist whether examining results by race/ethnicity, income, English proficiency, or disability.

• The achievement gaps have narrowed only marginally since the state embarked on a series of comprehensive school reform initiatives beginning in the late 1980s, including revisions to the school funding formula that account for certain at-risk factors.

8

Grade 4 NAEP ReadingPercent Achieving at or Above Basic

73%71%

74%71% 70%

73%

41%

34%

46%

38%41% 43%

54%

46%

51%

58%

52% 51%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1992 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007

White African AmericanHispanic

9

Grade 4 NAEP Reading Gap in Percent Achieving at or Above Basic

32

37

28

33

2930

19

2523

13

18

22

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1992 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007

White/African AmericanWhite/Hispanic

10

Grade 3 ISTEP+ Percent Passing Eng/LA & Math by Ethnicity

69%

62%

43%

31%

44%44%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07

White African American Hispanic

11

Grade 10 ISTEP+ Percent Passing Eng/LA & Math by Ethnicity

60% 63%

20%25%

36% 33%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07

White African American Hispanic

12

Grade 3 ISTEP+ Percent Passing Eng/LA & Math by SES

74%

50%

65%

41%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07

Paid Lunch

Free/Reduced Lunch

13

Grade 10 ISTEP+ Percent Passing Eng/LA & Math by SES

66%

36%

64%

33%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07

Paid Lunch

Free/Reduced Lunch

14

Grade 3 ISTEP+ Percent Passing Eng/LA & Math by LEP

28%

36%

56%65%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07

LEPNon-LEP

15

Grade 10 ISTEP+ Percent Passing Eng/LA & Math by LEP

12% 17%

60% 58%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07

LEPNon-LEP

16

Grade 3 ISTEP+ Percent Passing Eng/LA & Math by Special Education

63%69%

28%

39%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07

General EducationSpecial Education

17

Grade 10 ISTEP+ Percent Passing Eng/LA & Math by Special Education

59%63%

10%14%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07

General EducationSpecial Education

18

High School Graduation RatesClass of 2006

19

Graduation Rate by Ethnicity

20

Graduation Rate by Socioeconomic Status

21

Conclusions

1) The achievement gap is a not only a school and classroom issue, but a societal issue that must be addressed by a broad array of stakeholders that extends beyond educators, including the governor, policymakers, business and industry, labor, clergy, and parents.

2) Parents and the larger community must increase the value they place on elementary and secondary education and become more engaged in supporting student learning. A strong social support system that values and promotes academic achievement is essential to reducing the achievement gaps.

22

Conclusions (cont’d)

3) State and local leaders must acknowledge and address the impact that issues such as the high rates of mobility, increasing levels of poverty, poor nutrition, and restricted access to quality healthcare have on student achievement. Effective economic development, fiscal management, and public health policies will contribute to a reduction of the K-12 academic achievement gaps.

23

CEEP Recommendations

1) Emphasize the role of state leadership.2) Fulfill the recommendations of the P-16

Plan.3) Promote early childhood education.4) Support full-day kindergarten for all at-

risk children.5) Expand effective reading programs to all

elementary classes.

24

CEEP Recommendations (cont’d)

6) Examine middle school issues, particularly suspension and expulsion trends, and conduct an assessment of student engagement.

7) Continue the push to redesign high schools.

8) Revisit school improvement plan process.

9) Emphasize teacher quality.

10) Raise academic expectations.

25

IDOE Policy Strategies

• Supplemental Education Services- free tutoring services for free or reduced-price lunch students to pass the ISTEP+.

• Public Charter Schools Program- federal grant for start-up of high quality charter schools that serve diverse populations.

26

• Corporations with overrepresentation develop local improvement plans.

• TEAM Leadership Academy to address unique needs of urban high-poverty, low-performing schools.

• Title I School Improvement Grants to help schools increase academic achievement in students.

IDOE Policy Strategies (cont.)

27

IDOE Local Policy Option Recommendations• Break down achievement data.

