School Funding for Students in Poverty Sarah Burks Arkansas Political Science Association Conference...

School Funding for Students in Poverty

Sarah Burks

Arkansas Political Science Association Conference

February 28, 2014

Outline

• Introduction to Poverty Funding• Allocation of Funding

– Other States– Arkansas

• Use of Funding• Our Recommendations

School Funding

• Since the 1970s, at least 45 states have had school funding court cases.– Serrano (1971): California school funding case

Adequacy Focused on the amount of funding:Providing enough resources to allow each district/school to ensure each child has an equal opportunity to receive an education

Equity Reduced variation in spending per pupil.

Horizontal equity: the equal treatment of students (“one scholar, one dollar”)

Vertical equity: providing additional funding for disadvantaged students to equalize educational opportunities

Vertical Equity Funding

• States recognize that schools/districts need additional funding to offset the costs necessary to educate certain students.– Including: English Language Learners; low-income students; etc

• Students in poverty face challenges that may require additional funding.– For example, districts may institute summer school, hire additional

school counselors and tutors, etc.

• Schools/districts with high concentrations of poverty face particular challenges that require additional funding. (Kahlenberg)

Performance• NAEP: “The Nation’s Report Card”

– Best ‘apples-to-apples’ comparison of students across the nation.

• Low-income (FRL) students consistently perform less well than non-FRL students.

4th Grade Reading 8th Grade Reading

Poverty Funding• Majority of states provide additional funding for students in poverty.

– Typically measured by % of free and reduced lunch students (FRL) or by census poverty data

• States vary in the methods used to allocate additional funding.– Weighted method: incorporates increased weights per low-income

pupil to the foundation base.• Federal Title I grants use 0.40 as the standard additional weight for

FRL students. – Categorical grant method: provides a flat/weighted grant per pupil

separate from the foundation base.

Poverty Funding in Other States

Source: Arkansas Bureau of Legislative Research

*Not comprehensive States place different weights on low-income students.

Poverty Funding in Illinois

• Provides additional funding to districts per pupil in poverty

• Accounts for concentration of poverty in districts through an exponential function

Poverty Funding in Minnesota

• Similar to Illinois’ model:– Provides additional funding to districts per pupil in

poverty – Accounts for concentration of poverty in districts

through an exponential function

• Assigns different weights to free lunch students vs. reduced lunch students in an attempt to better account for poverty– Free lunch students accounts for two times a reduced

lunch student.

Poverty Funding in Arkansas

• Public School Funding Act of 2003 – In response to the Lake View Decision, Arkansas

reconfigured school funding formulas.

• Categorical Funding– Not incorporated into the foundation base– Allocated to districts per pupil:

• English Language Learners; Alternative Learning Environment students; Free and reduced lunch students

Poverty Funding in Arkansas (NSLA)

• National School Lunch Act (NSLA)– Allocates additional funding per FRL pupil– Amount per FRL pupil dependent upon the

concentration of poverty in the district– Allocations accounts for growth/decline

0% 8% 16%24%32%40%48%56%64%72%80%88%96% $-

$200 $400 $600 $800

$1,000 $1,200 $1,400 $1,600 $1,800

% FRL of School

$ p

er

FR

L P

upil% FRL

Students2004-05 to

2006-072007-08 to

2010-112011-12

2012-13 and

2013-14≤69% $480 $496 $506 $51770%-89% $960 $992 $1,012 $1,033≥90% $1,440 $1,488 $1,518 $1,549

Benchmark Math Achievement (GPA Measure), By % FRL

Benchmark Literacy Achievement (GPA Measure), By % FRL

0-20% 20%-30%

30%-40%

40%-50%

50%-60%

60%-70%

70%-80%

80%-90%

90%-100%

2

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4

2011-12 2009-10 2007-08

0-10% 20%-30%

30%-40%

40%-50%

50%-60%

60%-70%

70%-80%

80%-90%

90%-100%

2

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4

2011-12 2009-10 2007-08

Achievement by %FRL

Evaluation of Arkansas’ System• The system does provide additional funding for students in poverty and

accounts for high concentrations of poverty.

