PowerPoint Presentation

School Funding for Students in PovertySarah BurksArkansas Political Science Association ConferenceFebruary 28, 2014

OutlineIntroduction to Poverty FundingAllocation of FundingOther StatesArkansasUse of FundingOur Recommendations

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

AdequacyFocused on the amount of funding:Providing enough resources to allow each district/school to ensure each child has an equal opportunity to receive an educationEquityReduced 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 opportunitiesVertical Equity FundingStates 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)

PerformanceNAEP: The Nations Report CardBest apples-to-apples comparison of students across the nation.Low-income (FRL) students consistently perform less well than non-FRL students.

4th Grade Reading8th Grade ReadingPoverty FundingMajority of states provide additional funding for students in poverty.Typically measured by % of free and reduced lunch students (FRL) or by census poverty dataStates 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 comprehensiveStates place different weights on low-income students. Poverty Funding in IllinoisProvides additional funding to districts per pupil in poverty Accounts for concentration of poverty in districts through an exponential function

Poverty Funding in MinnesotaSimilar to Illinois model:Provides additional funding to districts per pupil in poverty Accounts for concentration of poverty in districts through an exponential functionAssigns different weights to free lunch students vs. reduced lunch students in an attempt to better account for povertyFree lunch students accounts for two times a reduced lunch student.

Poverty Funding in ArkansasPublic School Funding Act of 2003 In response to the Lake View Decision, Arkansas reconfigured school funding formulas. Categorical FundingNot incorporated into the foundation baseAllocated 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 pupilAmount per FRL pupil dependent upon the concentration of poverty in the districtAllocations accounts for growth/decline% FRL Students2004-05 to 2006-072007-08 to 2010-112011-122012-13 and 2013-1469% $480$496$506$51770%-89% $960$992$1,012$1,03390% $1,440$1,488$1,518$1,549Benchmark Math Achievement (GPA Measure), By % FRLBenchmark Literacy Achievement (GPA Measure), By % FRL Achievement by %FRL

Evaluation of Arkansas SystemThe 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.)

Benchmark Math GPA, 2007-08 to 2012-13Benchmark Literacy GPA, 2007-08 to 2012-13On 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% Cliff14Evaluation of Arkansas System

14Evaluation of Arkansas SystemIt 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:Most agree that additional resources should be provided to schools with higher concentrations of poverty (to help students overcome additional challenges associated poverty).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 RegulationsStates 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 2011-12Literacy, Math, and Science Specialists and Coaches200316.51%Other activities approved by the ADE-11.56%High Qualified Classroom Teachers20039.42%Transfer to ALE Categorical Fund-8.63%School Improvement Plan-8.62%Counselors, Social Workers, Nurses20038.30%Teachers Aides20038.17%Curriculum Specialist20034.69%Pre-Kindergarten20033.27%Before and After School Academic Programs20032.76%Supplementing Salaries of Classroom Teachers-2.77%Tutors20032.35%Transfer to ELL Categorical Fund2.28%Professional Development in Literacy, Math, and Science20032.02%Summer Programs20031.28%Early Intervention20031.22%Transfer to Special Educations Programs-0.93%Transfer to Professional Development Categorical Fund-0.87%District Required Free Meal Program20110.70%Parent Education20030.52%ACT Fees for 11th Graders and Operating/Supporting a Post-Secondary Preparatory Program20110.10%Scholastic Audit-0.37%Districted Reduced-Lunch Meal Program20110.05%Remediation activities for college20110.05%Teach For America professional development20110.03%Implementing Arkansas Advanced Initiative for Math and Science20110.01%Hiring Career and College Coaches20110.00%Materials, supplies, and equipment including technology2003-Expenses related to a longer school day2011-Expenses related to a longer school year2011-Shaded box denotes a coded use originally set in 2003.17NSLA ExpendituresNSLA ExpendituresThe 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.