• Use research-based instruction to meet needs of low achieving groups.

• Create Freshman Academies to address needs at pivotal time for potential dropouts.

• Provide instructional time and support for students needing additional time to achieve.

28

IDOE Local Policy Option Recommendations (cont.)

• Use technology to support students who need extra assistance.

• Reduce class size to help meet individual student needs.

• Create Professional Learning Communities to continuously examine and address issues.

29

II. Pre-Kindergarten Programs

CEEP/IIDC Report:

“Closing the Achievement Gap Series: Part IIs Indiana Ready for State-Sponsored Prekindergarten

Programs?”

August 7, 2006

http://ceep.indiana.edu/projects/PDF/PB_V4N7_Summer_2006_Prekindergarten.pdf

30

Benefits of Pre-K Participation

Educational

Lower special education referral rates Up to a 41 percent reduction in special education placements.

Reduced grade retention rates Up to a 40 percent reduction in grade retentions

Improved academic performanceHigher performance on intelligence and achievement tests through age 27.

Increased educational attainmentHigher high school completion rates and higher rates of college attendance.

Social

Reduced crime rateLower arrest rates through age 40 and reduced arrests for violent offenses.

Reduced social services usage Lower rates of social services usage at ages 27 and 40.

Reduced child abuse and neglect 51 percent reduction in maltreatment of own children.

Economic

Increased earnings Higher median monthly and annual earnings at ages 27 and 40.

Increased employment rate and job skill level

Higher employment rate at ages 21, 27, and 40.

Higher rate of employment in skilled jobs at age 21.

31

Benefits of Pre-K Participation (cont.)

• Research indicates that a child’s first years of life are a period of “opportunity and vulnerability for healthy physical, emotional, social, and cognitive development” (Karoly, Kilburn, & Cannon).

• Cost-benefit analyses indicated that prekindergarten programs produce economic returns between $4 to $16 for every $1 invested in the programs.

• “Politicians have a choice to make. They can do things like build sports stadiums that offer virtually no economic return, or they can invest in early education programs with a 16% rate of return” Art Rolnick, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.

32

National Snapshot of Pre-K Programs• In 2004-05, 38 states (excluding Indiana) offered state-funded pre-k

programs.

• Approx. $4.2 billion was spent on pre-k program in the last fiscal year and 30 governors have called for increased pre-k spending this year.

• These states served 11% of all 3 and 4-year-olds in participating states.

• States offer these programs as strategy to close achievement gaps.

• Some states offer expanded services to at-risk students to ensure accountability goals are met.

33

Indiana Snapshot of Pre-K Programs

• In 2005, 100,196 children, or 38% or children ages 3 and older, participated in center-based early education (nursery school, preschool, child care centers, registered ministries, prekindergarten; excludes child care homes) in Indiana.

• Approximately, 21,000 were enrolled in a school-based prekindergarten program.

• Of these children, 47% were served in a public school setting and 53% were served in a private school setting. Thus, about approximately 10,000 three- and four-year-old children are served in prekindergarten by a public school.

* Data from the Census Bureau: Indiana Enrollment in Early Education 2005

34

Indiana Snapshot of Pre-K Programs (cont.)

• The state has taken several steps to improve the education and preparedness of its students, including support for early childhood education initiatives.

• However, state support for publicly-funded pre-k programs is lacking.

• Despite this, 190 of Indiana’s 293 school corporations and three charter schools provided some type of pre-k program during the 2005-06 school year, including preschool special education services.

35

Considerations of Pre-K Programs:NIEER’s Evidence-Based Program Standards

• Programs that do not implement evidence-based standards do not achieve desired outcomes.

• The evidence-based standards include: Comprehensive early learning standards. Teachers with bachelor’s degrees. Teachers with specialized training in prekindergarten. Assistant teachers with Child Development Associate or equivalent degree. Inservice training for minimum 15 hours per year. Maximum class size of 20 students. Staff-child ratio of 1 to 10 or fewer. Required screening for vision, hearing, health and minimum of 1 family

support activity. At least 1 meal per day. Required monitoring through site visits.