• However, the tiered system creates arbitrary cutoffs such that districts with very similar demographics are treated differently in the funding system. – For example, a district with 69% FRL receives less funding per FRL pupil than a

district with 70% FRL; however, student bodies with 69% and 70% FRL look relatively similar.

• This discontinuous break in the funding system allows us to compare the academic achievement of districts around the 70% and 90% “cliffs.”– Based on the comparisons of these schools around the “cliffs”, we cannot claim

justification for the discontinuous 70% and 90% “cliffs.” (See following slide.)

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-132.00

2.20

2.40

2.60

2.80

3.00

3.20

3.40

3.60

3.80

4.00

64%-69% 70% - 75%

State Average

Benchmark Math GPA, 2007-08 to 2012-13

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-132.00

2.20

2.40

2.60

2.80

3.00

3.20

3.40

3.60

3.80

4.00

64%-69% 70% - 75%

State Average

Benchmark Literacy GPA, 2007-08 to 2012-13

• On the math and literacy benchmark exams, the districts just above and below the cliff (thus, districts who are socio-economically “equal”) perform nearly identically.

Achievement Comparisons at the 70% “Cliff”

14

Evaluation of Arkansas’ System


• It is important to note that we do not have the counterfactual to examine how districts would perform without poverty funding.

• Nevertheless, we do know that:

1. Most agree that additional resources should be provided to schools with higher concentrations of poverty (to help students overcome additional challenges associated poverty).

2. No “silver bullets”: no research indicates exact funding is needed to create equal opportunities for poor students.

• Next, we examine how districts spend the money.

Poverty Funding Regulations

• States vary in how school funding (and poverty funding) is regulated.– Some states provide districts with more autonomy in

spending.– Other states prescribe certain uses for poverty funding, so

that funds are targeted to students/programs.

• Arkansas regulates poverty funding by limiting the usage to certain categories.

Expenditure Categories Year Coded

as Exp. Percent of NSLA Funding in

2011-12

Literacy, Math, and Science Specialists and Coaches 2003 16.51%

Other activities approved by the ADE - 11.56%High Qualified Classroom Teachers 2003 9.42%Transfer to ALE Categorical Fund - 8.63%School Improvement Plan - 8.62%Counselors, Social Workers, Nurses 2003 8.30%Teachers’ Aides 2003 8.17%Curriculum Specialist 2003 4.69%Pre-Kindergarten 2003 3.27%

Before and After School Academic Programs 2003 2.76%

Supplementing Salaries of Classroom Teachers - 2.77%

Tutors 2003 2.35%Transfer to ELL Categorical Fund 2.28%

Professional Development in Literacy, Math, and Science 2003 2.02%

Summer Programs 2003 1.28%Early Intervention 2003 1.22%Transfer to Special Educations Programs - 0.93%

Transfer to Professional Development Categorical Fund - 0.87%

District Required Free Meal Program 2011 0.70%Parent Education 2003 0.52%ACT Fees for 11th Graders and Operating/Supporting a Post-Secondary Preparatory Program 2011 0.10%Scholastic Audit - 0.37%

Districted Reduced-Lunch Meal Program 2011 0.05%

Remediation activities for college 2011 0.05%

Teach For America professional development 2011 0.03%

Implementing Arkansas Advanced Initiative for Math and Science 2011 0.01%

Hiring Career and College Coaches 2011 0.00%

Materials, supplies, and equipment including technology 2003 -

Expenses related to a longer school day 2011 -Expenses related to a longer school year 2011 -

Shaded box denotes a coded use originally set in 2003.

17

NSLA Expenditures

NSLA Expenditures

• The majority of districts distribute funding among 8 or more expenditure codes. – Districts seldom focus the money in one or two specific

areas.

• It is unclear as to whether all districts are specifically pinpointing the funding towards students in poverty (or schools serving these students).– For example, a district may spend a large portion of funding on

Highly Qualified teachers or Specialists – these teachers may or may not work specifically with the low-income students.

• Furthermore, districts do not use all the funding – many have balances at the end of the year.