Evaluation of Arkansas SystemArguments 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 worksArguments against prescriptive use:Flexibility is necessary: State-wide policies may not fit for all.What do you prescribe? Research isnt conclusive on what works best

Our RecommendationsDistribution of Poverty FundingProgressive system: Smooth sliding scale to replace the current tiered systemDistribute more funding for districts with higher concentrations of FRL studentsWeighting the funding to differentiate between poverty levels by factoring in the difference between free and reduced lunch students

Progressive system: Smooth sliding scale Weighted to account for differences in free and reducedWeights are 75% for Reduced-Lunch Students and 100% for Free-Lunch Students.21Our RecommendationsOur RecommendationsRegulations 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 VasileAlternative Certification

OutlineResearch QuestionPurposeBackground InformationReview MethodologySearch YieldStudy CharacteristicsMeta-analysisResultsDiscussionLimitationsImplications for Policy & Practice

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

PurposeAdd to and synthesize the literatureTo 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 StudiesNeed for a compiled complete list that is unbiased Policy and practice implicationsAlternative certification is growing in Arkansas and across the nation

Background InformationCommon 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:UniversitiesStates' Department of EducationPrivate organizations

Background InformationAreas of research on alternative certification:Effectiveness of alt. cert. teachersCompared to traditional teachers and novice teachersCompared to other alt. cert. programs Training systemsPreparedness of teachersPerceptions of alt. cert. teachers

Background InformationFocus 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 programNOT based on length of training or other training components

Review Methodology Search SourcesGoogle ScholarProQuestJStorNBEREBSCOInclusion Criteria Focuses on a particular rigorous alternative teacher certification programIncludes 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 SourceSearch TermsNumber of ArticlesReturnedNumber of AbstractsReviewedGoogle Scholaralternative 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 Project67, 73535ProQuest---------"---------- 7,13740JSTOR---------"---------- 3,54711NBER---------"---------- 638EBSCOhost---------"---------- 3,56815Total Number of Abstracts (with duplicates)109Total Number of Unique Abstracts Reviewed90

Review Methodology Stage of Review# of ArticlesAbstracts to review90Articles eliminated by abstract- 55Full articles retained for coding35Articles eliminated in coding- 26Articles retained for analysis9Articles eliminated during abstract stage due to:Non-rigorous alt. cert. programUnspecified alt. cert. programImproper outcomes (e.g. lack of quantitative outcomes)Non-rigorous research design/methodsImproper counterfactual to alt. cert. teachersArticles eliminated during coding stage due to:Non-rigorous research methodsImproper outcomes (e.g. lack of quantitative outcomes)Improper counterfactual to alt. cert. teachers

ResultsTeacher Counterfactual*Number of studies All teachers7 All teachers controlling for experience6Student Outcomes Math9 Literacy6Grade Levels Primary (K-8)7 Secondary (9-12)2Program type Teach for America 9 New York City Teaching Fellows2

*Studies with multiple counterfactuals or outcomes were double-counted

ResultsTable 4: Summary of Results, Grouped by DatasetDatasetStudyNumber of StudentsProgramCounterfactual 1: All teachersCounterfactual 2: All teachers with experience controlledMathLiteracyMathLiteracyNationalGrades 1 - 5; Iowa Test of Basic SkillsAntecol, et al. (2013)1,710Teach For America0.144**-0.03610.145**Not ReportedDecker et al. (2004)1,715Teach For America0.153***0.0330.260***0.062National

Grades 6 12; State assessment and NWEA assessmentClark, et al. (2013)4,573Teach for America0.070***New York CityGrade 3-8; NY State ExamBoyd, et al. (2005)926,958 to 1,035,949Teach 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 1,462,100Teach For America 0.031***0.000New York City Teaching Fellows0.004-0.016***HoustonGrades 4-8; Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) and SAT 9Darling-Hammond, et al. (2005)103,122 to 105,511TAASTeach For America0.066***-0.00360,488 to 60,607SAT 9Teach For America-0.046***-0.030**Raymond, et al. (2001)Texas Assessment of Academic Skills96,276 to 132,021TAASTeach For AmericaGrades 4-5: 0.029Grades 4-5: 0.007Grades 4-5: 0.120**Grades 4-5: 0.058Grades 6-8: 0.109**Grades 6-8: 0.110Grades 6-8: 0.044Grades 6-8: 0.139ArizonaGrades 2-8; SAT 9Laczko-Kerr, et al. (2002)Not ReportedTeach For America1998: -0.2251998:-0.4241999: -0.454**1999: -0.399**North CarolinaHigh School; North Carolina End-of-Course ExamsXu, et al. (2009)Not ReportedTeach For America0.109***

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

35

Results

StudyEffect Size95% Confidence Interval%WeightBoyd, et al.-0.001-0.0320.03039.56Decker, et al.0.2600.0460.47415.90Raymond, et al.0.1200.0260.21431.34Raymond, et al.0.044-0.2030.29113.19Grand pooled Effect Size0.084-0.0250.193100.00