NOTE: NIEER is the National Institute for Early Education Research.

36

• Along with the standards, states should monitor how local programs are implementing these standards.

• Monitoring ensures that:1. Funds are used responsibly.

2. Data are available to promote program improvement and ensure best possible educational experience.

3. The goals and outcomes of the program are being met.

Considerations of Pre-K Programs

37

• States with pre-k programs typically use a mixture of state, federal, local, and private funding sources as well as parent fees.

• States provide the core of program funding, most commonly from general revenue, dedicated funds, or school funding formulas.

• Section 62 of State Budget bill (HEA 1001-2007) calls for the creation of a prekindergarten pilot program to be administered by IDOE, but provided no funding for this purpose.

Considerations of Pre-K Programs

38

• The cost of pre-k education in Indiana would depend on which children would be eligible and the scope of services to be offered.

• Half-day pre-k programs for approximately 19,220 4-year-olds who are at risk, would cost $68,250,220 at a rate of $3,551 per child.

• The same program expanded to all 4-year-olds would cost $156,567,141 at the same rate.

Considerations of Pre-K Programs

39

Recommendations

1. Build on existing foundations for studying and planning publicly-funded pre-k programs.

2. Identify and agree upon the purpose, goals, and desired outcomes of a publicly-funded pre-k program.

3. Examine service delivery options that build on existing pre-k programs and phase in services statewide.

4. Link the level of funding for a statewide pre-k program with the desired program goals and outcomes.

5. Identify a funding source that is stable and continuous.6. Determine and commit to a state and local governance

system for pre-k programs.

40

III. Full-Day Kindergarten

CEEP Report:

“Short-Lived Gains or Enduring Benefits? The Long-Term Impact of FDK”

April 2005

http://www.ceep.indiana.edu/projects/PDF/PB_Spring_2005_Full_Day_Kindergarten.pdf

41

Additional CEEP Research on FDK

CEEP Report conducted for IAPSS:

“The Effects of Full Day Versus Half DayKindergarten: Review and Analysis of National and Indiana

Data”

January 9, 2004

http://www.ceep.indiana.edu/projects/PDF/FDK_report_final.pdf

42

Full-Day Kindergarten Grant

• State Budget (HEA 1001-2007) increases the state full-day kindergarten grant program to $33.5 million in the 2007-08 school year and $58.5 million in the 2008-09 school year – up from $8.5 million annually.

• Deadline to apply for grants was June 15, 2007.

43

Full-Day Kindergarten Grant: Eligibility

• Eligibility for 2006-07 school year:Any school corporation or charter school;No demographic makeup considered;School must include five hours of instructional

time for 180 days during the school year;School must meet academic standards of

Indiana Code Title 20 and State Board of Education rules adopted pursuant to IC 20.

44

Full-Day Kindergarten Grant: Allocations• Grant amount is equal to the total state appropriation divided by

the total number of FDK students funded by the grants during 2007-08 school year.

• Maximum = $2,500/Student• Minimum = $440/Student

Assuming all public school corporations and charter schools choose to participate

• As of June 26, 2007, 243 school corporations and 20 charter schools received the grant.

• Each school will receive an estimated $665 per student, with an estimated 50,000 students in FDK as a result of the grant.

45

Full-Day Kindergarten Grant: Supplemental Funding

• If state FDK grant funding is insufficient, general funds and/or voluntary parent fees (authorized by SECTION 9 of state budget bill) may be used to fully fund program.

• Title I funds may also be used in combination with state funds; however, special rules apply.

• School corporations must follow either Title I-Like Model or Fair Share Model if Title I funds are used in conjunction with state funds for FDK.

46

Full-Day Kindergarten Grant:Supplement, Not Supplant

• Section 1120A of ESEA demands that federal Title I funds only be used to supplement the amount of non-federal funds available for the education of students participating in Title-I programs.