• Arguments for prescriptive use:– There is a current lack of focus of funds.– Funds should pinpoint only to students in poverty.– Use funding in a prescriptive manner as a way to

figure out what works

• Arguments against prescriptive use:– Flexibility is necessary: State-wide policies may not

fit for all.– What do you prescribe? Research isn’t conclusive on

what works best

Our Recommendations

• Distribution of Poverty Funding

– Progressive system: “Smooth sliding” scale to

replace the current tiered system

– Distribute more funding for districts with higher

concentrations of FRL students

– Weighting the funding to differentiate between

poverty levels by factoring in the difference

between “free” and “reduced” lunch students

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% $-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

$1,800

Accel Smooth Option Status Quo

• Progressive system: “Smooth” sliding scale • Weighted to account for differences in “free” and “reduced”

• Weights are 75% for Reduced-Lunch Students and 100% for Free-Lunch Students.

21

Our Recommendations

Our Recommendations

• Regulations on spending: More or less

prescriptive?– Some argue flexibility is needed: perhaps offer this

to districts that are succeeding with poor students.– For those still not meeting the needs of poor kids,

develop a “menu” of promising programs targeted

to poor students. (This will help ADE learn more

about effectiveness.)

Questions? Comments?

Thank you.

The Effectiveness of Teacher from Rigorous Programs on Math & Literacy Achievement:

A Systematic Review

Panelist: Benton M. BrownCo-Authors: Alexandra Boyd, Sarah Burks, and

Alexandra Vasile

Alternative Certification

Outline• Research Question• Purpose• Background Information• Review Methodology

– Search Yield– Study Characteristics– Meta-analysis

• Results• Discussion

– Limitations– Implications for Policy & Practice

Research Question

Does having an alternatively certified teacher from a rigorous program lead to better outcomes in math and literacy?

Purpose

• Add to and synthesize the literature– To our knowledge, there is no systematic review that

compiles all of the studies on the effectiveness of rigorous alternative certification programs.

– Main studies primarily quoted: 2004 Mathematica Study, CREDO and Darling-Hammond Studies

– Need for a compiled complete list that is unbiased

• Policy and practice implications– Alternative certification is growing in Arkansas and across

the nation

Background Information

Common Alternative Certification ("Alt. Cert.") definition:

– To receive a license to teach in K-12 without completing the traditional process of teacher licensure (B.A. in Education or M.A. in Teaching with student teaching experience).

There are many different methods to gain an alternative certification. Programs are offered by:

– Universities– States' Department of Education– Private organizations


Areas of research on alternative certification:– Effectiveness of alt. cert. teachers

• Compared to traditional teachers and novice teachers• Compared to other alt. cert. programs

– Training systems– Preparedness of teachers– Perceptions of alt. cert. teachers


• Focus of our study:– Effectiveness of alternatively certified teachers from a

rigorous program

• Rigorous alternative certification program: – One that recruits, selects, and trains teachers – Distinguished from other programs based on the selectivity

of the program– NOT based on length of training or other training

components

Review Methodology

• Search Sources– Google Scholar– ProQuest– JStor– NBER– EBSCO

• Inclusion Criteria – Focuses on a particular rigorous alternative teacher certification program– Includes one or more of the following outcomes: math, reading, or ELA

(CRT or NRT) – Based on a rigorous research design: RCT or QED (matching with baseline

equivalence)– Counterfactual: Compares alt cert teachers with teachers already in the

classroom and/or novice teachers – 1990 and after

Review Methodology

Search Source

Search Terms Number of ArticlesReturned

Number of AbstractsReviewed

Google Scholar

“alternative teacher certification”, “alternative teacher certification program”, “alternative teacher certification program” AND “effectiveness”, “alternative teacher preparation program”, “alternative teacher preparation program” AND “effectiveness”, “alternative route licensure”, “alternative route licensure” AND “effectiveness”, “teacher education programs”, “teacher education programs” AND effectiveness, “teacher corps” AND effectiveness, “New York City Teaching Fellows”, “Teach For America”, “the New Teacher Project”

