<%BANNER%>

Examination and Application of the Education Adequacy Models and Studies to the State of Florida

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0023549/00001

Material Information

Title: Examination and Application of the Education Adequacy Models and Studies to the State of Florida
Physical Description: 1 online resource (234 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Benton, Lori
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: adequacy, education, studies
Educational Administration and Policy -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Educational Leadership thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: In education, no set definition or standard applies across states to configure the cost of an adequate education, but different methods/formulas have been used in some states and by various researchers to try and compute the cost of an adequate education. Many adequacy studies have been conducted over the past ten years. These studies were sponsored by various organizations such as state legislatures, state education agencies, or coalitions of educators. The purpose of this study was to examine the different methodologies used to determine what an adequate education would cost and if there were a state of the art adequacy study. This study utilized techniques from content and policy analysis research. The four adequacy models (cost function, successful school district, professional judgment, and evidence-based) were identified and examined. Strengths and weaknesses of the four models were discussed and reliability and validity issues were presented for each methodology. Fifty-one adequacy studies conducted by various researchers for several states were summarized and analyzed to determine if the method was used correctly. The data collected from the analysis of the state adequacy studies and the individual methodologies was used to determine if any of the methodologies could be utilized in the state of Florida. Results of this study show that the four adequacy methodologies (cost function, successful school district, professional judgment, and evidence-based) currently being utilized to configure the cost of an adequate education in several states cannot be used in the state of Florida or any state that has similar expenditures across districts. All of the approaches assume that higher expenditures equal higher achievement which can be refuted when comparing the achievement of students across Florida. This study exemplified the limited strengths and the many weaknesses found in the four adequacy methodologies.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Lori Benton.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Wood, R. Craig.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0023549:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0023549/00001

Material Information

Title: Examination and Application of the Education Adequacy Models and Studies to the State of Florida
Physical Description: 1 online resource (234 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Benton, Lori
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: adequacy, education, studies
Educational Administration and Policy -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Educational Leadership thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: In education, no set definition or standard applies across states to configure the cost of an adequate education, but different methods/formulas have been used in some states and by various researchers to try and compute the cost of an adequate education. Many adequacy studies have been conducted over the past ten years. These studies were sponsored by various organizations such as state legislatures, state education agencies, or coalitions of educators. The purpose of this study was to examine the different methodologies used to determine what an adequate education would cost and if there were a state of the art adequacy study. This study utilized techniques from content and policy analysis research. The four adequacy models (cost function, successful school district, professional judgment, and evidence-based) were identified and examined. Strengths and weaknesses of the four models were discussed and reliability and validity issues were presented for each methodology. Fifty-one adequacy studies conducted by various researchers for several states were summarized and analyzed to determine if the method was used correctly. The data collected from the analysis of the state adequacy studies and the individual methodologies was used to determine if any of the methodologies could be utilized in the state of Florida. Results of this study show that the four adequacy methodologies (cost function, successful school district, professional judgment, and evidence-based) currently being utilized to configure the cost of an adequate education in several states cannot be used in the state of Florida or any state that has similar expenditures across districts. All of the approaches assume that higher expenditures equal higher achievement which can be refuted when comparing the achievement of students across Florida. This study exemplified the limited strengths and the many weaknesses found in the four adequacy methodologies.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Lori Benton.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Wood, R. Craig.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0023549:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 EXAMINATION AND APPLICATION OF TH E EDUCATION ADEQUACY MODELS AND STUDIES TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA By LORI ROSEN BENTON A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2008

PAGE 2

2 2008 Lori Rosen Benton

PAGE 3

3 To my Mom and Dad, who instilled in me the belief that I could accomplish anything I set my mind to.

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank m y parents for raising me to believe that I could accomplish anything that I wanted. They instilled in me a desire to be a lifelong learner, and provided the love and support needed for me to accomplish this goal. Although my mother passed away in 1991, long before I embarked on this journey, she helped me become the self-confident, high-achieving adult I have become today, and I truly believe that I would not be completing this journey without her encouragement of me as a child. My father has always provided the support and guidance I needed to achieve my goals, and I am happy to be accomplishing this goal with him by my side. I would also like to thank my husband, Rich, for his continued love and encouragement throughout this long journey. He always encouraged me to keep pushing and to never give up. His knowledge of Microsoft Wor d, creating tables and charts, and Excel saved me many hours and I greatly appreciate his help. My husband, Rich, and my daughter, Kayla, had to sacrifice time spent with me in order for me to complete my dissertation and I will be forever grateful for their commitment to my achieving my goal. Additionally, I would like to thank my daughter, Hailey, with whom I was pregnant with at the end of this journey. Her gift of life helped give me the final impetus to finish my dissertation so th at when she entered this world I could devote my time to her and her sister, Kayla. Many other family members help ed provide childcare for me so that I could work on my research. My mother-in-law, Jane t, my father-in-law, Dick, my si sters, Eileen and Pam, deserve a huge thank you for the many hours they entertaine d Kayla so I could get some work done. It would not have been possible for me to finish without their help.

PAGE 5

5 I would like to thank my friends, Rick a nd Renee, who are both attorneys. Their knowledge of the law and their abil ities to find many cases for me he lped me considerably. They never tired of my countless questions and were supportive throughout this long endeavor. I can not express how much their expert ise, patience, and guidance helped me along the way. My committee chair, Dr. R. Craig Wood, has be en an instrumental part of this long journey. I would like to thank him for the coun tless hours he provided in helping me reach my goal. His incredible wealth of knowledge of finance and law has been a big help in accomplishing this task. His patience, continue d encouragement, and knowledge of English grammar were of great assistance. I would also like to thank my other committee members, Dr. James Doud, Dr. David Honeyman, a nd Dr. David Miller for the time they spent to help stretch my thinking and refine my research. When I began the pursuit of my doctorate in the fall of 2000, I never imagined how many lives would be affected by my goals. I want to thank all the people who have made my dream of finishing my Ph.D. a reality. I began the Edu cational Leadership Program with a cohort group from the central Florida area and my educationa l experience in this program helped me grow both professionally and philosophic ally. I want to thank all the cohort members who embarked on this journey with me and continued to encour age me to push ahead as I celebrated each of their successes.

PAGE 6

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........9 ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................................10 CHAP TER 1. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................12 Statement of the Problem....................................................................................................... .19 Purpose of the Study........................................................................................................... ....20 Significance of the Study........................................................................................................20 Methodology...........................................................................................................................21 Definition of Terms................................................................................................................21 Limitations and Delimitations................................................................................................22 Summary.................................................................................................................................22 2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE.................................................................................................24 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........24 The Shift from Equity to Adequacy........................................................................................ 24 Court Cases: Adequacy.......................................................................................................... .28 Defining an Adequate Education............................................................................................ 33 Money and Student Achievement........................................................................................... 38 Methods to Determine the Cost of an Adequate Education................................................... 40 Statistical Modeling/Cost Function Approach................................................................ 40 Empirical Observation Approach/Su ccessful Schools/District Model ............................42 Professional Judgment Approach....................................................................................44 Whole-School Design/Evidence-Based Approach..........................................................46 States and Adequacy............................................................................................................ ...49 State Adequacy Studies..........................................................................................................50 Summaries of State Adequacy Studies................................................................................... 53 Massachusetts (July 1991)...............................................................................................53 Wyoming (May 1997)..................................................................................................... 56 Maine (January 1999) .....................................................................................................59 Oregon (April 1999)........................................................................................................61 Oregon (January 2000)....................................................................................................63 Illinois (June 2001).......................................................................................................... 65 Maryland (June 2001)...................................................................................................... 67 Maryland (September 2001)............................................................................................ 69 Wyoming (January 2002)................................................................................................ 70 New York (February 2002).............................................................................................73 Kansas (May 2002)..........................................................................................................74

PAGE 7

7 Wisconsin (June 2002)....................................................................................................76 Montana (August 2002)................................................................................................... 78 Indiana (September 2002)............................................................................................... 81 Colorado (January 2003).................................................................................................82 Kentucky (February 2003).............................................................................................. 84 Kentucky (February 2003).............................................................................................. 85 Washington (March 2003)............................................................................................... 87 Kentucky (May 2003)......................................................................................................90 North Dakota (July 2003)................................................................................................92 Arkansas (September 2003)............................................................................................ 93 Tennessee (December 2003)........................................................................................... 94 New York (January 2004)...............................................................................................95 Minnesota (February 2004).............................................................................................97 New York (March 2004).................................................................................................98 New York (March 2004)...............................................................................................100 Texas (March 2004)......................................................................................................103 Texas (May 2004).......................................................................................................... 106 Arizona (June 2004)......................................................................................................109 Arizona (February 2005)...............................................................................................111 Hawaii (March 2005).................................................................................................... 113 Connecticut (June 2005)................................................................................................ 114 Montana (October 2005)............................................................................................... 116 Wyoming (November 2005).......................................................................................... 119 Kansas (December 2005).............................................................................................. 121 Kansas (January 2006)..................................................................................................122 South Dakota (January 2006)........................................................................................124 Arkansas (August 2006)................................................................................................ 126 Nevada (August 2006)................................................................................................... 128 Washington (September 2006)...................................................................................... 132 Washington (September 2006)...................................................................................... 134 Colorado (October 2006)............................................................................................... 136 Minnesota (November 2006).........................................................................................138 Montana (January 2007)................................................................................................140 Washington (January 2007)........................................................................................... 144 California (March 2007)................................................................................................ 147 California (March 2007)................................................................................................ 150 Rhode Island (March 2007)...........................................................................................152 Wisconsin (March 2007)...............................................................................................156 Pennsylvania (November 2007)....................................................................................159 New Mexico (January 2008).........................................................................................162 Other Adequacy Studies................................................................................................164 Floridas Education Finance System.................................................................................... 166 Floridas Court Challenges................................................................................................... 169 Floridas Courts: The Standard for an Adequate Education................................................. 171 Summary...............................................................................................................................174

PAGE 8

8 3. METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................... 183 Introduction................................................................................................................... ........183 Research Design...................................................................................................................184 Data Sources.........................................................................................................................185 Data Organization.............................................................................................................. ...185 Summary...............................................................................................................................186 4. RESULTS.............................................................................................................................187 Statistical Modeling/Cost Function Approach...................................................................... 187 Successful Schools Model....................................................................................................191 Professional Judgment Approach......................................................................................... 197 Evidence-Based Approach.................................................................................................... 201 The Four Adequacy Models.................................................................................................206 Summary...............................................................................................................................209 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMME NDATIONS............................................................... 210 Introduction................................................................................................................... ........210 Findings................................................................................................................................210 Research Question 1...................................................................................................... 211 Statistical modeling/cost function approach.......................................................... 211 Successful schools model.......................................................................................211 Professional judgment approach............................................................................212 Evidence-based approach....................................................................................... 213 The four adequacy methodologies......................................................................... 214 Research Question 2...................................................................................................... 214 Research Question 3...................................................................................................... 215 Research Question 4...................................................................................................... 217 Conclusions...........................................................................................................................217 Implications and Suggestions for Future Research..............................................................219 Recommendations................................................................................................................ .220 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................221 Adequacy Studies............................................................................................................... ..221 Books and Articles................................................................................................................224 Legal Citations......................................................................................................................228 United States and Florida Documents.................................................................................. 232 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................234

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1. State Education Adequacy Studies.......................................................................................175 4-1. 2004-05 Current Expenditure s Per PK-12 UFTE (Florida).................................................. 192 4-2. 2004-05 Restricted Range For Expenditures Per Pupil (49 States and Washington DC) ....194

PAGE 10

10 Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy EXAMINATION AND APPLICATION OF TH E EDUCATION ADEQUACY MODELS AND STUDIES TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA By Lori Rosen Benton December 2008 Chair: R. Craig Wood Major: Educational Leadership In education, no set definition or standard appl ies across states to conf igure the cost of an adequate education, but different methods/formulas have been used in some states and by various researchers to try and compute the cost of an adequate education. Many adequacy studies have been conducted over the past ten years. These studies were sponsored by various organizations such as state legislatures, state education agencies, or coalitions of educators. The purpose of this study was to examine the different methodologies used to determine what an adequate education would cost and if th ere were a state of the art adequacy study. This study utilized techniques from content and policy analysis research. The four adequacy models (cost function, successful school district, prof essional judgment, and evidence-based) were identified and examined. Strengths and weakne sses of the four models were discussed and reliability and validity issues were presented for each methodology. Fifty-one adequacy studies conducted by various researchers fo r several states were summariz ed and analyzed to determine if the method was used correctly. The data coll ected from the analysis of the state adequacy studies and the individual met hodologies was used to determine if any of the methodologies could be utilized in th e state of Florida.

PAGE 11

11 Results of this study show that the four ad equacy methodologies (cost function, successful school district, professional judgment, and evidence-based) currently being utilized to configure the cost of an adequate educati on in several states cannot be used in the state of Florida or any state that has similar expenditures across district s. All of the approaches assume that higher expenditures equal higher achievement which can be refuted when comparing the achievement of students across Florida. This study ex emplified the limited strengths and the many weaknesses found in the four adequa cy methodologies.

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Since the passing of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act1 and the federal governments expectation that ev ery child will meet high standard s, more people are questioning the adequacy of the current state finance systems. The NCLB Act is fed eral legislation [that] requires annual testing of all students in grad es 3 through 8, and requires that schools make annual progress in meeting student performance standards for all students and for separate groups of students classified by race, ethnic ity, poverty, disability, and limited English proficiency.2 Additionally the NCLB Act requires that every child will effectively meet state student performance standards by the 2013-14 school year and make progr ess according to a schedule agreed to by each state and the U.S. Department of Education each year between now and then. A standard definition for adequacy in educat ion has not been formulated. One way to define an adequate education is to accept that whatever a state c hooses to define as adequate is adequate since education is a state function.3 The problem with using a state definition is that it may be insufficient considering what is expect ed by the federal government. What is missing, both in accumulated state law and in popular co nsensus, is an overarc hing view of what constitutes an adequate edu cation and what resources ar e required to provide it.4 Thomas and Davis assert that an adequate education is not a legal theory. Rather, it is a judicial 1 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. 6301. 2 U.S. Department of Education, 2002. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: The Public Law print of PL 107-110. Retrieved May 2008 from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html?exp=0. 3 Patricia F. First and Barbara M. DeLuca, The Meanin g of Educational Adequacy: The Confusion of DeRolph, Journal of Law and Education 32, no. 2 (2003): 201. 4 Ibid.

PAGE 13

13 interpretation,5 which will vary between states depending on how adequacy is or is not defined in the state constitutions education clauses. Guthrie and Rothstein are of the opinion that When the foundation finance distribution conc ept was originally adopted by states, and as it continues in most states today, gove rnors and legislatures define adequate by determining how much state revenue is avai lable, or how much additionally they are willing to generate through added taxation. Th is aggregate revenue amount has then been embedded in a minimum foundation distribu tion formula. Whatever this per-pupil minimum spending amount, it has then been presumed to be adequate.6 In other words adequacy was a political decisi on (the politicians deci ded what was adequate) instead of a decision based on students needs. Clune describes the new definition of adequacy as true adequacy and explains th at the whole point of true ade quacy is to achieve high minimum outcomes for a defined group of students.7 In order for students to reach high standards, Conley and Picus discuss what they call the notion of adequacy. The notion of adequacy is the provision of a set of strategi es, programs, curriculum, and instruction, with appropriate adjustments for special-needs student s, districts, and schools, and th eir (sic) full financing, that is sufficient to teach students to high standards.8 Many state legislatures have begun to explore the concept of funding at an adequate level because of the expectation of all students meetin g high standards as well as the problems with current funding plans providing equal moneys but not producing comparable education among 5 M. Donald Thomas and E. E. Gene Davis, An Adequate Education Defined (Bloomington, Indiana: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation, 2001):15. 6 James W. Guthrie and Richard Rothstein, Enabling Adequacy to Achieve Reality: Translating Adequacy into State School Finance Distribution Arrangements, in Equity and Adequacy in Education Finance, ed. Helen F Ladd, Rosemary Chalk, and Janet S. Hansen, (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999): 211-214. 7 William H. Clune, The Shift From Equity to Adequacy in School Finance, Educational Policy 8, no. 4 (1994): 384. 8 Allan R. Odden and Lawrence O. Picus, School Finance: A Policy Perspective (Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, 2004): 71-72.

PAGE 14

14 schools.9 In most states, the systems of school fina nce in place today do not explicitly link the availability of funds and the educ ational performance of students.10 Rather than linking funds with performance, the current finance systems focus on equalizi ng property tax bases and per pupil expenditures across school districts.11 State legislatures need to address the fact that costs are higher in some districts than others largely because more resources are require d to educate some students compared to others and because some districts will have to pay mo re money than other districts to attract high quality teachers.12 Most states determine funding to school districts using a foundation formula. Reschovsky and Imazeki argue to guarantee the provision of adequate edu cation, it is necessary to develop a foundation formula where the foundation level of spendi ng varies according to differences in costs across districts and where the average foundation level equals the dollar amount necessary to meet the perfor mance standards associated with educational adequacy in districts with average costs.13 Nakib and Herrington explain that adequacy at its fullest potential shifts the purpose of equal funding from inputs to outcomes.14 The implication of shif ting from inputs to outcomes goes beyond ensuring equal funding for school districts. Student outcomes must be equal in order to ensure an adequate education. Inputs in clude the level of educa tional service such as 9 David T. Conley and Lawrence O. Pi cus, Oregons Quality Education Model: Linking Adequacy and Outcomes, Educational Policy 17, no. 5 (2003): 586-612. 10 Andrew Reschovsky and Jennifer Imazeki, Achieving E ducational Adequacy through School Finance Reform, Journal of Education Finance 26, no. 4 (2001): 374. One should be informed of the state formulas that have costof-living adjustments, e.g., Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Massachusetts, Ohio, Texas, Virginia, and Wyoming. Florida Statutes 1011.62, v (2). The state of Florida accounts for cost of living in the state education formula. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid, 375. 13 Ibid, 391. 14 Yasser Nakib and Carolyn D. Herringto n, The Political Economy of K-12Education Finance: the Context of a Fast Growing Large State, Journal of Education Finance 23 (1998): 361.

PAGE 15

15 resources and the performance standards. Outc omes include outputs such as test scores and graduation rates.15 Outputs can also be the economic re turn to both the individual and society such as an active, informed citizen.16 Recent adequacy work demonstrates that cat egorical weights for poverty and at-risk and non-English language students are far less than wh at is needed if we are serious about all students performing up to standard.17 Mathis reviewed recent standards-based adequacy studies and found that in order for students to meet high standards, states need to increase overall education funding 20 to 50 percent.18 When reviewing court cases, legal arguments had shifted from equity to adequacy during the mid 1980s.19 Minorini and Sugarman20 attribute the shift to the National Commission on Excellence in Educations 1983 report, A Nation at Risk .21 Verstegen explains the shift from equity to adequacy by discussing school funding systems. The conflict between the new high standards for all children and old finance syst ems designed mainly to aid a minimum education is a conflict between ends and m eans, and creates a formidable ba rrier to teaching all children to high standards.22 15 First and DeLuca, 212. 16 Ibid. 17 William Mathis, Financial Challenges, Adequacy, and Equity in Rural Schools and Communities, Journal of Education Finance 29, no. 2 (2003): 132. 18 Ibid. 19 First and DeLuca, 185-215. 20 Paul A. Minorini and Stephen D. Sugarman, School Fi nance Litigation in the Name of Educational Equity: Its Evolution, Impact, and Future, in Equity and Adequacy in Education Finance: Issues and Perspectives ed. Helen F. Ladd, Rosemanry Chalk, and Janet S. Hansen (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999): 34-71. 21 National Commission on Excellence in Education, A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform (1983). 22 Deborah A. Verstegen, Financing the New Adequacy: Towards New Models of State Education Finance Systems That Support Standards Based Reform, Journal of Education Finance 27, no. 3 (2002): 756.

PAGE 16

16 Embedded in the concept of educational adequacy is an understanding that just because a school funding system provides school district s with equal resources does not guarantee that school districts are able to generate e qual academic performance. In other words, finance systems that equalize revenues may still exhibit large disparities in student outcomes and not succeed in providing many of their students with an adequate education. The reason for this outcome is th at the amount of mone y needed to achieve any given student performance standard may be very different across school districts located in different parts of a state or with students from different backgrounds.23 Verstegen summarizes the reasons why Amer ica has shifted from equity concerns to adequacy concerns. Over the past several decades, all states have developed curriculum standards defining the knowledge, skills, and content students should know at various stages of their education. These standards generally call for a rigorous, high quality education program for all students, not a minimum or basic education. Likewise, recent court decisions overturning state aid systems have also interpreted state consti tutions as requiring a high level of education necessary to enable a child to be an effective citizen and competitor in the labor market of the 21st century.24 With todays federal government focusing on outcomes, all providers of education must do their part for students to reach high standards. The state must supply adequate resources, the district must provide support, and the school must im plement the improvements to keep the money.25 There are different methods that have been us ed to configure the cost of an adequate education. One method is the cost function whic h uses complex statistical analysis. This research has suggested that larg e urban school districts require f unding levels two to three times higher than the average expenditure level for the rest of the state.26 A second method is the successful schools model which identifies districts th at have been successful with students while 23 Jennifer Imazeki and Andrew Reschovsky, Estima ting the Costs of Meeti ng the Texas Educational Accountability Standards, Journal of Education Finance 29, no. 1 (2004): 2. 24 Ibid. 25 Clune, The Shift From Equity to Adequacy, 385. 26 Conley and Picus, 589.

PAGE 17

17 eliminating the outlier districts.27 Neither the cost function nor the desired results model determines how the funds given to the school dist ricts are being utilized in individual schools.28 A third method to configure an adequate education is the professional judgment approach. This approach has a group of educat ors identify the inputs needed to establish a set standard and then the cost of the resources is determined.29 This method does not require educators to look at the research to support th eir recommendations nor does it differentiate between types of schools or students. A variation that has been used for the professional judgment approach is to survey principals on diffe rent parameters to determine adequate inputs. Survey results are then shared with the professional judgment panels. A final method is the evidence-based design. This design uses the research from school designs, identifies the inputs needed for the desi gn, and then determines the cost. The wholeschool design method is currently referred to as the evidence-based approach. This approach uses educational research to dete rmine what resources should be us ed in schools in order to meet state performance standards based on state tests. Of the four methods no single method has b een identified as the best approach to determine an adequate level of funding for educa tion. A combination of the approaches has been used to determine what adequate fu nding would cost in certain states,30 while others have used 27 Ibid, 586-612. 28 Ibid, 590. 29 Ibid, 591 30 See e.g. Lawrence O. Picus, An Evidenced-B ased Approach to School Finance Adequacy in Arizona, Final Report, (June 2004); Lawrence O. Picus An Evidenced-Based Approach to School Finance Adequacy in Arkansas, (Sept. 2003); John Augenblick and John Myers, Calculation of the Cost of an Adequate Education in Colorado using the Professional Judgement (sic) and the Successful School District Approaches, (Jan. 2003); John Augenblick, Robert Palaich, and Associates, Estimating Co lorado School District Costs to Meet State and Federal Education Accountability Requirements, (Oct. 2006); John Au genblick, Robert Palaich, Justin Silverstein, Douglas Rose, and Dale DeCesare, Estimating the Cost of an Adequate Education in Connecticut, (June 2005); John Augenblick, John Myers, Justin Silverstein, and Anne Ba rkis, Calculation of the Cost of a Suitable Education in

PAGE 18

18 one method.31 This study analyzed the current adequacy studies to determine if there was one approach that could be used to configure an adequate education in a state like Florida where expenditure levels are similar across districts. Kansas in 2000-2001 using Two Different Analytical Approaches, (May 2002); Legislative Division of Post Audit State of Kansas, Elementary and Secondary Education in Kansas: Estimating the Costs of K-12 Education Using Two Approaches, (Jan. 2006); John Augenblick and John Myers, Calculation of the Cost of an Adequate Education in Maryland in 1999-2000 Using Two Different An alytic Approaches (Sept. 2001); Justin Silverstein, Doug Rose, and John Myers, Estimating the Cost of an Adequate Education in Minnesota, (Nov. 2006); R. Craig Wood, Donald Robson, Merle Farrier, Stephen Smith, Joyce Silverthorne, Michael Griffith, Determining the Cost of Providing an Adequate Education in the State of Montana, (Oct. 2005); John Augenblick, Justin Silverstein, Amanda R. Brown, Douglas Rose, Dale DeCesare, and Amy Berk Anderson, Estimating the Cost of an Adequate Education in Nevada, (August 2006); R.C. Wood & Associates, State of Rhode Island Education Adequacy Study, (March 2007); John Augenblick, Amanda Brown, Dale DeCesare, John Myers, and Justin Silverstein, Estimating the Cost of an Adequate Education in South Dakota, (January 2006); Augenblick, Palaich and Associates, Inc., Calculation of the Cost of an Adequa te Education in Tennessee in 2001-02 using the Professional Judgment Approach and the Successful Sc hool District Approach, (December 2003); David T. Conley and Kathryn C. Rooney, Washington Adequacy Funding Study, (Jan. 2007); Lawrence O. Pi cus, An Evidence-Based Approach to Recalibrating Wyomings Block Grant School Funding Formula, (November 30, 2005). 31 See e.g. The National Conference of State Legislators, Arizona English Language Learner Cost Study, (February 2005); Allan Odden, Lawren ce Picus, and Michael Goetz, Reca librating the Arkansas School Funding Structure, (Aug. 2006); Jay Chambers, Jesse Levin, and Danielle DeLancey, Effi ciency and Adequacy in California School Finance: A Professional Judgment Approach, (Dec. 2006); Grant Thornton, State of Hawaii Adequacy Funding Study, (March 2005); John Augenblick and John Myers, A Procedure for Calculating a Base Cost Figure and an Adjustment for At-Risk Pupils that Coul d be Used in the Illinois School Finance System, (June 2001); William Duncombe and John Yinger, Estimating the Costs of Meeting Performance Outcomes Adopted by the Kansas State Board of Education, (Dec. 2005); Deborah Verstegen, Calculation of the Cost of an Adequate Education in Kentucky: A Professional Judgment Approach, Education Policy Analysis Archives 12, no. 8 (2004). Retrieved May 4, 2007 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n8/ ; Lawrence O. Picus and Associates, Allan Odden, Mark Fermanich, A State-of-the-Art Approach to School Finance Adequacy in Kentucky, (Feb. 2003); Lawrence O. Picus, Allan Odden, and Mark Fermanich, A Prof essional Judgment Approach to School Finance Adequacy in Kentucky, (May 2003); Maine Education Policy Research Institute, Essential Programs and Services: Equity and Adequacy in Funding to Improve Learning for All Children, (Jan. 1999); Management Analysis & Planning, Inc., A Professional Judgment Approach to Determining Adequate Education Funding in Maryland, (June 2001); Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education, Every Child a Winner, (July, 1991); Mark Haveman, Determining the Cost of an Adequate Education in Minnesota: Implications for the Minnesota Education Finance System. (February, 2004); John Myers and Justin Silverstein, Calculation of the Cost of a Suitable Education in Montana in 2001-2002 Using the Professional Judgment Approach, (August 2002); William Duncombe, Estimating the Cost of an Adequate Education in New York. Working Pape r, (2002); New York State Education Department, Regents Proposal on State Aid to School Districts for 2004-05, (January 2004); Jay G. Chambers, Thomas B. Parrish, Jesse D. Levin, James R. Smith, James W. Guthrie, Rich C. Seder, and Lori Taylor, The New York Adequacy Study: Determining the Cost of Providin g All Children in New York an Adequate Education, Volume 1 Final Report, (March 2004); Standard and Poors, Resource Adequacy Study for the New York Commission on Education Reform, (March 2004); John Augenblick, Robert Palaich, et. al., Calculation of the Cost of an Adequate Education in North Dakota in 2002-2003 using the Professional Judgement (sic) Approach; The Oregon Quality Education Model: Relating Funding and Performance, Legislative Council on the Oregon Quality Education Model, Oregon Legislative Assemb ly, (June 1999); Oregon Quality Education Commission, Oregon Quality Education Model-2000, (January 2000); Ti mothy J. Gronberg, Dennis W. Jansen, Lori L. Taylor, and Kevin Booker, School Outcomes and School Costs: The Cost Function Approach, (2004); Jennifer Imazeki and Andrew Reschovsky, Estimating the Costs of Meeting the Texas Educational Accountability Standards, (2004); David Conley and William Freund What Will It Take? Defining a Quality Education in Washington and a

PAGE 19

19 Statement of the Problem Florida currently funds its public schools th rough the Florida Education Finance Program (FEFP).32 The legislature adopted the FEFP in 1973. Using the FEFP, the responsibility of funding public education is shared between the state and Florida s sixty-seven sc hool districts.33 The FEFP is a distribution formula and does not assess the adequacy or the outcomes of the distribution.34 However, the FEFP has withstood several constitutional challenges based on equity and adequacy. The formula was develope d to guarantee to each st udent in the Florida public school system the availabi lity of programs and services appropriate to his educational needs which are substantially equal to those av ailable to any similar student notwithstanding geographic differences and varying local economic factors.35 Due to the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act36 an abundance of data is produced by states which allows policymakers and educators to examine adequate yearly progress in individual schools. Litigation has changed from equity concerns to adequacy issues, leaving courts to answer the question if the funding provided to the school districts is adequate to meet New Vision of Adequacy for School Funding, (March 2003); Jack Norman, Funding Our Future: An Adequacy Model for Wisconsin School Finance, (June 2002); Allan Odden, Lawrence O. Picus, Sarah Archibald, Michael Goetz, Michelle Turner Mangan, and Anabel Aportela, Moving From Good to Great in Wisconsin: Funding Schools Adequately And Doubling Student Performance, (March 2007); Management Analysis & Planning Associates, A Proposed Costs Based Block Grant Model for Wyoming School Finance, (April 1997); Management Analysis & Planning Associates, Proposed Revisions to the Cost Based Block Grant, (Jan. 2002). 32 Florida Statutes, 236.012(1) (1998). This section of th e Florida Statutes was renumber ed after the Florida K-20 Education Code rewrite, effective January 7, 2003. 33 FLA. CONST. art. XII 9a2 34 Nakib and Herrington, 353. 35 Florida Statutes, 236.012(1) (1998). This section of th e Florida Statutes was renumber ed after the Florida K-20 Education Code rewrite, effective January 7, 2003. 36 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. 6301.

PAGE 20

20 high academic standards.37 Different methodologies have been used to try and determine what an adequate base student alloca tion is. The various methods have yielded large differences in what is considered adequate funding. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to examine the different methodologies used to determine what an adequate education would cost and if th ere were a state of the art adequacy study. The following questions were addressed by this study: 1. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the current methodologies used to determine adequate funding? 2. Did the previous adequacy studies use the previously stated methodologies and if so did they use them correctly? 3. Using the information previously stated how does a state like Flor ida that has similar expenditures between districts utilize the methodologies? 4. Can an adequacy model be developed or applied for a state like Florida? Significance of the Study There are various methods used to determin e if a states base st udent allocation were adequate but there have been no st udies that have identified the st rengths and weaknesses of each method and if there is one best method for de termining adequate fundi ng. Most studies of adequacy deal with a single states funding or a single methodology for determining adequacy. This study intended to analyze all of the adequacy studies that have been conducted up to this point to identify the strengths and weaknesses. There have been no adequacy studies done for 37 See e.g. Claremont School District v. Governor 703 A.2d 1353 (NH 1997); DeRolph v. State 79 Oh.St.3d 297, 1997; Leandro v. State 472 S.E.2d 11(N.C. 1996); Campaign for Fiscal Equity v. State of New York 86 N.Y.2d 307, (N.Y. 1995); Campbell v. State 907 P.2d 1238, (Wyo. 1995 ); McDuffy v. Secretary of the Executive Office of Education 615 N.E.2d 516 (Mass. 1993); Alabama Coalition for Equity v. Hunt Op. of the Justices 624 So. 2d 107 (Ala. 1993); Tennessee Small Sch. System. v. McWherter 851 S.W.2d 139, 141 (Tenn. 1993); Abbott v. Burke 575 A.2d 359, 363 (N.J. 1990).

PAGE 21

21 the state of Florida and this st udy intended to determine if ther e was an adequacy method that could be used in Florida. Methodology This study analyzed the strengths and wea knesses of each methodology used to determine the cost of an adequate education. It examined the methodologies utilized in previous adequacy studies. The information gathered from analyz ing the strengths and weaknesses of each method and examining the previous studies was used to determine if a model could be used for a state like Florida where there are simila r expenditures across the state. Definition of Terms Adequacy as used in this study, refers to the level of funding needed in order for all students to achieve at high skill levels.38 Base Student Allocation refers to the amount per pupil that a state legislature has determined is the appropriate funding for students. Equity refers to funding students according to th eir preexisting differences in order to achieve fairness. Horizontal Equity guarantees each student a partic ular amount of money for the provision of a basic, equal education across the state.39 Vertical Equity provides disadvantaged students (special education or those living in poverty) compensatory dollars in addition to the base funding in order to offer equal educational opportunities.40 38 Clune, The Shift From Equity to Adequacy, 384. 39 First and De Luca, 188. 40 Ibid.

PAGE 22

22 Production Function Research examines the relationship be tween money and educational achievement. Limitations and Delimitations Data used in this study are limited to t hose states that have had adequacy studies conducted and published or released to the genera l public. This study did not analyze the equity of money distributed to schools and districts. The focus was on the methodologies utilized to determine adequate school funding. Summary Most states current funding system s were created in the early 1900s when the expectation was for students to meet minimum crite ria. The definition for an adequate education has changed over time from requiring minimum standards to the presen t expectation of high achievement for all students. Many studies have been conducted in several states to examine the current funding systems due to legislation passed or court rulings. Various figures have been reached to determine the cost of an adequate education depending on the methods used. One way of addressing adequacy among school dist ricts within a state is to increase the level of spending of the lower-spending district s to be at par with the highest-spending districts.41 This assumes that the highest-spending districts are spe nding what is adequate. The difficulty with attempting this in Florida is th at the highest-spending dist ricts do not spend much more than the lowest-spending districts. This study attempted to identify if there were a state of the art adequacy study. It also analyzed the methodologies used to configure an adequate educati on and determined if there is a model that can be used in a state like Florida s with similar expenditures across districts. The 41 Nakib and Herrington, 362.

PAGE 23

23 impact of this study will help states configure the cost of an ad equate education for students to reach high academic standards.

PAGE 24

24 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Introduction The purpose of this study was to exam in e the different methodologies utilized to determine what an adequate education would cost a nd if there were a model that could be used in a state like Floridas with similar expenditures across districts. This chapter contains the literature relevant to this study. First, a discussion of the shift from equity to adequacy was discussed. Relevant equity and adequacy cour t cases were summarized. Then, attempts to define an adequate education were presented. Research on the correl ation between money and student achievement were review ed. The four methodologies deve loped to determine what an adequate education would cost we re then discussed. Adequacy st udies that have been conducted in several states were summari zed. Finally, a review of Floridas Education Finance Program (FEFP), Floridas court challenges to the FE FP and the courts standard for an adequate education were presented. The Shift from Equity to Adequacy Thro1 identified three waves of school finance li tigation. The first wave centered on the language in the federal Constitu tions Equal Protection Clause.2 The first wave was from 1971 with the California ruling on Serrano v. Priest3 and ended in 1973 with the U.S. Supreme Courts judgment in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez.4 The Rodriguez decision ended school finance challenges cente red on the federal Equal Protection Clause, 1 William E. Thro, Judicial Analysis During the Third Wave of School Finance Litigation: The Massachusetts Decision as a Model, B.C. Law Review, 35, no 4 (1994). 2 U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, 1. 3 487 P.2d 1241 (Cal. 1971); 557 P. 2d. 929 (Cal. 1976) 4 411 U.S. 1 (1973).

PAGE 25

25 therefore moving the school finance argument from a federal to a state and local issue. The second wave concentrated on the state constitu tions, specifically the equal protection and education clauses and bega n in 1973 with the ruling on Robinson v. Cahill .5 The court challenges based on education clauses assert that those clauses compel state legislatures to provide all schools with sufficient funding to provide an education meeting certain basic standards of quality.6 Whereas the first two waves focused on equity issues, the third wave of school finance litigation focuses on adequacy of education and the state education clauses. The third wave began in 1989 with the ruling in Rose v. Council for Better Education.7 Equity challenges were focused on guarant eeing that all students, especially those residing in poorer school dist ricts, received equal funding.8 Adequacy challenges focus on guaranteeing that all students receive sufficient funds in order to meet educational standards required by the state.9 An increasing number of states are investigating adequacy funding, in part due to the relative failure of funding equalization schemes to result in comparable educations and in equal measure due to the in creasing emphasis by states on all students reaching high standards.10 Under an adequacy argument, a states school finance system may be perfectly equitable everyone gets the same treatment but it may be too low to provide a sufficient and necessary 5 303 A.2d 273 (N.J. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 976 (1973). 6 Kevin Carey, Overview of K-12 Education Finance, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (Washington, DC, 2002): 13. 7 790 S.W.2d 186 (Ky. 1989). 8 Carey. 9 See Rose v. Council for Better Education, Inc., 790 S.W.2d 186 (Ky. 1989); Campaign for Fiscal Equity v. State 86 N.Y.2d 307 (1995); DeRolph v. State, 91 Ohio St.3d 1274 (1997). 10 Conley and Picus, 588.

PAGE 26

26 education to a group of children.11 For example, urban resources may still be inadequate to educate urban students appropriately.12 Hanushek argues that it is possible to have a very equitable system that is inadequate [for some populations] because the overall resources are insufficient to meet some desired outcomes. (Alabama is the example frequently given).13 For many rural districts, a central i ssue is that they will have to spend substantial amounts of money per student in order to meet state and/or federal student performance standards.14 An adequacy claim does not complain a bout disparities in funding among school districts per se, but instead alle ges that one or more district s lack the resources necessary to provide students with adequa te educational opportunities. In effect, these advocates charge that schools are failing th eir clients, that more mone y is needed to serve them properly, and that the state constitution requires that increased spending.15 The difficulty with increasing spending for some groups to reach an adequacy standard is that the spending may then become inequitable. With the focus on student achievement and high academic standards, the definition of adequacy has changed from simply providing certain inputs (teacher/s tudent ratio, library books, instruction minutes) to determining what resources are necessary for students to reach their academic potential.16 11 William J. Mathis, How to Analy ze Your States Education Funding System. A Workbook from the Rural School and Community Trust Policy Program, Rural School and Community Trust (Washington DC, 2001): 38. 12 Eric A. Hanushek, A Jaundiced View of Adequacy in School Finance Reform, Educational Policy 8, no. 4 (1994): 466 13 Ibid. 14 Jennifer Imazeki and Andrew Re shovsky, Financing Adequate Education in Rural Settings, Journal of Education Finance 29, no. 1 (2003): 137. 15 Minorini and Sugarman, 47. 16 Education Commission of the States, Determining the Cost of a Basic or Core Education, 1999: 1. Retrieved July 2005 from www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/13/18//1318.htm

PAGE 27

27 By 2001, 49 states had some form of state testing program, with about two-thirds of the states using a high-stakes school accountability model. About half the states have tests for student graduation or promotion. The argument for adequate financial support became simplified: The state has the obligati on to provide adequate funding to enable all students and schools to reach the goals mandated by the state.17 In most states, the systems of school finan ce in place today do not explicitly link the availability of funds and the educational performance of stud ents. Instead, school financing systems focus on equalizing property tax base s and per pupil expend itures across school districts.18 Since high performance is now expected of all students, more court cases are coming forward to tackle this di screpancy in the finance systems.19 Costs are higher in some districts than others largely because more resources are required to educate some students compared to ot hers and because some di stricts will have to pay more money than other districts to attract high-quality teachers.20 Most states determine funding to school districts using a foundation formula.21 In order to assure that a state is providing an adequate educati on, it needs to design a formula where the foundation level of spending varies according to differences in costs across districts and where the average foundation level equals the dollar amount neces sary to meet the performance standards associated with educational adequacy in districts with average costs.22 For school funding 17 Mathis, How to Analyze, 38. 18 Reschovsky and Imazeki, 374. 19 See e.g. Claremont School District v. Governor 703 A.2d 1353 (N.H. 1997); DeRolph v. State 79 Oh.St.3d 297, 1997; Leandro v. State 472 S.E.2d 11(N.C. 1996); Campaign for Fiscal Equity v. State of NewYork 86 N.Y.2d 307, (N.Y. 1995); Campbell v. State 907 P.2d 1238, (Wyo. 1995 ); McDuffy v. Secretary of the Executive Office of Education 615 N.E.2d 516 (Mass. 1993); Alabama Coalition for Equity v. Hunt Op. of the Justices 624 So. 2d 107 (Ala. 1993); Tennessee Small Sch. System. v. McWherter 851 S.W.2d 139, 141 (Tenn. 1993); Abbott v. Burke 575 A.2d 359, 363 (N.J. 1990). 20 Reschovsky and Imazeki, 375. 21 Ibid, 390. 22 Ibid, 391.