• Section 1120A also states that an SEA or LEA may not use the federal funds to take place of (supplant) funds that would have been spent on Title I students in the absence of Title I funds.

47

Full-Day Kindergarten Grant:Title I-Like Model• Requires that all students participating through Title I funds be

categorized as “educationally at-risk.”

• Corporation could use Title I funds to provide full-day kindergarten for Title I students and use state grant funding to provide full-day kindergarten in non-Title I schools to students who are deemed educationally at-risk, or Title I-Like.

• Those students who are not deemed educationally at-risk are not eligible for either Title I or Title I-Like funding and must be funded by parent fees as federal or state funding would violate the supplant provision in ESEA 1120A.

48

Full-Day Kindergarten Grant:Fair Share Model

• Assumption: state grant FDK funds are insufficient to provide FDK for all students within a corporation or charter school.

• How does this model work?1) One-half of the day would be supported by state and local

general fund dollars.2) Part of the second half of the day would be supported by the

state FDK Grant.3) Title I students would have Title I funds used to support the

remaining part of the day determined by the following formula.4) Non-eligible students would need to be funded by additional

parent fees.

49

Full-Day Kindergarten Grant:Fair Share Model

• Funding Model (to determine how much Title I money can be used):

1. Compute the total costs for the second half of the day.

2. Subtract FDK grant money (per pupil amount times number of pupils)

3. Divide remainder by number of pupils.4. Multiply Step 3 by the number of Title I-eligible

pupils. 5. This is the amount of Title I money available.

50

CEEP Research on FDK: Longitudinal Study Objectives

• CEEP is in the third year of a multi-year longitudinal study, funded by the U.S. DOE, comparing both the short- and long-term impacts of FDK on students’ academic outcomes as compared to the traditional half-day.

• The study reports student scores on achievement tests from three different elementary schools within two school corporations in Indiana, Richland-Bean Blossom Community School Corporation and Monroe County Community School Corporation.

• In the 2005-06 school year, the first year of the study, 16 classrooms (4 FDK and 12 HDK) were included. Students were randomly assigned to either the full-day or half-day programs.

51

CEEP Longitudinal Study

Number of Students

CohortHalf-Day

KindergartenFull-Day

Kindergarten1st Grade 2nd Grade

0 151 23 190 178

1 189 67 209 n/a

2 165 77 n/a n/a

Totals 505 167 399 178

52

CEEP Longitudinal Study

Number of Classes

CohortHalf-Day

KindergartenFull-Day

Kindergarten1st Grade 2nd Grade

0 8 1 8 5

1 12 4 11 n/a

2 8 4 n/a n/a

Totals 28 9 19 5

53

Educational Importance of the Study

• This study provides two important contributions to the research and knowledge of kindergarten:1. Since previous research on the impact of FDK is either out of

date or difficult to generalize due to methodological issues, the present study fills an important gap in the policy research literature. This is one of the first studies on FDK to utilize random

assignment to treatment (FDK) and control (HDK) groups.

2. The present research creates a solid foundation for a longitudinal, long-term study of the effect of full- versus half-day kindergarten.

54

Methods and Techniques of the Study• DIBELS and the AIMSweb® online formative assessment

system were used as Curriculum Based Measures (CBM) to benchmark all kindergarten students at the beginning of the school year in order to measure the baseline differences between HDK and FDK students.

• Stanford 10 Achievement Test was administered at the end of each year to assess student achievement levels and to assess whether there were any achievement differences between HDK and FDK students.

55

Preliminary Results of the Study for Cohort I• FDK and HDK students appear to perform roughly the same at the

beginning of kindergarten.

• At the end of kindergarten, FDK students scored significantly higher than HDK students on all three Stanford 10 subtests: word reading, sentence reading, and mathematics.

• Subsequent analysis will examine ongoing long-term effects of full-day kindergarten for the three cohorts of students as they progress through Grade 3, and perhaps additional grades.