67, 735

35

ProQuest

---------"---------- 7,137

40

JSTOR

---------"---------- 3,547

11

NBER

---------"---------- 63

8

EBSCOhost

---------"---------- 3,568

15

Total Number of Abstracts (with duplicates) 109

Total Number of Unique Abstracts Reviewed 90

Review Methodology

Stage of Review # of Articles

Abstracts to review 90

Articles eliminated by abstract - 55

Full articles retained for coding 35

Articles eliminated in coding - 26

Articles retained for analysis 9

• Articles eliminated during abstract stage due to:

–Non-rigorous alt. cert. program–Unspecified alt. cert. program–Improper outcomes (e.g. lack of

quantitative outcomes)–Non-rigorous research design/methods–Improper counterfactual to alt. cert.

teachers

• Articles eliminated during coding stage due to:

• Non-rigorous research methods• Improper outcomes (e.g. lack of

quantitative outcomes)• Improper counterfactual to alt. cert.

teachers

Results

Teacher Counterfactual* Number of studies

All teachers 7 All teachers controlling for experience 6 Student Outcomes Math 9 Literacy 6 Grade Levels Primary (K-8) 7 Secondary (9-12) 2

Program type

Teach for America 9 New York City Teaching Fellows 2

*Studies with multiple counterfactuals or outcomes were double-counted

ResultsTable 4: Summary of Results, Grouped by Dataset

Dataset Study Number of Students Program Counterfactual 1: All teachers Counterfactual 2: All teachers with experience controlled

Math Literacy Math LiteracyNational

Grades 1 - 5; Iowa Test of Basic Skills

Antecol, et al. (2013) 1,710 Teach For America 0.144** -0.0361 0.145** Not ReportedDecker et al. (2004) 1,715 Teach For America 0.153*** 0.033 0.260*** 0.062

National

Grades 6 – 12; State assessment and NWEA assessment

Clark, et al. (2013) 4,573 Teach for America

0.070***

New York City

Grade 3-8; NY State Exam

Boyd, et al. (2005) 926,958 to 1,035,949 Teach For America 0.007 -0.031*** -0.001 -0.030**

New York City Teaching Fellows -0.023*** -0.030*** -0.025*** -0.022***

Kane, et al. (2006) 1,366,479 to 1,462,100 Teach For America 0.031*** 0.000New York City Teaching Fellows 0.004 -0.016***

Houston

Grades 4-8; Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) and SAT 9

Darling-Hammond, et al. (2005)

103,122 to 105,511

TAAS

Teach For America 0.066*** -0.003

60,488 to 60,607

SAT 9

Teach For America -0.046*** -0.030**

Raymond, et al. (2001)

Texas Assessment of Academic Skills

96,276 to 132,021

TAAS

Teach For America Grades 4-5: 0.029 Grades 4-5: 0.007 Grades 4-5: 0.120** Grades 4-5: 0.058

Grades 6-8: 0.109** Grades 6-8: 0.110 Grades 6-8: 0.044 Grades 6-8: 0.139

Arizona

Grades 2-8; SAT 9

Laczko-Kerr, et al. (2002)

Not Reported Teach For America1998: -0.225

1998:

-0.424

1999: -0.454** 1999: -0.399**

North Carolina

High School; North Carolina End-of-Course Exams

Xu, et al. (2009) Not Reported Teach For America

0.109***

*Significant at 10%; ** significant at 5%; *** significant at 1% or less

Results

Study Effect Size 95% Confidence Interval %Weight

Boyd, et al. -0.001 -0.032 0.030 39.56

Decker, et al. 0.260 0.046 0.474 15.90

Raymond, et al. 0.120 0.026 0.214 31.34

Raymond, et al. 0.044 -0.203 0.291 13.19

Grand pooled Effect Size

0.084 -0.025 0.193 100.00

Results

Grade Level Comparison Group

# of unique samples

Effect Size Grade Level Comparison Group

# of unique samples

Effect Size

Primary Math Primary Literacy

All Teachers 6 0.044 All Teachers 6 -0.007

Controlled forexperience

4 0.084Controlled for

experience4 0.018

Secondary Math

All Teachers 2 0.089***

Discussion

• Complications in Data Analysis– Studies on the same dataset looking at same outcomes– Different models or tests within each study - with

somewhat different results– Difficulty in separating effect size for outcome of interest:

Xu et al. (2009)

Discussion

• Implications for Policy and Practice– Alternative certification should be supported as a fast-track

way to certification• Rigorous programs

– Alt. Cert. Teachers provide districts a viable way to fill teacher vacancies

– Districts, state departments of education, and legislatures should be open to rigorous alternative certification teachers and programs

Discussion

Contact Info:

Benton M. Brown

University of Arkansas

[email protected]

479-575-6418

Additional Information


Boyd, et al. 0.007 -0.022 0.036 33.46

Decker et al. 0.153 0.049 0.257 24.87

Laczko-Kerr et al -0.225 -0.917 0.467 1.90

Laczko-Kerr et al -0.454 -0.871 -0.037 4.75

Raymond, et al. 0.029 -0.216 0.274 10.94

Raymond, et al. 0.109 -0.001 0.219 24.08


0.044 -0.054 0.142 100.00

TFA Math All Teachers’ Studies


Boyd, et al. -0.001 -0.032 0.030 39.56

Decker, et al. 0.260 0.046 0.474 15.90

Raymond, et al. 0.120 0.026 0.214 31.34

Raymond, et al. 0.044 -0.203 0.291 13.19


0.084 -0.025 0.193 100.00

TFA Math Novice Teachers’ Studies


Boyd, et al. -0.031 -0.055 -0.007 42.42

Decker, et al. 0.033 -0.165 0.231 3.99

Laczko-Kerr, et al

-0.424 -1.116 0.268 0.35

Laczko-Kerr, et al

-0.399 -0.816 0.018 0.96

Raymond, et al. 0.007 -0.009 0.023 45.93

Raymond, et al. 0.110 -0.043 0.263 6.35

Grand Pooled Effect Size

-0.007 -0.048 0.034 100.00

TFA ELA All Teachers’ Studies


Boyd, et al. -0.030 -0.055 -0.005 57.69

Decker, et al. 0.062 -0.399 0.523 2.75

Raymond, et al. 0.058 -0.056 0.172 26.72

Raymond, et al. 0.139 -0.055 0.333 12.84


0.018 -0.060 0.096 100.00

TFA ELA Novice Teachers’ Studies

Charter Authorizers in Arkansas

Jennifer Ash

February 28, 2014

Presentation Outline

1. Introduction to Charter Schools and Authorizers

2. National Snapshot

3. Single vs. Multiple Authorizers

4. Charter School Authorizing in Arkansas

5. Policy Recommendations

6. Conclusion

Charter Schools

• Open-enrollment charter schools

• Debate has largely shifted from whether or not to have charters is over to how to ensure high quality charters

Charter Authorizer Responsibilities

• Responsibilities1. Review applications

2. Grant “charters”*Many authorizers consider this most important step of process. Quality control on front-end (Zimmer, et al. 2012)

3. Ensure compliance• Financial audits, academic reports, site visits, etc.

4. Renew contracts (or not)

National Snapshot

• 42 states and the District of Columbia have enacted charter school laws.

• Of these 42, 14 states have one charter authorizer, while the majority of states have more than one charter authorizing entity.

National SnapshotSix main types of Charter Authorizers

Local Education Authorities

(LEA)

State Education Authorities

(SEA)

Non-Educational Government

Agencies (NEG)

Not-for-Profit Organizations

(NFP)

Higher Education Institutions (HEI)

Independent Charter Boards

(ICB)

Windows User

Need to include abbreivations.