PAGE 28

28 formulas, poverty weights nationally average around 17 percent additional money.23 While Mathis did not cite the specific adequacy stud ies, he stated that recent adequacy work demonstrates that categorical weights for poverty and at-risk and non-English language students are far less than what is needed if we are seri ous about all students performing up to standard.24 Verstegen opines the reasons why America has shifted from equity concerns to adequacy concerns. Over the past several decades, all states have developed curriculum standards defining the knowledge, skills, and content students should know at various stages of their education. These standards generally call for a rigorous, high quality education program for all students, not a minimum or basic educ ation. Likewise, recent high court decisions overturning state aid systems have also interpreted state consti tutions as requiring a high level of education necessary to enable a child to be an effective citizen and competitor in the labor market of the 21st (sic) century.25 Court Cases: Adequacy Adequacy challenges have focused on whet her the am ount of money appropriated for public education in general is enough to meet the costs of providing the standard guaranteed in the state constitution.26 Whether plaintiffs are successful in court depends in part on the verbiage in a states constitution. In states wh ere education is defined as providing a minimum 23 William J. Mathis, Equity and Adequacy Challenges in Rural Schools and Communities, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Ameri can Education Finance Association (Orlando, FL, 2003): 10. 24 Mathis, Financial Challenges, 132; See e.g. John Auge nblick and John Myers, Calcu lation of the Cost of an Adequate Education in Maryland in 1999-2000 Using Two Different Analytic Approaches, Contracted study for the Maryland Commission on Education Finance, Equity, and Excellence, 2001; John Augenblick, John Myers, Justin Silverstein, and Anne Barkis, Calculation of the Cost of a Suitable Education in Kansas in 2000-2001 Using Two Different Analytic Approaches, Contracted by the Kansas Legislative Coordinating Council, 2002; John Myers and Justin Silverstein, Calcula tion of the Cost of a Suitable Education in Montana in 2001-2002 Using the Professional Judgment Approach, Contr acted by the Montana School Board As sociation, 2002. (This study was an advocacy piece). 25 Verstegen, Financing the New Adequacy, 756. 26 Carolyn D. Herrington and Virginia Weider, Equity, Adequacy and Vouchers: Past and Present School Finance Litigation in Florida, Journal of Education Finance 27, no. 1 (2001): 523.

PAGE 29

29 standard, courts have ruled for the state and its finance system.27 When the courts have ruled against states and declared the school finance system unconstitutional the courts have asserted that a minimum education is not sufficient.28 Adequacy requires the plaintiffs to establish and prove that an adequate education is systematically denied to children.29 The 1990s saw continued development of adequacy-based education funding challenges in state courts, often with success.30 Even if plaintiffs receive a favorable ruling in the courts, the state legislatures were ultimately responsible for changing policy relative to the court ruling. Only with a strong legislative remedy are state legislatures able to meet the goal of educational adequacy, as required by state consti tutions. Without a strong legislative remedy, further litigation may be required to assure th at the goal of educational adequacy is met.31 27 See e.g. Matanuska-Susitna Borough Sch. Dist. v. State 931 P.2d 391 (Alaska 1997); Committee for Educational Rights v. Edgar 672 N.E.2d 1178 (Illinois 1996); School Admin. Dist. No. 1 et al. v. Commissioner 659 A.2d 854 (Maine 1994); Skeen v. State 505 N.W.2d 299 (Minn. 1993); Scott v. Commonwealth 443 S.E.2d 138 (Virginia 1994); Kukor v. Grover 436 N.W.2d 568 (Wisconsin 1989). 28 See e.g. Rose v. Council for Better Education 790 S.W.2d 186 (Kentucky 1989); McDuffy v. Secy of the Exec. of Education 615 N.E.2d 516 (Mass. 1993); Abbott v. Burke 495 A.2d 376 (N.J. 1985); Abbott v. Burke 575 A.2d 359 (NJ 1990); Abbott v. Burke 643 A.2d 575 (NJ 1994); Abbott by Abbott v. Burke 693 A.2d 417 (NJ 1997); DeRolph v. State 677 N.E. 733, 747 (Ohio 1997); DeRolph v. State 728 N.E.2d 993 (Ohio 2000); DeRolph v. State 754 N.E.2d 1184 (Ohio 2001); DeRolph v. State 97 Ohio St.3d 434 (Ohio 2002); Brigham v. State 692 A.2d 384 (Vermont 1997). 29 Mathis, How to Analyze, 41-42; See e.g. McDuffy v. Secy of the Exec. of Education 615 N.E.2d 516 (Mass. 1993); DeRolph v. State 677 N.E. 733, 747 (Ohio 1997); DeRolph v. State 728 N.E.2d 993 (Ohio 2000); DeRolph v. State 754 N.E.2d 1184 (Ohio 2001); DeRolph v. State 97 Ohio St.3d 434 (Ohio 2002); Abbott v. Burke 495 A.2d 376 (NJ 1985); Abbott v. Burke 575 A.2d 359 (NJ 1990); Abbott v. Burke, 643 A.2d 575 (NJ 1994); Abbott by Abbott v. Burke 693 A.2d 417 (NJ 1997); Campbell Co. School Dist. v. State 907 P.2d 1238 (Wyo. 1995); Helena Elementary School District No. 1 v. State 769 P.2d 684 (Montana 1989). 30 Carey, 13; See e.g. McDuffy v. Secretary of Education 615 N.E.2d 516 (Mass. 1993); DeRolph v. State 677 N.E. 733, 747 (Ohio 1997); DeRolph v. State 728 N.E.2d 993 (Ohio 2000); DeRolph v. State 754 N.E.2d 1184 (Ohio 2001); DeRolph v. State 97 Ohio St.3d 434 (Ohio 2002); Campbell Co. School Dist. v. State 907 P.2d 1238 (Wyo. 1995); Claremont School District v. Gregg 635 A.2d 1375 (N.H. 1997); Alabama Coalition for Equity v. Hunt reprinted in Appendix to Opinion of the Justices 624 So.2d 107 (Ala. 1993); Tennessee Small School Systems v. McWherter, 851 S.W.2d 139 (Tenn. 1993); Campaign for Fiscal Equity v. State of New York 86 N.Y.2d 307, (N.Y. 1995); Leandro v. State 472 S.E.2d 11 (N.C. 1996). 31 Lisa R. Fine, Tina P. Hsu, Kristen G. King, and Joshua D. Janow, Education: Federal Rights and Racial Equity, Adequacy, and Standards in K-12 Education, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law (Washington, DC, 2003): 2; See e.g. DeRolph v. State 677 N.E.2d 733 (Ohio 1997); DeRolph v. State 728 N.E.2d 993 (Ohio 2000); DeRolph v. State 754 N.E.2d 1184 (Ohio 2001); DeRolph v. State 786 N.E.2d 60 (Ohio 2003); Abbott v. Burke 495

PAGE 30

30 There are some state high courts that are not wil ling to hear cases based on the states education clauses; instead determining that education issues are best handled by the legislative branches of the state.32 In theory, a states foundation f unding level will be an amount sufficient to guarantee an adequate education to all students; however, this cannot be taken for granted. Several courts have found state foundation levels to be inadequate. Even in a state with a strong commitment to education funding, foundati on funding levels must be frequently reexamined by the legislature or risk becomi ng outdated, that is, the foundation revenue level may no longer reflect a realistic estimate of the cost of providing an adequate education.33 Kentucky is one of many states where oppone nts of local funding for public primary and secondary schools have challenged the constituti onality of the public school finance system.34 A.2d 376 (NJ 1985); Abbott v. Burke, 575 A.2d 359 (NJ 1990); Abbott v. Burke, 643 A.2d 575 (NJ 1994); Abbott by Abbott v. Burke 693 A.2d 417 (NJ 1997); Abbott v. Burke 798 A.2d 602 (N.J. 2002). 32 See e.g. Committee for Educational Rights v. Edgar 672 N.E.2d 1178 (Illinois 1996); Coalition for Adequacy v. Chiles 680 So.2d 400 (Fla. 1996); City of Pawtucket v. Sundlum 662 A.2d 40 (R.I. 1995). 33 John G. Augenblick, John L. Myers, and Amy Berk Anderson, Equity and Adequacy in School Funding, The Future of Children: Financing Schools 7, no. 3 (1997): 65. 34 William N. Evans, Sheila E. Murray, and Robert M. Sc hwab, Schoolhouses, Courthouses, and Statehouses After Serrano, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 16, no. 1 (1997): 11; See Alabama Coalition for Equity v. Hunt reprinted in Appendix to Opinion of the Justices 624 So.2d 107 (Ala. 1993); Roosevelt Elementary School District 66 v. Bishop 877 P.2d 806 (Ariz. 1994); Dupree v. Alma School District 651 S.W.2d 90 (Ark. 1983); Lake View Sch. Dist. v. Huckabee 10 S.W. 3d 892 (Ark. 2000); Lake View Sch. Dist. v. Huckabee, 91 S.W.3d 472 (Ark. 2002); Serrano v. Priest 487 P.2d 1241 (Cal. 1971); Serrano v. Priest 557 P.2d 929 (Cal. 1976); Lujan v. Board of Education, 649 P.2d 1005 (Colo. 1982); Horton v. Meskill, 376 A.2d 359 (Ct. 1977); Sheff v. ONeill 678 A.2d 1267 (Ct. 1996); Rose v. Council for Better Education, Inc., 790 S.W.2d 186 (Ky. 1989); McDuffy v. Secretary of Education 615 N.E.2d 516 (Mass. 1993); Committee for Educational Equality v. State, 878 S.W.2d 446 (Mo. 1994); Helena Elementary School District v. State 769 P.2d 684 (Mont. 1989); Helena Elementary School District v. State, 784 P.2d 412 (Mont. 1990); Claremont School District v. Governor 635 A.2d 1375 (N.H. 1993); Claremont School District v. Governor, 703 A.2d 1353 (N.H. 1997); Claremont School District v. Governor, 794 A.2d 744 (N.H. 2002); Robinson v. Cahill, 303 A.2d 273 (N.J. 1973); Robinson v. Cahill 355 A.2d 129 (N.J. 1976); Abbott v. Burke 575 A.2d 359 (N.J. 1985); Abbott v. Burke 575 A.2d 359 (N.J. 1990); Abbott v. Burke 643 A.2d 575 (N.J. 1994); Abbott v. Burke 693 A.2d 417 (N.J. 1997); Abbott v. Burke 798 A.2d 602 (N.J. 2002); Leandro v. State 488 S.E.2d 249 (N.C. 1997); DeRolph v. State 677 N.E.2d 733 (Ohio 1997); DeRolph v. State 728 N.E.2d 993 (Ohio 2000); DeRolph v. State 754 N.E.2d 1184 (Ohio 2001); DeRolph v. State 786 N.E.2d 60 (Ohio 2003); Tennessee Small School Systems v. McWherter 851 S.W.2d 139 (Tenn. 1993); Tennessee Small School Systems v. McWherter, 894 S.W.2d 734 (Tenn. 1995); Edgewood Independent School District v. Kirby 777 S.W.2d 391 (Tex. 1989); Edgewood Independent School District v. Kirby 804 S.W.2d 491 (Tex 1991); Edgewood Independent School District v. Kirby 826 S.W.2d 489 (Tex. 1992); Edgewood Independent School District v. Kirby 893 S.W.2d 450 (Tex. 1995); Brigham v. State 692 A.2d 384 (Vt. 1997); Seattle School District No. 1 v. State 585 P.2d 71 (Wash. 1978); Pauley v. Kelly 255 S.E.2d 859 (W.Va. 1979); Washakie County School District v. Herschler 606 P.2d 310 (Wyo. 1980); Campbell County School District v. State 907 P.2d 1238 (Wyo. 1995); Matanuska-Susitna Borough

PAGE 31

31 After its ruling on the Rose v. Council for Better Education, Kentucky has been recognized as the model state for school education reform.35 In reaching a decision on adequacy, the court must first determine whether the education cl ause establishes a minimum or an optimal education standard, or something in between.36 In Wyoming37 the constitution was interpreted as only requiring a basic e ducation whereas in Kentucky38 the education sta ndard required was higher than any district was curre ntly providing. Regardless of the litigation theory pursued, the fate of a plaintiffs school fundi ng challenge seems to be determined by whether a court takes a broad or narrow view of the rights bestowed by its st ate constitution.39 Due to court decisions in the following states Alabama,40 New Hampshire,41 North Carolina,42 Ohio,43 Vermont,44 and Wyoming45 the legislatures have tried to define an adequate education. v. State 931 P.2d 391 (Alaska 1997); Coalition for Adequacy and Fairness in School Funding v. Chiles 680 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 1996); McDaniels v. Thomas 285 S.E.2d 156 (Ga. 1981); Thompson v. Engelking 537 P.2d 635 (Idaho 1975); Idaho Schools for Equal Educ. Opportunity v. Evans 850 P.2d 724 (Idaho 1993); Idaho Schools for Equal Educ. Opportunity v. Evans, 976 P.2d 913 (Idaho 1998); Committee for Educational Rights v. Edgar, 672 N.E. 2d 1178 (Ill. 1996); Lewis E. v. Spagnolo 713 N.E. 2d 798 (Ill. 1999); Unified School District v. State, 885 P.2d 1170 (Kan. 1994); Charlet v. State, 713 So.2d 1199 (La. Ct. App. 1998); School Administrative District No. 1 v. Commissioner, 659 A.2d 854 (Me. 1994); Hornbeck v. Somerset Board of Education, 458 A.2d 758 (Md. 1983); Governor v. State Treasurer, 203 N.W.2d 457 (Mich. 1972); Milliken v. Green, 212 N.W.2d 711 (Mich. 1973); East Jackson Public Schools v. State 348 N.W.2d 303 (Mich. 1984); Skeen v. State, 505 N.W.2d 299 (Minn. 1993); Gould v. Orr 506 N.W.2d 349 (Neb. 1993); Levittown School District v. Nyquist, 439 N.E.2d 359 (N.Y. 1982); Campaign for Fiscal Equity v. State 655 N.E.2d 661 (N.Y. 1995); Bismarck Public Schools v. North Dakota 511 N.W.2d 247 (N.D. 1994); Fair School Finance Council v. State 746 P.2d 1135 (Okla. 1987); Olsen v. State, 554 P.2d 139 (Or. 1976); Coalition for Equitable School Funding v. State, 811 P.2d 116 (Or. 1991); Danson v. Casey, 399 A.2d 360 (Pa. 1979); Pennsylvania Association of Rural and Small Schools v. Ridge, 737 A.2d 246 (pa. 1999); City of Pawtucket v. Sundlun 665 A.2d 40 (R.I. 1995); Richland County v. Campbell, 364 S.E.2d 470 (S.C. 1988); Abbeville County School District v. State 515 S.E. 2d 535 (S.C. 1999); Scott v. Commonwealth 443 S.E.2d 138 (Va. 1994); Kukor v. Grover, 436 N.W.2d 568 (Wis. 1989); Vincent v. Voight, 614 N.W.2d 388 (Wis. 2000) 35 Fine, Hsu, King, and Janow, 3. 36 Ibid. 37 Campbell County v. State 907 P.2d 1238 (Wyo. 1995). 38 Rose v. Council for Better Education 790 S.W.2d 186 (Ky. 1989). 39 Minorini and Sugarman, 47. 40 Alabama Coalition for Equity v. Hunt, Op. of the Justices 624 So. 2d 107 (Ala. 1993). 41 Claremont School District v. Governor 635 A. 2d 1375, (N.H. 1997).

PAGE 32

32 It is argued, in many states that the rura l communities cannot generate enough funds to provide an adequate education and since thes e communities do not have political power to influence the legislators, rural school communities have been forced to resolve the inadequacies through litigation.46 In all, courts in ten states have declared state school financing systems unconstitutional because they have not succeeded in providing all students with, in the words of the courts, an adequate education.47 As an overview, the states of Arizona, California, Connecticut, Kentucky, Montana, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming have decl ared that education is a fundamental right under the state constitution. States which have decl ared that education is not a fundamental right include Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, Ore gon, and Pennsylvania.48 42 Leandro v. State 472 S.E.2d 11 (N.C. 1996). 43 DeRolph v. State 677 N.E.2d 733 (Ohio 1997). 44 Brigham v. State of Vermont 692 A.2d 384 (Vt. 1997). 45 Campbell County v. State 907 P.2d 1238 (Wyo. 1995). 46 John Dayton, Rural School Funding Litigation: A Review of Recent Ca ses, Judicial-Legislative Interactions, and Emerging Trends, Journal of Education Finance 29, no. 2 (2003). 47 Michael F. Addonzio, From Fi scal Equity to Educational Adequacy: Lessons from Michigan, Journal of Education Finance 28, no. 4 (2003): 459. See e.g. Claremont School District v. Governor, 703 A.2d 1353 (N.H. 1997); Rose v. Council for Better Education, Inc., 790 S.W.2d 186 (Ky. 1989); McDuffy v. Secretary of Education, 615 N.E.2d 516 (Mass. 1993); Alabama Coalition for Equity v. Hunt reprinted in Appendix to Opinion of the Justices 624 So.2d 107 (Ala. 1993); Abbott v. Burke, 495 A.2d 376 (N.J. 1985); Abbott v. Burke 575 A.2d 359 (N.J. 1990); Abbott v. Burke 643 A.2d 575 (N.J. 1994); Abbott v. Burke 693 A.2d 417 (N.J. 1997); Abbott v. Burke 798 A.2d 602 (N.J. 2002); Campaign for Fiscal Equity v. State 655 N.E.2d 661 (N.Y. 1995); Leandro v. State 488 S.E.2d 249 (N.C. 1997); DeRolph v. State 677 N.E.2d 733 (Ohio 1997); DeRolph v. State 728 N.E.2d 993 (Ohio 2000); DeRolph v. State 754 N.E.2d 1184 (Ohio 2001); DeRolph v. State 786 N.E.2d 60 (Ohio 2003); Tennessee Small School Systems v. McWherter 851 S.W.2d 139 (Tenn. 1993); Campbell County School District v. State 907 P.2d 1238 (Wyo. 1995). 48 R. C. Wood, Educational Finance Law: Constitutional Challenges to State Aid Plans, An Analysis of Strategies, 3d ed. (Dayton, Ohio, Education Law Association, 2007): 54-55.

PAGE 33

33 Defining an Adequate Education Although equity and adequacy have played a si gnificant role in school litigation, there are no universally accepted definitions for either of these words in education funding.49 Even under the tightening federal scruti ny of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, state legislatures retain significant latitude to define the averag e level of desired student outcomes, within the boundaries of their own states constitutiona l requirements regarding public schooling.50 What is missing, both in accumulated state law and in popular consensus, is an overarching view of what constitutes an adequate education and what resources are required to provide it.51 Defining adequacy requires policy and value judgments about which achieving consensus, ultimately, may be more difficult.52 A fundamental flaw in contemporary standard s based ideology, such as No Child Left Behind, is that all children can learn to th e same level within existing resources and within the traditional ways in which school monies are distri buted. Schools may be able to control 25 percent of the va riance in learning but a serious effort to make sure that all children learn to reasonable common achievem ent levels requires an outside-the-school definition of opportunity to learn.53 For both ideological and ease-of-measurement r easons, the definition of adequacy has been reduced primarily to test scores.54 Equity focuses on inputs whereas adequacy focuses on outcomes. Even though there are no universal definitions of equity or adequac y, according to Clune equity means equal and 49 Augenblick, Myers, and Anderson, 63. 50 Bruce D. Baker, The Emerging Shape of Educational Adequacy: From Theoretical Assumptions to Empirical Evidence, Journal of Educational Finance 30, no. 3 (2005): 259. 51 First and DeLuca, 201. 52 Guthrie and Rothstein, 209. 53 Mathis, Equity and Adequacy, 9-10. 54 Mathis, Financial Challenges, 132.

PAGE 34

34 implies that one district or sc hool receives the same amount as another, usually in the same district or state.55 The goal of school finance that is labeled equity is more commonly expressed as equality of educational opportunity This expression recognizes that it is not possible to educate all students to the same level, for they have different preferences and innate abilities. There are many possible definitions of equal educational opportunity, but in practice the concept has been limited to mean assuring e qual dollars per student or assuring enough money to provide comparable programs for st udents when their different needs and the costs of providing them have been taken into account.56 Adequacy refers to resources that are sufficient (or adequate) to achieve some educational result, such as a minimum passing grade on a state achievement test.57 Originally, adequacy was defined in terms of dollars pe r pupil; the foundation leve l of funding was also considered to be the adequate level.58 However, a relationship had not been established between the dollar-pe r-pupil funding and the educa tion the students received. Besides trying to define it in terms of dollars per pupil, scholars have attempted to define it in terms of outcomes. That is, the school system or the state would identify what children should know by graduation. Following the delineation of graduation standards, often by state legislatures, researchers would us e a variety of analytic al tools to determine the number of dollars necessary to provi de the legislated level of education.59 One way to define an adequate education is to accept that whatever a state chooses to define as adequate is adequate since education is a state function.60 Rather than defining adequacy by 55 Clune, The Shift From Equity to Adequacy, 377. 56 Walter I. Garms, James W. Guthrie, and Lawrence Pierce, School Finance and Education Policy: Enhancing Educational Efficiency, Equality, and Choice 2d ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1988): 130. 57 William H. Clune, Educational Adequacy: A Theory and its Remedies, University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 28, no. 3 (1995): 481. 58 First and DeLuca, 190. 59 Ibid, 202. 60 Ibid, 201.

PAGE 35

35 inputs only, more and more stat es are defining adequacy by evaluating how school inputs are producing the outcomes desired.61 Odden and Picus explain a major difference between equity and adequacy. They state Equity implies something about a relative difference, while adequacy implies something about an absolute level. For example, a state system could have base resources distributed quite equally, such as in California and Alabama, but still not be an adequate system. Similarly, one could conceive of a state or education system (perhaps New Jersey when its response to its 1998 court ca se is fully implemented) with substantial differences in resources, but with the lowest -spending districts sti ll spending above some adequacy level.62 Elwood Cubberley provides a definition of adequacy in his 1905 book, School Funds and Their Apportionment He states: The duty of the state is to secure for a ll as high a minimum of good instruction as is possible, but not to reduce all to this minimum; to equalize th e advantages to all as nearly as can be done with the resources at ha nd; to place a premium on those local efforts which will enable communities to rise above the legal minimum as far as possible; and to encourage communities to extend their edu cational energies to new and desirable undertakings.63 William Clune describes the term true adequacy as achieving high minimum outcomes for a defined group of students.64 With true adequac y, all involved state, district, and school must meet standards. The state must suppl y adequate resources, the district must provide support, and the school must implement the improvements to keep the money.65 61 Guthrie and Rothstein, 214. 62 Odden and Picus, 73. 63 Elwood P. Cubberley, School Funds and Their Apportionment (New York City: Teach ers College, Columbia University, 1905): 17. 64 Clune, The Shift from Equity to Adequacy, 384. 65 Ibid, 385.

PAGE 36

36 Guthrie and Rothstein were of the view that governors and legislatur es define adequate by determining how much state revenue is availabl e, or how much additionally they are willing to generate through added taxation.66 In other words adequacy was a political decision (the politicians decided what was adequate) instead of a decision based on students needs. The notion of adequacy is the provisi on of a set of strategies, progra ms, curriculum, and instruction, with appropriate adjustments fo r special-needs students, district s, and schools, and their full financing, that is sufficient to teach students to high standards.67 Equality of educational opportunity and educational adequacy are undeniably linked.68 Equal opportunity must vary depending on an individuals needs. Other terms used to describe different ki nds of adequacy are means-regarding and prospect-regarding.69 Equal dollars spent per pupil is one example of a means-regarding approach to adequacy. This appr oach is only looking at what is being put into education and is not evaluating outcomes. In the prospect-regar ding approach to adequacy the emphasis would switch to the level of educational achievement e xpected of each student before he or she would leave the system.70 Although this definition of adequacy approaches fairness, it is costly, difficult to carry out, and po litically controversial. Adequacy at its fullest poten tial shifts the purpose of equal funding from inputs to outcomes.71 The implication of shifting from i nputs to outcomes goes beyond ensuring equal 66 Guthrie and Rothstein, 211. 67 Odden and Picus, 71-72. 68 First and DeLuca, 212. 69 Ibid. 70 Ibid. 71 Nakib and Herrington, 361.

PAGE 37

37 funding for school districts. Inputs include the le vel of educational service such as resources and the performance standards. Outcomes include ou tputs such as test scor es and graduation rates.72 Outputs can also be the economic return to both the individual and society such as an active, informed citizen. Student outcomes must be equal in order to ensure an adequate education. According to Picus, Designing an adequate school finance system requires three interrelated decisions: identifying an adequate expenditure level for the typical student in the typical district; ensuring that the foundation base has sufficien t adjustments for student needs and price differentials; and making sure that the overall system supports teacher salary levels that are sufficient to recruit and retain the level of teacher quality needed to implement standards-based educational strategies in school sites.73 To achieve adequacy, researchers and policy an alysts need to explic itly address the link between education inputs, processes, and academic achievement, a linkage virtually ignored in the design of finance systems based on w ealth neutrality or equality of funding.74 With the exception of California, all states have increased average per-pupil spending in the last quarter century, and most have increased it dramatically.75 Due to the increased spending, the national adequacy debate can be seen, in part, as an effort to evaluate whether this spending growth has been sufficient and to ensure that the new money is distributed within states in a fashion that will produce desired outcomes.76 The finance reforms of the last three decades, with their (sic) emphasis on the local districts, do not appear to have addressed sufficiently the more fundamental matter of student achievement.77 72 First and DeLuca, 212. 73 Lawrence O Picus, An Evidenced-Based Approach to Sch ool Finance Adequacy in Arkansas, (Sept. 2003): 5. 74 Addonzio, 460. 75 Guthrie and Rothstein, 211. 76 Ibid. 77 Addonizio, 458-459.

PAGE 38

38 Money and Student Achievement In 1966, Jam es Coleman published the Equality of Educational Opportunity survey (referred to as the Coleman Report ). This publication is identified by Michael Heise78 as the starting point for the debate about the correlation between money spent and student achievement. Among the Coleman Reports findings is that school s and their (sic) resour ces have a relatively negligible effect on student achievement after controlling for various student socioeconomic background variables.79 Over the entire 20th century, (sic) real spending per pupilthat is, spending levels adjusted for general inflationhas grown at more than a 3% per year compound rate.80 However, adding money does not necessarily pro duce an adequate education. After examining 187 studies, Hanushek could not fi nd a strong relationship between increased school resources and student achievement.81 In other words, there is little reason to be confident that simply adding more resources to schools as currently constituted will yield performance gains among students.82 The difficulty with adding resources to schools is that the cu rrent organization and incentives of schools do little to ensure that a ny added resources will be used effectively.83 In fact, the spending that schools undertake when they have additional funds generally does not go 78 Michael Heise, State Constitutions, School Finance Litigation, and the Third Wave: From Equity To Adequacy, Temple Law Review 68 (1995): 1166. 79 Ibid. See James S. Coleman et al, Equality of Edu cational Opportunity, (Washington, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Of fice of Education, 1966): 21-22. 80 Hanushek, A Jaundiced View, 462; Eric A. Hanushek, The Impact of Differential Expenditures on School Performance, Educational Researcher 18, no. 4 (1989). 81 Eric A. Hanushek, Assessing the Effects of School Resources on Student Performance: An Update, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 19, no. 2 (1997). 82 Ibid, 148. 83 Ibid, 156.

PAGE 39

39 toward things that enhance student outcomes.84 Hedges, Laine, and Greenwald evaluated the same studies Hanushek did, eliminating those studies that had insignificant results and determined there is evidence of statistically reliable relations between educational resource inputs and school outcomes, and that there is much more evidence of positive relations than of negative relations between resource inputs and outcomes.85 Picus argues that one of the problems with al l of these studies is they dont take into consideration the tremendous similarity with whic h school districts spend the resources available to them.86 Picus states, what we dont know is what the impact on student performance would be if schools or school districts were to drama tically change the way they spend the resources available to them.87 Odden and Picus summarized the resource allocation studies and concluded, if additional education revenues are spent in the same way as current education revenues, student performance increases are unlikely to emerge.88 Educators, social scientists, and courts have been unable to agree on the correlation between educational expenditures and the quality of education.89 Wood summarized the research on money and student achievement. Overall, research on the relationship of moneys expended and student achievement reveals mixed results. The basic research suggests there is a minimal relationship between expenditures and student achievement. Ho wever, those moneys 84 Hanushek, A Jaundiced View, 465. 85 Larry V. Hedges, Richard D. Laine, and Rob Greenwald Does Money Matter? A Meta-Analysis of Studies of the Effects of Differential School Inputs on Student Outcomes, Educational Researcher 23, no. 3 (1994): 11. 86 Lawrence O. Picus, Does Money Matter in Education? A Policymakers Guide, in Selected Papers in School Finance 1995 William J. Fowler, Jr., ed., (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics, 1997): 31. 87 Ibid, 31. 88 Odden and Picus, 281. 89 Molly S. McUsic, The Use of Education Cl auses in School Finance Reform Litigation, Harvard Journal on Legislation, 28 (1991): 316.

PAGE 40

40 spent on direct instruct ional activities yield the most pos itive relationship between student outcomes and moneys expended.90 Methods to Determine the Cost of an Adequate Education Even though levels of spending can be determ ined by state or per pupil, there is lim ited knowledge to answer the question: What funding formula will ensure that adequate money is available in each school to meet the stat es educational goals for all students?91 The goal of adequacy models is to determ ine how much money it takes for all students to reach a certain performance level.92 Adequacy finance models set the stage for creating a link between funding and the performance of the educational system.93 Four methods have been developed to examine this link cost function, successful schools, professional judgment, and evidencebased. Although student performance can be meas ured in various ways, most states rely on standardized exams to measure how effectiv ely a school district improves the academic performance of its students.94 Statistical Modeling/Co st Function Approach One approach is statistical m odeling which is also referred to as the cost function approach. Statistical models show unique power for calculating the added costs of dealing with poverty, bilingual populations and other special populations.95 The cost function approach begins with the specification of an acceptable level of student performance and then uses 90 Wood, 53. 91 Augenblick, Myers, and Anderson, 74. 92 Mathis, Equity and Adequacy, 14. 93 Conley and Picus, 587. 94 Imazeki and Reschovsky, 144. 95 Mathis, Equity and Adequacy, 13.

PAGE 41

41 multiple regression analysis to estimate the dol lar cost of the ingredients (i.e., programs and services) that produced those outcomes.96 A cost function relates data on actual spending in a district to student performance, resource prices, student needs, and other relevant characteristics of districts.97 Reschovsky and Imazeki explain that A cost function provides an estimate of the minimum amount of money necessary to achieve various educational performance goa ls given the characteristics of a school district and its student body, and the prices it must pay for inputs used to provide education. Estimating a cost function allows us to quantify the relationship between per pupil spending, student performance, various student characteristics and the economic, educational, and social char acteristics of school districts.98 Some problems with this approach are that it is complicated and usually looks at one standard for student achievement such as test sc ores. Also, the approach relies on the existence of educational production function.99 The complex statistical an alyses required to make these cost function estimates can be difficult for policy makers to understand, which makes policy makers less inclined to accept the expend iture estimates such models generate.100 Due to the complexity of the cost function model, no state has based their model exclusively on the results of statistical mode ling analyses. A statistical study for New York City found f unding for the schools needed to be two to three times what the state average was currently funding.101 Reschovsky and Imazeki estimated 96 Addonzio, 460-461. 97 William Duncombe, Estimating the Cost of an Adequate Education in New York, Center for Policy Research (Syracuse University, NY, 2002): 5. 98 Reschovsky and Imazeki, 379. 99 Addonzio 461. 100 Conley and Picus, 589. 101 Guthrie and Rothstein, 227; See William D. Duncombe and John M. Yinger, Performance Standards and Educational Cost Indexes: You Cant Have One Without the Other, in Equity and Adequacy in Education Finance, Helen F Ladd, Rosemary Chalk, and Janet S. Hansen, ed. (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999): 260297.

PAGE 42

42 cost functions for the states of Te xas (for plaintiffs) and Wisconsin.102 Due to the enormity of the numbers and the variations found when using statistical analysis, Guthrie and Rothstein deduce legislatures will d ecide not to appropriate a dditional funds for schools. Statistical models run cost functions to determine how much money it takes to achieve a certain average test score under certain schoo l and demographic circumstances. As these circumstances change from one community to another, the formula adapts the costs accordingly.103 It is particularly important in estimating cost models to adequately control for efficiency differences across districts, because th e cost function results can be sensitive to what efficiency factors are included.104 A district is said to be inefficient if it spends more on education than other districts with the same performance and the same educational costs.105 Statistical models have shown that varying amounts of funds should be ap propriated to different districts depending on the populations they serve whic h are beneficial for rural schools. This has been a difficult concept for legislators to accept. Empirical Observation Approach/Su ccessfu l Schools/District Model A second approach is empirical observation. This approach determines a level of acceptable pupil performance or proficiency specifi ed as adequate, and then identifies school districts or schools which ach ieve the desired goals.106 After identifying the districts that are adequate, this approach determines how much th ese districts are spending. This method entails 102 Reschovsky and Imazeki, 2001. 103 Mathis, Equity and Adequacy, 12. 104 Duncombe, Estimating the Cost of an Adequate Education in New York. Working Paper no. 44, (Feb. 2002): 9. 105 Duncombe and Yinger, 275. 106 Guthrie and Rothstein, 224.

PAGE 43

43 eliminating outlier districts such as small rural or large city districts107 which may have particularly high per pupil pr operty values or income.108 Although this method removes the outlier districts, it still ma y lead to overfunding because it may include districts that are producing adequate results inefficiently.109 This approach can adjust for differences in higher needs districts or students110 and can take into account more than one measure of student achievement. However, it does not control for the differences in students socioeconomic backgrounds.111 Although this model has been used to estimat e adequacy levels in a number of states, some argue that it is subject to considerab le manipulation by policy makers. The types of adjustments needed for varying pupil and distri ct characteristics are one potential source of bias that could result in underfunding or overfunding differen t types of districts. As conceived, the model calls for using the weight ed average of all the expenditures of the districts meeting the performance benchmark to determine the adequacy level. Some policy makers, however, have suggested using th e average of only the bo ttom half of that sample, using an unweighted average, or ev en using the value of just the lowest expenditure district in the samplestrategie s that drive down the costs of adequacy but may obscure the true costs of providi ng an adequate education statewide.112 Neither this approach nor the cost function approach indicates how funds distributed to school districts would be us ed at the school level.113 Although this statement is true, researchers do not explain how any models meet this concern. Also, this approach assumes that differences in funding correlate to variations in performance. In a state like Florida where district expenditures are similar th is technique could not be useful. 107 Conley and Picus. 108 Duncombe, Estimating the Cost of an Adequate Education in New York, 9. 109 Guthrie and Rothstein, 224. 110 Duncombe, Estimating the Cost of an Adequate Education in New York, 9. 111 Addonzio, 461 112 Conley and Picus, 589-590. 113 Ibid, 590.

PAGE 44

44 The empirical observation approach is cu rrently referred to as the successful schools/district model. For the successful school district approach, researchers or policymakers identify districts that have met state perfor mance standards based on state tests. Spending levels in those districts are used to calculate a base cost for adequate spending per pupil-the costs of serving a student with no speci al needs. Adjustments for stude nt and district characteristics are then made.114 When states have defined objectives and benchmarks and districts can be identified that meet them on the basis of acceptable criteria,115 the successful school district approach is most useful. Professional Judgment Approach Professional judgm ent is a third approach. Th is method asks profe ssional educators what resources are needed for an adequate education. This method has also been referred to as the expert design approach and has been called the resource cost model (RCM). Under the professional judgment approach, the state convenes teams of education experts who independently identify the educational resource s needed to create schools in which educators have confidence that most of the students in the school will be able to m eet the state-established performance goals.116 A variation that has been used for the professional judgment approach is to survey principals on different parameters to determine adequate inputs. Survey results are then shared with the professional judgment panels. Then the cost of the resources is configured 114 Lawrence O. Picus and Leslie Blair, S chool Finance Adequacy: The State Role, Insights on Education Policy, Practice, and Research no. 16 (March 2004): 4. 115 Augenblick, Palaich and Associates, Inc., Calculation of the Cost of an Adequate Education in Tennessee in 2001-02 using the Professional Judgm ent Approach and the Successful Sch ool District Approach, (December 2003): II-4. 116 Conley and Picus, 591.

PAGE 45

45 to ascertain the adequate cost for a school. The se figures are adjusted on the basis of student and district characteristics as we ll as educational price differences.117 A statewide testing system is not necessary for the professional judgment approach. Therefore, when professional judgment pane ls convene to identify resources needed, no achievement data from the state are utilized. If achievement data were used, then more valid observations could be made. Using this approach may be difficult because it may be hard for educators to come to a consensus. Also, much less attention is paid under the RCM approach to additional resources required to address different student needs.118 Additionally, this approach assumes there is one best way to deliver a service and increases the likelihood that the legislature will be interested in closely exam ining how districts actua lly spend state funds.119 There is no objective method of indicating what resources are required for an adequate level of student performance.120 Although adjustments can be made for cost of living differences across districts, the professional judgment m odel assumes that conditions, environment, and circumstances in the prototype district linearly generalize to all rural districts or schools.121 Creating a prototype rural school would better reflect what rural districts need. Many researchers that use th e professional judgment approach acknowledge that one prototype school for an entire st ate is unrealistic and therefore create several professional judgment panels. An example of the prototype schools created might be elementary, middle, and high school divided into sizes sma ll, moderate, large, and very larg e. In their Kansas adequacy 117 Ibid. 118 Duncombe, Estimating the Cost of an Adequate Education in New York, 9. 119 Augenblick, Myers, and Anderson, 75. 120 Hanushek, The Impact of Differential Expenditures, 154. 121 Mathis, Equity and Adequacy, 11.

PAGE 46

46 study, Augenblick and Myers describe many shor tcomings of the professional judgment approach. The professional judgment approach assumes th at people can be reasonably precise in specifying the resources schools need if they are expected to meet a particular set of objectives, however our experience contradict s that assumption. If for example, the expectations were to change slightly, peopl e would have a difficult time modifying their resource recommendations accordingly. Also, our experience suggests that people tend to overestimate the resources schools need. In pa rt, this is because people believe schools should meet broader objectives than those defined by state accountability systems and, in part, it is because panel partic ipants tend to avoid being Mach iavellian (that is, they want to serve the needs of all students even when doing so is not necessary to meet state objectives). Therefore, the professional j udgment approach may yield a figure that is somewhat higher than what is necessary, which reflects the fact that people have identified more resources than are actually required for schools with particular characteristics to fulfill the objectives specified. The only way to improve the precision of the estimates would be to run a series of experiments under which schools with exactly those characteristics are given different levels of resources and evaluated in regard to how well they accomplish the objectives contro lling for a wide variety of other factors that might influence the outcome such as the quality of person nel or leadership.122 Whole-School Design/Evidence-Based Approach A whole-school design is a fourth approach. This m ethod identifies a program or design that produces high student achievement for all st udents and each district or school would then be allocated sufficient funds to implement the design.123 This model takes research findings that describe a high-performance school or a co mprehensive school design, identifies all the elements needed to implement the designs educa tional strategies, calculates a cost for each of those elements, and then uses that figure to determine an adequate spending base for each school.124 122 John Augenblick, John Myers, Justin Silverstein, and Anne Barkis, Calculation of the Cost of a Suitable Education in Kansas in 2000-2001 using Two Different Analytical Approaches, (May 2002): VI-1-2 123 Addonzio, 462 124 Conley and Picus, 590. Examples of some comprehensive school programs included The Comer School Development Program by Dr. James Comer, the Core Knowledge Reform Program The Coalition of Essential Schools Model and Success for All

PAGE 47

47 A significant funding source for Comprehensive School Reform programs has been Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.125 In 2002, the U.S. Department of Education identified eleven components of a comprehensive reform program: (1) employs proven strategies and proven methods for student learning, teaching, and school management that are based on scientif ically based research and effective practices and have been replicated successfully in schools; (2) integrates a comprehensive design for effective school functioning, including instruction, assessment, classroom manageme nt, professional development, parental involvement, and school management, that aligns the school's curriculum, technology, and professional development into a compre hensive school reform plan for schoolwide change designed to enable all students to meet challenging State content and student academic achievement standards and addre sses needs identified through a school needs assessment; (3) provides high quality and continuous teacher and staff professional development; (4) includes measurable goals for student academic achievement and bench-marks for meeting such goals; (5) is supported by teachers, pr incipals, administrators, school personnel staff, and other professional staff; (6) provides support for teachers, principals administrators, and other school staff; (7) provides for the meaningful involvement of parents and the local community in planning, implementing, and evaluating school improvement activities consistent with section 1118; (8) uses high quality external technical s upport and assistance from an entity that has experience and expertise in schoolwide reform and improvement, which may include an institution of higher education; (9) includes a plan for the annual evaluation of the implementation of school reforms and the student results achieved; (10) identifies other resources, including Federal, State, local and private resources, that shall be used to coordinate services that will support and sust ain the comprehensive school reform effort; and 125 Geoffrey D. Borman, Gina M. Hewes, Laura T. Overman, and Shelly Brown, Comprehensive School Reform Achievement: A Meta-Analysis, Review of Educational Research 73, no. 2 (2003): 127.