ResultsGrade LevelComparison Group# of unique samplesEffect SizeGrade LevelComparison Group# of unique samplesEffect SizePrimary MathPrimary LiteracyAll Teachers60.044All Teachers6-0.007Controlled forexperience40.084Controlled forexperience40.018Secondary MathAll Teachers20.089***

DiscussionComplications in Data AnalysisStudies on the same dataset looking at same outcomesDifferent models or tests within each study - with somewhat different resultsDifficulty in separating effect size for outcome of interest: Xu et al. (2009)

DiscussionImplications for Policy and PracticeAlternative certification should be supported as a fast-track way to certificationRigorous programs Alt. Cert. Teachers provide districts a viable way to fill teacher vacanciesDistricts, state departments of education, and legislatures should be open to rigorous alternative certification teachers and programs

DiscussionContact Info:Benton M. BrownUniversity of Arkansasbentonb@uark.edu479-575-6418

Additional Information

StudyEffect Size95% Confidence Interval%WeightBoyd, et al.0.007-0.0220.03633.46Decker et al.0.1530.0490.25724.87Laczko-Kerr et al-0.225-0.9170.4671.90Laczko-Kerr et al-0.454-0.871-0.0374.75Raymond, et al.0.029-0.2160.27410.94Raymond, et al.0.109-0.0010.21924.08Grand pooled Effect Size0.044-0.0540.142100.00TFA Math All Teachers Studies

StudyEffect Size95% Confidence Interval%WeightBoyd, et al.-0.001-0.0320.03039.56Decker, et al.0.2600.0460.47415.90Raymond, et al.0.1200.0260.21431.34Raymond, et al.0.044-0.2030.29113.19Grand pooled Effect Size0.084-0.0250.193100.00TFA Math Novice Teachers Studies

StudyEffect Size95% Confidence Interval%WeightBoyd, et al.-0.031-0.055-0.00742.42Decker, et al.0.033-0.1650.2313.99Laczko-Kerr, et al-0.424-1.1160.2680.35Laczko-Kerr, et al-0.399-0.8160.0180.96Raymond, et al.0.007-0.0090.02345.93Raymond, et al.0.110-0.0430.2636.35Grand Pooled Effect Size-0.007-0.0480.034100.00TFA ELA All Teachers Studies

StudyEffect Size95% Confidence Interval%WeightBoyd, et al.-0.030-0.055-0.00557.69Decker, et al.0.062-0.3990.5232.75Raymond, et al.0.058-0.0560.17226.72Raymond, et al.0.139-0.0550.33312.84Grand pooled Effect Size0.018-0.0600.096100.00TFA ELA Novice Teachers Studies

Charter Authorizers in Arkansas

Jennifer Ash February 28, 2014

Presentation OutlineIntroduction to Charter Schools and AuthorizersNational SnapshotSingle vs. Multiple AuthorizersCharter School Authorizing in ArkansasPolicy RecommendationsConclusion

Charter SchoolsOpen-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 ResponsibilitiesResponsibilitiesReview applicationsGrant charters*Many authorizers consider this most important step of process. Quality control on front-end (Zimmer, et al. 2012)Ensure complianceFinancial audits, academic reports, site visits, etc.Renew contracts (or not)

National Snapshot42 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.

58National Snapshot

Six main types of Charter Authorizers Need to include abbreivations.

National SnapshotCharter School Authorizers in Arkansas Neighboring States, 2013 StateYear Charter Law Passed# of AuthorizersType of Authorizers# of Charter SchoolsArkansas19991SEA37Louisiana199581 SEA, LEAs77Mississippi20131ICB0Missouri199812LEA, HEI65Oklahoma19997LEA, HEI, NEG22Tennessee20025LEA, ICB50Texas1995151 SEA, LEAs

571Arguments for Single AuthorizerEconomies of scaleCan spread administrative costs without losing quality Bigger authorizers (authorizers overseeingmore charters) may do betterAR is a small state

Arguments for Multiple AuthorizersShen (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 charterLess subject to politics and pressures from traditional education groupsStates with multiple authorizers have more charter schools

Evidence on Different Types of AuthorizersWithin State AnalysesMinnesota: no difference between authorizer types on charter quality (Carlson, Lavery, Witte 2012)Ohio:Authorizer types: public school districts, county-based educational service centers, nonprofitsSome evidence that NPO authorizers are less effective (Zimmer, et al. 2012)