National SnapshotCharter School Authorizers in Arkansas’ Neighboring States, 2013

State Year Charter Law Passed

# of Authorizers

Type of Authorizers

# of Charter Schools

Arkansas 1999 1 SEA 37

Louisiana 1995 8 1 SEA, LEAs 77

Mississippi 2013 1 ICB 0

Missouri 1998 12 LEA, HEI 65

Oklahoma 1999 7 LEA, HEI, NEG 22

Tennessee 2002 5 LEA, ICB 50

Texas 1995 15 1 SEA, LEAs 571

Arguments for Single Authorizer• Economies of scale• Can spread

administrative costs without losing quality

• Bigger authorizers

(authorizers overseeing

more charters) may do

better

• AR is a small state

Arguments for Multiple Authorizers

• Shen (2011)– “Competition among several authorities can lead to

more rigorous oversight…” (p. 4)

• Center for Education Reform (2011)– Multiple authorizers provide several routes to

getting a charter• Less subject to politics and pressures from traditional

education groups

– States with multiple authorizers have more charter schools

Evidence on Different Types of Authorizers

Within State Analyses• Minnesota: no difference between authorizer

types on charter quality (Carlson, Lavery, Witte 2012)

• Ohio:– Authorizer types: public school districts, county-

based educational service centers, nonprofits– Some evidence that NPO authorizers are less

effective (Zimmer, et al. 2012)

Charter School Authorizing in AR

1995: Law passed to allow existing schools to transition to become a charter school (district-conversion schools

1999: Law passed to allow open-enrollment schools.

-SBE as charter authorizer

-Cap for open-enrollment charter schools; later removed and replaced with a “rolling cap”

-cap increases by 5 every time number of charters is within 2 of the cap

-Each charter granted for a five-year period, then can be reauthorized


• 2013 Legislative Session: Several proposals for change in charter authorizer

• Motivation: Charter hearings were monopolizing a great deal of the State Board of Ed.’s time

• HB1040- 5 person commission: Governor, President Pro Tempore of the Senate, Speaker of the House, and chairs of the House and Senate Committees on Education.– Questions over whether would be impartial

• HB1528- 5 to 11 member board within Arkansas Department of Education

• Under law proposed, SBE will only play a role if a party appeals the charter authorizing panel’s decision AND SBE agrees to hear the appeal


1. 2013 General Assembly, Act 509 was passed to change Arkansas’ charter authorizer from the State Board of Education to a panel within the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE).

2. The 5 to 11 person panel was appointed by the Commissioner of Education, Dr. Tom Kimbrell.

3. Main tasks of the panel: – Review applications– Grant charters– Oversee compliance of charter– Renew/terminate contracts

Windows User

Other proposals? See leg reviewhttp://www.officeforeducationpolicy.org/2013-legislative-review/too political


First Charter Authorizing Panel

November 2013– 7 proposals for open-enrollment charter– 2 were approved– 3 were denied– 2 were tabled (then later denied)

Charter School Authorizing in ARCharter Authorizing Panel’s (implicit) priorities

• Detailed Plan• Innovation• Need/Parental Demand

• It appears that the Panel members viewed proposals more favorably if the applicants were able to:

• Clearly articulate curricular plans, operational details, and potential student body;• Show that the school would offer an innovative model that is not currently

available; and/or• Demonstrate a compelling need in the community for an alternative to the

traditional system, ideally by bringing actual parents who are seeking alternative schooling options


• Appeal Process

• SBE agreed to review two appeals and denied them both.

• SBE made conscious decision not to start the precedent of reversing

Charter Authorizing Panel’s decisions

It takes time to create procedures for new systems. We expect

that answers to questions that have come up in this first year

of implementation will become clearer with time.

Policy Recommendation 1: Allow for more time between charter school approval and opening

Timeline for Open-Enrollment Charter School Approval, 2013

Charter School Opening Timeline Comparisons

Arkansas• Must determine many

details prior to approval including location, finance plans, curriculum plans, 5-year staffing and enrollment plan

District of Columbia• Allows a year between

authorization and opening

Arizona • Approved schools can

choose to open in 6 months or wait an additional year (18 months) to open

Policy Recommendation 2:Review Meaningful Evidence for Renewal of Charters

• Academic Indicators– Matched twin analysis

• Other Indicators/Goals Beside Test Scores– Academics Plus- accountability for transportation– Parental satisfaction