PAGE 48

48 (11)(A) has been found, through sc ientifically based research to significantly improve the academic achievement of students participati ng in such program as compared to students in schools who have not partic ipated in such program; or (B) has been found to have strong evidence th at such program will significantly improve the academic achievement of participating children.126 An advantage of the whole sc hool design approach is that it uses research and links strategies to student performance. The majo r shortcoming in applying this model to rural schools is that high performing schools typically come from suburban communities with welleducated parents and very different demographics.127 The whole-school design method is currently re ferred to as the evidence-based approach. As used today, the evidence-based approach relie s on current educational research to identify the resources needed for a prototypical sc hool to meet a states student performance benchmarks.128 Then the costs of the prototypical school designs are estimated and applied to the actual schools in that state.129 Adjustments are also made for special groups of students such as limited English, low income, and special education. Mathis opines regardl ess of the method used, recent adequacy work demonstrates that categorical weights for poverty, at-risk, and non-English language learners are very much below what is needed if we are serious abou t all students performing up to standard.130 Augenblick and Myers sum up some of the issues experts have about the four adequacy approaches. 126 Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 20 U.S.C. 6516. 127 Mathis, Equity and Adequacy, 12. 128 Lawrence O. Picus and Leslie Blair, S chool Finance Adequacy: The State Role, Insights on Educational Policy, Practice, and Research no. 16 (2004): 4-5. 129 Ibid, 5. 130 Mathis, Equity and Adequacy, 14; See John Augenblic k and John Myers, Calcula tion of the Cost of an Adequate Education in Maryland in 1999-2000 Using Two Different Analytic Approaches, Contracted study for the Maryland Commission on Education Finance, Equity, and Excellence, 2001; John Augenblick, John Myers, Justin Silverstein, and Anne Barkis, Calculation of the Cost of a Suitable Education in Kansas in 2000-2001 Using

PAGE 49

49 None of these approaches are immune from manipulation; that is, each is subject to tinkering on the part of users that might ch ange results. In add ition, it is not known at this point whether they would produce similar results if used under the same circumstances (in the same state, at the same time, with similar data). In fact, there is some speculation that the successful school district approach and the comprehensive school reform approach produce lower cost s than the professional judgement (sic) approach or the statistical approach. Regardless of these shortcomings, each approach represents an attempt to rationally determine the parameters that drive the allocation of state aid, and the use of any of the approaches raises the le vel of discussion about school finance adequacy.131 States and Adequacy Duncom be asserts that states should use a performance foundati on formula where the state first identifies a minimum le vel of student achievement and then calculates what it would cost to reach this standard because a trad itional foundation formula will generally not be successful in raising student performance in al l districts up to an adequate level unless the minimum spending level is set very high or the adequacy standard is set very low.132 When creating the standards, st ates need to realize that costs increase exponentially as outcome standards increase.133 Michael Addonzio chose to examine Michig ans urban school di stricts using the exemplary district approach. He was not commissioned by the Michigan Legislature to conduct his study. He chose the urban schoo ls in Michigan due to the per centage of those students who performed poorly on the stat ewide test. He identified an urban district that had been able to raise student achievement. Then he utilized a formula that he created to reach a rough estimate of the Two Different Analytic Approaches, Contracted by the Kansas Legislative Coordinating Council, 2002; John Myers and Justin Silverstein, Calcula tion of the Cost of a Suitable Education in Montana in 2001-2002 Using the Professional Judgment Approach, Contr acted by the Montana School Board As sociation, 2002. (This study is an advocacy piece.) 131 John Augenblick and John Myers, Calculation of the Cost of an Adequate Education in Colorado using the Professional Judgment and the Successful School District Approaches, Jan. 2003, p. II-5. 132 Duncombe, Estimating the Cost of an Adequate Education in New York, 9. 133 Baker, The Emerging Shape, 277.

PAGE 50

50 added cost of raising all of th e urban districts to the achieveme nt levels demonstrated by an exemplary or target district.134 With Addonzios formula, each district would be guaranteed per pupil revenue to that of the exemplary district, adjusted fo r a simple proxy of educational need, the proportion of children fr om low-income households, and for the cost of educational resources.135 What Addonzio found was that choosing the targ et district can greatly impact the cost of an adequate education. He se lected two different urban benchmark districts to show the difference in cost per district when an efficien t district is used as the benchmark district compared to an inefficient district. Th e difference in cost was $23.8 million. Addonzio concluded that educational adequacy, even when loosely defined as providing an opportunity for all children to learn at high levels of achievement, remains elusive in Michigan.136 State Adequacy Studies There is not and probably will never be a single standard that applies across states as the absolute cost of an adequate education,137 but different methods/formulas have been used in some states and by various researchers to try a nd compute the cost of an adequate education. There are many adequacy studies that have been conducted over the past ten years. In some states this work has been sponsored by state legi slatures while in others it has been undertaken by Governors, state education agencies, or coalitions of educators. In some cases, cost analysis is required as a result of litigation.138 134 Addonzio, 476. 135 Ibid, 477. 136 Ibid, 483. 137 Baker, The Emerging Shape, 259. 138 John Augenblick, Robert Palaich, et al., Calculation of the Cost of an Adequate Education in North Dakota in 2002-2003 using the Professional Judgement (sic) Approach, I-2.

PAGE 51

51 Many advocacy groups are funding adequacy stud ies and presenting the organizations as education interest groups. In reality, no organization is a public in terest group. Hanushek explains that most adequacy studies are cont racted for by parties interested in increasing spending for education (including teachers unions, state department s of education, and litigants), although they sometimes involve defensive reactions of parties trying to ne utralize a rival costing out study that calls for la rge increases in spending.139 Many of the advocacy groups used the differe nt methods discussed in the previous section to determine what an adequate education would cost. About half of the adequacy studies conducted were commissioned by a state legislature. Augenblick and Associates have conducted many adequacy studies of which more than half of these studies were no t commissioned by state legislatures. No studies of Augenblicks have been publishe d and are highly proprietary. The literature exists as found in thes e studies but doesnt ex ist in a scholarly manner and as a result these independent studies cannot be judged. There is some validity to Augenblicks studies but there are many weaknesses of his professional judgment studies. Af ter reviewing all of Augenblicks professional judgment studies it becomes apparent that there is not one set protocol utilized. For example, the number of prototype schools Augenblick creates varies from three to six. In most of his studies, he does not adjust for urban or rural schools but in his Connecticut study he does give a weight for ur ban schools. Adjusting for childr en in poverty is something he does in most of his studies but he does it differe ntly for each study. For instance, in Connecticut he used percentages for the di fferent sized districts and for other states he used actual 139 Eric A. Hanushek, Science Violated: Spending Projections and the Costing Out of an Adequate Education, in Courting Failure: How School Finance Lawsuits Exploit Judges Good Intentions and Harm Our Children Eric A. Hanushek, ed. (Stanford: Education Next Books, 2006): 258.

PAGE 52

52 percentages from the districts. Augenblick recommended adjusting for cost of living in some of his studies but most of his studies he did not approach the topic or he suggested the legislature assign a committee to determine the adjustment. When Augenblick completes a study with di fferent adequacy methods, the professional judgment approach consistently produces the highes t projected expenditures. This is mainly due to the design of his studies which gathers teacher s together in a room to discuss what resources are needed for students to achieve certain state standards. Al so, simply increasing funding for schools does not guarantee higher achievement because there is not a linear relationship. In sum, there are huge limitations to Augenblicks studies. In their adequacy report for the state of Ca lifornia, American Institutes for Research (AIR) proposed a list of st andards to evaluate any professional judgment study. 1. Transparency Transparency is the primary advantage attributed to the professional judgment method for estimating adequacy. Therefore, the entire process conducted should be explicit so that policy makers and others can consider the validity of each aspect of their recommendations as well as the overall quality of its outcomes. 2. Qualifications of Participants Participants should be professional educators recognized as highly competent who are experienced in allocating resources and producing highquality student outcomes. 3. Potential Conflict of Interest To the extent possible, participants should be free of conflicts of interest. To the extent that they have potential conflicts, these should be made explicit. 4. Reliability Multiple groups of similar expert educators should complete identical exercises to enhance the reliability of the process. 5. Records for Replicability Sufficient records of the process should be reported to allow others to replicate it. 6. Pricing Prices used to estimate resource costs (e.g., teachers salaries) should be based on prevailing market prices or result from rigorous economic analysis.140 140 Jay Chambers, Jesse Levin, and Danielle DeLancey, Efficiency and Adequacy in California School Finance: A Professional Judgment Approach, (Dec. 2006): 13.

PAGE 53

53 Table 2-1 outlines the state adequacy st udies conducted, the year the study was completed, the primary researchers of the study, who funded each st udy, and if the funding received was from an advocacy group. This tabl e is located at the end of chapter 2. After reviewing the table, th e conclusion can be made that many adequacy studies are conducted for advocacy organizations that have th eir own political agenda s. It is rare to find these studies in peer-reviewed literature. Educa tion finance policy in the United St ates is highly influenced by a model that has yet to withstand pe er review and is not fully deve loped. Some of the researchers in the later adequacy studies conducted have adva nced their methodology to create more reliable and valid results. For example, using multiple methodologies for one study,141 conducting surveys prior to the study and having multiple groups work independently.142 However, many researchers continued to complete their studies similar to the way they had conducted them in earlier studies.143 Summaries of State Adequacy Studies Massachusetts (July 1991) The Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education (MBAE) was created in 1988 by a group of business activists who were concerned about the education being provided in the Massachusetts public schools. In 1991, the MBAE released a report that called for m any changes to the public school educ ation and financing system. The purpose of the report was to place before the public and other in terested parties the agenda for systemic reform distilled by 141 R.C. Wood & Associates, State of Rhode Is land Education Adequacy Study, (March 2007). 142 American Institutes for Research (AIR), An Indepe ndent Comprehensive Study of the New Mexico Public School Funding Formula, Volume I Final Report, (Jan. 2008). 143 See John Augenblick, Amanda Brown, Dale DeCesare, John Myers, and Justin Silverstein, Estimating the Cost of an Adequate Education in South Dakota, (January 2006).

PAGE 54

54 MBAE from over two years of investigation and assessment.144 Some of the main recommendations in the report included refo rming the education finance system, creating outcome oriented goals developed by the state, designing performance measures for schools with rewards and sanctions for meeting/not meeting th e goals, providing preschool education for all threeand four-year olds, establishing a parent outreach program, extending school time, allowing school based management, improvi ng the teacher workforce, establishing a Commission on Regulatory Relief in Education, and restructuri ng the State Department of Education. In order to meet the demands of their main recommendations MBAE sought to answer two questions : How much should be spent to assure an adequate, quality education? Then: How should these expenditures be financed?145 To answer the above questions, the MBAE committee held discussions with school superintendents and created the foundation budget after independently reviewing the superintendents recommendations. The committ ees suggested staffing included: an average class size for elementary school at twenty-two students, for bilingual students the average class size would be fifteen, for middl e school staffing, 100 students would be clustered for four teachers, and for high school an average class si ze would be eighteen. The foundation budget is built on the assumption that the number of children assigned to special education programs (on a full-time equivalent, or F TE, basis) would equal 3.5 percent of the student body.146 After the staffing recommendations, the comm ittee outlined how they configured teacher salaries for the foundation budget. The foundatio n budget uses a standard teacher salary of $37,000 and then applies a wage adjustment factor to configure teacher salaries for each district. 144 Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education, Every Child a Winner, (July, 1991): 3. 145 Ibid, 36. 146 Ibid, D-5.

PAGE 55

55 The estimated per pupil cost was estimated at $4,950 (in 1991 dollars). Included in this estimate are teacher salaries, other salaries, utilities, supplies, maintenance, and insurance. The committee estimated all expenditures for the foundation budget excluding lunch programs and transportation. MBAE estimated that an addi tional $720 million would be needed to meet the foundation level funding they recommend. They envisioned roughly ha lf of the new money will come from increased property taxes and half from increased state aid payments147 which would be phased in over a five year period. Other recommendations included three additional staffing positions be allocated per 100 low income students, funding half-day preschool and full day kindergarten for all low income children, as well as a parent outreach program for low-income parents of one and two year olds, adding extra hours to the school day for all low income children, and extra pay for teaching in inner city schools. These program enhancemen ts bring average per-pupil expenditure statewide to $5,600.148 The committee found on a statewide basis, the foundation and actua l expenditures were almost identical. Of course, the similarity between actual and foundatio n expenditures statewide masks major differences between communities, so me of which spend more than the foundation and some less.149 Several charts were included in the MBAE report to compare the actual spending in specific areas to the recommended foundation spending. 147 Ibid, D-3. 148 Ibid, D-18. 149 Ibid, D-10.

PAGE 56

56 Wyoming (May 1997) The W yoming Legislature needed to create a new school finance syst em as per the ruling in Campbell County School Dist rict v. State of Wyoming.150 Therefore, the Legislature contracted with Management An alysis and Planning Associates (MAP) to conduct an adequacy study. To construct the Cost Based Block Grant M odel, MAP reviewed the educational literature specifically focusing on areas that have finance implications such as school and class size, teacher experience and training, and usi ng technology. Then MAP convened Wyoming education experts and asked them to answer the following question: What in your judgment are key components required to provide effective instruction, to enable students to acquire the prerequisites to enter the University of Wyoming, or to have access to other attractive postsecondary endeavors?"151 MAP also gathered information by using the following strategies: consulting with National Professional Associations, compiling and synthesizing best practices from other states, visiting a representative sa mple of Wyoming school districts, collecting education data from Wyoming districts, and c onsulting with Wyoming state officials and other experts. In order to estimate the costs of the model, MAP used the component market comparison strategy which relies upon current school dist rict spending figures and, where appropriate, infers real costs.152 To estimate teacher salaries, MAP used the statewide mean entry salary on which to build a base teacher salary, rather than the entry salary in the mo st competitive district(s) becau se it is easier to explain the statewide mean entry salary. However, MAP then compared the statewide mean teacher entry salary to the entry-leve l teacher salary in Wyoming's most labor market competitive 150 907 P.2d 1238 (Wyo. 1995). 151 Management Analysis & Planning Associates, A Proposed Costs Based Block Grant Model for Wyoming School Finance, (April 1997): 23. 152 Ibid, 37.

PAGE 57

57 district(s) MAP then increased the above-described base entry salary by folding in academic credits and establishing a seniority st ep schedule. The dollars used for credits and seniority steps were both establishe d by calculating current actual expenditures.153 Capital costs and sources of re venue and taxation were not incl uded in the Cost Based Block Grant Model. The researchers chose to use th e average daily membership (ADM) as the main source of distribution and create d three prototypical schools an elementary, middle, and high school. MAP identified five major component categories for the model personnel, supplies, materials, and equipment, special services, special student characteris tics, and special school, district, and regional conditions. Each prototypical school model is supplied with categories of services and goods deemed by Wyoming experts, research findings, professional standards, and conventional practice to be crucial for the c onduct of instruction.154 For each category, MAP explained how the cost estimates were compute d. For special education students, the Wyoming Legislature currently reimburses 85 percent of actual costs. MAP recommended keeping that procedure for one to two years wh ile at the same time, the stat e should implement procedures that allow tracking special education specific costs to each handicapping condition. When these data were available, MAP recommended adop tion of a modified, census-based formula.155 For limited English proficient students, MAP reco mmended that the program be funded at 1.15 times the number of identified lim ited-English-proficient students.156 For the economically disadvantaged student, MAP reco mmend[ed] that the state provi de additional support for school districts where the number of students who qualify for the federal free lunch program exceeds 153 Ibid, 38. 154 Ibid, 42. 155 Ibid, 51. 156 Ibid, 52.

PAGE 58

58 150 percent of the state average. The model assumes an expenditure of $500 per identified student.157 MAP created a definition for small school s and provided a formula for distributing additional dollars to these schools. MAP also proposed that all of a school district's eligible personnel costs be multiplied by a regional cost-of-living index.158 Since the Wyoming Department of Administration and Information already collects and publishes a semi-annual index of consumer prices for each county of the state,159 MAP recommended using this information for the cost-of-living index but suggested excluding the housing and medical components. MAP did not recommend provi ding districts with the incr eased funds in one year. Instead, MAP recommended increasing the total revenue 10-15 percent each year until districts received the additional, per pupil block grant am ount. Using the three prototype school models, MAP estimated that the cost per pupil for el ementary school was $6,165, for middle school was $6,403, and for high school it was $6,781. In co mparison, per pupil spending in 1996-97 was $5,971. The researchers explained that the purp ose of their study was to design a method to calculate total education costs for the Wyoming Le gislature and therefore the researchers did not provide a total cost for education. They empha sized that they were not recommending an ideal finance formula for the Legislature but instead were providing a model. 157 Ibid. 158 Ibid, 55. 159 Ibid, 56.

PAGE 59

59 Wyomings Adequacy Study and the Courts In 1995, the Supreme Court found Wyoming s education funding system to be inadequate and unconstitutional in Campbell County School Distri ct v. State of Wyoming.160 The Supreme Court mandated that a new system of school finance be developed and should be enacted by July 1, 1997. After this ruling, the stat e contracted with Management Analysis and Planning, Inc. (MAP) to conduct the above-mentioned adequacy study. The findings from the study were used to construct a ne w education funding system. This system was challenged in court in State v. Campbell County School District.161 The Supreme Court found the new funding system wa s capable of meeting the constitutional requirements but required some modifications to the system. The court did find the funding of facilities deficient and required th e Legislature to modify this deficiency. Maine (January 1999) In 1997, the Maine State Legislature requested th e State Board of Education create a committee to conduct an adequacy report. The committee was named the State Board of Education Essential Programs and Services Comm ittee and was asked to identify the resources necessary for all students to achieve Maines Learning Results standards, estimate the cost of the resources, create a procedure to hold schools accountable, and develop a transition plan to implement the committees recommendations. Ther e were seventeen people who served on the committee. The committee used four key sources of information and data to inform it in defining and developing the essential programs and services model for Maine.162 The four key 160 907 P.2d 1238 (Wyo. 1995). 161 32 P.3d 325 (Wyo. 2001). 162 Maine Education Policy Research Institute, Essential Pr ograms and Services: Equity and Adequacy in Funding to Improve Learning for All Children, (Jan. 1999): 8.

PAGE 60

60 sources were empirical information on Maine schools, evidence from existing or proposed models, literature on school resources a nd performance, and expert testimony. The committee created definitions for Essential Programs and Essential Services. Essential Programs are those programs a nd courses Maine schools need to offer all students so that they may meet the Learning Results standards in the eight Learning Results program areas of: a. Career Preparation b. English Language Arts c. Health & Physical Education d. Mathematics e. Modern and Classical Languages f. Science and Technology g. Social Studies h. Visual and Performing Arts Essential Services are those resources and se rvices required to insu re that each Maine student is offered an equita ble opportunity to achieve the Learning Results standards contained in the eigh t essential programs.163 After creating the definition, the committee created three prototype schools, an elementary (K-5) school, a middle (6-8) school, and a secondary (9 -12) school. Then the committee identified resources for the prototype schools and the cost s of the resources. Main areas included FTE personnel (ratio), supplies and equipment, specia lized student populations, specialized services, district services, and special adjustments. The basic foundation per pupil was comput ed to be $4,407 for K-5, $4,543 for 6-8, and $5,081 for 9-12. Weights for special student populations were also configured: special education students 2.1 weighting, Englis h Language Learners (ELL) 1.15 weighting (which would later increase to between 1.3 and 1.6), disadvantaged y outh (free and reduced-pri ced lunch recipients) 1.02 weighting (which would late r increase to 1.15), and K-2 stude nts 1.1 weighting. A pro forma estimate of the total funds needed to im plement the recommendations indicated that an additional $131.5 million over the $1.2 billion spent in 1996-97 would be needed. This is an 163 Ibid, 10.

PAGE 61

61 increase of only a little over 10 percent.164 The committee recognized that such an increase at one time is not feasible and therefore suggested different transitioning programs to implement the increase over time. Oregon (April 1999) The Legislative Council on The Oregon Quality E ducation Model was appointed in 1997 by the Speaker of the Oregon House of Representatives, Lynn R. Lundquist, and char ged with developing The Oregon Quality Education Model This model identifies the fundamental requirements and costs for a quality education designed to meet the high academic standards established in Oregon by the Education Reform Act.165 The Council identified the following as key components of a quality education: The 1991 Oregon Education Act which includes academic cont ent, performance standards, and assessment of student achievement, the seven developmen tal goals identified by the Oregon Board of Education, class size, professional development, dur ation of instruction, a nd operational support. The Legislative Council was comprised of five legislators and eight een citizens, which consisted of business leaders, educators, lawmak ers, and parents. The question the Legislative Council sought to answer was What is a quality education for Oregons students and how much does it cost?166 The council had different work groups researching class size, professional development for teachers and administrators, duration of instruction time, and operational support for over a year to determine the approp riate recommendations for these areas. Five separate work groups were appointed to rese arch and make recommendations for the following areas: special educa tion, education service districts, local versus statewide collective bargaining, regional cost of living differential, and implementation of the model. 164 Ibid, 3. 165 The Oregon Quality Education Model: Relating Funding and Performance, Legislative Council on the Oregon Quality Education Model, Oregon Legislative Assembly, (June 1999): i. 166 Ibid, 25.

PAGE 62

62 The approach used to determine the cost of an adequate education was a modified professional judgment approach. The researchers referred to the method as the prototype schools method. Prototype schools (elementary, middle, a nd high school) were creat ed to determine the cost of an adequate education. The program elements and components were identified by subcommittees during an exhaustive eighteen-month process and were included based on their importance to the schools ove rall instructional program.167 In order to determine the costs for the elements and components, the following five sources were used: 1) Statewide Database Initiative Project results from pilot schools 2) Research on effectiv e educational practices 3) Data from the Oregon Department of Education 4) Data from Oregon education professional associations (e.g., Confederation of Oregon School Administrators Oregon School Employees Association, Oregon Education Association) 5) Experts from Oregon school districts and schools. Th ese sources were used in developing certain assumptions about Prototype Schools and how they should best be organized and funded.168 The model created by the Council did not in clude a compensating factor for poverty or capital costs that would be incurred if the model is fully implemented. The goal for the Prototype Schools is that 90 percent of students in those scho ols achieve the state-mandated standards, with the remaining 10 percent making significant progress to be as near to reaching the standards as possible.169 The Council discussed what full implementation of the model would look like but also provi ded a phased-in implementation plan for the model acknowledging the difficulty of full implementation in one year as well as provide a cost estimate for full and 167 Ibid, 35. 168 Ibid. 169 Ibid, 42.

PAGE 63

63 phased-in implementation. For the full impl ementation plan an additional $572,364,383 would be needed for the 1999-2000 school year. Fo r the phased-in implementation plan $203,172,397 above the governors proposed 1999-2000 budget would be needed. Oregon (January 2000) In October of 1999 Gove rnor John Kitzhaber a nd Superintendent of Public Instruction Stan Bunn jointly appointed the Quality Education Commission to continue the development and refinement of the Quality Education Model. The charge to the Commission was to validate and refine the Model based on input from educators, business leaders, education policy experts, the public, and others, and to make recommendations regarding model developm ent based on research, data, public input, and experience. This report is the culminati on of the past years work by the Quality Education Commission.170 Three prototype schools (elementary, middle, and high school) were created to determine funding similar to the method used when the Qual ity Education Model was originally created. The prototype school approach assumes the school s are operating with fa irly high efficiency and are using research-based best practices.171 Some minor revisions we re made to the original model which include estimating substitute teacher costs to the prototype schools, increasing spending for maintenance, tec hnology, instructional material s, programs for ESL students, changing the number of teacher professional deve lopment days from ten to seven, and adding four training days for principals. Charts ar e provided outlining the schools components that compares the prototype schools with full implem entation to a baseline (current) school. The Commission used an extensive, broad-ba sed review process to examine the Quality Education Model. They received advice from national consultants in school finance and education policy; a special legislative comm ittee; a survey of public opinion; and four expert panels that included business a nd industry leaders, teachers, principals, superintendents, parents, economists, education policy experts, school business managers, school board members, certified public accountants, and representatives of education associations. The panels were separated into the following issue areas: 170 Oregon Quality Education Commission, Oregon Quality Education Model-2000, (January 2000): 1. 171 Ibid, 35.

PAGE 64

64 Perception & Communications (what the public believes and wants) Content & Goals (what research says matters most) Practice & Delivery (what practitioners say works) Resources & Costs (what finance people say is a reasonable cost) The panels and consultants studied the original Quality Education Model for alignment with research-based, best pr actices and with publ ic values regarding Oregons education system.172 In May 2000, the Commission contracted with Nelson to conduc t a poll of Oregon citizens. The purpose of the poll was to dete rmine how Oregonians felt about the education system (positive/negative), what items were consid ered priority for the system, and if they would be willing to fund the additional measures. Af ter researching the lite rature on resources and achievement, the Commission decided not to pres cribe a certain way to use resources but to leave that decision-making to local districts. However, the Commission did recommend certain tangible elements and components such as re ducing class size, incr easing professional development funds, and providing extra time for in struction for those stude nts who are behind. The Commission also recommended certain intangibl e factors that they refer to as quality indicators. The quality indicators that they identified as significan t were teacher quality, teachers who demonstrated they knew how to use e ffective instructional programs and methods, leadership that facilitated stude nt learning, parent and community involvement, students ready to learn the appropriate curriculum at each grade le vel, teacher efficacy, professional development program for teachers that focused on improving student learning, safe and orderly learning environment, using school based data analysis to plan instruction, student connectedness, organizational adaptability, and policies of the school di strict that supported high expectations. The Commission presented evidence of why each in tangible factor was important and gave each factor a rating of high or moderate as to the impact it would have on student learning. 172 Ibid, 11.

PAGE 65

65 Charts were provided that compare the base line (current) school funding to the fully implemented prototype schools. More resources for ESL students were added to the original model. For each prototype a cost per student a nd a cost per weighted average daily membership (ADMw) are configured. For the elementary sc hool prototype, the tota l cost per student was $6,472 and the total cost per ADMw was $5,448. Fo r middle school the cost per student was $6,538 and the total cost per ADMw was $5,442 and for high school the cost was $6,650 and the total cost per ADMw was $5,615. In summary, th e Commission found the State School Fund resources required to implement the Commi ssions Phase-in Recommendation in the 2001-03 biennium are $250 million above the amount needed to maintain the same level of services provided in 1999-01, but $722 million below the level needed to fully implement the Quality Education Model.173 Illinois (June 2001) In June 2001, Augenblick and Myers, Inc. (A &M) prepared an adequacy report for the Illinois Education Funding Advisory Board (EFAB) under contract with the Illinois Department of Revenue.174 The purpose of the study was to estimate a base cost that could be used in Illinois state aid formula as well as determine wh at adjustments were needed in the formula for at-risk students. The successful school (district) approach wa s used for the study because EFAB preferred this method. There were two other gr oups involved in the ad equacy study. The Education Commission of the States (ECS) provide d assistance in determining an adjustment for at-risk students. ECS helped to identify how a se t of states identified as being similar to Illinois 173 Ibid, 58. 174 John Augenblick and John Myers, A Procedure for Calculating a Base Cost Figure and an Adjustment for AtRisk Pupils that Could be Used in the Illinois School Finance System, (June 2001): 1.

PAGE 66

66 are approaching the issue of pr oviding support to at-risk pupils.175 A second group, Fox River Learning, Inc. (FRL) examined th e validity of the tuition charge amount. A&M asked FRL to obtain data from a number of sc hool districts and to evaluate whether the tuition charge truly reflected school district spending for pupils without special needs.176 To select successful school districts, scores from the Illinois Standards Achievement Test (ISAT) of reading, writing, and ma th for grades third, fifth, and eighth were used. Also, for a district to be considered successful, at least 80 percent of the stude nts in the district needed to have taken the test. Test results were used for either a one or two year period. A&M used regression analysis to determine which districts were spending effi ciently and inefficient districts were not used. The base cost for elementary and K-12 school districts was configured to be $4,600. The main estimate for the high school dist ricts was calculated at $7,700. A&M used the Geographic Cost of Educati on Index (GCEI) that was configured by the National Center for Education St atistics (NCES). This index bu ilds on work done to adjust for the differences in the hiring of teachers between di stricts and tries to take into account the other costs that can make supplying education in one di strict more expensive than in another even when the same resources are being used.177 Illinois uses a multi-level factor to provi de additional funding for low income pupils. The factor provides different le vels of support depending on the concentration of low income pupils (provided that the concentration exceeds 20 percent) as determined using 1990 Census figures.178 To determine how to fund at-risk pupil s adequately in Illinois, A&M identified 175 Ibid., 4. 176 Ibid. 177 Ibid, 13. 178 Ibid, 17.

PAGE 67

67 fourteen states that were considered similar to Illinois and evaluated how those states fund at-risk pupils. Then A&M describe the various programs the states have used to pr ovide services to the at-risk population and outlined the costs of the programs. After analyzing the different ways atrisk pupils were funded, A&M concluded that the free/reduced price lunc h count is the best proxy measure since it is based on data that is collected annually and it is not self-reported.179 Depending on the percentage of at-risk stude nts in a school determined how much A&M recommended for spending. If 10 percent of the student population in a school was at-risk, then A&M estimated an additional cost of $1,697 per at-r isk student. If 70 per cent of the population was at-risk, A&M recommended an additional $2,329 per at-risk student. Maryland (June 2001) The New Maryland Education Coalition (M EC), an advocacy group, contracted with Management Analysis & Planning, Inc. (MAP) to conduct a professional judgment adequacy study. A group of twenty-two Maryland educators were selected to participate in the study. Participants included teachers, principals, superintendents, and other district administrators, representing eleven of Marylands twenty-four districts.180 The participants were divided into three teams and worked independently. The t eams were given a descri ption of a hypothetical district reflecting average stat ewide demographics and asked to design a K-12 school program that would provide the described students with specified educational outcomes.181 Each team created an instructional program and then c onfigured a budget using co sts provided by MAP. Teams expressed their confidence that the program s they created would be adequate to reach 179 Ibid, 23. 180 Management Analysis & Planning, Inc., A Professional Judgment Approach to Determining Adequate Education Funding in Maryland, (June 2001): 2. 181 Ibid, 3.

PAGE 68

68 specified outcomes for the average district. However, when teams were provided with a school district with different demographics (i.e. simila r to Baltimore City), two teams chose to modify their instructional programs for the high-poverty districts. Although the teams worked independently many ite ms in their programs were similar. A comparison chart is given in the report as to the program recomme ndations as well as a separate chart outlining the costs c onfigured. For K-12 funding in average schools, Team A recommended spending $9,313 per pupil, whil e Team B recommended $7,461 and Team C recommended $9,215.182 The researchers stressed that ev en though Team A and Team Cs per pupil estimates appear similar, where the money is allocated is very different. The three teams recommended programs such as preschool, extend ed instruction, and small class size for all students. While indeed benefici al for most students, research suggests that these programs may be most effective for disadvantaged students, and therefore the most cost-effective use of resources would involve targeting interventions to these students.183 The researchers compared the estimated cost s that the teams developed to the current spending. For 1999-2000, the average current expenditure per pupil was $7,132. The highest poverty district which is Baltimore City spen t $7,439 per pupil. Compared to actual 1999-2000 operating expenditures, the panels recommended an additional $329 to $2,181 in K-12 average per-pupil fundingStatewide, that amounts to additional K-12 expenditures ranging from roughly $300 million to $1.8 billion.184 Researchers explained that special education was not an area that the panels estimated. Due to the complexity of special education, the researchers believed a separate study would need 182 Ibid, 9. 183 Ibid, 14. 184 Ibid, 17.

PAGE 69

69 to be conducted. Therefore, statewide averages were used for the prototype estimates. The researchers also did not ask the pa nels to analyze the adequacy of funding for LEP students. The panels were asked to create programs for economically disadvantaged students and the results were on average, an additional $285 per pupil which only amounts to 3 percent more than regular per-pupil funding. The rese archers explain this increase to the fact that the panels had already prescribed small class sizes and consid erable resources for the average student and therefore not much more was needed to assist the economically disadvantaged student. Maryland (September 2001) In Septem ber 2001, Augenblick & Myers, In c. (A&M) prepared a report for the Maryland Commission on Education Finance, Equity, and Excellence (the Thornton Commission). A&M conducted an adequacy study th at estimated the base cost per student using the professional judgment approach and the succe ssful schools approach as requested by the Thornton Commission. Using the professional judgment approa ch, A&M created seven eightmember teams of educators, two teams for each prototype level of school and a single expert panel.185 A&M met with the seven teams of peop le in order to develop the resources prototype elementary, middle, and high schools would need in order to expect that, given statewide average demographic characteristics, students would be ab le to meet state standards.186 To calculate the per pupil figures, numb ers of things like t echnological equipment or personnel were multiplied by process and then divided by the number of pupils in the prototype school. For the 1999-2000 school year, th e base cost figure for elementary school was $6,726, for middle school was $6,160, and for high school was $6,791. 185 John Augenblick and John Myers, Calculation of the Cost of an Adequate Education in Maryland in 1999-2000 Using Two Different Analytic Approaches (Sept. 2001): 12. 186 Ibid, 2.

PAGE 70

70 In order to implement the successful school approach, the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) identified a to tal of fifty-nine elementary, middle, and high schools that met a set of state standards.187 In total there were 104 schools that met Maryland standards but fifty-nine were selected for time reasons. Using the successful schools approach A&M found the average basic spending for elementary schools to be $6,161, middle schools to be $5,655, and high schools to be $5,910.188 A&M also surveyed the 59 successful schools to determine if additional money was received through donations. Due to the large di fference in per pupil figures computed depending on the approach used, A&M provided ratio nale as to why the approaches in different states or even in the same state produced different base cost figures. They explained that states can view the base cost associated with the successful school approach as a floor and the base cost associated with the prof essional judgment approach as a ceiling.189 The Thornton Commission reque sted additional funding to th e Maryland Senate relying heavily on the recommendations from A&Ms successful schools findings. In 2002, the Maryland Senate passed a bill to implement the recommendations of the Thornton Commission. Some of the additional funding needed was provi ded through a sales tax increase. The other $1.3 billion was approved through the Maryland Legislat ure to be phased in ov er a six year period. Wyoming (January 2002) In April 2001, the W yoming Legislature contra cted with MAP to make revisions to the funding model from 1997 due to the S upreme Court ruling on February 23, 2001.190 MAP was 187 Ibid. 188 Ibid, 23. 189 Ibid, 29. 190 State v.Campbell County School District 32 P.3d 325 (Wyo. 2001).

PAGE 71

71 asked to revise the cost estimates since the orig inal estimates were made in 1997. MAP was also asked to modify certain adjustments that the c ourt had found unconstitutional. The areas to be modified were: administrative sala ries, classified wages, vocati onal education, at-risk students, regional cost, small schools, small distri cts, and maintenance and operations. Due to the request of the Court, MAP adjust ed administrator salari es taking into account education, experience, and res ponsibility. MAP recommended ad justing classified employee wages to reflect years of experience by using a rate of 1.2 percent for each year of experience. To determine how much vocational education wa s costing districts, MAP had MPR, who was a subcontractor of MAP, conduct interviews and st udy extensively state and district expenditure data. After the study, MAP concluded there was not sufficient and reliable data to estimate the cost of vocational education. Therefore, MAP recommended the Wyoming Legislature develop program standards for state approved vocationa l programs [and] fund state approved vocational classes with a weighted ADM formula.191 Before the vocational funding could be weighted as recommended, MAP recommended the Wyoming Legislature conduct a comprehensive study of vocational education costs to determine how vocational ADM should be weighted and which courses qualify for vocational funding.192 Finally MAP proposed using a transitional categorical funding program for purchase of quali fying vocational equipment until a cost based vocational student weight is developed.193 MAP proposed to identify at-risk students as those students eligible for free and reducedprice lunch and limited English speaking (LES) students. MAP explained that the original 191 Management Analysis & Planning Associates, Proposed Revisions to the Cost Based Block Grant, (Jan. 2002): 24. 192 Ibid. 193 Ibid.

PAGE 72

72 prototype model assumed average numbers of at -risk students for the state. Therefore, additional funding would be provided as the con centrations of free and reduced-price lunch eligible and limited E nglish speaking students increases in a school.194 MAP explains at the highest levels of concentrati on, each [at-risk] student would ge nerate an amount equal to 25 percent of the consolidated prototype funding level.195 MAP summarizes with an estimated $7,000 per pupil prototypical funding rate, the highest rate of additional fundi ng would be an additional $1,750.196 To meet the Courts ruling, MAP recommends using the unmodified WCLI [Wyoming Cost of Living Index] to adjust statewide average salaries to compensate for regional cost differences [and to] compute adjustment on statewide average costs as base.197 Adopting a new cost based adjustment for schools smaller than the protot ype schools is recommended by MA P and to satisfy the Court, MAP suggests to stop reimbursements for student activities, utilities and food services; but provide cost based funding adjustments for student activitie s and utilities.198 For small districts, MAP created prototypes to demonstrate the pe rsonnel that would be needed to run the small districts. They reco mmend the elimination of the current practice of providing $50,000 to districts with enrollment le ss than 1,350 students and instead use the new cost-based formula they created. For mainte nance and operations, MAP recommends using a 194 Ibid, 26. 195 Ibid. 196 Ibid, 28. 197 Ibid, 29. 198 Ibid, 30.

PAGE 73

73 formula that uses enrollment measured by ADM, building square footage, and number of buildings in the district.199 New York (February 2002) In 2002, W illiam Duncombe prepared a working pape r titled, Estimating the Cost of an Adequate Education in New York for the Center for Policy Research, an advocacy organization. To determine the cost of an adequate education, Duncombe used a cost function approach and cost of education indexes. The objective of this study is to provi de tools to assist the New York State Board of Regents and New York State E ducation Department developing a school finance system designed specifically to help stude nts and districts reach higher standards.200 The performance standards set by the State Board of Regents and the Commissioner of Education were used as the adequacy standard. First Duncombe estimated a teacher wage model201 to determine what districts with different characteristics would ha ve to pay to recruit good teachers. Then Duncombe configured resource cost differences dependi ng on performance of students. Th e efficiency of each district was also examined. A benchmark school district was identified and a spending level to attain a performance standard was estimated. The cost in the benchmark district was adjusted to exhibit the unique characteristics of di fferent school districts. Duncombe configured the cost per pupil using a low standa rd of 140 and the district average of 160. The overall spending level to reach a standard of 140 is over $20 billion, which 199 Ibid, 34. 200 William Duncombe, Estimating the Cost of an Adequate Education in New York. Working Paper no. 44, (2002): 2. 201 Ibid, 8.

PAGE 74

74 compares to spending $13.2 billion in 1999-2000 in these districts.202 When looking at per pupil costs, required per pupil spending to reach th e 140 standard is estimated to be over $15,000 per pupil in New York Cit y, 70 percent above present sp ending levels, and $13,000 per pupil in the Big Four, 30 per cent above present spending.203 The average district cost per pupil to reach the standard of 140 is $8,201 and to reach 160 is $9,532. Duncombe compared the cost function approach estimate to the empirical identification approach and determined the empirical identificati on approach results in higher estimates. In his report, Duncombe discussed cr eating a performance foundation sy stem rather than using the traditional foundation formula. A performance foundation system requires a minimum local tax effort and state aid would be redistributed across different types of dist ricts depending on what the local tax effort generates relative to the predetermined amount needed for an adequate education. Kansas (May 2002) In May 2002, Augenblick & Myers, Inc. (A &M ) prepared for Kansas Legislative Coordinating Council their seven-month adequacy study that calculated th e cost of a suitable education using two different approaches the professional judgment approach and the successful schools approach. Participants in th e study were from A&M, the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), and the Education Commission of the States (ECS). A&M created a definition for an adequate education with the Legislative Education Planning Committee (LEPC) using both input and output measures. 202 Ibid, 17. 203 Ibid.