56

Non-Achievement Data on Full-Day Kindergarten • This same study also provides meaningful insight into how

full-day kindergarten and half-day kindergarten differ on non-achievement related dimensions.

• Data were gathered from three different sources: 1. a parent/guardian survey2. a focus group of participating teachers3. classroom observations of HDK and FDK student

behaviors

57

Results and Conclusions: Parent Survey• Parents of FDK and HDK students did not differ in their

own education levels, but rather in their assessment of how the kindergarten year would best be spent for their child.

HDK parents were more likely to be influenced by the amount of time they could spend with their child, as well as ease of transition to Grade 1.

FDK parents were more likely to be influenced by academic concerns.

58

Results and Conclusions: Teacher Focus Group• Findings show almost universal preference by teachers for

FDK over HDK.

• The extra time allotted to FDK classes allowed teachers to cover more academic and non-academic material.

• The only reservation of FDK was it potentially taking time away from non-school related activities.

59

Results and Conclusions: Classroom Observation• Findings support the argument that FDK and HDK classes

provide similar environments.

• However, FDK classes provide this environment over a longer time period, which the teachers believe better allows them to meet the academic and social needs of the students.

60

IV. School Consolidation and Shared Services Information & Research

CEEP Report:

“Assessing the Policy Environment for School Corporation Collaboration, Cooperation, and

Consolidation in Indiana”

7/11/2007

http://ceep.indiana.edu/projects/PDF/PB_V5N5.pdf

61

Local Government Unit Trends

1952 1962 1972 1982 1992 1997 2002

County 92 92 91 91 91 91 91

Township 1,008 1,008 1008 1,008 1,008 1,008 1,008

City and Towns 541 547 546 564 566 569 567

School Districts 1,115 884 315 305 294 294 294

Special Districts (including libraries) 293 560 832 897 939 1236 1125

62

District Size

18

85 94

49 46

0

10

2030

40

5060

7080

90

100

# of Districts

Under 750751-1,5001,501-3,0003,001-6,000Over 6,000

63

School Corporation Count in Smallest Counties

Ten Smallest Counties

County Co. POP School Corps. County Co. POP School Corps.

1. Ohio 5,826 1 6. Martin 10,340 2

2. Union 7,291 1 7. Crawford 11,137 1

3. Warren 8,701 1 8. Pike 12,855 1

4. Benton 9,050 1 9. Blackford 13,603 1

5. Switzerland 9,721 1 10. Pulaski 13,861 2

64

Benefits and Obstacles to Central Office Consolidation

Benefits Obstacles

Enhanced curricular opportunities Public perception/community relationships

Shared/combined services, pooling of resources

Job loss

Savings of time Multiple boards

Potential cost savings No educational benefit

Better communication opportunity Accuracy of financial analysis

65

Variables Contributing to High Achievement• Little evidence that corporation consolidation has a positive or

negative effect on student achievement.

• Most significant variables that contribute to high student achievement include: smaller class sizes, effective professional development, highly qualified teachers, and a handful of socioeconomic factors -- primarily family income.

• These relationships are complex and have a point of diminishing returns (e.g., class size).

66

Financial Impact of Consolidation• Minimal cost savings

Savings possible by moving from a very small district (500 or less) to a district with 2,000 – 4,000 students.

Consolidation can increase administrative costs leading to larger classes, fewer teachers, and lower student ach.

• Small rural district consolidation generally offers little cost savings because much non-instructional spending represents uncontrollable costs related to geographic isolation.

67

Financial Impact of Consolidation (cont.)

• New research from Dr. Lowell Rose suggests that there is a weak, negative correlation between the size (ADM) of a school corporation and the expenditures per student in that corporation. 0 10000 20000 30000 40000

ADM

6000

8000

10000

12000

ADM$

Spearman’s rho = -.19, p < .001

68

Unintended Consequences

• Several unintended consequences of consolidation should be considered and include:

Loss of community identity

Impact on funding formula

Changes to AYP and PL 221 category placements

69

Continuum of District Consolidation Strategies

TotalConsolidation

AdministrativeConsolidation

Everything:Districts, schools,services

SharedServices

Administration, Services, not schools

Services

Wha

t’s

con

soli

dat

ed?