Conclusion • Authorizer structure in AR unlikely to change anytime

soon

• Charter Authorizing Panel still determining role and priorities

Recommendations:

• Option for more time between authorization and opening

• More and better information for renewing charters

K-12 School Vouchers as an Education Solution

Michael Crouch

Arkansas Political Science Association Conference

February 28, 2014

Outline

• Introduction to School Vouchers• The Issue at Hand

– History of School Choice, School Vouchers– Legislation in Arkansas

• Educational Impacts• Benefits, Concerns, and Financial Impacts• What to Look For

Introduction to School Vouchers

• What is a School Voucher?

– School Vouchers work as a means of paying a

student’s tuition at the school of choice for parents

and that student.

– As opposed to traditional funding mechanisms,

this payment structure is meant to free the

educational consumer to choose a best option for

their educational purpose.

77

The Issue at Hand

• History of School Vouchers

– School Vouchers finds its intellectual roots in the

work of Milton Friedman in the 1950s

– Local, private school vouchers are hard to date or

point to an origin

– First modern program: Milwaukee, 1990

– Expanded to 16 programs serving 80+ thousand

students

78

The Issue at Hand

• 16 Programs, some listed below:State (Program Type) State (Program Type)

Florida (Special Needs/Tax Credit) Utah (Special Needs)

Georgia (Special Needs) Washington, D.C. (Low Income)

Indiana (Low/Middle Income) Wisconsin (Low Income)

Louisiana (Low Income) Colorado (Not Currently Running)

Mississippi (Special Needs) Arizona (Tax Credit)

Ohio (Special Needs/Failing Schools) Iowa (Tax Credit)

Oklahoma (Special Needs) New Hampshire (Tax Credit)

79

The Issue at Hand

• Legislation in Arkansas

– HB 1197

– Tax Credit Program

– Non-Profit Organization

– $10 million per year, 2,500 scholarships,

$4,000 each

80

The Issue at Hand

• Legislation in Arkansas– SB 577 (Sen. Jane English)

– Tax Credit Program

– Non-Profit Organization

– $10 million per year, 2,500 scholarships, $4,000

each

– Cost? Net Positive or Net Negative?

81

The Issue at Hand

• Current Market Composition

– 190-207 Private Schools; 29,962 students

– 24% Minority Enrollment

– Average Tuition: $4,669

– Minimum: $415; Maximum: $21,250

– Highest in NW and Central Arkansas

Regions

Educational Impacts

• What the studies have shown:Study Finding

Chingos, Peterson (New York City, 2012) College Enrollment +24%

Ladd and Hansen (1999) Positive Gains, Not Statistically Significant

Wolf, Gutmann, and Puma (D.C., 2010) Statistically Significant Gains in Reading and Graduation

Levin (Meta-Analysis, 2001)) Positive Gains, Not Statistically Significant

Costrell (Milwaukee, 2010) +$50 Million Net Fiscal Impact

Benefits, Concerns, and Financial Impacts

• Benefits– Civic Engagement/Values– Educational Outcomes?

• Concerns– Private School Pricing/Integration– Educational Outcomes?– Religious Integration– Selection Issues, Scale


• Financial Impacts– Net Gains: Students/Families who qualify; State

Budget; Tax Credit Recipients– Net Losses: Total Budget of School Districts– Net Neutral: Per Pupil Budget of School Districts– $7,000 is break-even point for state– <$7,000 is cost saving for states

85


• Participation at Price Points, Missouri (Schuls)

86


• Seats at Price Points, Missouri (Schuls)

87


• Reasons to Not Participate, Missouri (Schuls)

What to Look For

• Impact Groups– Who are the groups this bill is intended to help?

• Accountability– How do we measure the ROI?– Nondiscrimination, Health, Background, Financials,

Independent Evaluations

• Restrictions on Program– What type of schools qualify?– State Restrictions?

School Funding for Students in Poverty Sarah Burks Arkansas Political Science Association Conference...

Documents

Transcript of School Funding for Students in Poverty Sarah Burks Arkansas Political Science Association Conference...