PAGE 75

75 For the professional judgment method, A&M cr eated four prototyp e school panels, two prototype district panels, and a single expert panel to identif y the resources school districts would need to have in place to meet the states definition of education suitability.204 After the resources had been identified by the panels, A&M estimated the cost of the resources that had been identified. In making its cost estimates, A&M relied heavily on salary figures and benefits rates, using statewide average figures adjusted by school district size.205 The professional judgment approach yielded a base cost of $5,811 per student. To calculate the base cost for the average student using the successf ul schools approach, A&M identified 85 districts that had met the input and output cr iteria created by A&M and the LEPC and configured the average ba se cost per student. The succe ssful school district approach yielded a base cost of $4,547. When comparing the two approaches, th e professional judgment approach base cost is $1,264 per student, or 27.8 percent higher than the successful school district base cost.206 After acknowledging the differences in base cost per student, A&M provided an explanation why the figures vary: in our view, the two figures can be viewed as upper and lower limits within which the true figure probably exists.207 Last, formulas were provided that could be used in Kansas to modi fy the [current] foundation level depending on the number of students in a school district.208 Also, suggested weights for special education, at-risk students, and bilingual students we re given. The weights varied de pending on the school district size. 204 John Augenblick, John Myers, Justin Silverstein, and Anne Barkis, Calculation of the Cost of a Suitable Education in Kansas in 2000-2001 using Two Diffe rent Analytical Approach es, (May 2002): ES-2. 205 Ibid, ES-3. 206 Ibid, VI-1. 207 Ibid, VI-2. 208 Ibid, VII-7.

PAGE 76

76 Wisconsin (June 2002) In June 2002, Jack Norm an prepared a repor t on funding Wisconsins schools adequately for the Institute for Wisconsins Future, an advocacy organization. The researchers first reviewed educational research literature and id entified six resource cate gories that would be examined further. The six categories were cl ass size, school size, e ducational materials, technology, curriculum, and services. The professional judgment approach was used. Panel members were selected based on recommendations from finance researchers and a total of forty-five people participated in the initial planning phase in December 1998. Program s for the model schools were developed using the Wisconsin Model Academic Standards, research from educational literature on best practice, and the backgrounds of the panelists. Then a su rvey was conducted by the Public Policy Forum. The survey was sent to all Wisconsin school prin cipals and a random sample of teachers. "The purpose of the survey was to determine what staffing, technology, curriculum, and equipment resources educators viewed as necessary to meet Wisconsin's educational standards."209 The response rate for the principals was 25 percent and 17 percent for the teachers. In May 1999, the initial panel met again along with five additional members whose area of expertise was special educat ion. Using the initial recommendations, survey information, and new research, final resource recommendations were created. Core resources identified were small schools, small classes, well-trained and well-compensated teachers, broad curriculum, appropriate technology, and special supplemental funding for rural schools. Resource needs for students with special needs was also discusse d. The funding model required full reimbursement to school districts to educate sp ecial education and second language learners. For children in 209 Jack Norman, Funding Our Future: An Adequacy Model for Wisconsin School Finance, (June 2002): 17.

PAGE 77

77 poverty, supplements for teachers and staff, extra tutoring, and summer school were recommended. Staffing recommendations are ou tlined for each model school elementary, middle, and high school. The researchers did not estimate how much additional funding would be needed for each school. Instead, "a foundation level of funds needed for each school district to finance all the recommended components of an adequate education"210 was estimated on a per-pupil basis. Richard Rothstein was contracted to comp lete the costing out of resources. The cost-out begins with the cost of re sources in the school of Omro, in Winnebago County. Rothstein selected Omro as a prot otype because it is re latively close to the statewide medians in a number of basic meas ures. For example, total per-pupil spending in Omro was $9,088, compared with a state median of $8,812; enrollment was 1,253, compared with a state median of 999; 78% of Omro's third graders sc ored proficient or above on the state exam, compared with 82% st atewide; the district included 99 square miles, identical to the state median.211 To apply costs to other school districts, "adjustments were made for estimated differences in regional costs, based on Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development data on average elementary and secondary teache r salaries by metropolitan area."212 The researchers estimated the basic per pupil foundation amount at $8,500. Aft er removing expenses for capital spending, special education, and limited English proficie ncy, the per-pupil average in Wisconsin, for 200001, was $7,300, rounded to the nearest hundred.213 It was estimated that rural schools would need an additional $700 per pupil. For student s eligible for free lunch, the researchers recommended districts receive $3,200 per student. Full reimbursement is recommended for 210 Ibid, 35. 211 Ibid. 212 Ibid. 213 Ibid, 40.

PAGE 78

78 special education and second langua ge students. A special supplement for Wisconsin's 164 rural districts (population less than 1,000 students) was also recommended. A chart is provided that outlines the suggest ed funding for the adequacy model for each school district for the 2000-01 schoo l year and compares that figure to the actual am ount districts spent that year. The difference between total K-12 spending in 2000-01 and what it would cost to give each district the calculated Adequacy level of spending, is an average of $2,705 per pupil. With about 870,000 students statewide, that amounts to an additional annual expense of approximately $2.36 billion, or about 32% (not including capital costs).214 The researchers acknowledged that fully funding the adequacy model was not attainable and therefore they recommended a phasi ng in policy that has the legi slature funding a percentage of the model. Also the researchers outlined three different tax packages th at could help fund the model. Montana (August 2002) In August 2002, Augenblick and Myers, Inc. (A &M) provided an adeq uacy report to the Montana School Board Association (MSBA). The professional judgm ent approach was used for the adequacy study and was conducted over a si x-month period with eighty-three Montana citizens and representatives from A&M. Firs t A&M used both input a nd output measures to define adequacy for Montana. Input measures included staffing numbers dictated by the state and course offerings. Output measures used were test scores. Four pr ototype districts were created as well as a separate elementary district. 214 Ibid, 57.

PAGE 79

79 There were three main panels that partic ipated in the study. The school level panel focused exclusively on estimating the resour ces needed at the pr ototype school sites.215 The school district level panel revie wed the work of the school site panel and estimated the resource needs of the prot otype districts.216 After the school district leve l panel was complete, the expert panel reviewed the work of all of the district panels and made choices regarding the price of resources.217 In 2001-2002, the average base cost per pupil in Montana was $4,471. This compares to base costs for the prototypes of $8,041 for small, $6,751 for moderate, $6,004 for large, $6,048 for very large, and $6,885 for the elementary district.218 When accounting for special education students, at-risk students and Nativ e American students, the panels configured the average total expenditure per pupil for the prototype school s to be: $9,954 for the small K-12 district, $8,992 for the moderate K-12 district, $7,694 for the la rge K-12 district, $7,681 for the very large K-12 district, and $8,720 for the elementary district. In Montana, the average total expenditure per pupil for the 2000-2001 school year was $7,007. One of the biggest resources examined was pe rsonnel and staffing ratios. Other resources examined were non-personnel costs such as pr ofessional development, technology, and supplies as well as other programs like preschool and fu ll-day kindergarten. A&M compared what the panels created for personnel to three other stat es (Indiana, Kansas, and Maryland) who also did 215 John Myers and Justin Silverstein, Calculation of the Cost of a Suitabl e Education in Montana in 2001-2002 Using the Professional Judgment Approach, (August 2002): 8. 216 Ibid. 217 Ibid. 218 Ibid, 23.

PAGE 80

80 professional judgment adequacy studies to determine if the ratios were in a similar range to other states. Montanas Adequacy Study and the Courts After the 2002 Montana study was released a group of plaintiffs filed suit in Columbia Falls Public Schools v. State219 alleging that due to the decl ine in state funding programs and staff were being cut, attracting and retaining teachers was beco ming difficult leading to schools inability to meet state performance standards. Educators who served as panelists for A&Ms professional judgment study testified at the trial and affirmed their belief in the professional judgment results. The District Court ruled in April 2004 that the state was not providing enough to educate Montanas students and when the case was appealed to the Supreme Court, the Court affirmed the lower courts ruling that the cu rrent system was not meeting constitutional obligations. The Montana Legislature then held a special session wher e they increased state funding by ten percent. Plainti ffs requested additional relief a nd filed a motion for a hearing after the 2007 legislative session. Although Judge Sherlock found that the profe ssional judgment approach was superior to the states current method of determining fundi ng, he found that it w ould be inappropriate to rely entirely on a professi onal judgment approach to bui ld a state funding system. In particular, the court found four deficiencies in the professi onal judgment approach: 1) the results cannot be duplicated; 2) the panel members have no incentive to think about tradeoffs; 3) the process requires many panel me mbers to predict in areas outside of their own experience; and 4) the process may be up wardly biased due to self-serving behaviors of any panelist.220 219 109 P.3d 257 (Mont. 2004). 220 David T. Conley and Kathryn C. Rooney, Washington Adequacy Funding Study, (Jan. 2007): 37; See e.g. Columbia Falls Elem. School Dist. No. 6; East Helena Elem. Dist. No. 9; Helena Elem. Dist.No. 1 and H.S. Dist No. 1; Billings Elem. Dist. No. 2 and H.S. Dist No. 2; White Sulphur SpringsElem. Dist. No. 8 and H.S. Dist. No. 8; Troy Elem. Dist. No. 1 and H.S. Dist. No. 1; MEA-MFT;Montana School Boards Association; Montana Rural Education Association; SchoolAdministrators of Montana; Alan & Nancy Nicholson; Gene Jarussi; Peter & Cheryl Marchi; and Michael and Susan Nicosia, for themselves and as parents of their minor children, v. The State of Montana. (Montana First Judicial District Court 2004)

PAGE 81

81 Indiana (September 2002) Augenblick and Myers conducted a seven-m ont h adequacy study for the Indiana State Teachers Association (ISTA). The professional ju dgment model was used for the study at the request of the ISTA. First, Augenblick and Myers worked with th e ISTA and created a definition for an adequate education in Indiana. The groups decided to us e a standard that rated schools commendable or exemplary. This means th at the districts aver age pass (proficiency) rate of students at all grade levels an d for all subject matters is 80 percent.221 The test used for this definition is the Indiana Statewide Tes ting of Educational Progress Plus (ISTEP+). A total of seven panels were created. Th ree school panels con centrated on estimating resources for prototype schools, three dist rict panels reviewed the school panels recommendations and estimated resources for protot ype districts, and one expert panel reviewed the district panels suggestions, discussed reso urce costs, and analyzed cost figures. The following costs were not included in the study tr ansportation, capital, and food services. Three prototype districts (small, average, a nd large) were developed for the study. Small districts were comprised of 1,200 students, av erage districts had 4,230 students, and large districts contained 21,800 students. Then schools were created w ith different proportions of special education students and students eligible fo r free lunch (which researchers referred to as hard-to-serve students). Panels identified resources needed for elementary, middle, and high schools. ISTA selected the individuals to pa rticipate in the panels. Augenblick and Myers requested all participants come from distri cts already reaching above-average performance standards. Fourteen people participated in the school panels and twelve people participated in the district panels. After the school panels and district panels completed their work, the 221 John Augenblick and John Myers, Calculation of the Cost of an Adequate Education in Indiana in 2001-2001 Using the Professional Judgement (sic ) Approach, (Sept. 2002): 8.

PAGE 82

82 researchers estimated the cost of basic services and the added cost of services for students with special needs.222 Then the expert panel was provided the information and made changes to resources and price estimates. The researchers chose to raise Indianas aver age corrected teacher salary to the average for the four neighboring states223 which entailed a 2.34 percent in crease. Per pupil costs were estimated at $7,365 for a small school district, $7,142 for an average size district, and $7,094 for a large school district. Th e current per pupil costs for th e 2001-2002 school were $7,522 for small districts, $8,115 in average districts, and $8 ,273 in large districts. The added cost for students in special education in each school district is $7,522 in a small district, $8,115 in an average sized district, an d $8,273 in a large district.224 In the average size Indiana school district, the extra per student cost of special education is 1.14 as much as base spending.225 The cost per pupil for the hard to serve student in an average size district was estimated at $5,284. The state funds for 2002 include an amount per at-risk child not exceeding $787.226 Colorado (January 2003) In January 2003, Augenblick & Myers, Inc. prepared a seven-m onth adequacy study for the Colorado School Finance Project (CSFP), an advocacy organization. CSFP is a coalition that includes the Colorado Association of School Executives, the Colorado Education Association, and the Colorado School Boards Association (and the Colorado Board of 222 Ibid, 13. 223 Ibid, 18. 224 Ibid, ii. 225 Ibid, 20. 226 Ibid, 23.

PAGE 83

83 Cooperative Education Services, BOCES).227 This study was not funded by the state of Colorado. Two approaches were used, the prof essional judgment approach and the successful school district approach, to determine a base cost figure for educating a student with no special needs. An adequate education in Colorado was defined as one that fulfills a set of Colorado-specific state level input requirements and student performance expectations as well as a set of federal requirements and expectations related to both the reauthorization of the Elementa ry and Secondary School Act of 1965 (Public Law 107-110 known as No Child Left Behind H.R. 1) and IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act).228 Colorado uses a foundation program to distribute funds to school districts. Colorado has an accountability system which primarily focuses on the results from the Colorado Student Assessment Program (CSAP) tests. For the professional judgment approach multiple panels were used. There were school le vel panels, district level panels and an expert panel. Five prototype K-12 districts were used in the study very small, small, moderate, large, and very large. For each size district, costs were es timated for elementary, middle and high schools. After computing the base cost pe r pupil, the researchers found th at the base cost decreases as student enrollment increases, with a minimum level of $6,815; the base co st rises slightly in districts with over 5,200 st udents to a level of $6,951.229 Added costs for students with special needs were also configured. Special educati on students would require about 115 percent more than the base cost, depending on the size of the district, at-risk students would require between 26 and 56 percent more than the base cost, and second language learners would require 51 to 125 percent more than the base cost. 227 John Augenblick and John Myers, Calculation of the Cost of an Adequate Education in Colorado using the Professional Judgment (sic) and the Successful School District Approaches, (Jan. 2003): I-1. 228 Ibid, I-1. 229 Ibid, ES-2.

PAGE 84

84 In order to use the successful school district approach the researchers had to modify the parameters the state had set to be considered su ccessful since no district was currently meeting the requirements. With the modifications, the researchers determined, The base cost would be between $4,768 and $4,845 per student. Given the fact that higher performing districts spend more than lower performing ones, and given how far even the comparatively high performing di stricts are from m eeting evolving state standards, we [the researchers] believe even the best districts will need to spend considerably more in order to fulfill state expectations.230 After doing the study the researchers concluded: (T)hat districts that meet more difficult sta ndards spend more money to do so. Therefore, it may be that the base cost figure produced by the professional judgement (sic) approach slightly overstates the need for funds while the base cost figures associated with the successful school districts a pproach seriously underestim ates the need for funds.231 Kentucky (February 2003) In February 2003, Lawrence O. Picus and Associates prepared for the Kentucky Departm ent of Education an adequacy study. The researchers set out to answer the question of whether the SEEK [Support E ducation Excellence Kentucky] base provides sufficient funding for each school in the state to employ powerful enough educational strategies to meet the states 2014 goals.232 The state-of-the-art approach (also re ferred to as the evidence based approach) was used to determine adequate funding for Ke ntuckys students. The researchers found that the largest increases for an adequate program are for the lowest spending districts while the smallest increases are for th e highest spending district.233 230 Ibid, ES-3. 231 Ibid, VI-2. 232 Lawrence O. Picus and Associates, Allan Odden, Mark Fermanich, A State-of-the-Art Approach to School Finance Adequacy in Kentucky, (Feb. 2003): 3. 233 Ibid, 39.

PAGE 85

85 When comparing increases at th e school levels, the researchers found the state-of-the-art model requires the largest increas es for elementary schools, a nd suggests a small decrease in high school resources.234 The large increase fo r elementary schools can be explained by the recommendation of full day kindergarten compared to the current half da y program and the class size of fifteen in kinderg arten through third grade. Increase s for all school levels were needed for professional development and technology expenditures. To implement the state-of-the -art approach to its schools, spending in Kentucky would need to increase by about $565 million for K-12 students and $175 million for preschool students, or a total of $740 million compared to what it spent on current operating expenditures ($3.9 billion) for the 2001-2002 school year. Th e researchers concluded that the $740 million is a solid estimate of what is needed fo r Kentucky to provide adequate education resources for all of its students in all of its schools to maximize the possibility of the states reaching its 2014 goal of having all st udents perform to the proficiency standards of the states student testing system.235 Kentucky (February 2003) Verstegen conducted an adequacy study for th e Council for Better Educ ation, Inc. (CBE), an advocacy group, to determine the funding levels necessary for different school districts to meet State standards and objectiv es that define an adequate education, using a professional judgment approach.236 An adequate education was defi ned using input and output measures already established by the use of the Commonw ealth Accountability Testing System (CATS), definitions from the Rose court decision, and learner goals created after the Rose decision. 234 Ibid, 42. 235 Ibid, 46. 236 Deborah Verstegen, Calculation of the Cost of an Adequate Education in Kentucky: A Professional Judgment Approach, Education Policy Analysis Archives 12, no. 8. Retrieved May 4, 2007 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n8/.

PAGE 86

86 Seven panels, consisting of Kentucky citizens and educators were created to implement the professional judgment approach. There were three school level panels, which consisted of twenty-three people. The pe ople on the school level panel were assembled from experienced, well-qualified professional e ducators, including teachers, curriculum personnel and administra tors employed in Kentuckys schools. The CBE with assistance from the Kentucky Educat ion Association took the characteristics of the type of professionals that were needed for the school site meetings and secured the people that would be working on the panels.237 The school level panels focused on identifying the resource needs of school sites. There were three prototype districts created small to moderate size, moderate to large, and large to very large. Each prototype district included an elementary school (K-5), a middle school, and a high school. There were three district level panels consisting of school and district educators as well as other personnel. The CBE with the help of the Kentucky School Board Association selected individuals to serve on the panels The district pa nel reviewed the work of the school site panels, changed the resource configurations as needed, reviewed approaches for determining district level costs and made judgments. Di strict budgets were used for reference.238 Finally an expert panel met to bring c onsistency across divergent State resource elements identified by the previous pane ls, and make decisions about prices.239 The individuals who served on the expert panel were invited by the CBE. Charts outlining the specific staff recommended were provided in the study. The researchers chose not to compare the staffing arrangements created by the pane ls to other professi onal judgment studies from other states because the participants from the Kentucky study d id not feel that this would be appropriate due 237 Ibid. 238 Ibid. 239 Ibid.

PAGE 87

87 to different laws, goals, objectives, and standa rds across the States. The commonly expressed view was that Kentucky had high standards and goals that would render comparisons unsuitable and misleading.240 Overall, a total of about $5.199 billion would be needed to address State standards and objectives. In fact, in 2001-02, about $4.102 b illion was available to pay for current operating expenses from Federal, State a nd local revenue. Therefore, the funding gap between existing revenue and the revenue n eeded for current operations is $1.097 billion per year (2001-02).241 Washington (March 2003) This study began in Decem ber 2001 when a meeting was held to discuss the school funding study. There were representatives fr om eighteen agencies, organizations, and universities invited to the meeting. The group decided to use the Oregon Quality Education Model (OQEM) as a template and held a second meeting to gather information from people from the Oregon Department of Education and the Co nfederation of Oregon School Administrators. A third meeting was held with David Conley, w ho was the lead researcher for the OQEM. The Washington participants decided that they w ould create a similar model for the state of Washington. In April 2002, the Rainer Institut e, an advocacy group, referred to as a public policy think tank was selected to co nvene the meetings for the study. The goal of the What Will It Take project is to determine the staff, programs, and materials that must be provided if schools are going to offer a quality education that (1) enables students to meet the standards set in HB 1209, (2) en ables the state of Washington to meet federal standards, and (3 ) is consistent with what Washingtonians want from their schools. The project quantif ies the costs of the resources necessary to achieve those goals and then seeks to determ ine the performance that will result from schools funded to an adequate level. The intent is to provide a yardstick for the investments the state will need to make to ensure that schools can meet state and federal expectations.242 240 Ibid. 241 Ibid. 242 David Conley and William Freund, What Will It Take? Defining a Quality Education in Washington and a New Vision of Adequacy for School Funding, (March 2003): 22.

PAGE 88

88 The following organizations participated in the study: Academic, Achievement and Accountability Commission (AAAC), Associatio n of Washington School Principals (AWSP), Latino/a Educational Achievement Project (LEA P), Office of Financial Management (OFM), Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruct ion (OSPI), Parent Teach er Association (PTA), Public School Employees (PSE), University of Washington College of Education, Washington Association of Colleges of T eacher Education (WACTE), Wash ington Association of School Administrators (WASA), Washi ngton Education Association (W EA), Washington State School Directors Association (WSSDA) and Washington School Personne l Association (WSPA). The researchers combined the effective school-w ide approach and the professional judgment approach for the study. The rese archers defined adequacy as pr oviding a sufficient amount of funds so that schools can enable all student sor at least all but the most profoundly challengedto meet state, federa l, and district proficiency sta ndards within the context of a high-quality overall education.243 Three sets of prototype schools were create d each consisting of an elementary school, middle school, and a high school. The first set of prototype schools was ba sed on what could be purchased using state funds. The second set of prototype schools demonstrated what the state of Washington was currently funding. The last set of prototype schools was called the Quality Education Model and was create d using the adequacy definiti on. The researchers acknowledge that at a future time it may be necessary to cr eate outlier prototype schoo ls such as rural schools or high-poverty schools in urba n settings. Costs that are not accounted for by the model are capital costs, a compensating factor for poverty, universal pre-school, an d high-quality teacher and administrator preparation programs. A ne w method was created to fund high cost special 243 Ibid, 15.

PAGE 89

89 education students. In this method, students wh o cost more than four times the average perpupil cost are identified as being beyond the abilit y of local districts to fund, and the state pays their actual expenses out of a centralized fund beyond the 4X fact or, which the local district pays.244 A modified version of the Delphi method was used to identify the elements and components of an adequate education and its costs.245 The researchers outlined characteristics of quality schools using effective schools res earch as well as recent studies on parent involvement, teacher quality, and the relationship between state policy and school practices. To estimate costs for the components and elements, th e following five sources were used: (1) a survey of Washington school districts representi ng approximately 11 percent of the students in the state; (2) research on effective educational pr actices; (3) data from pu blications of the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction; (4) data from Washington education professional associations; [and] (5) experts from Wa shington school districts and schools.246 Charts were provided that compared the Washingtons current spending level to the quality education model prototype that was created by the work groups and the steering committee. The current spending for the 2000-01 school year wa s $5.6 billion and the recommended amount was $7.3 billion. When comparing per pupil funding by level for the 2000-01 school year, the current elementary sc hool cost per pupil was $6,113 compared to the recommended cost of $8,393 per pupil, the curr ent middle school cost was $5,615 compared to the recommended cost of $7,830 per pupil, and th e current high school cost was $5,915 per pupil compared to the recommended cost of $7,753. 244 Ibid, 30. 245 Ibid, 24. 246 Ibid, 35.

PAGE 90

90 After giving the comparisons in dollars, the researchers provided detailed charts specifically describing the current elements and components that comprise a Washington elementary, middle, and high school and comp are those elements and components to the prototype schools developed. Due to the increase in funding that would be necessary to fund the prototype schools, the re searchers acknowledged that although it may be ideal to increase the funding for all schools at one time, it was not feasible and therefore they provided some suggestions for phase-in funding. Kentucky (May 2003) This report com pleted by Picus and Associates is the second report they conducted for the Kentucky Department of Education to estimate th e costs of funding an adequate education. In this study, Picus and Associates used the prof essional judgment approach. The question the researchers wanted to answer was whether the SEEK base provides sufficient funding for each school in the state to deploy powerful enough educ ational strategies to meet the state's 2014 goals.247 For the study, the researchers organized nine panels consisting of Kentucky educators. There were six school level pa nels two elementary, two mi ddle, and two high school, two district level panels, and one st ate level panel. Staff from Pi cus and Associates and from the Kentucky Department of Education attended all of the sessions. The school level panels created a list of resources that would be needed for the prototype schools. These models were then given to the district panels to make modifications and create a prototype design for the district. The schools and district designs were presented to the state panel to suggest changes. The researchers note that 247 Lawrence O. Picus, Allan Odden, and Mark Fermanich, A Professional Judgment Approach to School Finance Adequacy in Kentucky, (May 2003): 4.

PAGE 91

91 During the discussions with the state level panel, in conjunction with the recommendation of Commissioner Wilhoit, it was agreed that for the purpose of the cost estimates generated for this study, current expenditures for central office administration, pupil transportation operations and maintenan ce, and special education for severely disabled children would be used rather than attempt to estimate a prototype district model, or models for these other functions.248 The researchers then prorated the protot ypes based on the actual enrollment at each school. After estimating the expenditures the researchers adjusted for geographic cost differences using an index developed by Chambers.249 Also, the researchers added the national school average teacher salary to the model. Some of the other major cost items included providing 3 and 4 year olds liv ing below 150 percent of the poverty level with preschool, and improving the student to computer ratio250 to 3:1 for a total estimated cost of $6.2 billion, which is an increase of $2.3 billion. In their conclusions, the research ers explained the most costly items recommended in the professional judgment approach: The additional cost for the extra student and teacher days, i.e., the extended teacher contracts, was about $257 million. The additional costs for the instructional aides were about $86 million. The additional costs for the class sizes of 20 (v ersus class sizes of 25) for grades 4-12 were about $414 million. The additional costs for the additional specia l education teachers, tu tors and family support personnel were about $488 million.251 248 Ibid, 15. 249 See Jay G. Chambers, Public School Teacher Cost Di fferences Across the United States: Introduction to a Teacher Cost Index (TCI). in Developments in School Finance [Online]. (Washington, D.C: National Center for Education Statistics, 1995). Retrieved May 2007 fr om http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=95758 250 Ibid, 34. 251 Ibid, 39.

PAGE 92

92 North Dakota (July 2003) Augenblick, Palaich and Associates (APA) com pleted a four-month adequacy study for the North Dakota Department of Public Instru ction (DPI). North Dakota used a foundation program to distribute funds to schools. An accountability system was in place using the statewide tests. APA used th e professional judgement (sic) a pproach to determine what an adequate education costs in North Dakota. An adequate education in North Dakota is one that fulfills a set of state-specific, statelevel input requirements and student perf ormance expectations as well as a set of federal requirements and expectations rela ted to both the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary School Act of 1965 (Public Law 107-110, known as No Child Left Behind, NCLB).252 Multiple panels were used to conduct the study school-level panels, district-level panels, and a system-wide panel. Six hypothetica l size districts were used to conduct the study since North Dakota has such a wide range of district size. In order to prevent manipulation of the resources recommended to produce a certai n cost outcome, the panels identifying the resources were not told the cost of the resources. In the very small elementary school district the base cost figure was calculated to be $11,593 (the highest figure ) and in the moderate size K-12 school district the base cost figur e was configured to be $6,005 (the lowest). An increase of 10 percent for all personnel salaries wa s used in order to bring the sala ries to the average salaries of surrounding states. The researchers found that their cost estimates for 2001-2002 using the professional judgement (sic) approach produced per student base cost figure s that decrease as district enrollment rises from very small to moderate an d then increase modestly in large districts.253 252 John Augenblick, Robert Palaich, et al., Calculation of the Cost of an Adequate Education in North Dakota in 2002-2003 using the Professional Judgement (sic) Approach, I-1. 253 Ibid, ES-2.

PAGE 93

93 The added cost of educating spec ial education students varied de pending on the severity of the disability and the size of the dist rict. The added costs range from 52 percent of base cost to six times the base cost, depending on the level of sp ecial education (mild, moderate, or severe) and the size of the district in which services are provided.254 For at-risk students depending on the size of the district, the percentage increase to the base figure ranged fr om 20-40 percent and for LEP students the percentage increase ranged from 40-90 percent. Arkansas (September 2003) In Septem ber 2003, the final report for an ev idenced-based approach to school finance adequacy in Arkansas was completed. Lawrence O. Picus and Associates led the six-month study. The recommendations in the study came from the Joint Committee on Educational Adequacy, seventy Arkansas educat ors, and other consultants. Picus was asked to conduct the study as a result of an Arka nsas Supreme Court ruling on Lakeview v. Huckabee.255 First the Joint Committee adopted a definition of what an adequate education is and that definition served as a basis for identifying the re sources required for adequate funding.256 Then Arkansas educators were asked to review and critique a set of prototypical school models that the Joint Committee257 had developed. After finalizing the model schools and computing salary increases and incentives, the Joint Committee de termined that it would cost the state an additional $380.6 million per year.258 Lastly, the Joint Committee explains a formula for 254 Ibid, V-2. 255 Lake View School District No. 25 v. Huckabee 351 Ark. 31, 91 S.W. 3d 472 (2002), cert den. Sub. Nom. Wilson, J.L., et al. v. Huckabee, Gov. of Ark., et al ., 538 U.S. (2003). 256 Picus, Lawrence, O. An Evidenced-Base d Approach to School Finance Adequacy in Arkansas, (Sept. 2003): 21. 257 Ibid, 28. 258 Ibid, 65.

PAGE 94

94 distributing adequate funds to the 308 school districts across the state in a manner that will meet the Courts requirements259 and includes a needs based foundation program instead of a wealth only based program. The Arkansas Legislature failed to make changes to th e state funding system by the courts deadline of January 2004. The Arkansas Supreme Court appointed special masters and in June 2005 special masters found Arkansas funding system inadequate.260 Special masters also expressed that they believed the Picus study to be competent and comprehensive. The Arkansas Supreme Court ruled in December 2005 that the funding system for schools was still inadequate and a year was given to remedy the inadequacy. In April 2006, the legislature approved a school funding increase of $132.5 million.261 The Arkansas Supreme Court continued to keep the case open in November 2006 and reappointed the sp ecial masters to oversee compliance. Tennessee (December 2003) In Decem ber 2003, Augenblick, Palaich and As sociates, Inc. (APA) conducted a sixmonth adequacy study for the Coalition for Tenne ssees Future, an advocacy organization. For the study an adequate education was defined as one that fulfills a se t of state-specific, state-level input requirements and student performance expectations as well as a set of federal requirements and expectations related to both No Child Left Behind (NCLB, Public Law 107110) and the Individuals with Disa bilities Education Act (IDEA).262 A total of sixty-six 259 Ibid, 67. 260 See Lake View School District No.25 of Phillips County, Arkansas et al., v. Governor Mike Huckabee, et al ., in Special Masters' Report to the Supreme Court of Arkansas (2005). 261 Lu, K. Arkansas Increases Funding After Court Rules 2006 Retrieved March 2007 from http://www.schoolfunding.info/news/litigation/4-13-06arspecialsession.php3. 262 Augenblick, Palaich and Associates, Inc., Calculation of the Cost of an Adequate Education in Tennessee in 2001-02 using the Professional Judgm ent Approach and the Successful Sch ool District Approach, (December 2003): ES-1.

PAGE 95

95 educators participated in the study. The different panels were divided in to school-level panels, district-level panels, and a system-wide panel. The districts were categorized by small, moderate, large, and very large. The average per pupil cost using the professional judgment approach was estimated at $4,963 (small distri ct), $5,571 (moderate district), $5,286 (large district), and $5,008 (very large district). APA used the state report card to identify successful school districts for the successful school district approach. There are thirty-three indicators that di stricts need to meet to be deemed successful by the state. Since no districts at the time of the study were meeting all state and federal standards APA had to modify the stat es definition of a succe ssful school district. Eight districts were identified as meeting twenty-eight of the thir ty-three indicators. The eight districts had an average base cost of $4,949, with a range of base spending from $4,568 to $6,877. The 112 districts that were not deemed successful under this approach had an average base cost of $4,642 with a range of base spe nding from $3,500 to $6,628. These figures do not include the cost for special need students. New York (January 2004) The New York State Education Dep a rtment prepared a report titled, Regents Proposal on State Aid for 2004-05 for the New York State Board of Rege nts. Included in this report was a costing out study titled, Estimating the Additional Cost of Providing an Adequate Education The successful school districts approach was us ed to determine the cost of an adequate education. However, the researchers added to th e approach by determining a weighting for atrisk pupils and using a Regional Cost Index. Fo r the study, a general definition for an adequate education was described as the greater equali zation of academic outcomes (not resource inputs)

PAGE 96

96 so that all children are provided the opportunity to receive an education, which will subsequently allow them to lead meaningful and productive adult lives.263 Data from the Regents High School examinati ons was collected for the following school years: 1999-2000, 2000-01, and 2001-02 and for the fo llowing tests: Mathematics A, Global History, U.S. History, English, and Earth Science. Also, data from the English Language Arts and Mathematics tests for fourth grade were collec ted. The researchers then defined an adequate education for each district using the test data: With a simple, unweighted average of 80 percent of its test takers scoring at Level 3 or above on seven examinations (Fourth Grade English Language Arts, Fourth Grade Mathematics, high school Mathematics A, Global History, U.S. History, English and Earth Science) in 1999-00, 2000-01 and 2001-02. The reader will note that, given this operational definition, a district could have less than 80 percent of its test takers with a score below Level 3 on one or more of the i ndividual tests and could still be found as providing an adequate education.264 To account for inefficiency in districts, after id entifying the successful districts, the researchers used the average expenditure per pupil for the lower spending 50 percent of the districts. The researchers identified students of need as those students eligible for free or reduced price lunch in grades K-6 using an average of three school years from 1999-2002. The high school districts were given the average configured from the co mponent school district. After reviewing the research literature and examining how other states are adjusting for at-risk pupils, the researchers decided to give an additional we ight of 1.0 for students eligible for free or reduced price lunch. The researchers also decided to include regional cost to account for differing educational costs througho ut the state. The cost in dices used in calculating the estimate are the Regional Cost Indices (RCI) cal culated for the 2004-05 St ate Aid Proposal of 263 New York State Education Department, Estimating the Additional Cost of Providing an Adequate Education, in Regents Proposal on State Aid to School Districts for 2004-05 (January 2004): 47. 264 Ibid, 52.

PAGE 97

97 the Board of Regents265 which were provided by the Departme nt of Labor based on professional salaries. The researchers determined an additional $6.0 billion would be needed and recommended an implementation period of seven years. Minnesota (February 2004) The Minnesota Center for Public F inance Re search, an advocacy organization, completed the report, Determining the Cost of an Adequate Education in Minnesota: Implications for the Minnesota Education Finance System in February 2004. The Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) method was used to determine the cost of an adequate education. Data envelopment analysis (DEA) is a technique for measuring the relative performance of organizations where the presence of multiple inputs and outcomes makes direct comparisons between organizations difficult.266 The researchers selected DEA because of its ability to handle multiple outcomes simultaneously. Unlike other statistical approaches that would compare i ndividual districts to a hypothetical state average school district, DEA is a benchmarking approach which compares each district to actual best performing districts.267 The linear programming model is then run a second time with the adequacy standards in order to estimate what an adequate education would cost. For the study, adequacy was defined using eight performance outcomes which included Minnesotas Comprehensive Assessment Test sc ores and graduation rates. Of the 343 school districts, 317 were used in th e study. In 2002, the vast majority of the 317 Minnesota school districts included in this study met and exceeded th e requirements of an adequate education as 265 Ibid, 54. 266 Mark Haveman, Determining the Cost of an Adequate Education in Minnesota: Implications for the Minnesota Education Finance System. (February, 2004): 4. 267 Ibid.

PAGE 98

98 defined by performance on the Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment Test, the Minnesota Basic Skills tests, and district graduation rates.268 When analyzing the efficiency of each school district, overall Minnesota school districts scored quite high on measures of relative efficiency.269 The cost per pupil of an adequate education in Minnesota was found to be $6,236. For districts with the higher concentrations of at-risk students, the figure was estimated to be twice the state average. In compari ng the 2002 state operating expenditures per pupil to the district specific cost estimat es we [the researchers] find that the vast majority of school districts are already spending sufficient amounts to achieve the basic skills adequacy standards.270 New York (March 2004) In March 2004, Standard and Poors prepar ed a report for the New York Comm ission on Education Reform. The purpose of the report was to answer the question: How much spending is adequate to provide an opport unity for a sound, basic education?271 This question was a central one raised after the courts ruling in Campaign for Fiscal Equity v. State.272 The researchers used an empirical model resembling the successful schools method at the request of the New York Commission on Education Reform. Specifically, the request was to: identify the spending levels of New York s better-performing school districts; take into account additional resources for educating stude nts with special needs; 268 Ibid, 7. 269 Ibid, 10. 270 Ibid, 13. 271 Standard and Poors, Resource Adequacy Study for the New York Commission on Education Reform, (March 2004): 2. 272 100 N.Y. 2d 893 (N.Y. 2003).

PAGE 99

99 consider regional differences in the purchasing power of the dollar; and use empirical data to calculat e equivalent levels of fundi ng for the State as a whole, using data extrapolated from the better-performing districts.273 For the study, the researchers identified four different achievement scenarios. The first scenario identified the top performers; which includ ed 102 K-12 school districts that met fifteen indicators such as the passing rate on the State test and gra duation rate. The second scenario consisted of 180 K-12 school districts id entified by the State Education Department as having already met the State s 2005-06 Performance Index target s under the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). These districts also have Regents Diploma rates above the State average, and dropout rates below the State average.274 The third scenario consisted of 108 K12 school districts identified by the State Educati on Department as having already met the State s 2007-08 Performance Index targets under NCLBThe districts must also have a Regents Diploma rate above the State average, and a dropout rate below the State average.275 The fourth scenario included 208 K-12 districts that the State Education Department identified as meeting an adequate education as outlined in th e Regents Proposal on St ate Aid for 2004-05. The researchers then configured how much additional funding would be needed in 2004 dollars under the four different s cenarios to fund all the New York districts to the funding level of the successful districts iden tified. For the study, the following expenditures were excluded: transportation costs, debt service, and capital f und transfers. Expenditure s were analyzed at the district level, not the school level due to th e way school level data were maintained. The following weights were applied to the base pe r pupil figure computed: 2.1 for students with 273 Ibid, 12. 274 Ibid, 15. 275 Ibid, 16.

PAGE 100

100 disabilities, 1.35 for at-risk st udents, and 1.2 for limited Englis h proficiency students. The researchers developed these wei ghts by reviewing the research li terature and determining the weightings being used by education agencies. The researchers also adjusted the expenditure s for differences in educational purchasing power across the state using two alternative regi onal cost indices: the New York Regional Cost Index and the Geographic Co st of Education Index.276 To adjust for cost effectiveness, the researchers computed the average of the lowe st spending 50% of districts in each scenario.277 Therefore, the researchers identif ied high-performing districts w hose spending levels are in the bottom two quartiles.278 The researchers identified fortyfour districts th at met successful schools requirement under all four scenarios. The spending gaps that the researchers found ranged from $4.61 billion to $5.57 billion when adju sted by the New York Regional Cost Index. The spending gaps were less when adjusted by the Geographic Cost of Education Index and ranged from $2.45 billion to $3.39 billion. New York (March 2004) In March 2004, Am erican Institutes for Research (AIR), Management Analysis and Planning, Inc. (MAP), and Lori Taylor from Texas A&M University completed their fifteenmonth New York adequacy study. The researchers used the professional judgment approach and designed the study to answer the question What is the cost of providing all New York public school students a full opportunity to meet the Regents Learning Standards?279 Ten panels were 276 Ibid, 19. 277 Ibid, 21. 278 Ibid. 279 Jay G. Chambers, Thomas B. Parrish, Jesse D. Levin, James R. Smith, James W. Guthrie, Rich C. Seder, and Lori Taylor, The New York Adequacy Study: Determining the Cost of Providing All Children in New York an Adequate Education, Volume 1 Final Report, (March 2004): 1.

PAGE 101

101 created which consisted of New York State highly qualified educators. A summary panel was also created which consisted of educators from the other panels who reviewed the synthesis created by the AIR/MAP team. Besides educator s, AIR/MAP created a panel of stakeholders which included parents, taxpayers, the state le gislature, the governors office, school board members, and the business community.280 Some of the resource e ffects identified were school size, poverty, special education services, English language learners, staff to pupil ratios, class size, pupil-teacher ratios, and pupil to professional staff ratio. The AIR/MAP team examined teacher salaries by identifying cost factors and discretionary factors. Then the team configur ed costs using various models and compared the results of each model, discussing pros and cons of each method. A lump-sum approach was used to determine the cost of an adequate education in New York. The lump-sum model simply adds on what was previously spent on district-level functions.281 The AIR/MAP analysis projects that an average per pupil expenditure of $12,975 would be required to provide adequate resources to each and every student in New York State.282 For the 2001-2002 school year the average per pupil expenditure was $11,056. There were several stages of the teams research and at each stage the adequate amount of funds was configured. The team explained that these amounts could be seen as lower and upper limits. With a combination of fe deral, state and local sources of revenue, the public schools in New Yo rk State spent a total of $31.71 billion in the 2001-02 school year to educate its students.283 The researchers determined an additional $6.218.40 billion was needed. 280 Ibid, 5. 281 Ibid, 71. 282 Ibid, 75. 283 Ibid, 1.