Charter School Authorizing in AR1995: Law passed to allow existing schools to transition to become a charter school (district-conversion schools1999: 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

Charter School Authorizing in AR2013 Legislative Session: Several proposals for change in charter authorizerMotivation: Charter hearings were monopolizing a great deal of the State Board of Ed.s timeHB1040- 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 impartialHB1528- 5 to 11 member board within Arkansas Department of EducationUnder law proposed, SBE will only play a role if a party appeals the charter authorizing panels decision AND SBE agrees to hear the appeal

Charter School Authorizing in AR2013 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). The 5 to 11 person panel was appointed by the Commissioner of Education, Dr. Tom Kimbrell. Main tasks of the panel: Review applicationsGrant chartersOversee compliance of charterRenew/terminate contracts

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

too political

Charter School Authorizing in ARFirst Charter Authorizing Panel November 20137 proposals for open-enrollment charter2 were approved3 were denied2 were tabled (then later denied)

Charter School Authorizing in ARCharter Authorizing Panels (implicit) priorities

Detailed PlanInnovationNeed/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/orDemonstrate a compelling need in the community for an alternative to the traditional system, ideally by bringing actual parents who are seeking alternative schooling options

Charter School Authorizing in ARAppeal ProcessSBE agreed to review two appeals and denied them both.SBE made conscious decision not to start the precedent of reversing Charter Authorizing Panels decisionsIt 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.

69Policy Recommendation 1: Allow for more time between charter school approval and opening

Timeline for Open-Enrollment Charter School Approval, 2013

Charter School Opening Timeline ComparisonsArkansasMust determine many details prior to approval including location, finance plans, curriculum plans, 5-year staffing and enrollment plan

District of ColumbiaAllows 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 ChartersAcademic IndicatorsMatched twin analysis

Other Indicators/Goals Beside Test ScoresAcademics Plus- accountability for transportationParental satisfaction

Conclusion Authorizer structure in AR unlikely to change anytime soon

Charter Authorizing Panel still determining role and prioritiesRecommendations:

Option for more time between authorization and opening

More and better information for renewing charters

K-12 School Vouchers as an Education SolutionMichael CrouchArkansas Political Science Association ConferenceFebruary 28, 2014

OutlineIntroduction to School VouchersThe Issue at HandHistory of School Choice, School VouchersLegislation in ArkansasEducational ImpactsBenefits, Concerns, and Financial ImpactsWhat to Look For

Introduction to School VouchersWhat is a School Voucher?School Vouchers work as a means of paying a students 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.

77The Issue at Hand

History of School VouchersSchool Vouchers finds its intellectual roots in the work of Milton Friedman in the 1950sLocal, private school vouchers are hard to date or point to an originFirst modern program: Milwaukee, 1990Expanded to 16 programs serving 80+ thousand students78The 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)79The Issue at Hand

Legislation in ArkansasHB 1197Tax Credit ProgramNon-Profit Organization$10 million per year, 2,500 scholarships, $4,000 each80The Issue at Hand

Legislation in ArkansasSB 577 (Sen. Jane English)Tax Credit ProgramNon-Profit Organization$10 million per year, 2,500 scholarships, $4,000 eachCost? Net Positive or Net Negative?81The Issue at Hand

Current Market Composition190-207 Private Schools; 29,962 students24% Minority EnrollmentAverage Tuition: $4,669Minimum: $415; Maximum: $21,250Highest in NW and Central Arkansas RegionsEducational ImpactsWhat the studies have shown:

StudyFindingChingos, Peterson (New York City, 2012)College Enrollment +24%Ladd and Hansen (1999)Positive Gains, Not Statistically SignificantWolf, Gutmann, and Puma (D.C., 2010)Statistically Significant Gains in Reading and GraduationLevin (Meta-Analysis, 2001))Positive Gains, Not Statistically SignificantCostrell (Milwaukee, 2010)+$50 Million Net Fiscal ImpactBenefits, Concerns, and Financial ImpactsBenefitsCivic Engagement/ValuesEducational Outcomes?ConcernsPrivate School Pricing/IntegrationEducational Outcomes?Religious IntegrationSelection Issues, Scale

Benefits, Concerns, and Financial ImpactsFinancial ImpactsNet Gains: Students/Families who qualify; State Budget; Tax Credit RecipientsNet Losses: Total Budget of School DistrictsNet Neutral: Per Pupil Budget of School Districts$7,000 is break-even point for state