Res

earc

hV

erd

ict? Little evidence of

achievement or savings effects

Limited evidence of benefits for small districts

Evidence of considerable savings

70

Recent Activity in Indiana

• Indiana Government Efficiency Commission: K-12 Education Subcommittee in 2006 examined funding related to non-classroom expenditures.

• Suggested privatizing transportation services and streamlining the bid process for construction projects.

• Stated that total administrative costs needed reduction, but noted that consolidation is not a cure-all.

• Touted the enhanced role of Educational Service Centers (ESCs).

71

Recent Activity in Indiana (cont.)

• HEA 1006 (Public law 191) in 2006 made school expenditures more transparent through a new financial management and reporting system (referred to as FinMARS): To encourage school corps to save money in non-academic areas To generate more funds for student learning

• The plan would improve on the old system these areas: data collection, demarcation of educational expenses, and the production of transparent financial statements among other areas.

• The plan also called for the creation of the Indiana School Business Official Leadership Academy to equip business and finance officials with the skills to cope with the school finance environment.

72

• According to a 2006 report from the Indiana Department of Education, mandated by HEA 1006-2006, consolidated purchasing agreements initiated by Education Service Centers saved an estimated total $18 million statewide last year, ranging from $300,000 to $8 million, region by region. Primary savings were in the areas of consolidated purchasing for food services, petroleum, and copy paper.

• Shared service agreements saved an estimated $6.5 million, ranging from $330,000 to $1 million, region by region. Primary shared service agreements were in the areas of media services, professional development and community food.

• Education Service Centers report further exploration of joint purchasing and shared services in the areas of property/casualty insurance, natural gas/fuel, wireless Internet, textbooks, and school bus purchases.

Recent Activity in Indiana (cont.)

73

• According to the same 2006 IDOE report, school corporations report entering into consolidated purchasing and shared services arrangements with other school corporations or charter schools.

• Most common areas of consolidated purchasing arrangements were in the areas of natural gas/fuel, health insurance trust, food service, school bus purchases, information technology, and office supplies.

• The most common shared services were in the areas of special education services and career and technical education instruction. It is worth noting that there are 70 special education planning districts, including approx. 50 co-ops, and approx. 60 Career & Technical Schools/Programs statewide.

• Areas of further exploration for joint purchasing and shared services reported by school corporations included property/casualty insurance, workman’s compensation, and shared staff/personnel.

Recent Activity in Indiana (cont.)

74

Recent Activity in Indiana (cont.)

• The Indiana General Assembly delayed funding for the FinMARS Plan until at least 2009; however, it provided $150,000/year for the Indiana School Business Official Leadership Academy.

• HEA 1001-2007 appropriated $100,000 for feasibility studies of school corporation consolidation or shared services.

• 4 applications were funded this year: In Randolph County, Randolph Eastern with Randolph Southern and

Randolph Central studying the feasibility of merging services. In White County, Twin Lakes with North White, Tri-County, and Frontier

for the feasibility of consolidating and of merging services. Also in Randolph County, Monroe Central with Union School Corp. for

the feasibility of consolidating. In Delaware County, Cowan Comm. School Corp. with Daleville Comm.

School Corp. for the feasibility of merging services.

75

Findings and Recommendations

1. Consolidation has no proven impact on student achievement.

2. Some research to suggest optimal school and school corporation sizes exist (i.e., smaller schools in bigger districts)

3. At best, marginal research that indicates meaningful cost savings are realized on a systemic basis.

4. Consolidation can be beneficial on a case by case basis with proper strategic planning, and most likely with the smallest school corporations.