PAGE 102

102 New Yorks Adequacy Studies and the Courts Due to the ruling in Campaign for Fiscal Equity ( hereinafter, CFE) v. State284 the state of New York needed to conduct an adequacy study to determine the cost of a sound basic education. There were three adequacy studies done in 2004, one commissioned by CFE and the New York State School Boards Association, a se cond contracted by the Governors Commission on Education Reform, and the third study was prep ared for the New York Board of Regents. The Governors Commission chose to accept the lower funding recommendations from Standard and Poors study.285 Initially the judicial referees found that the state failed to meet the deadline for determining and funding the cost of an adequa te education and ordere d the state to fund an additional $5.63 billion yearly. The Supreme Court in March 2005 affirmed the judicial referees report.286 In March 2006 the Intermediate App eals Court ordered the state to begin phasing in increases to New York City Schools operating funds a nd give facilities funding. The New York Legislature did meet the courts request fo r facilities funding but did not provide funding for the operating budget. The New York Court of Appeals declared in November 2006 that New York City schools required additional funding ($1.93 billion adjusted from 2004 for inflation), rejected the requirement for a capital improvement pl an, and over-turned the Supreme Courts affirmation of the referees report. Th e court instead found th at the states 2005-07 budget plan was a reasonable calculation of adequacy.287 284 100 N.Y. 2d 893 (N.Y. 2003). 285 Michael A. Rebell, Professional Rigor, Public Engagement and Judicial Review: A Proposal for Enhancing the Validity of Education Adequacy Studies, Teachers College Record 109, no. 6 (2007). 286 Campaign for Fiscal Equity v State of New York, 8 N.Y.3d 14 (N.Y. 2006). 287 David T. Conley and Kathryn C. Rooney, Washington Study, (Jan. 2007): 39; See Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. v. State of New York 8 N.Y. 3d 14 (N.Y. 2006).

PAGE 103

103 Texas (March 2004) The state of Texas contracted with Taylor et al. to conduct an adequacy study using a district-level cost function approach so the st ate could use th e results as evidence in the West Orange Cove v. Neeley288 case. The researchers measure district costs as average operating expenditures per pupil, regardless of funding s ource. Therefore, [the] cost measure includes federal, state, and local dollars.289 Debt service, transportation, and food expenditures are excluded. The researchers chose to use a valu e-added measure of education outcomes that is based on changes in passing rates on the TAAS290 (Texas Assessment of Academic Skills). The Texas Education Agency (TEA) supplied math a nd reading scores for each of the nearly 1,000,000 students in grades three through eight attending traditional public schools in Texas between the 1993-94 and 2001-02 school years, as well as data on students in grade 10.291 Then the researchers examined the scores and ca lculated the percentage of students for each school district who had passed the TAAS for the current school year and compared it to the percentage of those same students who passed two years previously.292 The researchers value-added measure is the average increase in the district passing rate for elementary and high school students (grades five through eight and grade 10).293 Due to concerns that the TAAS measures minimum performance, the researchers also chose to examine two other district performance indicators: (1) the percentage of students who 288 107 S.W.3d 746 (Tex. 2005). 289 Timothy J. Gronberg, Dennis W. Jansen, Lori L. Taylor, and Kevin Booker, School Outcomes and School Costs: The Cost Function Approach, (2004): 5 290 Ibid, 7. 291 Ibid. 292 Ibid, 7-8. 293 Ibid, 8.

PAGE 104

104 perform above criterion on the SAT or ACT te sts and (2) the percentage of students who complete an advanced course.294 For both indicators, the resear chers chose to calculate threeyear moving averages. The researchers also cons idered using drop-out rate as an indicator but due to the TEAs low calculated rate, the resear chers felt the numbers we re not plausible and elected to not use the dropout rate as an indicator. To calculate the cost function index, the re searchers used a teacher cost index and an estimated auxiliary cost index. Costs for instructional equipment and materials were not included in the cost function because the prices we re not available. Sinc e variations in student populations can affect costs, the researchers incorporated an an alysis of the percentage of students in each school district that had the following characterist ics: special education and/or LEP classification, national school lunch program participation, and high school enrollment. The researchers chose to include a measur e of geographic isolati onthe distance to the nearest major metropolitan areain order to proxy for some of th e variation in non-teacher input prices.295 Lastly, the researchers identified efficien t districts by estimating a stochastic frontier form of the cost function296 which helps the researchers esti mate how much of observed costs can be attributable to measured cost factors, and how much is at tributable to unnecessary costs due to deviations from mini mum-cost or best practices.297 The researchers chose to use the multiple regression method to estimate the cost model. For the analysis, the dependent variable is act ual spending per pupil by school districts, and the 294 Ibid. 295 Ibid, 14. 296 Ibid. 297 Ibid.

PAGE 105

105 independent variables are the vari ous cost factors described above.298 The K-12 districts were used for the cost model which included 695 dist ricts. Some K-12 dist ricts were excluded because of missing data. After th e researchers estimated the cost function, then they configured education cost indices. The cost differential for educating an economically disadvant aged student was $1,960, for a limited English proficient student was $1,248, for a less severe speci al education student was $3,695, and for a more severe special education student was $5,306, and for a high school student was $4,001. All the estimates were c onfigured for 2004 dollars. The researchers concluded that the per pupil cost of meeting the performance standard is between $6,172 and $6,271 in 2004 dollars. [The] average per pupil reve nue in 2004which includes federal, state and local dollarswas $6,503.299 The researchers found that t he total cost of meeting the performance standard is betw een $26.2 billion and $26.6 billion300 as compared to total actual revenues of $27.6 billion. An explanation the researchers provided fo r the difference in actual revenue versus predicted costs was that many districts were already perfor ming above the standard. Presuming that no cut in funding for any distri ct, we [the researchers] estimate that it would cost between $226 million and $408 millio n more per year to meet the average performance standard required to comply with the No Child Left Behind Act and to bring up to the state average the share of students taking advanced cour ses and scoring above criterion on the SAT/ACT.301 298 Ibid, 16. 299 Ibid, 26. 300 Ibid. 301 Ibid, 27.

PAGE 106

106 Texas (May 2004) For the case, West Orange Cove v. Neeley ,302 plaintiffs hired Reschovsky and Imazeki to complete a costing out study that th e plaintiffs planned to use as ev idence at trial. In this study, the researchers used a statistical approach to estimate the minimum amount of money Texas school districts need to achi eve state and federally mandate d student performance goals.303 The researchers conducted a log linear cost function for the K-12 distri cts in Texas. The dependent variable is the per pupil opera ting expenditures for the 2001-02 sc hool year. Transportation and food expenditures were excluded from the study. The Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Sk ills (TAKS) began being used in 2002-03. Prior to this, the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) was administered. Due to this change in testing and the unavail ability of two years of TAKS scores, the researchers used the TAAS scores for the last two years the test wa s given to estimate a cost function. Since the TAKS test is considered more difficult than the TAAS, the researchers converted the TAAS passing scores to TAKS passing scores. Additional outcome measures the researchers used were the State-Developed Alternative Assessment (SDAA), the annual retention rate, and the percentage of high school senior s scoring or above on the SAT or a score of 24 or above on the ACT.304 The researchers estimated the cost function using two-stage least squares. Teacher salaries were used to estimate the educati on cost function. The re searchers goal was to isolate factors that contribute to higher levels of education spending, but are outside the control of local school districts. To acco mplish this goal we [the researchers] use an 302 107 S.W.3d 746 (Tex. 2005). 303 Jennifer Imazeki and Andrew Reschovsky, Estima ting the Costs of Meeti ng the Texas Educational Accountability Standards, (2004): 3. 304 Ibid, 7.

PAGE 107

107 index of teacher costs develope d by Lori Taylor (2004) Her index separates variations in compensation arising from uncontrollable distri ct characteristics (such as area cost of living) from variations arisi ng from factors that districts can influence (such as teacher experience and educat ional background).305 Other characteristics included to estimate th e cost function are the percentage of students in each district who are economically disadva ntaged, limited English proficient, served by special education, black, Hispanic, enrolled in hi gh school, and a districts overall enrollment. The researchers chose not to directly measure effi ciency of districts. Instead, they chose to address the issue of efficiency by assuming that school districts will operate more efficiently if they face a competitive local educational market306 and measured public school competition by using a Herfindahl index. The index increases with the amount of competition so if district efficiency is correlated with the amount of comp etition that the district faces, then we would expect spending to be lower in districts with higher values of the Herfindahl index.307 Using data from the 2001-02 school year, the re searchers estimated the cost function for K-12 districts. Due to missing data in some districts, 827 districts were used to estimate the cost function. After estimating the cost function, the re searchers then calculated the cost index value for districts. To do this, accountab ility standards must be set. Th e researchers used the standard established by the Texas State Board of Educa tion for the TAKS exam for the 2005-06 school year. The TAAS passing rates were converted to TAKS passing rates using the Texas Education Agencys conversion system. The researchers found in 2004 dollars, the average cost per pupil 305 Ibid, 8; See Lori Taylor, Adjusting for Geographic Variations in Teacher Compensation: Updating the Texas Cost-of-Education Index, A report prepared for the Texas Legislature Joint Committee on Public School Finance, The Texas School Finance Project, 2004. 306 Ibid, 10. 307 Ibid, 11.

PAGE 108

108 of meeting the 55 percent standard would be $8,101.308 The researchers also estimated the average cost per pupil if the sta ndard was set at 70 percent. They found in 2004 dollars it would cost $11,163 per pupil to reach that standard. In their conclusion, the resear chers explained why they believed their costs may be an under-estimate of what Texas districts may n eed to reach the accountability standards. Consider, for example, the Fairfield Independe nt School District. This district with around 1,600 students just exceeded the 55 percent passing rate standard, and thus according to our first definition of the 55 percent standard would not require any additional spending to meet the standard. However, when we examine the TAAS passing rate data for the sub-groups, we observe th at the passing rate for blacks was 7.8 percent below the overall TAAS passing rate, the ra te for Hispanics was 13.4 percent below the overall rate, and the rate for economically di sadvantaged students was 8.9 percent below the overall rate. The clear implication of these numbers is that Fairfield ISD will have to spend additional money to bring the passing rates of these sub-groups of students up to the required passing rate standard.309 The researchers estimated that the additional costs to have all students achieve a passing score on the TAKS range from $1.7 to $6.2 billion (in 2004 dollars). The range varies depending on how the standard definition of a 55 per cent passing rate is defined. Texas Adequacy Studies and the Courts In West Orange Cove v. Neeley ,310 plaintiffs alleged the limit on local property tax rates was unconstitutional and that the funding system was inadequate. Plaintiffs hired Reschovsky and Imazeki to complete a costing out study. The st ate contracted with Ta ylor et al. to conduct an adequacy study for the trial. The trial cour t ruled in November 2004 that the funding system for Texas did not provide for an adequate educ ation as mandated by the constitution. The trial court used both adequacy studies in re ndering his decision. He found the Imazeki and 308 Ibid, 16. 309 Ibid, 20-21. 310 107 S.W.3d 746 (Tex. 2005).

PAGE 109

109 Reschovsky study methodologically sound [and stated that it] provides strong evidence of the cost of meeting certain performance standards for particular districts.311 Judge Dietz addressed many flaws he found in the Taylor study. Some of these flaws in cluded not including district weights for pupil size, not acknowledging the differe nces between the two Texas tests, and not using an accurate measure of teacher salari es. Even though Judge Dietz found flaws in the Taylor study, he still said the study clearly showed insufficient f unding in many Texas districts. The Texas Supreme Court ruled in Neeley v. West Orange Cove312 in November 2005 that the local property tax was in violation of the constitu tion because of the manner in which the state levied the local property tax. The tax in effect had become a state property tax which violated article VIII, section 1-e of the Texas Constitu tion. The Supreme Court concluded by stating structural changes, and not merely increased f unding, are needed in the public education system to meet the constitutional cha llenges that have been raised.313 Arizona (June 2004) In June 2004, the final report for an evid enced -based approach to school finance adequacy in Arizona was completed. This wa s a school finance adequacy study funded by the Rodel Charitable Foundation of Arizona and Gr eater Phoenix Leadership, an advocacy group. This study was not funded by the state of Arizona. The costs included in the study addressed only instructional needs (i.e. instruction, pupil and instructiona l support, and school administration). Therefore, operational costs (i.e construction, transportation, and food services) were not addressed in the study. 311 Ibid. 312 176 S.W.3d 746 (Tex. 2005). 313 Ibid.

PAGE 110

110 A Steering Committee led by Lawrence O. Picus and Associates first defined an adequate education and then used that definition as the foundation for id entifying the resources needed. They call the approach they used an evidenced-b ased approach but also included the professional judgment approach after developing the items requ ired to provide all Arizona students with an adequate education. The professional judgment panels were a group of educators who were brought together for a day and half to review the Steering Committees recommendations. The educators were divided into two panels and the goal was to obtain the pr ofessional judgments of a cross section of key individuals in school s and school districts on the work of the committee.314 The two panels gave suggestions and the Steering Committee determined what changes needed to be made. A table is provided in the study that outlines recommendations for adequate resources for prototypical Arizona elemen tary, middle, and high schools.315 The five main recommendations were providi ng full day kindergarten for all students, preparing and recognizing teachers for high performance, creat ing smaller schools, reducing class sizes in lower grades, providing individual ized tutoring or extra help fo r struggling students. The main finding of the report was that to provide for an adequate education program, Arizona would need to increase current e xpenditures from the 2002-2003 average of $5,745 (including an estimated additiona l amount for full day kindergarten) to $7,175, or an increase of about $1,430 per pupil, but still below the national average.316 In sum, the Steering Committee found that total resources for co re instructional services using the evidenced-based approach to 314 Picus, Lawrence, O. An Evidenced-Base d Approach to School Finance Adequacy in Arizona, Final Report, (June 2004): 68. 315 Ibid, 76-78. 316 Ibid, 80.

PAGE 111

111 determining adequacy would require expenditu res of $5.2. billion, or an increase of $1.3 billion.317 Arizona (February 2005) In the summer of 2002, the Arizona Legisl ative Council contracted with the National Conference of State Legislators to identify the total and incremental costs associated with educating English Language Learners (ELLs) in Arizona.318 Incremental costs were defined as those costs that provide ELL programs and that are in additi on to the regular costs of conducting programs for Englis h-proficient students.319 A school district survey was sent to four teen public school districts and two charter schools so that school districts could identify the materials an d personnel costs being used to provide services to ELL students. Initial survey results were re viewed by an expert panel and reliability and validity issues were raised due to the length and complexity of the survey. A second survey was then conducted to increase the re liability and validity of the responses. Even though a telephone interview for follow-up informa tion was also conducted the researchers had difficulty with the districts completing and return ing the surveys. (Only seven of the 16 surveys sent were returned by the deadline.) Using the information obtained from the returned surveys, the researchers outlined the incr emental costs by program area that is needed to run an ELL program which totaled $669.35 per student. The expenditure data reported here should to be treated with some caution, however. This is due to the relatively small number of districts included in the sample, the need to combine data from two separate survey instruments administer ed at different points in time, and the general difficulty encountered when attempting to collect detailed fiscal 317 Ibid. 318 The National Conference of State Legislators, Arizona English Language Learner Cost Study, (February 2005): ix. 319 Ibid, 8.

PAGE 112

112 data via surveys. A comparison to the 2001 ELL cost study conducted by the ADE [Arizona Department of Education] suggest s that the results here may be somewhat understated. That ADE study of 174 school distri cts and charters in Arizona found that incremental costs for ELL programs ranged from zero to $4,676. Changes in the way the states school districts track and report program data may be required before definitive current expenditure data can be collected and analyzed.320 To thoroughly examine available information on what an adequate ELL education in the state may entail, NCSL also employe d the professional judgment approach.321 Two professional judgment panels were created a state professional judgment panel which included seven members and a national professional judg ment panel which included 5 members. In each case, the professional judgment proc ess began with identifying current costs associated with educating ELLs and non-ELLs in the state. Each panel then made appropriate adjustments based on compliance with the implementation of requirements stemming from Proposition 203, the Flores consent decree and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.322 The state professional judgment panel concluded that in gr ades kindergarte n through second grade, the incremental spending for ELL stude nts would total an average of $1,785 per ELL student and in third grade thr ough twelfth grade ELL students w ould total an average of $1,447. The national professional judgment panel categor ized ELL students into high-need and lowerneed taking into account ELL students who also qua lified for free and reduced price lunch. Then the panel configured the incremen tal cost per ELL student further dividing the categories into elementary, middle, and high school students. For high-need ELL student s, the national panel configured the incremental cost to be $2,751 fo r elementary students, $2,323 for middle school students, and $1,997 for high school students. Fo r lower-need ELL students, the national panel computed the incremental cost to be $1,236 fo r elementary students, $1,227 for middle school 320 Ibid, 16. 321 Ibid, 18. 322 Ibid, 23.

PAGE 113

113 students, and $1,026 for high school st udents. On average, the curr ent incremental cost of the ELL programs in the fourteen school district s included in the study is $670 per student.323 Hawaii (March 2005) In March 2005, an adequacy report was prepared by Grant Thornton for the Hawaii Department of Education. The objective of the study was to develop an adequacy funding model that can be used as a tool for determin ing the level of funding re quired to support the vision and goals of the State of Hawaii Departme nt of Education (DOE) and Board of Education (BOE).324 The researcher found that the DOE w ould need to increase funding by $278 million dollars to provide an adequate education for all the students in Hawaii. A five-year implementation plan was outlined in the study sin ce the researcher identif ied the challenge of increasing the DOEs budget by $278 million. At th e adequate funding level, DOEs average cost per student would in crease from $8,598 to $10,117 a 17.7 percent incr ease over SY0304.325 The method used to configure the co st is the evidenced-based approach. An initial step the researcher conducted wa s to develop a definition of an adequate education in Hawaii. Policy statements were collected from the DOEs strategic plan and accountability framework, the BOE, Act 51, and th e Hawaii Revised Statutes. Fourteen policy statements were created using the previously menti oned sources to define an adequate education. To determine the cost of an adequate education, first, the resear cher created Baseline Schools. The Baseline Schools reflect averages of all schools at each level in terms of students they enroll, the socioeconomic status of their st udents, the percentage of special education and English language learner students, the average experience of the te aching staff, and other factors 323 Ibid, 39. 324 Grant Thornton, State of Hawaii Adequacy Funding Study, (March 2005): ES-2. 325 Ibid., ES-10.

PAGE 114

114 relevant to the schools organization and function.326 An elementary, middle, and high school baseline model were created. Then adequacy sc hools were created so that a comparison could be made between the baseline schools and the adequacy schools. The researcher explained that the interventions were selected for the adequacy scho ols because research and practice indicate that they are the most cost-effective ways of achieving DOE goals.327 The researcher provided detailed charts outlini ng the expenditures (i.e salaries, computer hardware/software, supplies, training) for the el ementary, middle, and high schools. Intervention charts were also provided deta iling the costs of each interven tion per pupil. The interventions were chosen from the following reports: Improving quality: Evidence on resource-based policies and student achievement and Strengthening accountability: Ev idence on regulatory and marketbased strategies to improve student achievement both produced by ECONorthwest and the Center for Educational Policy Research (CEPR) as well as a document produced by the Educational Testing Center (ETS) titled, Parsing the achievement gap: Baselines for tracking progress. Connecticut (June 2005) In June 2005, Augenblick, Palaich and Associat es, Inc. (AP A), prepared an adequacy report for the Connecticut Coal ition for Justice in Educati on Funding (CCJEF), an advocacy group. The successful school district approach and the professional judgment approach were used to configure the base cost of a student. For the study, adequacy was defined as the amount of funding needed so that school districts can meet state and federal student performance 326 Ibid., I-1. 327 Ibid., IA-1.

PAGE 115

115 expectations.328 Connecticut uses a foundation-type formula to distribute funds to school districts. Using the successful school dist rict approach the researchers utilized the targets set for the 2007-2008 school year and also included the requi rement that districts must have met this target for three consecutive school years. With this standard, thirty-fiv e out of the 166 districts were identified as successful. The 2003-04 weighted expenditure s of the twenty-five K-12 and three regional districts sele cted as being successful was $7,716. The weighted average expenditures of the seven succe ssful K-6/8 districts was $8,635.329 The professional judgment panels were asked to determine resources th at were needed to reach the performance targets set for 2013-2014. Se veral panels were created to conduct the professional judgment approach. There were school level panels, district-level panels, and an overview panel. Hypothetical schoo l districts were created. Ther e were K-12 districts and K-6/8 districts. The K-12 districts were divided into sm all, moderate, and large. After configuring the resources the panels recommended the researchers found that in a m oderate size K-12 district the combined school-level and district -level base cost per student was $10,388. In the same district, added cost to educate a special education student with a mild disability was $10,248. The at-risk students added costs depended on how many at-risk ki ds were in the district, the costs declining as enrollment increased. The second language le arner required an additional $7,014 to educate. 328 John Augenblick, Robert Palaich, Justin Silverstein, Douglas Rose, and Dale DeCesare, Estimating the Cost of an Adequate Education in Connecticut, (June 2005): 5. 329 Ibid, 9.

PAGE 116

116 Montana (October 2005) The Montan a Legislature created the Joint Select Committee on Education Funding and then formed the Quality Schools Committee who then contracted R.C. Wood & Associates to conduct an adequacy study for the state of Montana. Due to the Supreme Court ruling in Columbia Falls v. State330 the Legislature passed Senate Bill 152 which defined a quality public school education. Using the defini tions created by the Legislature, R.C. Wood & Associates used four approaches (successful sc hool district, professional judgment, evidencebased model, and advanced statistic al analysis) to estimate the cost of an adequate education in Montana. For the evidence-based approach, the researcher s identified six strategies (preschool, full day kindergarten, full-time building principal, family outreach, professional development, and cost of technology) to be implemented. Resear ch was given to support the implementation of the six strategies and an estimate of what each st rategy would cost was provided. The researchers configured that the cost would be an a dditional $20.6 million to the state legislature.331 The researchers further explained that due to the highly unique natu re of Montana with its large number of small and isolated sc hool districts the utilization of the evidence-based model does not lend itself to a robust expl anation of future costs.332 To conduct the statistical an alysis approach, a needs asse ssment was first conducted via the internet. All 331 administra tive units were given an opport unity to complete the needs assessment. The return rate for the needs asse ssment was 83 percent. Response rates were 330 109 P.3d 257 (Mont. 2004). 331 R. Craig Wood, Donald Robson, Merle Farrier, St ephen Smith, Joyce Silverth orne, Michael Griffith, Determining the Cost of Providing an Adequate Education in the State of Montana, (Oct. 2005): 20. 332 Ibid.

PAGE 117

117 shown by categories (i.e. organizational level, ge ographic region, and school size). The public was also given an opportunity to complete a shor ter version of the need s assessment. Usable responses totaled 861. For part of the cost analysis the research ers analyzed how closely Montanas schools were meeting the requirements of the Montana acc reditation standards. Th en areas identified in SB152 were analyzed to determine how schools we re measuring up in the following categories: special education, Indian Education for All, qua lified teachers and administrators, facilities, transportation, testing, and preserva tion of local control. The info rmation that administrators had provided for each category were shared when applicable. Also, after each category, the researchers provided their recomm endations if any changes needed to be made in order to support an adequate education. One big deficit the researchers found was in th e funding of at-risk st udents, particularly Native American students. Money ($100,000) was recommended to form a committee and create a plan and additional money ($5,000,000) wa s suggested to implement interventions. The researchers found that money had never been provided to support the I ndian Education for All constitutional requirements. Therefore, the researchers designed a model that could be implemented in all schools for a total cost of $16,095,570. This is a start-up estimate and after the first year of implementation the researcher s recommended actual spending data be collected and adjusted to continue to implement the program. At the end of the statistical analysis report, the researchers provided a spreadsheet where all additional costs to meet the requirements for SB152 were estimated. The total estimate was $34,360,345. An earlier professional judgme nt study had been conducted by A&M and the researchers goal was to build on the results of the previous study. First, a su rvey was conducted in order to

PAGE 118

118 gather information from school districts on the following areas: student to teacher and staff ratios, per pupil costs for instructional supplies and student activities. Th e response rate for the survey was 61 percent and the re sults were given to the expert panel. There were fifteen individuals on the panel who were selected by the quality schools interim committee. Several prototype schools (very small, small, medium, and large) were created for each level of school (elementary, middle, and high). I n order to determine the costs associated with different personnel for the prototype schools, the average salary information utilized in the A&M report was adjusted using th e education growth factor.333 Other components, such as instructional materials, equipmen t, technology, assessments, student activities, and security were also estimated by the expert panel. Then the expe rt panel estimated district costs. To do this, they analyzed education spending growth in Mo ntana for the last thirteen years. It was estimated that education-funding growth has been approximately 4.5 percent over the past thirteen years, and therefore the results of the A&M study were compounded at 4.5 percent for four years to arrive at the estimat ed costs for the 2005-06 school year.334 After each component was estimated total spending was configured. Next the expert panel identified and estimated the cost for the following cost factors and programs: at-risk students, summer and extended day programs, gifted and talented programs, and preschool. A summary cost table was provi ded at the end of the professional judgment report and the total additional cost was estimated at $328,917,906 which is a 27.4 percent increase. 333 Ibid, 91. 334 Ibid, 93.

PAGE 119

119 A separate professional judgme nt panel was created to focus on the American Indians and their achievement gap. A survey was distribu ted to twelve schools and five schools returned the surveys plus one additional school. Experts were invited to meet with the professional judgment panel to discuss closing the achievement gap of the American Indian students in Montanas schools. A model was created for the Am erican Indian students The strategies for the model were designed by the National Dropou t Prevention Center/Network (NDPC/N). Fifteen strategies were selected by the panel. Projected additional costs were estimated at $15.7 million. For the successful school district approach, the research ers did not use schools with American Indian populations at 50 percent or higher because a significant amount of money is spent to educate these students. Various pe rformance measures were used to compare expenditures of successful schools and non-successful schools. Af ter analyzing these data, the researchers found expenditure levels for succe ssful and non-successful schools vary widely depending on which performance measure is used.335 The researchers noted that the results on the norm-referenced test may well provide the most valid measure of a quality education336 due to the ability to measure data over three years as well as compare Montana students to students across the country. The projected additional cost using the successful schools method was $96.2 million. Wyoming (November 2005) In Novem ber 2005, Lawrence O. Picus and Associates prepared an adequacy report for the Wyoming Legislative Select Committee on R ecalibration. Due to the court ruling in State v. 335 Ibid, 133. 336 Ibid.

PAGE 120

120 Campbell County School District337 at least every five years the Legislature must recalibrate the funding model for Wyomings schools. The current Block Grant in Wyoming was developed using the Professional Judgment approach.338 The recalibration by Picu s and Associates used a similar approach, in that it identifies resources for an expanded set of prototypical schools, but uses evidence from research and best practice as well as the professional judgment of education leaders.339 The adequacy standard used for the st udy was the Legislature s definition of what should be delivered to all Wyoming students which is referred to as the educational basket. In the report recommendations and revisions to Wyomings current funding practices such as summer school and class size were provided. Categorical aid programs were also identified and modified. For each recommendation the effect size was provided to support the proposal. Picus and Associates provided the research for their recommendations to the professional judgment panels who either co ncurred with the suggestions or proposed modifications. A separate professional judgmen t panel to discuss small schools and resources convened. In the appendix, Picus and Associates compared their recommendations to five other adequacy studies. They also presented rese arch on why Wyoming should use a hedonic wage adjustment in their funding formula instead of a regional cost living inde x. Specific figures on how much more it would co st the state of Wyoming to fund all of the recommendations in the report was not provided. 337 State v. Campbell County School District 19 P.3d 518 (Wyo. 2001). 338 Lawrence O. Picus, An Evidence -Based Approach to Recalibrating Wyomings Block Grant School Funding Formula, (November 30, 2005): 7. 339 Ibid.

PAGE 121

121 Kansas (December 2005) Two cost study analyses needed to be conduc ted f or/by the Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit (LPA) as required from a 2005 Special Session. William Duncombe and John Yinger from the Center for Policy Research set out to answer the following question: What should it cost school districts to meet the perf ormance outcome standards set by the Board of Education?340 The researchers used a cost function a pproach with data produced by the Kansas State Department of Educati on that included five years (1999-2000 to 2003-2004). The dependent variable used in the cost function is district expend itures per pupil...LPA selected a spending measure that included expenditures fo r six functional areas: instruction, student support, instructional support, school administration, general administration, operations and maintenance, and other.341 The researchers averaged seven student performance measures (three reading exams, three math exams, and gr aduation results), each measure weighted equally. The researchers estimated a cost function for K-12 districts in Kansas using linear multiple regression technique.342 The coefficient for the outco me measure indicates that to increase student performance (as measured by r eading and math test scores and the graduation rate) by a certain percent will require an al most equal percent increase in spending.343 The researchers also found that the cost of operating a school district is higher in small districts.344 Three variables (fiscal capacity, competition, an d factors affecting voter involvement) were included in the cost function model to measure efficiency. 340 William Duncombe and John Yinger, Estimating the Costs of Meeting Performance Outcomes Adopted by the Kansas State Board of E ducation, (Dec. 2005): 1. 341 Ibid, 7. 342 Ibid, 16. 343 Ibid, 21. 344 Ibid, 19.

PAGE 122

122 To determine the base cost per pupil, the re searchers used three steps: set efficiency standards at 67 percent, set performance outcome s for reading, math, and graduation rates as specified by the Kansas State Board of Education, and allow variable spending for such things as enrollment size, population of disadvantaged st udents, and the costs of hiring teachers. The estimated cost to meet the 2004 standa rd is 5 percent above ($258 per pupil) the adjusted general fund budget per pupil in the General State Aid formula in 2005-06. The estimated cost to reach the performance outcomes in 2006 is 14 percent above ($709 per pupil), and in 2007 it is 23 percent above ($1,153 per pupil) the ad justed general fund budget per pupil in 2005-Using 2003-04 FTE, th e differences between total estimated costs and the total adjusted general f und budget are approximately $115 million for 2004 outcomes, $315 million for 2006 outcomes, and $513 million for 2007 outcomes.345 Standards for 2005 and 2006 were the same and th erefore only 2006 estimates were projected. When examining the cost indices, the rese archers found that poverty and enrollment size in districts has the greatest influe nce on cost differences. The hi ghest costs are estimated to be in large central cities (Kansas City and Wichita), and in small rural dist ricts with above-average poverty.346 The researchers also concluded that teacher salaries a nd bilingual population variations yielded less of an impact on education costs. Kansas (January 2006) The Kansas Legislative Division of Post A udit com pleted an input and an output-based adequacy study of K-12 education costs as manda ted by the Kansas Legisl ature. For the inputbased approach, eight prototype districts were created ranging in enrollment from 100 to 15,000. The method used is referred to as a modified resource-oriented approach. After creating the prototype districts resources were estimated for the prototype districts. Only resources needed to 345 Ibid, 34. 346 Ibid, 38.

PAGE 123

123 provide whats mandated by State statute or nece ssary to run a district operating at an aboveaverage level of efficiency347 were estimated. The types of staff needed to be allocated fo r the eight prototype districts was determined by examining other cost studies, reviewing staffing standards set by state and national associations, accrediting organizations, government agencies, and education journals, looking at current staffing in Kansas districts similar to the prototype districts, and surveyed officials from eighty Kansas school districts to get their opinions about the type s of positions they thought were essential to provide basi c educational services.348 Since an ideal teacher to student ratio has not been determined through researc h, three different class-size sett ings were created for the study (twenty students for all grades; twenty-five stude nts for all grades; and eighteen in K-3, twentythree in 4-12). Other staff positions (i.e. prin cipal, assistant principal, library specialist, counselor, substitute teachers, technology spec ialists, human resources staff, school level clerical, and security) were allocated to the prototype districts afte r reviewing accrediting agencies standards, comparing Kansas districts, and analyzing historic al staffing levels. After allocating staff positions to the prototype di stricts, average salary costs were determined. Non-salary resources were also allo cated to the prototype di stricts. Finally, the researchers plotted the costs of the eight prot otype districts, and de termined a series of mathematical equations349 in order to be able to predict the costs for other Kansas school districts.350 Once the researchers determined what the curricula and services mandated by 347 Legislative Division of Post Audit State of Kansas, Cost Study Analysis Elementary and Secondary Education in Kansas: Estimating the Costs of K-12 Education Using Two Approaches, (Jan. 2006): 17. 348 Ibid, 119. 349 Ibid, 122. 350 Ibid.

PAGE 124

124 State statute for regular educa tion should cost [on a per stud ent basis they] plugged all 300 districts 2004-2005 enrollment into the appropriate equation and came up with base-level costs and enrollment weighting per student for each one.351 For the output-based approach, consultants were hired to perform the sophisticated statistical techniques involved in a cost function analysis that would estimate the cost of meeting the performance outcome standards adopt ed by the State Board of Education.352 The specific details of the output-based appr oach are discussed prior to th is study (Duncombe and Yinger, 2005). For the 2006-07 school year using the input -based approach, an additional $316 million of foundation-level funding would be needed. Us ing the outcome-based a pproach for the same year, an additional $339 million would be needed. One explanation for the higher estimate using the outcome-based approach is that testing st andards increase each year until the year 2013-14 and therefore the costs to meet the increased standa rds is greater. The bi ggest factor contributing to the additional cost to the foundation-level wa s the increase in funding for students in poverty. Other factors that also contributed were special education an d regional cost estimates. South Dakota (January 2006) In January 2006, Augenblick, Palaich and Asso ciates, Inc. (APA) prepared the report, Estim ating the Cost of an Adequate Education in South Dakota. The report was conducted for the Associated School Boards of South Dakota, which is an advocacy group, representing the South Dakota Alliance for Education. The Allian ce consists of the Associated School Boards 351 Ibid. 352 Ibid, 17.

PAGE 125

125 of South Dakota, School Administrators of S outh Dakota, South Dakota Education Association, ESD+6, Middle Schools Organization, and th e South Dakota Coalition of Schools.353 Adequacy was defined as the costs school di stricts face in order to fulfill state and federal resource requirements a nd performance expectations.354 Two methods were used in the study to determine the cost of an adequate educ ation the successful school district (SSD) approach and the professional judgm ent (PJ) approach. Input and output standards that the state had previously identified were used to estima te the cost of an adequate education. The successful school district approach used the 2003-04 actual performance of school districts specifically looking for those district s that met the AYP (adequate yearly progress) performance standards for 2007-08.355 The 2007-08 standard was used because no district was meeting the higher standards for future years. Forty-one districts were identified as successful and per student base cost for th ese districts was determined to be $4,717. Costs for special needs students are not included in this figure. Professional judgment groups focused on the resources needed for districts to meet performance targets in 2013-14.356 Four types of dist ricts were created very small, small, moderate, and large. There were three types of panels school-l evel (which consisted of three groups), district-level panels (which consisted of three groups), and an overview panel. Panels had 6-8 participants, including a combination of classroom teachers, principals, personnel who provide services to students with special needs, superintendents, and school business 353 John Augenblick, Amanda Brown, Dale DeCesare, John Myers, and Justin Silverstein, Estimating the Cost of an Adequate Education in South Dakota, (January 2006): 1. 354 Ibid, 1. 355 Ibid, 6. 356 Ibid, 6.

PAGE 126

126 officials.357 The cost per pupil in a large size school district was estimated to be $6,362. When accounting for special needs students, the number increases significantly depending on the severity of the disability and th e size of the school district. When looking at the different approaches and the estimates per pupil identified, there is a 1.35 ratio in cost between the PJ and SSD base cost figures.358 When comparing the actual cost that South Dakota spent pe r pupil to the estimated costs by the SSD and PJ approach, more money is needed by most of the districts to meet the adequacy standard. Of the 170 districts, 142 districts would have needed a total of $133.6 million, or $1,148 per student, on average, to bring them up to the successful school district ad equacy level.359 Of the 170 districts, 161 districts would have needed a total of $405.7 million, or $3,324 per student, on average, to bring them up to the professi onal judgment adequacy level.360 Arkansas (August 2006) In August 2 006, Picus and Associates comple ted the report, Recalibrating the Arkansas School Funding Structure for the Adequacy Study Oversight Sub-Committee of the House and Senate Interim Committees on Education of the Ar kansas General Assembly. This study is an update of the adequacy study conducted by Picus in 2003. In the report, Picus and Associates stress the research based info rmation they propose by stating: Our reports recommendations, if funded and implemented, would redirect school resources to those strategies for which ther e is evidence that they do work. As will be clear, each and every one of the proposals is backed by evidence on its effectiveness. If current and new funds in schools were used to implement these recommendations, greater student performance should result Arkansas achievement test scores should rise 357 Ibid, 13. 358 Ibid, 64. 359 Ibid, 68. 360 Ibid, 69.

PAGE 127

127 showing that it is the way money is used in schools that makes the impact on student performance real and measurable.361 After the adequacy study in 2003, the Arkans as Legislature convert ed the school-based numbers Picus and Associates suggested i nto a per pupil foundation program with the expenditure per pupil figure set at $5,400362 with other programs supplemented such as National School Lunch (NSL) program, Englis h-Language Learning (ELL) students, and Alternative Learning Environment (ALE) students. The recalibration report continues to use the per pupil approach established by the Legisl ature by recalibrating each element that formed the creation of the $5,400 figur e and recalibrating the NSL, ELL and ALE programs.363 In the report, Picus and Associates list each recommendation from the 2003 adequacy study, discuss if/how the Arkansas Legislature implemented the recommendation, presents current research that supports the recommendation, and then share their current recommendation (i.e. keep implementing it the same way, modify it in some way, etc.). In summary, Picus and Associates proposed six recommendations: 1. A new per pupil figure of $5,864. 2. The $50 per pupil for professional development. 3. A transportation categorical program which would av erage $286 per pupil in 200708, but based on districts actual transporta tion expenditures in 2004-05 inflated up to a 2007-08 base, AND to be replaced by a sta ndards-based formula in the future. 4. A smoothed NSL formula which would sm oothly increase the teacher allocation from 1 for every 100 NSL students up to two when the concentration hits 70 percent, from 2 to 3 as the concentration rises from 70 to 90 percent, and 3 teacher positions for districts with an NSL con centration of above 90 percent. 361 Allan Odden, Lawrence Picus, and Michael Goetz, Recalibrating the Ar kansas School Funding Structure, (Aug. 2006): 16. 362 Id, 18. 363 Ibid.

PAGE 128

128 5. A modestly increased ELL allocation fr om 0.40 positions for every 100 ELL students to 1 position for every 100 ELL students. 6. A revised ALE allocation now that the state counts ALE students in an FTE format.364 Nevada (August 2006) In August 2006, Augenblick, Palaich, and A ssociates (APA) prepared a report for Nevadas Legislative Co mmittee on School Financ ing Adequacy (the Committee). For the study adequacy was defined as the cost of meeting state and federal resource requirements and student performance expectations, including those in Ne vadas education accounta bility system and the states federally-approved plan to comply with the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).365 The researcher used the successful schools and the professional judgment me thods to determine the cost of an adequate education in Nevada. The researchers also integrated the evidence based approach by providing the professional judgment panels with two national experts who provided information on which resources according to rese arch have been found to help improve student achievement. Additionally, the researchers integr ated the statistical approach by taking into consideration inflation and cost differences depending on school/distric t size and location. To implement the successful schools approach the researchers determined that they would identify high performing schools and not school districts due to the small number of school districts (seventeen) in the state of Nevada. In Nevada, t he state pays for the collection of In$ite data, which offers school level information366 and APA used this information to determine the base spending levels for successful schools. APA decided to identify successful 364 Ibid, 80. 365 John Augenblick, Justin Silverstein, Amanda R. Brown, Douglas Rose, Dale DeCesare, and Amy Berk Anderson, Estimating the Cost of an Adequate Education in Nevada, (August 2006): 1. 366 Ibid, 10.

PAGE 129

129 schools by determining which schools had students on track to meet future state and federal standards. More specificall y, APA identified schools as succe ssful by examining two criteria: English and math general student population performance objectives for the 2008-09 school year and English and math test scores for students wi th special needs for the 2005-05 school year. For the first criteria, APA used performance data for each school from the 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 school years to see if the sc hool was on target to meet the 2008-09 objectives.367 APA did this by regressing the propor tion of students making adequate yearly progress against time for each school and using the resulting formula to predict the schools 2008-09 performance. If the school was on target to meet the 2008-09 objectives they were deemed successful.368 For the second criteria, APA analyzed English and math test scores of special education students, at-risk students, and English language learners. Six tests for each school were examined. To be labeled successful, schools had to meet the first criteria and also meet the 2004-05 objectives for two of the six special population tests.369 A total of 118 schools were identified as successful. After determining the base spending for each of these schools, APA applied an effi ciency screen in the following spending areas: instruction, administration, and operations and maintenance. To measure efficiency APA analyzed the number of personnel per 1,000 pupi ls for instruction and administration and excluded any school that had a figure one standard deviation above the mean or higher. For operations and maintenance APA examined spendi ng per pupil and excluded any school that had spending one standard deviation above the mean or higher. After applying the efficiency screening, APA was left with 101 schools for in struction, 93 schools for administration and 98 367 Ibid, 11 368 Ibid. 369 Ibid.

PAGE 130

130 schools for building maintenance and operations.370 APA estimated the base cost for these schools to be $4,660 per pupil. To implement the professional judgment a pproach, APA asked the professional judgment panels to not only determine the base cost for th e average students, but to decide if costs should vary due to district si ze and estimate the resources needed to educate the following groups of students: special education students, English language learners at-risk students, career and technical education (CTE) student s. Three hypothetical school di stricts were created for the study small, moderate, and large. Multiple pa nels were used in the study. Two panels convened to determine school-level resources, th ree panels met to review the work of the previous panels and then determined additional resources needed for the district, for special needs students, and for the CTE program and the fi nal in-state panel re viewed previous panel work, discussed resource prices, examined prel iminary cost figures and attempted to resolve some of the inconsistencies that arose across panels.371 A total of thirty-nine people participated in the professional judgment panels and were selected throug h a nomination process. Two national experts were given Nevadas st ate standards and asked to identify personnel that would be needed to help Ne vadas students meet the standards. Then APA used the expert panels work as a starting poi nt to stimulate discussion w ithin the professional judgment panels.372 Capital, food services, transportation, co mmunity services, and adult education were excluded for the professional judgment analysis. After the panels completed their work, APA used statewide average salaries to cost out the personnel recommendations APA found that 370 Ibid, 13. 371 Ibid, 21. 372 Ibid, 26.

PAGE 131

131 in moderate size K-12 districts, combined sc hool-level and district-l evel base costs are $7,868 per student. In addition, students with mild special education needs add $6,918, students with moderate special educati on needs add $10,050, and students with severe special education needs add $19,813. At-risk students add $2,256, ELL students add $4,426 per student, and CTE student s require an additional $568.373 To determine a statewide Inflation Adju stment Factor, APA recommended using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and data from the Council for Community and Economic Research (ACCRA). APA analyzed how school size impacts cost and found that sm aller schools with fewer students to absorb and spread out the same fixed costs are more expensive per student. Conversely, the largest schools wi th greater economies of scale have the lowest per-student costs.374 The same relationship was found when APA analyzed district size and cost. Finally APA analyzed the cost of living across the state of Nevada to create a Location Cost Metric (LCM). After APA configured the LCM, they then created charts to compare Nevadas current spending to the adequacy costs they estimated. They compared the successful schools figures and the professional judgment costs using the LC M and without using the LCM. The researchers found that using the successful schools figures without appl ying the LCM school districts would have needed to spend $64.2 million more than what they were spending.375 When applying the LCM to the successful schools figur es, the researchers found an additional $55.7 million would be needed. Using the professional judgment estimates and not applying the LCM, the researchers found an addi tional $1,333.2 million would be needed to meet adequacy standards. When applying the LCM to the pr ofessional judgment estimates, the researchers determined an additional $1,320.0 million would be needed. The researchers explain that the 373 Ibid, 35. 374 Ibid, 64. 375 Ibid, 77-78.

PAGE 132

132 costs using the professional judgment approa ch are higher because they used the 2013-2014 standards to estimate the costs. Washington (September 2006) Picus and Associates completed an evidence-based adequacy study for the K-12 Advisory Committee of Washingt on Learns. Costs included in the study focused mainly on instructional costs (i.e. strategies, programs, a nd services). Central office staff and operations and maintenance functions were also addressed. Costs not included in the study were food services, debt services, and tran sportation. The researchers used several sources and created a definition of an adequate education. These s ources included Washington s Essential Academic Learning Requirements, the standards set for the state testing system the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL), and the state standards developed to meet the No Child Left Behind law. In order for schools to meet the requirements of the adequate education definition, the researchers iden tified six core strategies that Washington schools should implement. The strategies identified were recalibrate goals for student learning, re-engineer schools, redesign teacher development, reinforc e achievement for struggling students, retool schools technology, and restructure teacher compensation. The researchers provided examples of some Washington schools that were able to double the performance of students by us ing some, if not all, of the six strategies aforementioned. For their report, the researchers stat ed that resources were identif ied that would be needed for schools to double student perfor mance. The researchers discussed the education production function debate among various researchers and concluded that it is the way money is spent that will make the largest and critical differences.376 Therefore, the researchers recommended the 376 Allan Odden, Lawrence O. Picus, Mi chael Goetz, Michelle Turner Mang an, Mark Fermanich, An EvidencedBased Approach to School Finance Adequacy in Washington, (Sept. 2006): 20.

PAGE 133

133 redirecting of resources rather than simply adding additional m onies. First, the researchers provided general recommendations which were to c ontinue to use a full-time equivalency (FTE) student count, implement a full-day kindergar ten program, and create smaller schools (432 students for elementary schools, 450 students for middle schools, and 600 students for high schools). Then the researchers provided recommendati ons for the personnel in the prototypical schools. These recommendations included class sizes of fifteen students for grades K-3 and twenty-five students for grades 4-12, that elem entary and middle schools receive an additional 20 percent of the number of core teachers for spec ialist teachers, and that high schools receive an additional 33 percent,377 providing 2.5 FTE instructional co aches for every 500 students, one tutor for every 100 students eligible for free and reduced price lunch, one additional teacher for every 100 English Language Learning (ELL) stude nts, create and fund an extended day program to help students meet the academic performan ce standards, include a summer school provision for 50 percent of all Washington adjusted free and reduced price lunch students in all grades K12,378 staff Alternative High Schools with one teacher for every eight students, keep the current funding structure for special edu cation, and funding the gifted a nd talented program with an allocation of twenty-five dollars per student. Other personnel recommendations focused on career and technical education, s ubstitute teachers, student su pport/family-community outreach, aides, librarians, principal, and school site secretarial staff. Fo r every resource identified by the researchers, the current Washingt on policy was stated, research wa s shared about this resource, 377 Ibid, 33. 378 Ibid, 47.

PAGE 134

134 evidence supporting the researchers recommenda tions was provided, and effect sizes for the major recommendations were given. After the researchers addressed the personne l issues at schools, the next area they identified resources for was dollar per pupil el ements. These elements included professional development, technology and equipment, instructional materials, and student activities. Finally the researchers discussed central office expenditur es. A total per pupil cost to implement all of the researchers recommendatio ns was not provided. Washington (September 2006) Picus and Associates conducted a successful school district study for the Washington Learns K-12 Advisory Committee. The resear chers initially met with the K-12 Advisory Committee and developed selection criteria for successful school districts. There were thirtythree academic criteria and three non-academic crit eria. Of the thirty-three academic criteria used, twenty-seven criteria c onsisted of students performan ce on the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL), a single learning growth index for each district for each of the three years,379 and a single achievement gap index for each district for each of the three years. Ontime graduation rate for the years 2002-03, 2003-04, and 2004-05 was the non-academic criteria selected. The Washington Learns Advisory Committee requested two different analyses One to evaluate districts using the NCLB Uniform Ba r Goals in effect for the 2004-05 school year as the performance benchmarks, and a second using the 2007-08 Goals as benchmarks.380 Also, districts that met a range of criteria were identif ied. Outlier districts (21 percent) were excluded from the study to avoid skewed results. The fina l sample of districts consisted of 233 of the 296 379 Mark Fermanich, Michelle Turner Mangan, Allan Odden, Lawrence O. Picus, Betheny Gross, and Zena Rudo, Washington Learns: Successful Dist rict Study, (Sept. 2006): 4. 380 Ibid.

PAGE 135

135 school districts serving 946,059 or 99 per cent of the students in Washington.381 Expenditures included in the study were spending for the regul ar education program, ge neral operations and maintenance, and school and district administ ration. Costs excluded from the study were food service, community services, a dult education, capital costs, and debt cost services. Of the 233 districts, five di stricts met all of the thirty -six criteria using the 2004-05 benchmarks. There were 140 districts that met tw enty-four of the thirty -six criteria using the 2004-05 benchmarks. Using the performance benchmarks for the 2007-08 school year, only twenty-six districts met at least twenty-four of the thirty-six criteria and only one district met all thirty-six of the criteria.382 After identifying the successful sch ool districts, the researchers then disaggregated the districts by poverty and locale and concluded that dist ricts with lower poverty levels serving non-urban populations were more successful in meeting the selection criteria.383 The districts that met all thirty -six criteria for success spent $6,789 per pupil. This compares to the state average spending of $5,422 per pupil.384 After the researchers identified the successful districts, they then used a purposive, nonrandom sample to determine what resources and pr actices were used at some of the schools. A total of thirty-one schools in nine districts were used for this part of the study which included one PreK-12 school, seventeen elementary schools, seven middle schools, and six high schools. Two categories of interview protocols were de veloped: one was designe d to collect data on school-level staffing resources a nd district-level prof essional development resources; and the second category of protocols was designed to gl ean the instructional vision and improvement 381 Ibid, 5. 382 Ibid, 7. 383 Ibid, 8. 384 Ibid, I-1.

PAGE 136

136 strategies that resulted in increased student performance."385 From these interview protocols, the researchers concluded that the successful districts and corres ponding schools studied were able to raise student performance by focusing all of their resources toward teaching and learning.386 The researchers summarized six core elements of successful systemic reform: 1. Focus on educating all students 2. Use data to drive decisions 3. Adopt a rigorous curriculum and align to state standards 4. Support instruction improvement with effective professional development 5. Restructure the learning environment 6. Provide struggling students with extended learning opportunities387 Colorado (October 2006) This report updated the adequacy study that Augenblick, Palaich, and Associates (A PA) completed in 2003.388 The update was completed for th e Colorado School Finance Project (CSFP), an advocacy organization. To update th e successful school dist ricts approach, APA identified successful districts as those who were on target to ha ve 100 percent of students score proficient or above on reading and math assessments by 2013-14.389 Also, to be selected as a successful school district APA chose only those districts that had met Colorados accreditation standards. Fifty-eight districts were documented as successful for the study. A base cost figure was then identified for each district.390 The base cost figure doe s not include spending for atrisk students, special educa tion students, ELL students, tr ansportation, f ood service and 385 Ibid, 21. 386 Ibid, 22. 387 Ibid, 23. 388 John Augenblick and John Myers, Calculation of the Cost of an Adequate Education in Colorado using the Professional Judgement (sic) and the Successful School District Approaches, (Jan. 2003). 389 John Augenblick, Robert Palaich, and Associates, Estimating Colorado School District Costs to Meet State and Federal Education Accountability Requirements, (Oct. 2006): 4. 390 Ibid., 7.

PAGE 137

137 capital.391 Once the base cost for each district was configured, APA used the weighted average of the fifty-eight districts to comput e the per-pupil cost which came to $5,821. To update the professional judgment appr oach, APA convened two school level panels consisting of six to eight people with one panel concentrating on very small and small districts and the other panel focusing on moderate and la rge districts. Unlik e in the 2003 study, APA provided panels with a set of initial resources based on applyi ng the results of the evidencebased approach, as it has been used in a coupl e of other states, to th e hypothetical schools; panelists were free to use the evidence-based resource levels, modify them, or discard them entirely.392 APA also convened two additional panels one composed entirely of people who provided services to students w ith special needs; and one compos ed entirely of school business officials.393 After the panelists iden tified resources needed, AP A updated salaries by using 2004-05 statewide average salaries. Separate weights were configured for special needs students (mild, moderate, and severe), at-risk students, ELL students, and for district s of different sizes. When APA compared the base cost they reached in this study compared to their previous study they found for the successful schools appro ach the 2004-05 figure is about 33 percent higher in smaller districts but only about 21 percent higher in the larger districts.394 When comparing the base cost using the professional judgment model to the their previous study, APA found the 2004-05 figure is 14-16 percent higher am ong very small districts but only six percent higher among moderate and large districts.395 391 Ibid., 7. 392 Ibid., 8. 393 Ibid., 8. 394 Ibid., 9. 395 Ibid., 9-10.

PAGE 138

138 At the conclusion of their study, APA compared their estimate of full adequacy funding to Colorados expenditures for the 2004-05 school year. Using the succes sful schools approach, APA configured the total cost of adequacy to be $8,214 per stude nt whereas the actual spending was $7,345 per student. For the professional judgme nt method, APA configured the total cost of adequacy to be $10,191 per student. Charts were provided at the end of the study to demonstrate which districts had spent above or below the figure APA had determined as adequate. Minnesota (November 2006) At the requ est of P.S. Minnesota, an a dvocacy group, APA conducted an adequacy study using the professional judgment approach and the successful school district model. For the study, APA defined adequacy as sufficient funding so that schools and districts have a reasonable chance to meet state and fede ral student performance expectations.396 For the successful school dist rict model, APA set two standards that districts would need to meet in order to be identifie d as successful. The first criteria focused on districts reaching the standards set for the 2008-09 school year. APA used performance data from the 2002-03, 2003-04, and 2004-05 school years to see if the dist ricts performance trend was on target to meet the 2008-09 objectives.397 This was done by regressing the proportion of students making AYP against time for each district a nd using the resulting formula to predict 2008-09 performance.398 The second criteria examined how we ll special needs populations were doing to meet the 2004-05 AYP goals in each district. T o be considered successful, a district had to meet the first criteria (based on the 2008-09 AYP goals) and at least two of the six special 396 Justin Silverstein, Doug Rose, and John Myers, Estimating the Cost of an Adequate Education in Minnesota, (Nov. 2006): 4. 397 Ibid, 10. 398 Ibid.

PAGE 139

139 population tests had to meet th e 2004-05 performance objectives.399 Forty-five of Minnesotas 341 districts were identified as successful using the two standards set by APA. After identifying the 45 successful school di stricts, APA worked with the Minnesota Department of Education to determine the base student spending for the 45 districts. After the base spending for each district was determined, AP A then used efficiency screens for three areas Instruction, Administration, a nd Building Maintenance and Opera tions. For instruction APA excluded any district with a teachers-pe r-1,000-weighted-pupils figure that was one standard deviation above the mean or higher. The administration effi ciency screen relied on the number of administrators per 1,000 weighted pupils and again excluded those districts with a figure above one standard de viation above the mean. Finally, for building maintenance and operations APA excluded any district whose spending per pupil in the category was one standard devia tion above the mean or higher.400 After using the efficiency screens, there were 38 districts identified as su ccessful for instruction, 39 districts for administration, a nd 43 districts for building main tenance and operations. APA then configured base costs for each area and es timated $5,359 for the student base cost for the 2004-05 school year. For the professional judgment approach, AP A used a previous professional judgment study for the School Funding Task Force that was conducted in 2004 by Management, Planning, and Associates (MAP). This was done because P.S. Minnesota requested it. In the MAP study, a base cost per pupil was not estimated and resources for special needs students were not identified. A weight of 1.9 was chosen by MAP for special education students and after reviewing national research and other APA prof essional judgment studies APA chose a weight of 1.0 for special education st udents. APA configured a ba se cost of $5,938 for the 2004-05 school year. Other weights APA chose were .75 for at-risk students and .90 for LEP students. 399 Ibid. 400 Ibid, 11.

PAGE 140

140 Two other statistical methods were also used in the professional judgment study in order to account for expenditure differences in districts. To adjust for cost of living expenses, APA used a Location Cost Metric (LCM). To adjust for district size differences, APA used averages from other adequacy studies that had configured higher costs for small and large districts since the MAP study had not examined this area. In sum, the successful school district appro ach estimated that the Minnesota Legislature should spend $1.05 billion for the 2004-05 school year which would be an increase of 18 percent over the current 2004-05 spending. For the profes sional judgment approach, APA determined $1.79 billion should be spent which is a 30 percent increase over the 2004-05 current spending level. Montana (January 2007) The Montana Quality Education Coalition, an advocacy organization, contracted with Augenblick, Palaich, and Associat es, Inc. (APA) to conduct an ad equacy study for the state of Montana. APA previously completed an adequa cy study for several advo cacy organizations in 2002 and this study updated that work. The prof essional judgment approach was the main methodology utilized to complete the study. A limited successful school dist rict study was also conducted. Since the testing system in Montana had not been in place for several years, a complete analysis using the successful school di strict approach was not possible and therefore APA did not provide base cost figures usi ng this method. Since APAs study in 2002, the Montana legislature has created a definition of a quality education for elementary and secondary schools. This definition along with the states plan to comply with the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), which incl udes 100 percent of students meeting reading and math

PAGE 141

141 proficiency targets by 2013-2014, was th e basis for the cost estimates401 were used for the study. Costs of transportation, capital, food serv ices, community services and adult education were not included in the study. For the successful school dist rict approach, two years of testing data (2003-04 and 200405) were available. APA applied two measure to analyze districts: 1. A growth trend standard. This identifies districts or systems whos e aggregate test scores are on a trajectory to meet a future performance goal. 2. An absolute standard. This identif ies only those districts or systems that currently meet a future performance standard.402 Two growth objectives were iden tified by APA 100 percent of students attaining proficiency in math and reading and -10 proficiency target s of 80 percent of students in reading and 73 percent of students in math.403 For the first objective, APA identified 78 school systems that were on pace to meet the 2013-14 standard of 100 percent proficiency.404 For the second objective, APA identified 91 systems that we re on pace to meet the identified 2009-10 standard.405 APA set the absolute standard the same as growth objective two. Since so few districts met this target, APA did not presen t the specific numbers because APA believed the results to be misleading. Using the 91 sy stems identified for growth objective two, APA concentrated on the base cost spending per pupi l of these systems. Overall APA found that 401 Justin Silverstein, Douglas Rose, Robert Palaich, John Myers, and Amanda Brown, Estimating the Cost of an Adequate Education in Montana, (Jan. 2007): i-ii. 402 Ibid, 9. 403 Ibid, 10. 404 Ibid. 405 Ibid.

PAGE 142

142 smaller districts generally spend more per pup il, with the costs going down as district size grows.406 First APA created four hypothe tical school districts for the pr ofessional judgment panels. The breakdown of the districts was as follows : a small district with under 500 students, a moderate district ranging from 501 to 1,200 studen ts, a large district ra nging from 1,200 to 3,000 students, and a very large distri ct with over 3,001 students. To select participants for the professional judgment panels, APA solicited help from leaders of the states major education associations. There were a total of seventy peopl e who participated in the panels. There were nine panels with six to ten peopl e serving on each panel. APA formed different levels of panels. Four different school level panels were created to identify re sources in the four hypothetical school districts. Two separate special needs pane ls were formed. One of these panels focused on resources for special needs students in the sm all and moderate sized districts and the other panel focused on resources for special needs students in the large and very large sized districts. The special needs panels also incl uded resources needed at the dist rict level for the special needs pupils. District panels reviewed the work of th e school level and special needs panels and also included resources needed at the district level for the regula r education students. One district panel focused on resources for the students in the small and moderate sized districts and the other district panel focused on resources for the students in the large and very large sized districts. The statewide panel reviewed the work of all of the panels and made recommendations about salaries. The resources that panelists examined in cluded personnel, supplies and materials, nontraditional programs and services, technology, other personnel costs, and other costs. In the 406 Ibid, 12.

PAGE 143

143 case of several categories of personnel (teachers, pr incipals, instructional l eaders, teacher tutors) APA provided panel members with starting figures that reflect research results that evidencebased (EB) analyses have used in estimating adequacy.407 Since the research based figures do not provide a complete picture of necessary resources, APA provi ded the figures primarily as a starting point to stimulate discus sion and allowed panelists to modi fy the figures as they saw fit based on their expertise and experience.408 After the panels completed their work, APA configured the resource costs. To configure salaries, APA used the results of a statewide salary survey conducted by the Montana School Boards Association (MTSBA) which asked districts to provide the 2006-07 salaries for the relevant positions.409 APA also compared Montana teachers salaries to those of fi ve neighboring states and conclude d that a salary increase of 6.1 percent was needed to make the average adjusted Montana teacher salary competitive with that of the comparison states.410 The researchers estimated that the average base cost per pupil for a small district was $11,682, for a moderate sized district was $9,459, fo r a large sized district was $9,028, and for a very large district was $9,030. The researchers also configured the added costs for educating special needs students, at-risk students, and LEP students. Fo r a moderate sized district, students with mild special education need s add $8,648, students with moderate special education needs add $12,592, and students with severe special education needs add $29,768. Atrisk students add $3,720, and LEP students add $7,181 per student.411 The researchers 407 Ibid, 18-19. 408 Ibid, 19. 409 Ibid, 20. 410 Ibid, 25. 411 Ibid, 27.

PAGE 144

144 compared Montanas current spending to their re commendations and estima ted an increase of 61 percent in spending for K-12 school systems and an increase of 91 percent in spending for K-8 school systems. Washington (January 2007) David Conley and Kathryn Rooney were the pr im ary researchers for this adequacy study which was conducted by the Educational Policy Improvement Center (EPIC), which is an advocacy organization. The goal of this study was to determine the level of educational expenditure necessary to make ample provision for the education of all students, providing all students with the skills to meet long-term acad emic standards, pursue additional learning beyond high school, and become produc tive citizens and contribu ting members of society.412 The researchers defined an ad equate education as one that provides the required resources for al l students to achieve th e states goals and to meet the expectations citizens have for thei r schools. Those goals include the standards established to fulfill the requirements of th e 1977 Basic Education Act (as amended), the 1993 Education Reform Act (HB 1209), and th e federal education goals for which Washington agrees to strive when it accepts federal funds.413 The researchers used a hybrid approach to comp lete the study utilizing elements from the successful schools, evidence-base d, professional judgment, and cost function methods. First researchers created three prot otype schools an elementary, middle, and high school after analyzing expenditure data a nd enrollment and staffing information from 2004-05. Then principals at improving schools a nd other education administrators were asked to look at the prototype schools and provide recommendations fo r changes so the prototype schools resembled expenditure patterns of the improving schools. Th e information was gathered using a survey. 412 David T. Conley and Kathryn C. Rooney, Washington Adequacy Funding Study, (Jan. 2007): 1. 413 Ibid, 1.

PAGE 145

145 The purpose of the survey was to obtain info rmation about expenditures at the improving schools. Eighteen surveys were returned and th e researchers used the information from the returned surveys to adjust the ba seline model for expenditures. A survey was also distributed to three sc hool business managers. The survey provided data regarding the three baseline prototype schools elementa ry, middle, and high school and the managers were asked to examine the expend iture patterns of the models and use their experience to determine how accurate the expenditure patterns were. Researchers used the information gathered from the surveys to conf irm the funding allocation in some categories and to adjust other categories. The study adjusted expenditure categories both up and down as a result of the survey input. However, none of these changes affected the bottom line expenditure levels.414 Improving schools were identified using seve ral criteria. Performance data on the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) in math and reading had to be available for the following school years: 2002-03, 2003-04, and 2004-05 to ensure the students were constantly demonstrating high achievement. Another criterion was schools had to have at least forty students in a grade. Ot her criteria included no special admissions requirements, gave traditional grades, and made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in 2004-05. The highest performing schools in each lowincome student decile were selected in order to get a representative cross section of schools. Using the above cr iteria forty-two elementary schools, twenty-nine middle schools, and tw enty-six high schools were identi fied as improving schools. For the next phase of the study, the resear chers used the evidence-based approach by conducting a literature review in or der to identify intervention stra tegies that have been shown to 414 Ibid, 61.

PAGE 146

146 improve student achievement. Budget simulations were created for each prototype school. The panelists were selected from recommendations from the Washington Association of School Administrators (WASA). Also, a ll principals from the identified improving schools were invited to participate. Fifty people participated in the professional judgme nt process either by completing budget simulations or being involved in meetings. Researchers asked professional judgment panelists to use the simulations to specify adequate compensation for each staff position, select any necessary educ ational interventions, as well as adjust staffing and other expenditures to adequate levels.415 The results from the individual budget simula tions were aggregate d, analyzed, and then presented to two review panels of Washingt on educational administra tors, most of whom had completed one of the simulations. Resear chers facilitated two daylong meetings of panelists, one in Spokane and one in Renton. Panelists discussed and debated the results from the simulations, offered feedback on what should be included in an adequate education in Washington, and further consid ered the cost-effectiveness of the proposed adequacy changes in relation to the states ability to fund its public education system.416 The researchers provided a list of the all the in terventions selected for the elementary, middle, and high school prototype schools. Then each intervention was presented with the evidence supporting the use of the intervention and what ad ditional cost, if any, was required to implement the intervention. To determine salary levels, the researchers performed a comparable wage analysis and hedonic teacher wage analyses.417 The researchers explained that they chose to use the comparable wage approach because it can be used to determine the level of compensation needed to recruit and retain the best teachers in a competitiv e labor market, while the hedonic 415 Ibid, 46. 416 Ibid. 417 Ibid.

PAGE 147

147 wage approach is used to determine the level of compensation necessary to give all schools an equal chance to employ the best teachers.418 Lastly, the researchers used the cost function approach to determine cost differences for schools with special demographics such as a la rge population of low-income students or a very low enrollment. The studys overa ll finding is that the per student expenditure level needed to provide an adequate education to every K-12 Washington student is $11,678419 in 2005 dollars which comes to an additional $3,613 per student. California (March 2007) The Public Policy Ins titute of California (PPIC) led by researcher, Jon Stonstelie, conducted an adequacy study for the Institute fo r Research on Education Policy and Practice, Stanford University, which was carried out at the request of the Governors Committee on Education Excellence. The researchers used a m odified professional judgment approach for the study. Rather than being able to create hypothetical schools with an unlimited budget and unaware of the resource costs, the participants were presente d with budget simulations that included a fixed budget and were informed what the resources would cost. Additionally, hundreds of participants were chos en to create budget simulations and those participants worked individually and were not expected to reach a consensus on resources as is customary with the traditional professional judgment method. The budget simulations included resources needed for regular education at a school, such as teachers, administrative staff, and support st aff. The simulations did not include special education students. Three differe nt simulation scenarios were cr eated an elementary school, a 418 Ibid, 100. 419 Ibid, 115.

PAGE 148

148 middle school, and a high school. Participants were given a spreadsheet to complete the budget. Each line on the spreadsheet included a resource and the cost of a unit of that resource. The spreadsheet also specifies a tota l budget, and participants are asked to choose the units of each resource that would maximize the academic achievement of the schools students.420 The spreadsheets contained many categories of resour ces including teachers, principals, assistant principals, clerical office staff, aides, counselor s, burses, librarians, s ecurity officers, technology support staff, tutors, and academic coaches.421 Instructional computers were also included for the simulations. The following areas/resources were not included for the simulations: special education, instructional material s, transportation, maintenance and operations, extra-curricular activities, and district administration. Each participant completed two different budget scenarios. After completing the budget simulation, pa rticipants then predicted students achievement in the school. For all three versio ns of the simulation, participants are asked to predict the Academic Performance Index (A PI) of the school, the measure of academic achievement in Californias accountability system.422 In addition to the API prediction, in middle school participants also pr edicted a proficient score or higher on the California Standards Mathematics Test; for high school, participants also predicted the amount of ninth grade students that would graduate in four years. The API is a weighted average of students scores on a battery of statewide achievement tests.423 The state legislature ha s established a goal of 800 API for each school. The No Child Left Behind (N CLB) standard is for 100 percent of students 420 Jon Sonstelie, Irene Altman, Sarah Battersby, Cynthia Bene lli, Elizabeth Dhuey, Paolo Gardinali, Brad Hill, and Stephen Lipscomb, Aligning School Finance with Academic Standards: A Weighted-Student Formula Based on a Survey of Practitioners, (Mar. 2007): 6. 421 Ibid, 13. 422 Ibid, 6. 423 Ibid, 15.

PAGE 149

149 to be proficient in English and mathematics which equates to an API higher than 875 which no school is meeting. About a quarter of Calif ornias public schools have an API of 800 or better.424 The researchers used the goal of 800 API for the budget simulations. Participants were provided descriptions of hypothetical schools with different student characteristics in order to compare how the stude nt characteristics affected resource choices and API predictions. The four characteristics included: enrollment, percent of students participating in the free or reduced price lunch program, per cent of students classified as English language learners, and the average API of feeder sc hools (for middle and high school simulations).425 Although participants were not asked to calculate resources for special education students, the researchers made tw o adjustments for special educa tion students. First, the budget is increased for the additional services special education students require.426 This number was configured using the California Special Educat ion Management Information System (CASEMIS) which provides average figures for disabilities. The researchers estimated the average cost for educating a student with special needs was $870 per student. Second, the API prediction is lowered to reflect the reality that students with disabilities do less well, on average, on the standardized tests used to calculate the API of a school.427 Schools were selected using stratifies random sampling. Then principals or teachers were selected to participate. Pr incipals of selected schools chose a teacher to part icipate so that process did not provide a random sample of teachers. Superintendents of schools chosen were asked to participate. In all 568 people comp leted the simulations which included teachers, 424 Ibid, 18. 425 Ibid, 23. 426 Ibid, 24. 427 Ibid.

PAGE 150

150 principals, and superintendents. Participants were sent a letter to complete the simulation on a web site, were allowed three weeks to do the si mulation, and were paid $250. Each participant completed a different simulation. The researchers configured other school distri ct costs for areas such as transportation, district administration, and main tenance and operations. They used actual expenditures of school districts from 2003-04 school year, configured the costs for averag e school districts and then adjusted expenditures based in the specific charac teristics of a district. The researchers also adjusted for population density, regi onal salaries, and district leve l special education costs. The average cost per pupil was estimated at $9,912. This figure used an API of 797; the researchers original goal was an API of 800. The additional cost to the state was estimated at $17 billion which was more than a 40% increase. Gradual increases in funding were recommended as an immediate increase of that magnitude wa s unrealistic. California (March 2007) The Am erican Institutes of Research (AIR) conducted a seven-month adequacy study using the professional judgment approach. The AIR team compiled information from the California Department of Educations Accountab ility Progress Report to define adequacy, identify target levels, and create a Goals Statemen t for the professional judg ment panels to use. The 2011-2012 proficiency standards were used as a benchmark. To find highly qualified educators to participate in the professional judgment panels, AIR us ed two approaches to identify the educators: individual educators associated with schools that have been identified through a series of separate AIR studies as high performing428 as well as individual educators who were nominated by participants in the Getting Down to Facts study group, county superintendents, 428 Jay Chambers, Jesse Levin, and Danielle DeLancey, Efficiency and Adequacy in California School Finance: A Professional Judgment Approach, (Dec. 2006): 16.

PAGE 151

151 and numerous professional educatio n agencies throughout the state.429 Eighteen educators were chosen to serve on the professi onal judgment panels. Two inde pendent professional judgment panels of nine educators each were used in the study. First the panels were asked to create a base model instructional program for a typical California elementary, middle, and high school (sp ecifically a school with median percentages of students receiving freeand redu ced-price lunch, English Lan guage Learners, and students receiving special education services and at the median school size).430 Once the instructional programs were created, panelists were told to identify the resources needed to implement the programs. After creating a base model the panels were asked to create models for elementary, middle, and high schools with high and low poverty levels. Then the two professional judgment panels were divided into three separate sub-panels in order to create programs for the various demographics found at Californi a schools (i.e. English Language Learners, special education students, and different size school s). Finally the full professiona l judgment panels were given the opportunity to review the work completed by the sub-panels a nd make modifications in light of more specified deliberations.431 The researchers acknowledged the fact that speci fic types of district s such as urban or rural were not identified for the st udy due to budget constraints. The researchers also noted that neither panel had sufficient time to address fu lly the issues of multiple non-English languages served by ELL programs, varying disability co mpositions among special education students, and varying school sizes.432 The researchers created equations to configure th e costs of the 429 Ibid. 430 Ibid, 11. 431 Ibid., 11. 432 Ibid., 33.

PAGE 152

152 professional judgment panels recommendations. T he results showed, a ll else being equal, higher per-pupil costs for schools with greater numbers of students in poverty, requiring ELL services, or eligible for special education services.433 Schools with more students living in poverty showed dramatic increases on a per-pupil ba sis. For example, an elementary school with a high poverty level (90th percentile) per-pupil expenditure is 34 percen t higher than a school with average poverty.434 Since the panels were asked to determine res ources at the school level only, the AIR team then computed district costs (central admini strative functions, maintenance and operations, and transportation) using fiscal data from the CDE so that current e xpenditures could be compared to the results of the professiona l judgment panels. A compar able wage index (CWI) was incorporated in order to adjust for geographic variations in the cost of school personnel.435 The researchers estimated that the costs of an ad equate education in Cali fornia will require an additional investment of somewhere betw een $24.14 and $32.01 billion which represent a stunning increase in spending of between 53 to more than 70 percent436 for the 2004-2005 school year. Rhode Island (March 2007) In 2007, R.C. Wood & Associates conducted an adequacy study for the state of Rhode Island. The researchers prepared the report for the Joint Committee to Establish a Permanent Education Foundation Aid Formula for Rhode Island. The four methods to determine adequacy 433 Ibid., 36. 434 Ibid., 35. 435 Ibid., 41. 436 Ibid., 2.

PAGE 153

153 (successful schools, cost function, professional judgment, and evidenced-based) were used in the study. For the successful schools method, the rese archers did not include transportation and facility costs. An inflation rate of 11.7 percent was applied to expenditures for the 2004-05 in order to estimate the costs for the 2007-08 school year. This inflation rate is based on the historic comparable wage index increases in Rhode Island.437 Outliers were removed from the study to reduce distortion of the results. The outl iers removed were the schools with the top and bottom 5 percent in expenditures for each group.438 The researchers created discount rates to acc ount for differences in student populations. Two different discount rates were used in the st udy. For the first discoun t rate, the researchers determined English language learners and free an d reduced price lunch students cost 25 percent more to educate and special e ducation students cost 100 percent more. For the second discount rate, English language learners a nd free and reduced price lunch st udents cost 40 percent more to educate and special education students cost 110 percent more. Schools were considered successful if students were meeting the 2008 outcome standards. The researchers found the required increase in funding based on the applica tion of discount rates, and then comparing successful schools to school average percentages ranges from $56.7 to $128.3 million.439 Data for the Cost Function approach and fo r Successful Schools analysis were drawn from the downloadable Microsoft Access format files of detailed budget and actual expenditure data from Rhode Islands recent implementa tion of IN$ITE financial analysis software.440 437 R.C. Wood & Associates, State of Rhode Island Education Adequacy Study, (March 2007): 26. 438 Ibid. 439 Ibid, 43. 440 Ibid, 45.

PAGE 154

154 Student demographic data and school level pe rformance outcome data were obtained from RIDE. Three years of data from 2002-03 to 2004 -05 were used for the cost function study. The researchers compiled the school level expenditu res per pupil for 297 schools in Rhode Island. Since Rhode Island is considered a single labor market, t here is no need to account for regional wage variation from one side to the other of the state.441 In addition, given the states average population density across counties, ther e is little need to account for the role of school or district size in influencing costs442 except in a few cases. The researchers chose to use stochastic frontie r cost functions in order to estimate the relationship between outcomes and spending, gi ven student and school characteristics.443 The researchers chose not to use thei r methods to compare or evaluate school efficiency, and instead to use the methods to derive reasonable predictions of the co sts of producing desired outcome levels.444 Using the cost function approach, the researchers found that it would cost an additional $42.4 million for students to reach the 2008 proficiency targets. For the professional judgment approach, nine prototype schools were created small, medium, and large elementary, middle, and high schools. The research ers surveyed all the principals in the state of Rhode Island. The principals wer e provided a survey with their corresponding prototype school, and asked to provide input on what they considered to be the required adequate inputs. Overall, 148 principals (46 percent) responded.445 To increase their sample size, the researchers also created two expert panels and a di strict panel. The participants 441 Ibid, 46. 442 Ibid, 47. 443 Ibid, 51. 444 Ibid, 53. 445 Ibid, 60.

PAGE 155

155 for the first expert panel were invited by the Joint Committee with input from various education entities in the stat e of Rhode Island.446 For the district panel, all school superintendents and their staff were asked to participate. The partic ipants for the second expert panel were principals from high performing schools, along with reco mmendations from the Rhode Island Principals Association.447 The researchers explained that the rese arch protocol averages the results of the two expert panels and thus provi des the most valid information.448 The researchers provide a secti on to explain how they configur ed their input costs such as teacher salaries, principal salaries, teacher aide s, substitutes, office staff, meal preparation, custodians, and other costs. For each school level (elementary, middle, and high school) and school size (large, medium, and small), the res earchers provide a chart of the recommended resources and calculate a total per pupil cost. Then the actual expenditure for the school type and size is given to compare the prototype esti mates. The range was from $11,380 to $13,931 per pupil. The researchers estimated that to fund the prototype schools would require an additional $153.5 million which was an increase of 8.6 percent. The expert panel participants also recommended funding for students who were not making sufficient progress and the researchers explain how they estimated the additional f unding and determined an additional $51.3 million would be needed to help these students. For the evidence-based method, the researcher s discuss a brief summ ary of educational strategies and concepts that appear to have th e most impact on helping students improve and for each program, the effect size is given. Due to criticisms by experts of the evidence-based method, the researchers explain that they believe it is inappropriate and invalid to estimate costs 446 Ibid. 447 Ibid. 448 Ibid.

PAGE 156

156 using this approach.449 However, the researchers did r ecommend the state fund pilot programs for the following areas: small group tutoring, enha nced technology usage, drop out prevention and career prep, early grade literacy and math, and education of Englis h language learners. These areas were chosen because there has be en strong evaluation standards met with these strategies. They also emphasi ze the importance of the state creating a strong evaluation system in order to measure the results of these pilo t programs. Additional funding of $25 million was recommended for the pilot programs and $10 million for the program evaluation infrastructure. Since there has been strong evidence showing the benefits of full-day kindergarten the researchers recommended additional funding so that all Rhode Island studen ts can attend full-day kindergarten. The cost for this was estimated at $23.35 million. Wisconsin (March 2007) In March 2007, Allan Odden, Lawrence Picus and Associates prepared an adequacy study for the W isconsin School Finance Adequacy Initiative, an advocacy organization. The researchers used the evidence-based approach to estimate the cost of an adequate education in Wisconsin. The goal of this study was to configur e an "adequate cost figure [that] will set a target for what the state shoul d fund for K-12 education with a combination of state and local funds to allow all districts and schools to doubl e student performance and dramatically reduce the achievement gaps."450 In the study, the researcher s "redesign strategies, progr ams, and services covering expenditures for the instructional, instructional support, pupil support a nd site administration 449 Ibid, 80. 450 Allan Odden, Lawrence O. Picus, Sarah Archibald, Michael Goetz, Michelle Tu rner Mangan, and Anabel Aportela, Moving From Good to Great in Wisconsin: Funding Schools Adequately And Doubling Student Performance, (March 2007): 8.

PAGE 157

157 functions."451 The researchers defined adequacy using Wisconsin's Academic Standards, a proficient score on Wisconsin's stat e test "(with the proficiency standard calibrated over time to those of the NAEP),"452 the standards set by the state's account ability system as well as No Child Left Behind, and reasonable funding for resource s. General recommendations the researchers made were for the state to fully fund preschool fo r low-income three and four year olds, use an FTE student count but create a simpler system for student counting, continue the full day kindergarten program, and create schools within a school for those schools above the suggested enrollment (432 for elementary, 450 for middle sc hool, and 600 for high school). The prototype school sizes used in the study was 432 for elemen tary school, 450 for middle school, and 600 for high school. For each recommendation, the research ers explained Wisconsin's current policy if there were one and provide research to support the recommendation. The researchers also made recommendations fo r the personnel elemen ts in prototypical schools. Class sizes were recommended to be fifteen for K-3 and twenty-five for 4-12. The researchers recommended "that elementary and middle schools receive an additional 20 percent of the number of core teachers for specialist teachers, and that high schools receive an additional 33 percent, in order to teach specia list classes and also to provide time for teachers to engage in collaborative planning and prep aration as well as job-embedde d professional development."453 Allocating instructional coaches (" 2.5 FTE instructional coaches fo r a school of 500 students, or 1 instructional coach for every 200 students454) was recommended. For struggling students, 451 Ibid, 11. 452 Ibid, 48. 453 Ibid, 63. 454 Ibid, 64.