5. Implications of consolidation on AYP and PL 221 categories should be addressed.

76

6. Consolidation should be encouraged but not mandated.

7. Encourage corporations to participate in the feasibility study program funded by the Indiana General Assembly.

8. Encourage the IGA to fund implementation grants after feasibility studies concluded.

9. Shared services hold considerable promise and should be a point of emphasis.

10. School corporations should be given incentives to save by allowing inter-fund transfers of document savings to GF to provide more money for classroom instruction.

Findings and Recommendations

77

V. Predictions for the 2008 General Assembly

78

Emerging K-12 Issues for 2008

A. Property tax crisis

B. Privatization of the Hoosier Lottery

C. Teacher preparation program improvements

D. School board elections

E. Implementation of the Long-Term Assessment Plan

F. Education Matters Interim Study Committee

79

A. Property Tax Crisis & Implications for Schools• Some critics claim that school construction spending and

increased K-12 education spending overall has contributed greatly to the current tax crisis.

• Tightened petition-remonstrance process has led to defeat of many school building projects.

• Others argue that the property tax increases in 2007 are a product of the assessment methods, and not necessarily increases in local government operation expenses.

80

Homeowner Property Taxes, 2007(Source: Larry DeBoer, Purdue University)

Total estimated average increase in homeowner taxes, statewide (before end-of-year rebate)

24%

Inventory tax elimination in 51 remaining counties

4%

Cap on state tax relief 4%

Trending from 1999 to 2005 prices; possible business trending error

10%

Increases in local government tax collections 6%

81

A. Property Tax Crisis (cont.)

• New Local Government Reform Commission examining local government reform including K-12 education governance and operations issues.

• Situation will likely intensify discussion about school corporation consolidation.

• Commission on State Tax and Financing Policy have discussed the possibility of the elimination of property taxes as a source of funding for schools’ General Fund.

• This Commission has also discussed the petition/remonstrance process and voter referendums. Proposals concerning voter referendum on bonding projects may surface as a result.

82

B. Privatization of Hoosier Lottery• Governor’s plan to privatize the Hoosier Lottery and use a

portion of the proceeds to create the Hoosier Hope Scholarship Program will likely be reintroduced.

• Students would receive $5,000 annually for tuition and fees as a forgivable loan that would not have to be repaid if the student remains in Indiana to work for three years after graduation.

• Scholarships based on merit (SAT/ACT and GPA scores).

• Some will advocate that proceeds should also be used to fund K-12 initiatives (e.g., FDK, high school reform, etc.)

83

C. Teacher Preparation Program Improvements• Education Roundtable discussed postsecondary teacher

preparation programs on July 23, 2007.

• Issues discussed included attracting the “best and brightest” to the teaching profession and improving teacher preparation programs to better equip new teachers by raising admissions and graduation standards of programs.

• Art Levine, President, The Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation, presented the report, “Educating School Teachers.” One study recommendation suggests increasing the teacher education programs to five years.

84

D. School Board Elections

• Proposals to shift all school board elections to general election will resurface.

• See SB 139 and HB 1109 from 2007

• May see more proposals for appointed school boards during 2008 legislative session.

85

E. Long-Term State Assessment Plan• Additional funding of $10 million/year included in HB

1001.

• Funds intended for enhanced remediation efforts, but may be consumed by implementation of the new long-term assessment plan adopted by the SBOE.

• Announcement about new assessment contract(s) possibly will be announced during Indiana State Board of Education meeting on Wednesday, October 3, 2007.

8686

F. Interim Study Committee on Education MattersThe 2007 Interim Study Committee on Education Matters has

been charged with studying the following topics:A. Juvenile education within the Department of Correction

(Unnumbered SR).

B. Future of higher education in Indiana (SCR 26).

C. Recruitment and retention of teachers and school psychologists and the value of creating incentive funds for teachers to attain national board certification (HR 86).

8787

CEEP Contact Information:

Terry E. Spradlin, MPAAssociate Director for Education Policy

509 East Third Street

Bloomington, Indiana 47401-3654

812-855-4438

Fax: 812-856-5890

http://ceep.indiana.edu