PAGE 158

158 specific extra-help programs (tutoring, additional teachers for English language learners, extended day programs, and a summer school program s) were discussed. Cr eating an alternative high school was also suggested. Fully reimbursi ng districts using state funds for educating special education students was recommended, pr oviding $25/ADM for gifted and talented programs, "weight career and technical educa tion students an additional 0.3 for smaller class sizes, and to provide a sum of money, approxi mately $7,000, for every career and technical education teacher"455 were also recommended. Other pe rsonnel recommendations covered the following areas: substitute teachers, student support/family outreach, aides, librarians, principals, and school site secretarial staff. After providing their recommendations, the researchers presented a chart with the estimated effect size for each major reco mmendation. The researchers provided recommendations for dollar per pupil elements as well. These areas were professional development, technology and equipment, inst ructional materials, student activities, and supervisory and safety personnel. A secti on was included in the study for central office expenditures including the fo llowing areas: central office ad ministration, operation and maintenance, food services, trans portation, legacy health benefits, and debt service. Charts to summarize the resource and personnel recommenda tions for the prototype elementary, middle, and high school are provided. Since Wisconsin had many districts that did not match the descrip tion of the prototype schools, the researchers provide d recommendations on how to fund small schools and adjust for small districts, as well as costed out thei r recommendations. The average per pupil cost was estimated at $9,820 (where the base funding equaled $8,520 and the ca tegorical programs 455 Ibid, 85-86.

PAGE 159

159 equaled $1,300). A simpler approach was also estimated at $8,400 per pupil, with several addons for special needs students. The estimated additional cost was $786 million or an increase of 9.2 percent. Pennsylvania (November 2007) Augenblick, Palaich, and A ssociates (APA) completed an adequacy study for the Pennsylvania State Board of Education in November 2007. The professional judgment approach, successful school distri ct approach, and the evidence-base d approach were used for the study as requested by the Pennsylvania State Board of Education. Additionally, APA had researchers from New York University conduct a co st function analysis to statistically analyze data to see how spending relates to student performance.456 The performance targets used for the study were the targets already set by the Pennsylvania Stat e Board of Education which are all students (100 percent) mastering state standards in twelve acad emic areas and all students (100 percent) achieving proficiency in math and reading by 2014. For the successful school dist rict approach, APA used an absolute standard and a growth standard to identify successful school districts. For the absolute standard, APA used the performance targets for 2012 set by the state wh ich require 81 percent of students to score proficient or above on reading assessments and 78 percent to score profic ient or above on math assessments.457 This standard was set assuming that st udents who met this target were on track to reach the 2014 target. The growth standard identifies districts whose year-to-year growth in PSSA [Pennsylvania System of School Assessments] test scores suggests that they will have 100 456 John Augenblick, Robert Palaich, and Associates, Inc. Costing Out the Resources Needed to Meet Pennsylvanias Public Education Goals, (Nov. 2007): 5. 457 Ibid, 6.

PAGE 160

160 percent of students scoring proficient or above by 2014 in both reading and math.458 Using these standards eighty-two districts were identifie d as successful districts. APA then analyzed the efficiency of the eighty-two districts in three areas: instruction, administration, and maintenance and operations. Then APA identified the school districts that were deemed low spending and efficient and interviewed the superi ntendents in those districts to determine the methods used in the districts. For the professional judgment approach the performance target s of 100 percent of students mastering state standards in twelve academic areas achi eving proficiency in math and reading by 2014 was used. Five hypothetical school districts were created for the study: very small, small, moderate, large and very large. Sixty-six people participated in the professional judgment panels with five to eight people servin g on each panel. Participants were chosen for the panels after the State Board of Education received re commendations from education organizations, colleagues, advocacy groups, and se lf-nominations. Three panels were created that focused on identifying resources for the fi ve hypothetical school dist ricts. Two panels focused on resources for the special needs students which included poverty, gifted, second language learners, and special educ ation. Four district level pa nels convened and reviewed the other panels recommendations and added district level resources. Philadelphia was used as its own district because of its unique characteristics and two panels convened to identify resources for this school district. A sta tewide panel reviewed the work of all earlier panels, discussed resource prices, examined preliminary cost fi gures, and attempted to resolve some of the inconsistencies that arose across panels.459 The resources that were examined by the panels for 458 Ibid. 459 Ibid, 14.

PAGE 161

161 the study were personnel, supp lies and materials, non-tradit ional programs and services, technology, other personnel costs, and other costs. The following costs were not included in the study: food service, transportation, community services, adult education, and capital. For the evidence-based approach, APA worked with researchers from the Educational Policy Improvement Center. The evidence-based approach in this st udy began with a compre hensive review of available literature to identify educational st rategies that are likely to be effective in schools. The strategies with the most research support were then presented, via an online simulation, to a panel of teachers, educatio nal administrators, pupil support staff, school board members, and business representati ves who were called upon to consider the necessity and relative importanc e of each strategy. Panelists were encouraged to select only strategies that they believed would be e ffective in hypothetical schools, or schools that represent current (2005-06) enrollments staffing, and other e xpenditures in large Pennsylvania school district s at the elementary, middl e, and high school levels.460 Panelists were selected through recommendations fr om various education groups in the state. The State Board of Education also selected loca l business leaders to participate. Forty-five people completed the simulation. APA then analyzed the data from the simulation. After APA conducted the three adequacy methods for the state of Pennsylvania, they had researchers from New York University complete a cost analysis of school district spending and determine how it correlated to student performance. APA also analyzed other costs in the state of Pennsylvania. APA configured a regional co st of living index that could be used in Pennsylvanias education funding formula, examined wage and salary differences in districts and student enrollment change, and analyzed the resources required to run the transportation system. The cost estimate for 2005-06 for studen t to meet the performance targets was $21.63 billion compared to the actual statewide aggr egate spending of $17.25 billion. The estimate per student was $11,926 whereas the actual spending per student in 2005-06 per was $9,512. APA 460 Ibid, 17.

PAGE 162

162 also calculated the additional cost for special needs students and concluded the added costs for special education was 1.1, for poverty was 0.43, fo r English language learners was 0.75, and for gifted students was 0.37. New Mexico (January 2008) In January 2008, the American Institute for Re search (AIR) released its adequacy report for the Funding Form ula Study Task Force, who wa s appointed by the state legislature. The professional judgment approach was used to determ ine the cost of a sufficient education for all public school students in New Mexico.461 Although the professional judgment approach was the main methodology utilized to co st out the resources, the researchers state that there was a hybrid approach used as well. The following items were provided to th e professional judgment panels expert briefs, resource profiles of succes sful schools, and public engagement materials. In order to create a definition for sufficiency a nd receive public input, online and paper surveys were made available. The surveys were created to elicit the following information: perceptions of New Mexicos current goals and standards and the elements needed to reach the goals. The survey was distributed to 100 individuals and the response rate was 33 percent. The public survey was completed by 1,700 individuals. Also, twenty-three town hall meetings were held to receive public input. A Project Advisory Panel (PAP) was formed to work with AIR and included educators, legislators, superintendents, a nd school board members. In addition to the PAP, a Stakeholder Panel was formed which included members of the PAP, superintendents, education organization representatives, business commun ity members, parents, and othe r interested residents. The Stakeholder panel convened twi ce to provide input. The fi rst meeting entailed the panel 461 American Institutes for Research (AIR), An Indepe ndent Comprehensive Study of the New Mexico Public School Funding Formula, Volume I Final Report, (Jan. 2008): 1.

PAGE 163

163 synthesizing all the information from the publ ic input process to create a definition for sufficiency which is referred to as the Goals Statement. The second meeting had AIR members sharing cost estimates of the base m odels the panels had created. Six independent professional judgment panels (PJPs) composed of fifty-four educators were formed to represent the dive rse districts across the state. Th e panels were asked to create a base model in order for the average size school with low-need students in elementary, middle, and high schools to reach the Goals Statement. Then the panels were asked to describe the resources for varying demographic groups and sc hool sizes. After the PJPs recommendations were completed AIR conducted a review of the pr ograms. The purpose of this review is to ensure that the final program de signs are efficient and to arrive at a more realistic and grounded set of specifications and cost estimates.462 The PAP met with representatives from the PJPs for the review. There was agreement that some of the programs developed by the PJPs could be designed more efficiently.463 After the review, the PAP then conducted the same exercises as the PJPs did along with a member of the AIP team using the recommendations of the PJPs as a starting point. As a result of their review, the PAP developed a revised set of program designs and re source specifications, which AIR used to produce a final set of sufficiency cost estimates.464 In general, the instructional program designs developed by th e PAP added resources to reduce class sizes, allocated personnel to support language and cu ltural heritage programs, extended the 462 Ibid, 2. 463 Ibid. 464 Ibid.

PAGE 164

164 instructional year, added specialis ts to work with small groups of students, and provided coaches to foster professional development opportunities for teachers.465 The costs for a sufficient stude nt education are the combined total of these components: (1) the projected sufficient school-level projectio ns (aggregated to the district-level for noncharter schools); (2) the cost of services for threeand four-year old DD students; (3) the cost of ancillary services for disabled students; and (4) the cost of distri ct-level overhead functions. Initially AIR recommended applying a geographic cost adjustment to the sufficiency cost estimate. However, after concerns about the external validity of the estimated indices were discussed by the task force and the PAP, the ge ographic cost adjustment was not applied. The researchers computed that the statewide average per pupil program cost for the 2007-2008 school year is $8,144.466 This means that state funding would need to be increased by 14.5 percent ($334.7 million) for New Mexicos student s to achieve sufficiency. Variations in estimates existed depending on the type of district. For exampl e, the cost per pupil for ruralremote districts would require $12,501 per pupil. Due to the increased funding recommended by AIR, a multi-year, phase-in schedule was provided. Other Adequacy Studies There have been other state adequacy studi es conducted besides the studies previously discussed. These studies could not be included or evaluated due to the f act that the studies were unattained and/or not released. Following is a list of the titles of these studies: 465 Ibid, 26. 466 Ibid, 47.

PAGE 165

165 Alabama Department of Education St udy, State Board of Education, 2001 School Finance in Mississippi: A Proposal for an Alternate System by Augenblick, Van de Waters, & Myers, 1993, Sponsoring Agency: Th e Task Force on Restructuring the Minimum Education Program An Estimation of the Total Cost of Impl ementing the Result of the School Finance Adequacy Study Undertaken by the Missouri Coalition for Education Adequacy by The Task Force by Augenblick and Silverstein, 2003, Sponsoring Agency: The Missouri Education Coalition for Adequacy Calculation of the Cost of an Adequate Education in Nebraska in 2002-2003 Using the Professional Judgment Approach by Augenblick & Myers, Inc., 2003, Sponsoring Agencies: Nebraska State Education Associati on; Greater Nebraska Schools Association; Lincoln Public Schools; Nebras ka Association of School Boards; Nebraska Coalition for Educational Equity and Adequacy; Nebraska Council of School Administrators; Nebraska Rural Community Schools Association; Omaha Public Schools; and Westside Community Schools Alternative Approaches for Determining a Base Figure and Pupil-Weighted Adjustments for Use in a School Finance System in New Hampshire by Augenblick & Myers, Inc., 1998, Sponsoring Agency: The Adequate Education Costs and Municipa l Grant Distribution Commission of New Hampshire, authorized by state statute Costing Out Model by New Jersey Depart ment of Education, 1996, Sponsoring Agency: New Jersey Department of Education New Jersey Cost Study, by Augenblick, Palaich, and Associates, 2003, Sponsoring Agency: New Jersey Department of Education Recommendations for a Base Figure and PupilWeighted Adjustments to the Base Figure for Use in a New School Finance System in Ohio by Augenblick & Myers, 1997, Sponsoring Agency: The School Funding Task Force Determining a Base Student Cost Figure fo r Use in Ohio's School Foundation Program by Augenblick, Van de Water & Associates 1993, Sponsoring Agency: The Alliance for Adequate School Funding Oklahomas study by Augenblick, Pa laich, and Associates, 2004-2005 Determining an Adequate Per Pupil Funding Level for Public K-12 Education in South Carolina in Relationship to Pupil Performan ce Objectives: Creating the Basis for an Agreement Between the State and Local School Di stricts with Appropriate Accountability at Both Levels, by Augenblick & Myers, 2000, Sponsoring Agency: South Carolina School Boards Association

PAGE 166

166 Basic Education Program, by Tennessee Board of Education,1992, Sponsoring Agency: Tennessee Legislature and Tennesse e Department of Education Vermont Education Finance Study, by Nationa l Conference of State Legislatures, 2004, Sponsoring Agency: Vermont Department of Education Two additional adequacy studies were completed for the states of Alaska467 and New Hampshire.468 These studies are not full scale costing out studies because the researchers do not estimate the cost of an adequate education and th erefore these studies have not been summarized. Floridas Education Finance System Florida currently funds its public schools th rough the Florida Education Finance Program (FEFP). The Florida Legislat ure adopted the FEFP in 1973 based on the recommendation of the Citizens Committee on Education. The FE FP replaced the Minimum Foundation Program which the state had been using si nce 1947. The goal of the FEFP is to guarantee to each student in the Florida public educational system the availa bility of programs and se rvices appropriate to his or her educational needs which are substan tially equal to those available to any similar student notwithstanding geographic differenc es and varying local economic factors.469 Using the FEFP, the responsibility of funding public education is shared between the state and Floridas sixt y-seven school districts.470 The FEFP is a distribution formula and does not assess the adequacy or th e outcomes of the distribution.471 The key feature of the FEFP is to base fi nancial support for educa tion upon the individual student participating in a particular educational program rather than upon the number of 467 See Jay Chambers, Lori Taylor, and Joe Robinson, Alaska School District Cost Study, (Jan. 2003). 468 See James. R. Smith and James W. Guthrie, An E xploration of Educational and Demographic Conditions Affecting New Hampshires Adequacy Aid, (Oct. 2000). 469 Florida Statutes, 236.012(1) (1998). This section of the Florida Statutes was renumbered after the Florida K20 Education Code rewrite, effective January 7, 2003. 470 FLA. CONST. art. XII 9a2 471 Nakib and Herrington, 353.

PAGE 167

167 teachers or classrooms. FEFP funds are primarily generated by multiplying the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) students in each of the funded educational programs by cost factors to obtain weighted FTEs. Weighted FTEs are then multiplied by a base student allocation and a district cost differential in the major calculation to determine the base funding from state and local FEFP dollars. Program cost factors are determined by the Legislature and represent relative cost differences among the FEFP programs. In addition to the base funding allocation, two major allocations within the FEFP are the Supplemental Academic In struction Allocation and Ex ceptional Student Education Guaranteed Allocation.472 Program cost factors serve to assure that each program receives its equitable share of funds in relation to its relative cost per student.473 After the adoption of the FEFP in 1973, Ga rms, Guthrie, and Pierce lauded the FEFP as a national model for inter-district equity.474 According to most traditional measures of inter-district equity it still ranks very high.475 After analyzing the evolution of the equalization of educational opportunity in Florida, Johns stat es: the evidence shows cl early that the Florida school finance program is almost fiscally ne utral. Florida in 1975-76 probably ranked among the top six states in the nation in the extent to which educa tional opportunity was financially equalized.476 The FEFP is considered a highly modified foundation plan. However, due to local property tax limitations the FEFP pr ovides de facto full state funding.477 Floridas tax base to fund education is limited due to the constitutio nal prohibition of imposing a state personal 472 Florida Department of Education 2005-2006 Funding for Florida School Districts, EIAS Series (2005-06): 1. 473 Ibid, 10. 474 Walter Garms, James Guthrie, and Lawrence Pierce, School Finance: The Economics and Politics of Public Education (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1988). 475 Nakib and Herrington, 360. 476 R.L. Johns, The Evolution of the Equalization of Educational Opportunity in Florida 1926 to 1976 (Gainesville, FL.: Institute for Educational Finance, 1976): 77. 477 Wood, 36.

PAGE 168

168 income tax or state property tax.478 Therefore the state must rely on the sales tax, the corporate income tax, and other specific consumption taxes (e.g., beverage, gas, and cigarette). Nakib and Herrington hold the view that thi s taxing base has been exposed over the last decade as too volatile and too narrowly based to adequately support an educational system with growing enrollments and aspirations for high student ach ievement, and its volatility has undermined the stability of educational f unding at the state level.479 Many state funding programs, including Floridas, are design ed to distribute funds to maintain equality of local revenue capacity am ong districts, but are no t designed to assess the returns of such distribution.480 One way of addressing adequa cy among school districts within a state is to increase the level of spending of the lower-spending di stricts to be at par with the highest-spending districts.481 This assumes that the highe st-spending districts are spending what is adequate. The difficulty with attempting this in the state of Florida is that the highestspending districts do not spend much more than the lowest-spending dist ricts, therefore the application of this model in Florida is problematic. When computing the base student allocation for Floridas students, it is not configured by doing a cost analysis. Instead, pub lic policymakers determine it mainly with two issues in mind. Legislators want to ensure school districts receive at l east what they were appropriated the prior year. Nakib and Herrington suggest legislators try to appropriate funds using the current taxation level so they will not have to raise taxes to fund education.482 It is argued by some that due to 478 Fla. Const. art. XII 5. 479 Nakib and Herrington, 364. 480 Ibid, 362. 481 Ibid. 482 Ibid, 358.

PAGE 169

169 the high growth in Florida, the lack of relati onship between the base an d cost requirements is amplified483 even though it is funded on a per student ba sis. To summarize, if the base student allocation has been inadequate all along, the prevailing method of appropriation perpetuates the flaws year after year.484 Interviews with legislative fiscal staff confirmed that the level of annual program increase is incremental and may have little relation to any formal definition of need. The single most important factor is the amount that had been provided the year before.485 Floridas Court Challenges Florida has had its school finance form ula ch allenged four times in courttwo on equity issues and two on adequacy concerns.486 None of these challenges have been successful in the courts. In 1979, the Supreme Court ruled in Gindl v. Department of Education487 that the district cost differential in the FEFP is not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable and unrelated to the goal of providing substantially equal educational opportunities.488 Additionally, the Supreme Court ruled that it is permissible for local school districts to levy additi onal millage. In the words of the Court, levying additional millage d oes not violate the equal protection clause, and substantial equality of education is not prevented by the leeway millage.489 483 Ibid. 484 Ibid. 485 Ibid, 363. 486 See Gindl v. Department of Education 396 S. 2d 1105 (Fla. 1979); Department of Education v. Glasser 622 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 1993); Coalition for Adequacy and Fairness in School Funding v. Chiles 680 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 1996); Faith L. Honore, et al., v. Florida State Board of Education No. CV 99-17 (Fla. 2d. Cir., Filed Jan 4, 1999). 487 396 S. 2d 1105 (Fla. 1979) 488 Ibid. 489 Ibid.

PAGE 170

170 In 1993, in the State of Florida Department of Education vs. Glasser ,490 the Supreme Court of Florida ruled to reverse the decision of the District Court who had ruled in favor of Glasser. The School Board and the Amici argued that the Legislatur e has no power over local government millage.491 The Supreme Court identified language in the 1885 Constitution and the 1968 Revision to demonstrate the Legislatures role in lo cal government millage. When comparing the verbiage in the Constitution and the Revision of 1968, there is no constitutional history to support the argument that the 1968 Revision intended to change the allocation of powers to control levels of ad valorem taxation and that this radical change was accomplished by continuing with the same language.492 To show its control over local government millage, in the 1968 Revision, the Legislature adopted a millage limitation for local governments.493 The Court also denied the plaintiffs request to define a uniform system of free public schools,494 instead leaving that responsib ility to the legislature. In 1995, the Coalition for Adequacy and Fa irness in School Funding bought suit against Lawton Chiles, arguing that the funding of education in Florida was not adequate. The Plaintiffs argued that the right to an ad equate education is fundamental under the Florida Constitution, that the state is constitutionally obligated to provide adequate resource s to provide a uniform system of free public schools, and that defe ndants have failed to make such provision.495 The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts decisi on to dismiss the case stating the appellants 490 Department of Education v. Glasser 622, So. 2d 944 (Fla. 1993). 491 Ibid. 492 Ibid. 493 Ibid. 494 Fla. Const., art. IX 1. 495 Coalition for Adequacy and Fairness in School Funding, In., et al., v. Chiles 680 So. 3d 400 (Fla. 1996).

PAGE 171

171 have failed to demonstrate in their allegations a violation of the legislatures duties under the Florida Constitution.496 The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts ruling that the court would not usurp and oversee the appropriations power [and stated] because Plaintiffs do not ask the Court to review the constitutio nality of any specific legislative enactment, the separation of powers provision of the Florida Constitution, Articl e II, Section 3, clearly prevents this court from granting the relief sought by Plaintiffs.497 In Honore v. Florida,498 individual students and parent s and a group of civil rights organizations filed an adequacy suit. The Circui t Court of the Second Judi cial Circuit of Florida dismissed the case in 2003 for failure to prosecute. Floridas Courts: The Standard for an Adequate Education In 1998, the citizens of Florida am ended th e language in the state constitution.499 Article IX, section 1 of the Florida Constitution states The education of children is a fundamental value of the people of the State of Florida. It is, therefore, a paramount duty of the state to make adequa te provision for the education of all children residing with in its borders. Adequate provi sion shall be made by law for a uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high quality system500 The new clause references both an input and an output standard; that is to say, the system as well as the education obtained must be high quality.501 Prior to 1998, the states constitution made it the paramount duty of the state to make adequate provision for the education of all 496 Ibid. 497 Ibid. 498 Faith L. Honore, et al., v. Florida State Board of Education et al No. CV 99-17 (Fla. 2d. Cir., Filed Jan 4, 1999) 499 Herrington and Weider, 523. 500 Fla. Const. art. IX 1 (1998). 501 Herrington and Weider, 523.

PAGE 172

172 children residing w ithin its borders.502 Although the term adequate provision has not been defined, several Florida cases have attempted to define the second phrase in this clause, uniform system of free public education.503 The education clause was reviewed in St. Johns County v. Northeast Florida Builders Association,504 in which the court ruled The Florida Constitution only requires that a system be provided that gives every student an equal chance to achieve basic educationa l goals prescribed by the legislature. The constitutional mandate is not that every sc hool district in the state must receive equal funding nor that each educatio nal program must be equivalent Inherent inequities, such as varying revenues because of higher or lo wer property values or difference in millage assessments, will always favor or disfavor some districts.505 The Supreme Court declined to define a uniform system of free public schools in Florida Department of Education v. Glasser,506 ruling that the legislatur e should be the party to define the meaning of this phrase. As Ju stice Kogans concurring opinion explained in Glasser uniformity is a complicated question involving the sp ecial expertise of the Legislature, its staff, its advisors on public finance, a nd the Department of Education.507 In Coalition for Adequacy and Fairne ss in School Funding v. Chiles,508 the Florida Supreme Court concurred with the trial courts statement that adequate provision as expressed under article IX, secti on 1, of the Florida Constitution cannot refer to adequate funding.509 The trial court also stated Floridas Constitu tion does not create a fundamental right to a 502 Fla. Const. art. IX 1 (1968). 503 Coalition for Adequacy and Fairness in School Funding, Inc., et. al., v. Chiles 680 So. 3d 400 (Fla. 1996). 504 583 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 1991). 505 Ibid. 506 622 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 1993). 507 Coalition for Adequacy and Fairness in School Funding, Inc., et al., v. Chiles 680 So. 3d 400 (Fla. 1996); Department of Education v. Glasser 622 So. 2d 944, 951 (Fla. 1993). 508 Coalition for Adequacy and Fairness in School Funding, Inc., et al., v. Chiles 680 So. 3d 400 (Fla. 1996). 509 Ibid.

PAGE 173

173 particular level of funding.510 After discussing previous cases, the Supreme Court explained, each time the education article has been challe nged, the challenging party made an objection to some specific funding issue. In contrast, in this case appellants have ma de a blanket assertion that the entire system is constitutionally inadequate.511 The Supreme Court agreed with the reasoning given by the trial court which stated: While the courts are competent to decide whet her or not the Legislat ures distribution of state funds to complement local education ex penditures results in the required uniform system the courts cannot decide whether the Legislatures appropriation of funds is adequate in the abstract, divorced from th e required uniformity. To decide such an abstract question of adequate funding, the courts would necessarily be required to subjectively evaluate the Legisl atures value judgments as to the spending priorities to be assigned to the states many needs, education being one among them. In short, the Court would have to usurp and oversee the appropriations power, either directly or indirectly, in order to grant the relief sought by Plaintiffs. While Plaintiffs assert that they do not ask the Court to compel the Legislat ure to appropriate any specific sum, but merely to declare that the present funding is constitutionally in adequate, what they seek would nevertheless require the Court to pass upon those legislat ive value judgments which translate into appropriations decisions. And, if the Court were to declare present funding levels inadequate, presumably the Plaintiffs woul d expect the Court to evaluate, and either affirm or set aside, future appropriations decisions, unless the Plaintiffs are seeking merely an advisory opinion from the Court. The Court cannot give an advisory opinion, May v. Holley 59 So.2d 636 (Fla. 1952). Accordingly, the Court declines to interpret Article IX, Section 1, of the Florida Constitution as Plaintiffs urge. That clause must be read in pari material with the rest of the Constitution. The Court declines to read it in a manner which allows the judiciary to usurp the exercise of the appropriations power allocated exclusively to the Legislature unde r our Constitution. Because Plaintiffs do not ask the Court to review the constitutionality of any specific legislative enactment, the separation of powers provision of the Florid a Constitution, Article II, Section 3, clearly prevents this court from gran ting relief sought by Plaintiffs.512 To summarize their ruling, th e Supreme Court stated while we stop short of saying never, appe llants have failed to demonstrate in their allegations, or in their arguments on appeal an appropriate standard for determining adequacy that would not presen t a substantial risk of judici al intrusion into the powers and responsibilities assigned to the legislature, both generally (in determining 510 Ibid. 511 Ibid. 512 Ibid.

PAGE 174

174 appropriations) and specif ically (in providing by law for an adequate and uniform system of education.)513 Due to the Florida courts rulings, it is a pparent that the Florida Supreme Court does not plan to determine if Floridas funding meets the require ments of adequate pr ovision as defined in the constitution. Furthermore, the court does no t plan to develop a set amount or model to determine how much schools should be spending on students. The Supreme Court has given that task to the state legislature if it so chooses. At the time of this study, the Florida legislature had not developed an adequacy model. Summary This study examined the methodologies utilized to determine adequate education funding in past adequacy studies. This study intended to demonstrate the difficulty state legislatures have to determine how much money is adequate for schools particularly in a state like Floridas which has relatively equal spending. An adequacy mode l has not been developed for Florida and this studys purpose was to research and analyze the various methods for determining adequate education funding and determine if a model can be designed for the state of Florida. The methodology utilized for the study was discussed in chapter 3. 513 Ibid.

PAGE 175

175Table 2-1. State Education Adequacy Studies State Title of Study Year Re searcher Funding Source Advocacy Group (Yes/No) Massachusetts Every Child a Winner July 1991 Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education Committee on School Finance Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education Yes Wyoming A Proposed Cost-Based Block Grant Model for Wyoming School Finance May 1997 Management Analysis & Planning Associates (MAP) Joint Appropriations Committee of the Wyoming Legislature No Maine Essential Programs and Services: Equity and Adequacy in Funding to Improve Learning for All Children Jan. 1999 Maine Education Policy Research Institute Maine Legislature No Oregon The Oregon Quality Education Model April 1999 Legislative Council on the Oregon Quality Education Model Oregon Legislative Assembly No Oregon Oregon Quality Education Model2000 Jan. 2000 Oregon Quality Education Commission Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber and Schools Superintendent Stan Bunn No Illinois A Procedure for Calculating a Base Cost Figure and an Adjustment for At-Risk Pupils that Could be Used in the Illinois School Finance System June 2001 Augenblick and Myers, Inc. Illinois Education Funding Advisory Board No

PAGE 176

176Table 2-1. Continued State Title of Study Year Re searcher Funding Source Advocacy Group (Yes/No) Maryland A Professional Judgment Approach to Determining Adequate Education Funding in Maryland June 2001 Management Analysis & Planning, Inc. (MAP) The New Maryland Education Coalition Yes Maryland Calculation of the Cost of an Adequate Education in Maryland in 1999-2000 Using Two Different Analytic Approaches Sept. 2001 Augenblick and Myers Maryland Commission on Education Finance, Equity, and Excellence (Thornton Commission) No Wyoming Proposed Revisions to the Cost-Based Block Grant Jan. 2002 Management Analysis and Planning Associates (MAP) Wyoming State Legislature No New York Estimating the Cost of an Adequate Education in New York Feb. 2002 Duncombe Center for Policy Research Yes Kansas Calculation of the Cost of a Suitable Education in Kansas in 2000-2001 Using Two Different Analytical Approaches May 2002 Augenblick and Myers Kansas Legislative Coordinating Council No Wisconsin Funding Our Future: An Adequacy Model for Wisconsin School Finance June 2002 Norman Institute for Wisconsins Future Yes Montana Calculation of the Cost of a Suitable Education in Montana in 2001-2002 Using the Professional Judgment Approach Aug. 2002 Myers and Silverstein (Augenblick and Myers) Montana School Board Association Yes

PAGE 177

177Table 2-1. Continued State Title of Study Year Re searcher Funding Source Advocacy Group (Yes/No) Indiana Calculation of the Cost of an Adequate Education in Indiana in 2001-2002 Using the Professional Judgment Approach Sept. 2002 Augenblick and Myers, Inc. Indiana State Teachers Association Yes Colorado Calculation of the Cost of an Adequate Education in Colorado using the Professional Judgment and the Successful School District Approaches Jan. 2003 Augenblick and Myers Colorado School Finance Project (CSFP) Yes Kentucky A State-of-the-Art Approach to School Finance Adequacy in Kentucky Feb. 2003 Picus and Associates Kentucky Department of Education No Kentucky Calculation of the Cost of an Adequate Education in Kentucky: A Professional Judgment Approach Feb. 2003 Verstegen Council for Better Education, Inc. Yes Washington What Will It Take? Defining a Quality Education in Washington and a New Vision of Adequacy for School Funding Mar. 2003 Conley and Freund The Rainer Institute Yes Kentucky A Professional Judgment Approach to School Finance in Kentucky May 2003 Picus and Associates Kentucky Department of Education No

PAGE 178

178Table 2-1. Continued State Title of Study Year Researcher Funding Source Advocacy Group (Yes/No) North Dakota Calculation of the Cost of an Adequate Education in North Dakota in 2002-2003 Using the Professional Judgement (sic) Approach July 2003 Augenblick, Palaich, and Associates North Dakota Department of Public Instruction (DPI) No Arkansas An Evidenced-Based Approach to School Finance Adequacy in Arkansas Sept. 2003 Picus Arkansas Legislatures Joint Committee on Educational Adequacy No Tennessee Calculation of the Cost of an Adequate Education in Tennessee in 2001-02 Using the Professional Judgment Approach and the Successful School District Approach Dec. 2003 Augenblick, Palaich, and Associates Coalition for Tennessees Future Yes New York Estimating the Additional Cost of Providing an Adequate Education Jan. 2004 New York State Education Department New York State Board of Regents No Minnesota Determining the Cost of an Adequate Education in Minnesota: Implications for the Minnesota Education Finance System Feb. 2004 Haveman Minnesota Center for Public Finance Research Yes New York Resource Adequacy Study for the New York State Commission on Education Reform Mar. 2004 Standard & Poor's (S&P) New York State Commission on Education Reform No

PAGE 179

179Table 2-1. Continued State Title of Study Year Researcher Funding Source Advocacy Group (Yes/No) New York The New York Adequacy Study: Determining the Cost of Providing All Children in New York an Adequate Education Mar. 2004 American Institutes for Research (AIR), MAP and Taylor The Atlantic Philanthropies, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and The Ford Foundation Yes Texas School Outcomes and School Costs: The Cost Function Approach Mar. 2004 Gronberg, Jansen, Taylor, and Booker The Texas Joint Select Committee for Public School Finance No Texas Estimating the Costs of Meeting the Texas Educational Accountability Standards May 2004 Imazeki and Reschovsky Plaintiffs in West Orange Cove v. Neeley Yes Arizona An Evidenced-Based Approach to School Finance Adequacy in Arizona June 2004 Picus Rodel Charitable Foundation of Arizona and Greater Phoenix Leadership Yes Arizona Arizona English Language Learner Cost Study Feb. 2005 National Conference of State Legislatures National Center on Education Finance Arizona Legislative Council No Hawaii State of Hawaii Adequacy Funding Study Mar. 2005 Thornton Hawaii Department of Education No Connecticut Estimating the Cost of an Adequate Education in Connecticut June 2005 Augenblick, Palaich, and Associates Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding (CCJEF) Yes

PAGE 180

180Table 2-1. Continued State Title of Study Year Researcher Funding Source Advocacy Group (Yes/No) Montana Determining the Cost of Providing an Adequate Education in the State of Montana Oct. 2005 R.C. Wood and Associates Quality Schools Interim Committee and the Montana State Legislature No Wyoming An Evidenced-Based Approach to Recalibrating Wyomings Block Grant School Funding Formula Nov. 2005 Picus Wyoming Legislative Select Committee on Recalibration No Kansas Estimating the Costs of Meeting Performance Outcomes Adopted by the Kansas State Board of Education Dec. 2005 Duncombe and Yinger Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit (LPA) No Kansas Elementary and Secondary Education in Kansas: Estimating the Costs of a K-12 Education Using Two Approaches Jan. 2006 Legislative Division of Post Audit (LPA) Legislative Division of Post Audit (LPA) No South Dakota Estimating the Cost of an Adequate Education in South Dakota Jan. 2006 Augenblick, Palaich, & Associates South Dakota Alliance for Education Yes Arkansas Recalibrating the Arkansas School Funding Structure Aug. 2006 Odden, Picus, and Goetz Adequacy Study Oversight Sub-Committee of the House & Senate Interim Committees on Education of the Arkansas General Assembly No Nevada Estimating the Cost of an Adequate Education in Nevada Aug. 2006 Augenblick, Palaich, and Associates, Inc. Nevada Legislative Commissions Committee to Study School Financing Adequacy No

PAGE 181

181Table 2-1. Continued State Title of Study Year Researcher Funding Source Advocacy Group (Yes/No) Washington An Evidence-Based Approach to School Finance Adequacy in Washington Sept. 2006 Odden, Picus, Goetz, Mangan, and Fermanich K-12 Advisory Committee of Washington Learns Yes Washington Washington Learns: Successful District Study Sept. 2006 Fermanich, Mangan, Odden, Picus, Gross, and Rudo Washington Learns Yes Colorado Estimating Colorado School District Costs to Meet State and Federal Education Accountability Requirements Oct. 2006 Augenblick, Palaich, and Associates Colorado School Finance Project Yes Minnesota Estimating the Cost of an Adequate Education in Minnesota Nov. 2006 Silverstein, Rose, and Myers P.S. Minnesota Yes Montana Estimating the Cost of an Adequate Education in Montana Jan. 2007 Silverstein, Rose, Palaich, Myers, and Brown Montana Quality Education Coalition Yes Washington Washington Adequacy Funding Study Jan. 2007 Conley and Rooney Educationa l Policy Improvement Center (EPIC) and Center for Educational Policy Research (CEPR) Washington Education Association Yes California Aligning School Finance with Academic Standards: A Weighted Student Formula Based on a Survey of Practitioners Mar. 2007 Sonstelie, Altman, Battersby, Benelli, Dhaey, Gardinali, Hill, and Lipscomb Institute for Research on Education Policy and Practice at Stanford University No

PAGE 182

182Table 2-1. Continued State Title of Study Year Researcher Funding Source Advocacy Group (Yes/No) California Efficiency and Adequacy in California School Finance: A Professional Judgment Approach Mar. 2007 Chambers, Levin, and DeLancey (American Institutes for Research AIR) Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, James Irvine Foundation, and Stuart Foundation Yes Rhode Island State of Rhode Island Education Adequacy Study Mar. 2007 R.C. Wood and Associates Joint Committee to Establish a Permanent Education Foundation Aid Formula for Rhode Island No Wisconsin Moving From Good to Great in Wisconsin: Funding Schools Adequately And Doubling Student Performance Mar. 2007 Odden, Picus, Archibald, Goetz, Mangan, & Aportela Wisconsin School Finance Adequacy Initiative Yes Pennsylvania Costing Out the Resources Needed to Meet Pennsylvanias Public Education Goals Nov. 2007 Augenblick, Palaich, and Associates, Inc. Pennsylvania State Board of Education No New Mexico An Independent Comprehensive Study of the New Mexico Public School Funding Formula Jan. 2008 American Institutes for Research (AIR) Funding Formula Task Force appointed by the State Legislature No

PAGE 183

183 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Introduction This study utilized techniques from content and policy analysis research. In general terms, Holsti explains content analysis as the application of scientific methods to documentary evidence.1 Fraenkel and Wallen describe content analysis as the analysis of the written or visual contents of a document.2 Content analysis applies empi rical and statistical methods to textual material.3 The scientific methods Holsti id entifies are objectivity, system, and generality. Objectivity requires t hat each step in the research process must be carried out on the basis of explicitly formul ated rules and procedures.4 System refers to the inclusion and exclusion of content or categories [which] is done according to consistently applied rules.5 Generality requires that the findings must have theoretical relevance.6 Holsti defines a strong research design as one that mak es explicit and integrates proce dures for selecting a sample of data for analysis, content categories and units to be placed into the categories, comparisons between categories, and the classes of inference which may be drawn from the data.7 Policy analysis is a means of synthesizing information including research results to produce a format for policy decisions (the laying out of alternativ e choices) and of determining 1 Ole R. Holsti, Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1969): 5. 2 Jack R. Fraenkel and Norman E. Wallen, How to Design and Evaluate Research 2nd ed. (New York: McGrawHill, Inc., 1993), 11. 3 Kent Lindkvist, Approaches to Textual Analysis, in Advances in Content Analysis Karl Erik Rosengren, Ed, (Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1981): 34. 4 Holsti, 3. 5 Ibid, 4. 6 Ibid, 5. 7 Ibid, 24-27.

PAGE 184

184 future needs for policy-relevant information.8 Policy analysis is view ed as an applied social science discipline that employs multiple methods of inquiry, in contexts of argumentation and public debate, to create, critically assess, and communicate policy-relevant knowledge.9 Weimer and Vining explain that policy research focuses on relationships between variables that reflect social problems and other variable s that can be manipulated by public policy.10 Policy analysis is a means of synthesizing information to draw fr om it policy alternatives and preferences stated in comparable predicted quantitative and qualitative terms as a basis or guide for policy decisions.11 The purpose of this study was to examine the different methodologies used to determine what an adequate education would cost and if there were a state of the art adequacy study. Analysis of past adequacy studies conducted and models used was necessary in order to determine if there was one approach that could be used to configure an adequate education in a state like Florida where expenditure levels are similar across districts. A review of the literature that was relevant to this study wa s presented in the previous chapte r. This chapte r contains the methodology used for this study including the re search design, data sources, and data organization. Research Design This study analyzed previous adequacy studies conducted by vari ous researchers for several states. The studies were obtained via the Internet, from jour nals, and from texts. Certain 8 Walter Williams, Social Policy Research and Analysis (New York, NY: American El sevier Publishing Company, Inc., 1971), xi. 9 William N. Dunn, Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pren tice-Hall, Inc., 1994), xiii-xiv. 10 David L. Weimer and Aidan R. Vining, Policy Analysis: Concepts and Practice 3rd ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1992), 29. 11 Williams, 13.

PAGE 185

185 studies were not accessible as identified and previ ously discussed in chapter 2 and therefore were not included in the analysis. This study wa s designed to answer the following questions: 1. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the current methodologies used to determine adequate funding? 2. Did the previous adequacy studies use the previously stated methodologies and if so did they use them correctly? 3. Using this information previously stated how does a state like Flor ida that has similar expenditures between districts utilize the methodologies? 4. Can an adequacy model be developed or applied for a state like Florida? Data Sources The prim ary sources used in the study were the adequacy studies conducted by various researchers many of which were obt ained from the Internet or in journals. As discussed in chapter 2, many of the adequacy studies, as iden tified, were not published in scholarly journals and were funded by advocacy groups. Although these advocacy groups attempt to present as education interest groups, no organization is a public interest group. Approximately 50 percent of the adequacy studies conducted were commissioned by a state legislature. Augenblick and Associates have conducted many adequacy studies of which more than half of these studies were not commissioned by state legislatures. No studies of Augenblicks have been published and are highly proprietary. The literature exists as found in these studies but does not exist in a scholarly manner and as a result these independent studies cannot be judged. Data Organization Collected data were organized chronologica lly by the date the study was com pleted and then alphabetically by state. Each of the st udies was summarized in chapter 2. Then the adequacy method utilized for the study (i.e. co st function, professional judgment, successful schools, and whole-school design) was identified and analyzed to determine if the method was

PAGE 186

186 used correctly. In chapter 4, strengths and w eaknesses of each methodology were identified and reliability and validity issues were presented. The data collected from the analysis of the state adequacy studies and the indivi dual methodologies was then used to determine if any of the methodologies could be utilized in the state of Florida. Summary This chapter presented the methodology utilized for this study. Research on content and policy analysis was described. Then the resear ch design was discussed. Data sources were outlined. Finally, how data was organized was presented. Results of the data analysis were discussed in chapter 4.

PAGE 187

187 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS The purpose of this study was to analyze th e different methodologies utilized to configure the cost of an adequate educati on and determine if there were a model that could be used in a state like Floridas with similar expenditures across districts. To conduct this study, analysis of past adequacy studies conducted and models used was necessary. The strengths and weaknesses of the four adequacy models as well as th e adequacy studies conducted were previously discussed in chapter 2. The methodology utilized fo r this study was presented in chapter 3. This chapter presents the results of the data analys is and how each adequacy model could be applied in the state of Florida. The following questions specifically addressed for this study were: 1. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the current methodologies used to determine adequate funding? 2. Did the previous adequacy studies use the previously stated methodologies and if so did they use them correctly? 3. Using this information previously stated how does a state like Flor ida that has similar expenditures between districts utilize the methodologies? 4. Can an adequacy model be developed or applied for a state like Florida? Statistical Modeling/Co st Function Approach Statistical models run cost functions to determine how m uch money it takes to achieve a certain average test score under certain schoo l and demographic circumstances. As these circumstances change from one community to another, the formula adapts the costs accordingly.1 Some concerns with this model are that it is complicated a nd may be difficult for policy makers to understand, the model looks at one standard for student achievement such as 1 William J. Mathis, Equity and Adequacy, 13.

PAGE 188

188 test scores, and the model relies on the existence of production function.2 This model would be difficult to apply in Florida sin ce the expenditures are similar acro ss districts. Rebell explains that cost function studies attempt to determine how much a particular school district would need to spend relative to the aver age district to produce a set performance target, given the characteristics of the school district and its student body.3 Specifically, cost function analyses describe how levels of spending may vary for di stricts of different characteristics that serve different student populations.4 In Florida the model would no t provide variations in spending and therefore would produce less valid results due to the similar expenditure levels across districts. Although the cost function approach uses actual school spending experiences, Hanushek questions whether or not the researchers have adequately identified the causal relationship between student performance and spending.5 Hanushek argues that the cost function approach finds similar results that the pr oduction function studies have show n over the years the current pattern of spending is not very productive[but] the cost or the expenditure needed to obtain any outcome6 has not been identified. The expe nditure function does not indicate the minimum expenditure (or cost) of reaching any ac hievement level but instead identifies average spending behavior seen in districts.7 The cost function approach does not identify 2 Addonzio. 3 Rebell, 1311-1312. 4 Ibid, 1312. 5 Hanushek, Science Violated, 274. 6 Ibid, 275. 7 Ibid.

PAGE 189

189 programmatic ways of achieving outcomes. Inst ead, it assumes that just adding more of the resources observed (e.g., smaller classes or mo re experienced teachers) will lead to higher achievement.8 Duncombe recommended several ways to increase reliability of the cost function method. Interrater reliability could be tested by asking different researchers to estimate CFs [cost function] for the same state over the same period.9 An example Duncombe used is the adequacy studies done for the state of Texas in 2004.10 These studies produced significantly different COA [cost of adequacy] estimates even with the same standard, which suggests that it is important for CF researchers to examine the sensitivity of their results to different assumptions.11 Duncombe identified a strength of the cost function method: sensitivity analysis and study replicati on can be done at low cost.12 Another strength Duncombe asserted is that test-retest reliability tests of CF results are also feasible for estimating the same CF at several periods.13 To assess construct validity Duncombe recommended a way to assess the construct validity for cost function studies. The accuracy and reliability of the historical data used in the statistical analysis should be assessed by examining stability of the [sic] data across time and 8 Ibid, 286. 9 William Duncombe, Responding to the Charge of Alchemy: Strategies for Evaluating the Reliability and Validity of Costing-Out Research, Journal of Education Finance 32, no. 2 (2006): 143. 10 See Timothy J. Gronberg, Dennis W. Jansen, Lori L. Taylor, and Kevin Booker, School Outcomes and School Costs: The Cost Function Approach, (2004); Jennifer Imazeki and Andrew Re shovsky, Estimating the Costs of Meeting the Texas Educational Accountability Standards, (2004). 11 Duncombe, Responding to the Charge, 143. 12 Ibid. 13 Ibid.

PAGE 190

190 correlating similar measures from different sources.14 The example Duncombe provided is student poverty. The most common measure of st udent poverty used in CF res earch is the percentage of students receiving free or subsidized lunch. CF studies s hould examine the stability of this measure across time and examine the correlation with the census poverty rate. Similar assessments of data quality should be done for other measures in the study.15 Testing for predictive validity is possible as long as reliable data exist for at least five years which is difficult in some states since the methods of assessi ng students continually changes. If there were five years of consistent data, Duncom be suggested testing forecasting accuracy by estimating the cost model for the firs t three years and using model coefficients to predict spending for the fifth year. Comparisons of predicted and actua l spending can be made, and the size of the forecast er ror and bias can be estimated.16 To improve internal validity, potential biases must be remove d. Of particular concern in statistical studies of this type are biases caused by omitted variables and simultaneous relationships between independent va riables and the dependent variable.17 Duncombe found that an important variable that many researchers omit are controls for efficiency. Even though some cost function studies have attempted to control for effi ciency, if these controls are inadequate, the results could be biased.18 14 Ibid, 144. 15 Ibid. 16 Ibid, 146. 17 Ibid, 147. 18 Ibid.

PAGE 191

191 Successful Schools Model For the successful school district approach, re searchers or policym akers identify districts that have met state performance standards base d on state tests. Spending levels in those districts are used to calculate a base cost for adequate spending per pupil-the costs of serving a student with no special needs. Adjustments for student and district characteristics are then made.19 This approach assumes that differences in funding correlate to variations in performance. Since Floridas sc hool districts have similar expenditures no district in Florida would meet the definition for a successful school because the spending of the successful schools would be within the same spending pattern as non-successful schools (see Table 4.1). Floridas restricted range is small compared to the restricted ranges of most of the other 49 states and Washington DC (see Table 4.2). Furthermore, additional funding does not guarantee higher achievement. After examining 187 studies, Ha nushek could not find a strong relationship between increased resources and student achievement.20 The overarching problem stems from the empiri cal evidence available to estimate the costs of adequate student proficiency. Th e consultants work would be simple, if scholars had shown, repeatedly, something like the following: An additional expenditure of one thousand dollars per pupil will translate, on average, into a 15 percent gain in student proficiency. Unfortunately, such studies do not exist. Research has not shown a clear causal relationship be tween the amount schools spe nd and student achievement.21 19 Picus and Blair, 4. 20 Hanushek, Assessing the Eff ects of School Resources. 21 Eric A Hanushek, The Alchemy of Costing Out an Ad equate Education. Paper presented at the conference Adequacy Lawsuits: Their Growing Impact on American Education, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA (Oct. 2005): 5-6. See Eric A. Hanushek, The Failure of Input-based Schooling Policies, Economic Journal 113, no. 485 (Feb. 2003): F64-F98,

PAGE 192

192 Table 4-1. 2004-2005 Current Expenditu res Per PK-12 UFTE (Florida) (Does not Include Capital Outlay or Debt Service) District Current ExpendituresUnweighted FTEExpenditures per UFTE Monroe 99,129,0888,081.10 12,267 Glades 14,396,8241,245.17 11,562 Charlotte 200,607,48917,571.89 11,416 Jefferson 13,522,7581,196.45 11,302 Franklin 13,527,2441,226.49 11,029 Sarasota 420,890,33842,297.00 9,951 Collier 418,862,48242,500.06 9,856 Liberty 13,919,4051,428.75 9,742 Gadsden 59,494,6596,122.19 9,718 Taylor 29,724,3483,092.46 9,612 Walton 62,530,5016,662.36 9,386 Hamilton 17,653,6831,922.38 9,183 Dade 3,199,399,736349,618.09 9,151 Hendry 67,776,5717,431.83 9,120 Desoto 44,514,7615,011.93 8,882 Madison 25,780,3372,907.40 8,867 Dixie 18,924,5872,139.08 8,847 Hardee 44,812,0615,094.67 8,796 Lafayette 9,191,8171,052.96 8,730 Palm Beach 1,478,250,130169,477.07 8,722 Sumter 63,038,5247,229.78 8,719 Martin 155,311,23217,826.80 8,712 Gilchrist 24,234,5412,787.10 8,695 Calhoun 18,857,4242,193.49 8,597 Highlands 106,087,20812,363.70 8,581 Gulf 18,402,0622,151.01 8,555 Putnam 100,227,68311,756.92 8,525 Bradford 29,809,7963,518.04 8,473 Pinellas 924,581,120109,292.92 8,460 Lee 657,641,99678,065.54 8,424 Manatee 351,247,87341,744.33 8,414 Escambia 352,560,95742,025.33 8,389 Indian River 145,192,71317,366.73 8,360 Flagler 100,325,99512,014.89 8,350 Alachua 235,768,48228,244.49 8,347 Broward 2,168,422,606259,961.96 8,341 Leon 269,908,50932,358.64 8,341 Volusia 543,243,61365,357.48 8,312 Okaloosa 249,933,48330,161.23 8,287

PAGE 193

193 District Current ExpendituresUnweighted FTEExpenditures per UFTE Washington 33,204,1634,031.91 8,235 Jackson 58,911,8207,164.95 8,222 Orange 1,418,837,511172,711.40 8,215 Holmes 27,027,9503,299.59 8,191 Hillsborough 1,558,800,495190,909.89 8,165 Union 18,100,6342,217.33 8,163 Levy 50,266,5336,164.20 8,155 Bay 214,476,08126,305.66 8,153 Duval 1,016,813,716126,029.83 8,068 Columbia 81,254,02410,089.05 8,054 St. Johns 214,996,41526,833.27 8,012 Pasco 512,079,62763,957.41 8,007 Citrus 127,125,19015,892.51 7,999 Polk 731,217,39392,020.15 7,946 Marion 333,367,50541,970.71 7,943 Baker 37,819,6094,793.09 7,890 Brevard 580,894,63373,841.90 7,867 St. Lucie 302,596,88538,673.09 7,824 Seminole 512,875,36665,942.64 7,778 Lake 302,128,33638,901.28 7,767 Santa Rosa 192,098,19624,796.89 7,747 Osceola 394,251,86551,061.34 7,721 Okeechobee 55,261,1637,236.62 7,636 Nassau 83,167,86310,926.12 7,612 Wakulla 37,754,0794,987.70 7,569 Suwannee 44,097,8445,841.05 7,550 Hernando 163,753,44522,312.55 7,339 Clay 259,397,54435,620.14 7,282 State 22,130,280,5202,627,031.98 8,424 Range 4,985 Restricted Range 3,690

PAGE 194

194 Table 4-2. 2004-05 Restricted Range For Expenditures Per Pupil (49 States and Washington DC) STATE ABBR (SCHOOL) RESTRICTED RANGE AK $21,736 AL $2,492 AR $3,556 AZ $15,338 CA $63,959 CO $8,141 CT $7,331 DC $24,832 DE $6,223 GA $3,294 HI $0 IA $4,802 ID $32,337 IL $7,591 IN $4,479 KS $5,181 KY $2,385 LA $3,070 MA $11,641 MD $3,106 ME $15,153 MI $7,780 MN $9,641 MO $5,853 MS $3,539 MT $26,113 NC $6,050 ND $30,565 NE $14,477 NH $9,571 NJ $11,396 NM $10,863 NV $13,153 NY $44,132 OH $14,782 OK $7,808 OR $20,881 PA $5,422 RI $6,031 SC $3,169 SD $8,394 TN $2,512 TX $9,216 UT $8,438 VA $4,681 VT $11,159 WA $18,555 WI $3,987 WV $1,696 WY $13,787

PAGE 195

195 The difficulty with adding resources to sc hools is that the cu rrent organization and incentives of schools do little to ensure that a ny added resources will be used effectively.22 In fact, the spending that schools undertake when th ey have additional funds generally does not go toward things that enhance student outcomes.23 Hedges, Laine, and Greenwald evaluated the same studies Hanushek did, eliminating those studies that had insignificant results and determined there is evidence of statistically reliable relations between educational resource inputs and school outcomes, and that there is much more positive relations than of negative relations between resource inputs and outcomes.24 Hanushek does explain that the research does not conclude that money never matters or that money cannot matter. Hanushek clarifies the fact that there has historically been a set of decisions and in centives in schools that have blunted any impacts of added funds, l eading to inconsistent outcomes. That is, more spending on schools has not led reliably to substantially bette r results on the tests that states use to determine whether students are proficient.25 Picus argues that one of the problems with al l of these studies is they dont take into consideration the tremendous similarity with whic h school districts spend the resources available to them.26 Picus states, what we dont know is what the impact on student performance would be if schools or school districts were to drama tically change the way they spend the resources available to them.27 Odden and Picus summarized the resource allocation studies and 22 Hanushek, Assessing the Effects of School Resources, 156. 23 Hanushek, A Jaundiced View, 465. 24 Hedges, Laine, and Greenwald, Does Matter Matter? 11. 25 Hanushek, The Alchemy of Costing Out, 6. 26 Picus, Does Money Matter? 31. 27 Ibid, 31.

PAGE 196

196 concluded, if additional education revenues are spent in the same way as current education revenues, student performance increases are unlikely to emerge.28 Educators, social scientists, and courts have been unable to agree on the correlation between educational expenditures and the quality of education.29 Wood summarized the research on money and student achievement. Overall, research on the relationship of moneys expended and student achievement reveals mixed results. The basic research suggests there is a minimal relationship between expenditures and student achievement. Ho wever, those moneys spent on direct instruct ional activities yield the most pos itive relationship between student outcomes and moneys expended.30 The successful schools approach is fully r ooted in the current operations of a states schools and considers only average expenditure for the relevant group of successful schools. Therefore, it gives no information about how changing the level of spending might affect achievement.31 Hanushek identifies two extrapolati on problems with the successful schools approach: There is no way to extrapolat e the successful schools results from the currently observed outcomes of schools to a new level that is ou tside the range of obser vations on outcomes. Specifically, assume for illustration that the se t of schools identified as successful has 70 to 80 percent of students reaching proficienc y (which is perhaps well within current standards); there is no way to extrapolate these results to a 95 percen t proficient standard. A second extrapolation problem also occurs. When successful schools are identified just by proficiency levels on state tests, the sc hools identified as successful tend to have students from more advantaged families wh ere the parents have provided considerable education to the students. The method concentrates on base spending for a typical 28 Odden, and Picus, 281. 29 McUsic, 316. 30 Wood, 53. 31 Eric A. Hanushek, Science Violated, 285.

PAGE 197

197 successful school but then must indicate how much remedial spending would be needed to bring schools with disadvantaged backgr ounds up to the proficiency of the schools with better-prepared students. The appropriate way to do this is unclear, because again the situation is largely outside of the obs ervations going into the successful schools analysis. The successful schools approach cannot provide a ny guidance to unsuccessful schools other than to spend the same amount of money (which many already do with poor results).32 Professional Judgment Approach For the prof essional judgment approach, teams of education experts meet and independently identify the educational resource s needed to create schools in which educators have confidence that most of the students in the school will be able to m eet the state-established performance goals.33 To strengthen the va lidity of the professional judgment approach, some researchers recommend providing a statewide survey to all building principals and use these data to create inputs needed for the different prototype schools.34 This approach has been used by many advocacy groups to determine the cost of an ad equate education and inva riably result in an increasingly higher estimate to provide an adequa te education than the ot her adequacy models. This approach assumes that higher expenditure s equal higher achievement which is not a guarantee and in a state like Flor ida with similar expenditures acr oss districts, this assumption could not be validated. One of the biggest criticisms of the professional judgment approach is how the educators are selected to serve on the panels. Hanushek explained The consultants performing the study seldom know any of the education personnel in the state, so they obviously need to solicit nom inationsfrequently from the organization 32 Ibid, 286. 33 Conley and Picus, Oregons Quality Education Model, 588. 34 Ibid; R. Craig Wood and R. Anthony Rolle, Improving Adequacy Concepts in Education Finance: A Heuristic Examination of the Professional Judgment Research Protocol, Educational Considerations 35, no. 1 (2007).

PAGE 198

198 commissioning the study. But since these organizations generally have a direct interest in the outcomes of the study, it seems unlikely that they will produce a random selection of educators to serve on the professional judgment panels. The nature of the selection process ensures that the judg ments of any panel cannot be replicated (a fundamental concern of any truly scientific inquiry).35 Hanushek identified disclaimers or warning labe ls that researchers used in their reports when conducting professional judgment analyses In the New York City adequacy study conducted by AIR/MAP, the researchers stated: It must be recognized that the success of schools also depends on other individuals and institutions to provide the health, intelle ctual stimulus, and family support upon which public school systems can build. Schools ca nnot and do not perform their role in a vacuum, and this is an important qualifica tion of conclusions r eached in any study of adequacy in education. Also, success of schools depends on effective allocation of resources and implementation of programs in school districts.36 In their North Dakota adequacy study, Augenbl ick, Palaich, and Associates (APA) discuss a lack of empirical validation of the professional judgment work:37 The advantages of the approach are that it reflects the views of actual service providers and its results are easy to unde rstand; the disadvantages are that resource allocation tends to reflect current practice and there is only an assumption, with little evidence, that the provision of money at the designated level will produce the anticipated outcomes.38 Hanushek argued that professional judgment panels are not asked to identify the minimum expenditure necessary for students to reach a given standard. Instead Hanushek explained: 35 Eric A. Hanushek, Science Violated, 272. 36 Jay G. Chambers, Thomas B. Parrish, Jesse D. Levin, Ja mes W. Guthrie, Rich C. Seder, and Lori Taylor, The New York Adequacy Study: Determining the Cost of Providing All Children in New York an Adequate Education, Volume 1 Final Report, (March 2004): 3. 37 Hanushek, Science Violated, 292. 38 John Augenblick, Robert Palaich, et al., Calculation of the Cost of an Adequate Education in North Dakota in 2002-2003 using the Professional Judgement (sic) Approach, II-3.

PAGE 199

199 Whether discussing the purchase of a car, home, or service, the term cost is usually understood to mean the minimum necessary e xpenditure to achieve a given outcome. The idea is to establish the desired qualit y level and determine the lowest amount of money required. By contrast, the profe ssional judgment panels are effectively encouraged to identify the maximum expenditu re imaginable, in the hope that the amount will be enough to produce adequately proficient students.39 Duncombe concurred with Hanushek that ther e are many problems with reliability and validity with the research studies that use the pr ofessional judgment approach. However, instead of dismissing the methodology, Duncombe proposed ways to increase the reliability and validity of these studies. First Duncombe recommended ways to assess the interrater reliability of professional judgment studies by randomly assigning potential panel members to several alternative panels. The panels could be given the same instructions and asked to estimate staffing and other instructional cost s for the same prototype schools.40 Then to evaluate how great the variations are among th e different panels, Duncombe suggested using a simple measure of variation such as coefficients of variation. Duncombe recommended examining the cons truct validity of professional judgment research by systematically varying the scenario and the constraints give n panel members to see how these variations affect their COA [cost of adequacy] estimates.41 Duncombe provided an example to demonstrate: Three different randomly selected PJ [profe ssional judgment] panels could be asked to estimate adequacy in two prototype schools with poverty rates of 10% and 40% (Panel 1), 10% and 60% (Panel 2), and 10% and 80% (Panel 3). If th e increase in the cost of adequacy between low-poverty and high-pove rty schools is about the same across the three panels, this suggests that panelists ma y have difficulty accurately estimating the effects of poverty on student performance. The strategic response of panel members 39 Hanushek, The Alchemy of Costing Out, 7-8. 40 William Duncombe, Responding to the Charge of Alchemy, 142. 41 Ibid, 144-145.

PAGE 200

200 could be tested by comparing the results with and without a budget constraint or examining whether answers change significan tly if the estimates are done individually rather than as a group.42 Since performance levels ar e established well above curren t performance in schools for professional judgment studies establishing predic tive validity would be difficult. Duncombe suggested that it may be possible to develop esti mates of predictive accuracy of PJ estimates if performance levels or budgets are set at lower levels.43 Members of the panels would be asked to predict student performance after budgets were se t at reasonable levels within a state. Once performance levels (and budgets) are extrapolated to all districts (based in panel estimates for prototype schools), it would be po ssible to examine for districts w ith spending in the range of the budget scenarios the difference between the pr edicted performance levels and actual performance levels.44 To eliminate biases, Duncombe suggested ways to test internal validit y. For PJ studies, explicit tests of potential biases in the data colle ction process and steps taken to eliminate bias would strengthen their credibility.45 To address the bias that Hanushek found with panelists overestimating the resources needed, Duncombe st ated that PJ studies would need to estimate the size of this potential bias a nd demonstrate that changes in st udy protocol have addressed this problem.46 42 Ibid, 145. 43 Ibid, 146. 44 Ibid, 146. 45 Ibid, 147. 46 Ibid, 148.

PAGE 201

201 Evidence-Based Approach The eviden ce-based approach relies on curre nt educational research to identify the resources needed for a prototypical school to m eet a states student performance benchmarks.47 Then the costs of the prototypical school designs are estimated and applied to the actual schools in that state.48 One problem with the evidence-based appr oach is that the strategies are difficult to cost out and are not generalizable.49 Also, when the approach has been utilized in adequacy studies, the strategies are develope d from a blank slate. The resear chers do not investigate if any schools were already implementing the strategies what the schools were spending to implement the strategies and if the schools were achieving success with the strategies. Similar to the professional judgment model, the evidence based approach is less valid and replicable when comparing the four adequacy models. Theref ore, in a state like Florida with similar expenditures, the only recommendation that coul d come from the evidence-based approach would be to increase funding in all districts which would not be reasonable since that would include districts that are alre ady meeting state performance standards. Hanushek evaluated many of the evidence-ba sed studies conducted by Odden, Picus, Goetz, and Fermanich (OPGF) and found this approach to be weak for several reasons.50 Many of the studies that are used for the evidence-b ased approach are not scientifically based. Hanushek argued that OPGF tend to select studie s by their results. The studies that form the 47 Picus and Blair, 4-5. 48 Ibid. 49 Wood and Rolle, 53. 50 Eric A. Hanushek, Is the Evidence-Based Approach a Good Guide to School Finance Policy? Stanford University: 2006. Retrieved on April 7, 2008 from http://media.hoover.org/documents/ednext20073_73ua.pdf

PAGE 202

202 basis for their recommendations tend to be those that show large impacts on student achievement.51 Hanushek acknowledged that high quali ty studies should be weighted more than low quality studies. However, it is completely inappropriate from a scientific viewpoint to choose studies on the basis of their results.52 The biggest issue Hanushek finds with the OPGF studies is that it does not se lect or concentrate on studies that credibly identify the causal impact of the policies considered.53 Current education research does not provide much confidence that instituting a particular stud ied policy would have anywhere near the same impact on students when implemented in a new setting.54 Since the studies chosen are highly selective studies from the research base, there is no reason to believe that they can be generalized.55 Another issue Hanushek found with the OPGF studies is that the student achievement results suggested by the studies are not credib le. The recommendations suggested by OPGF list several programs for schools to implement. They imply that the programs would work independently, so that doing all simultaneousl y would yield the sum of all of the effect sizesBy their estimates, student performance w ould improve by 3 to 6 standard deviations.56 OPGF do not acknowledge that many of the progr ams they recommend have a one time impact and would not have a cumulative impact. Looking at the OPGF study from Washington 2006, 51 Ibid, 3. 52 Ibid, 3. 53 Ibid, 3. 54 Ibid, 3. 55 Hanushek, Science Violated, 273. 56 Ibid, 6.

PAGE 203

203 the cumulative effect on the schools would be an increase in state achievement of 23 to 37 standard deviations .57 Hanushek explained how implausible this achievement is: To put this in perspective, national ac hievement has been assessed by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a nd this gives a consistent measure of how achievement has changed. Between 1973 a nd 2004, average mathematics performance of 17-year-olds in the U.S. improved by 0.1 standard deviations. Wh ile this shows the challenges facing the nation, and Washington, it also shows the difficulties. National spending per student (adjusted for inflati on) more than tripled between 1960 and 2000, thus showing that resources alone were not the issue. Nor is simply uncovering the right program currently buried in the research l iterature, since much the same rational of knowing what to (albeit by different peopl e) has motivated previous increases in spending.58 Hanushek found with the OPGF report that any program they have found had a positive impact should be implemented simultaneously in all the schools regardless of price. Haunshek argued that by not being more selective with the programs chosen, OPGF recommendations will guarantee inefficiencies in school spending. Ev en though OPGF acknowledge that some of the programs are more cost efficient than others, th ey still advocate the implementation of all the programs. Unless there are unlimited funds to spend on educ ational programs, it would not make sense to put the money in al l programs, regardless of costP utting money equally into low return and high return programs does not make economic sense.59 Hanushek also argued that there is no empi rical evidence on the success of the OPGF proposals. There exists no actua l demonstration that these progr ams will be instituted or that they will be effective. For example, virtually the same programs with the same rational have 57 Ibid, 7. 58 Ibid, 7. 59 Ibid, 9.

PAGE 204

204 been proposed to Arkansas and to Wyoming by this group.60 Furthermore, the OPGF studies do not predict student achievement will actually increase with the funding they propose. They only assert that the gains would be possible, based in their reading of past research. By phrasing everything in terms of the opportunity to learn, their programs can never in the future be judged against the actual achievement.61 Hanushek referred to the evidence-based model as the consultants choice model. He explained this label by stating: The results w ould vary dramatically if a different set of consultants, perhaps with a different focus, atte mpted to apply their understanding of the existing research base,62 and therefore the model cannot be replic ated. Baker evaluated the reliability, validity, and usefulness of the education cost studies and identified some of the same aforementioned problems. Evidence-based models do not require rigorous meta-analysis of all available studies on each possible intervention. Nor does application of evidence-based cost analysis require that the interventions in questio n be evaluated with respect to specific, policyrelevant outcome measures.63 Duncombe also identified many of the same problems that Hanushek and Baker found with the evidence-based studies. However, Duncombe suggested ways to increase the reliability and validity of these studies. 60 Ibid, 10. See e.g. Lawrence O. Picus An Evidenced-Based Approach to School Finance Adequacy in Arkansas, (Sept. 2003); Lawrence O. Picus, An Evidence-Based Approach Recalibrating Wyomings Block Grant School Funding Formula, (Nov. 2005). 61 Ibid, 10. 62 Hanushek, Science Violated, 291. 63 Bruce D. Baker, Evaluating the Reliability, Validity, and Usefulness of Education Cost Studies, Journal of Education Finance 32, no. 2 (2006): 173.

PAGE 205

205 Interrater reliability could be assessed for EB [evidence-based] studies by selecting different researchers to put together the package of interventi ons and resources to produce the performance standards. Besides selecting interventions and resource requirements, the raters could indicate wh at educational evaluations are the most influential in designing their proposal and for which resources or programs they think the evaluation research is weak or the results mixed. For this test to have credibility, several consultants would be needed, and they s hould produce their results without consulting each other.64 To assess construct validity, the accuracy of the information used to develop the cost estimates would need to be examined. For the evidence-based approach, the basic data are the results from education program evaluations th at are used to support a certain package of interventions. The quality of these evaluations should be assessed and reported as part of the EB study. Ideally, only high-quality evaluations would be used to support the recommended interventions.65 Duncombe acknowledged that it would not be possible to assess the predictive validity of evidence-based studies because the interven tions recommended are hypothetical scenarios meaning no schools have used the exact package of interventions that th e researchers create. Therefore, it is not possible to assess differences between actual and predicted student performance.66 To eliminate potential biases and test in ternal validity, Duncombe suggested what researchers need to provide in their studies. To establish causality between a particular package of interven tions, resources, and student performance levels, ideally EB studies would recommend a package of interventions that have been tested using a well-designed program evaluation. Instead, EB studies draw from the existing educati on program evaluation lit erature on individual 64 Duncombe, Responding to the Charge, 143. 65 Ibid, 144. 66 Ibid, 146.

PAGE 206

206 education interventions. More information must be provided in these studies on the evaluations on which they base their judgmen ts and on the strengths and weaknesses of these studies. The authors need to present mo re explicitly how they use this research to estimate the link between resources and stude nt performance to convince readers that there is a sound basis for these judgments.67 After examining the four adequacy models, it can be concluded at the present time that none of the four models can be applied to a state like Florida because the spending patterns are so similar across districts. All the models are predicated based on what others have spent in a state and the inference is draw n that if more money were sp ent on a group of students then achievement will increase. This is not applicable in Florida or in any other state with similar expenditures across districts. There are not si gnificantly higher spending districts but there are many students who have high achievement. The Four Adequacy Models Through the data analysis, m any concerns were identified related to the reliability and validity of the current adequacy methodologies. E ach approach lacks the information needed to project outcomes outside of those currently observed.68 Additionally, without accurately identifying current inefficienci es by schools and without specify ing how added resources for a district will be used, the costing ou t methods lack any predictive value.69 Analyzing the minimum cost needed to achie ve any given outcomethe putative job of the costing out consultantsrequires that cost estimation be built on the joint consideration both of program effectiveness a nd of costs. Obtaining an estimate of the minimum costs to reach the achievement goal is seldom even a consideration in the costing out studies. Ignoring this ensures that the results are biased above the true costs of adequacy.70 67 Ibid, 147. 68 Hanushek, Science Violated, 286. 69 Ibid, 276. 70 Ibid, 279.

PAGE 207

207 If the methods systematically produce very different results when addressing the same questions, they obviously cannot be taken as giving a reliable and unbiased estimate of the resource requirements. Nor can they satisfy the most rudimentary cr iteria of scientific validity.71 In their Kansas report, Augenblick and Myers stated: None of these approaches are immune to manipulation; that is, each is subject to tinkering on the part of users that might ch ange results. In add ition, it is not known at this point whether they would produce similar results if used under the same circumstances (in the same state, at the same time, with similar data).72 After examining many of the adequacy studi es, Hanushek reached the conclusion that the reports are unverifiable: Virtually none of the reports says that the calculated level of resources will yield the outcomes that the consultants are striving to obtain. When it comes time to write the reportsand to produce a document by whic h the consultants might be judgedthe language generally changes to providing an opportunity to achieve the standard, not actually achieving the standardThis change of language means that the consultants are not predicting any level of achie vement if the stated resource s are provided. None of the reports states that the added resources will yield achievement that is any higher than currently observed. The reports pr ovide no predictions about outcomes73 Although Rebell proposed ways to enhance th e validity of adequacy studies he, too, acknowledged the problems with the current studies and methodologies: It is not, in fact, possible to definitively identify the precise am ount of money that is needed for an adequate education. Although these studies use a variety of complex statistical and analytic tec hniques, all of them are premised on a number of critical judgments which strongly influence their ul timate outcomes. More over, the studies are often undertaken in the highly charged political environments created by ongoing litigation or legislative refo rm movements. Since the credibility and validity of all adequacy cost studies hinge on these core judgments, their internal integrity, the manner 71 Ibid, 290. 72 John Augenblick and John Myers, Calculation of the Cost of an Adequate Education in Colorado using the Professional Judgment and the Successful School District Approaches, (Jan. 2003): II-5. 73 Hanushek, Science Violated, 301.

PAGE 208

208 in which they have been formulated, and the ex tent to which they have the subject of fair open public discussion should be subjected to extensive, ongoing prof essional and public scrutiny.74 Using multiple methodologies to configure the cost of an adequate education has been done in some studies.75 To enhance the validity of adequacy studies, Rebell stated: every costing-out study should incorporat e multiple methodologies. Since costing out is not an exact science and each of the cost ing-out methodologies is based on series of explicit or implicit judgments, the best way to highlight and resolve differences in these judgments or in the results that they yield is to juxtapose th e results of the application of one methodology with the results of an alternate approach.76 Duncombe acknowledged that most education adequacy studies have not established reliability and validity. In order to increase the reliability and validity in these studies Duncombe recommended that funding of basic adequacy res earch should be by neutral parties, such as foundations or the federal government, not partie s with a direct interest in the outcome.77 To encourage more systematic evalua tion of COS estimates, this research must move away from the advocacy environment to the realm of social scie nce research, where methods can be tested and evaluated without pressure to produce only one answer.78 74 Rebell, 1305. 75 See e.g., John Augenblick and John Myers, Calculation of the Cost of an Adequate Education in Colorado using the Professional Judgement (sic) and the Successful School District Approaches, (Jan. 2003); John Augenblick, John Myers, Justin Silverstein, and Anne Barkis, Calculation of the Cost of a Suitable Education in Kansas in 2000-2001 using Two Different Analytical Approaches, (May 2002); Legislative Division of Post Audit State of Kansas, Elementary and Secondary Education in Kansas: Estimating the Costs of K-12 Education Using Two Approaches, (Jan. 2006); John Augenblick and John Myers, Calculation of the Cost of an Adequate Education in Maryland in 1999-2000 Using Two Different Analytic Approaches, (Sept. 2001); R. Craig Wood, Donald Robson, Merle Farrier, Stephen Smith, Joyce Silverthorne, and Michael Griffith, Determining the Cost of Providing an Adequate Education in the State of Montana, (Oct. 2005); R.C. Wood & Associates, State of Rhode Island Education Adequacy Stud y, (March 2007); 76 Rebell, 1334. 77 Duncombe, Responding to the Charge of Alchemy, 138. 78 Ibid, 166-167.

PAGE 209

209 Summary This chapter presented the strengths and w eaknesses of the current m ethodologies to determine adequate funding for schools. Also presented in this chapter was how a state like Florida with similar expenditu res could utilize any of these methodologies. Reliability and validity issues about the met hodologies identified by several re searchers were discussed. Conclusions and recommendations were discussed in chapter 5.

PAGE 210

210 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction The purpose of this study was to exam in e the different methodologies utilized to determine what an adequate education would cost a nd if there were a model that could be used in a state like Florida with similar expenditures acro ss districts. Fifty-one adequacy studies were reviewed for this study. These adequacy studies were included because the researchers of those studies released them to the public. In chapter 4 the results of the content and policy analysis were presented. This chapter provides a summary of the findings, implications for future research, and recommendations for future adequacy studies. This study specifically addresse d the following four questions: 1. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the current methodologies used to determine adequate funding? 2. Did the previous adequacy studies use the previously stated methodologies and if so did they use them correctly? 3. Using this information previously stated how does a state like Flor ida that has similar expenditures between districts utilize the methodologies? 4. Can an adequacy model be developed or applied for a state like Florida? Findings The focus of this study was on the four ade quacy m ethodologies utilized in the various state adequacy studies to configur e a cost estimate for an adequate education. The purpose of the study was to determine if a model could be used fo r a state like Florida w ith similar expenditures across districts. Through the content analysis, strengths and weaknesses were identified for each of the four education adequacy methodologies For each methodology, strengths and weaknesses

PAGE 211

211 were summarized. Then common strengths and weaknesses were di scussed. The results of the four research questions were summarized below: Research Question 1 Statistical modeling/co st function approach A strength of this approach is that it has unique power for calcula ting the added costs of dealing with poverty, bilingual populati ons and other special populations.79 Additionally, replication of the study and sensitivity anal ysis could be completed at minimal cost.80 Furthermore, test-retest reliability tests of CF results are also feasible for estimating the same CF at several periods.81 Several weaknesses were identified with the cost function approach: it is complicated, it usually looks at one standard fo r student achievement such as te st scores, and it relies on the existence of educational production function.82 Also, the cost function results can be sensitive to what efficiency factors are included83 and some researchers have difficulty controlling for efficiency. Successful schools model A strength of this approach is that adjustme nts can be made for higher needs districts or students.84 Also, this method can take into account more than one measure of student 79 William J. Mathis, Equity and Adequacy, 13. 80 William Duncombe, Responding to the Charge of Alchemy. 81 Ibid, 143. 82 Addonzio. 83 William Duncombe, Estimating the Cost of an Adequate Education in New York, Working Paper no 44, (Feb. 2002): 5. 84 Ibid.

PAGE 212

212 achievement. A third strength is that this approach uses data from the current funding and outcomes of schools. Some weaknesses have been identified with this approach. First, districts that are producing adequate results inefficiently may be included which could lead to overfunding.85 Also, this approach assumes that differences in funding correlate to varia tions in performance. Two extrapolation concerns were identified by Hanushe k: since real school data is used for this method, new levels outside the range of the current outcomes cannot be inferred.86 Additionally, besides telling schools to spend the base amount configured which many schools may already be doing, directions for different populations are not provided.87 Professional judgment approach A statewide testing system is not necessary for this approach which can be considered a strength if the data did not exis t. Another strength is that ed ucators currently in the field are selected for the panels. Further, the results of this approach ar e easy to understand. Adjustments can be made for cost of livi ng differences across districts.88 Several weaknesses have been identified fo r this approach. One weakness of this approach is that it assumes that higher e xpenditures equal higher achievement. A second weakness is that achievement data from the stat e is not utilized for this approach. A third weakness identified is th at coming to a consensus among so many educators may be difficult. Fourth, the educators selected to serve on the panels are not randomly selected which makes 85 Guthrie and Rothstein, 224. 86 Hanushek, Sci ence Violated. 87 Ibid. 88 Mathis, Equity and Adequacy.

PAGE 213

213 replicating the study virtually impossible.89 Still another weakness is that panels are not asked to identify the minimum expenditure necessary for students to reach a given standard90 and therefore the resources identified tend to be overestimated.91 Finally, creating prototype districts assumes that the results can be generalized to all districts.92 Evidence-based approach A strength of this approach is that current educational research is used to identify programs. Another strength is th at adjustments can be made for special groups of students such as limited English, low income, and special education. One weakness of this approach is that the strategies selected ar e not from high quality studies and therefore are not generalizable.93 Additionally, the stude nt achievement results suggested by this approach are not credible.94 Furthermore, by not being more selective with the programs, inefficiencies in school spending are guaranteed.95 There is no observed evidence that the programs suggested by using this approach ar e effective and that student achievement would increase.96 This approach does not use current spending or achievement results of districts. 89 Eric A. Hanushek, Science Violated: Spending Projections and the Costing Out of an Adequate Education, in Courting Failure: How School Finance Lawsuits Exploit Judges Good Intentions and Harm Our Children Eric A. Hanushek, Ed., (Stanford: Education Next Books, 2006). 90 Ibid. 91 John Augenblick, John Myers, Justin Silverstein, and Anne Barkis, Calculation of the Cost of a Suitable Education in Kansas in 2000-2001 using Two Di fferent Analytical Appr oaches, (May 2002). 92 Mathis, Equity and Adequacy, 2003. 93 Hanushek, Science Violated, 2006. 94 Ibid. 95 Ibid. 96 Ibid.

PAGE 214

214 The four adequacy methodologies There are som e common weaknesses with al l of the costing out methods. Without accurately identifying current inefficiencies by schools and without specifying how added resources for a district will be used, the costing out methods lack any predictive value.97 Also, each approach lacks the information needed to project outcomes outside of those currently observed.98 Rebell summarized the problems with the current studies and methodologies: It is not, in fact, possible to definitively identify the precise am ount of money that is needed for an adequate education. Although these studies use a variety of complex statistical and analytic tec hniques, all of them are premised on a number of critical judgments which strongly influence their ul timate outcomes. More over, the studies are often undertaken in the highly charged political environments created by ongoing litigation or legislative refo rm movements. Since the credibility and validity of all adequacy cost studies hinge on these core judgments, their internal integrity, the manner in which they have been formulated, and the extent to which they have the subject of fair open public discussion should be subjected to extensive, o ngoing professional and public scrutiny.99 Research Question 2 For each of the adequacy studies summarized in chapter 2, the methodologies utilized were identified. It can be deduced after researchi ng all of the studies that most researchers prefer certain methodologies and conduct th eir studies in similar ways re gardless of the state they are studying. Some researchers provide more in-depth explanations of their methodologies utilized in their studies. When comparing the four adeq uacy methodologies previously discussed to how 97 Ibid, 276. 98 Ibid, 286. 99 Rebell, 1305.

PAGE 215

215 those methodologies are utilized in the adequacy studies, it can be conclude d that the researchers used the methods correctly. Research Question 3 In chapter 4, each adequacy methodology was summarized and discussed if it were possible for a state like Florida to utilize any of these approaches. The cost function approach would be difficult to apply in Fl orida since the expenditures are si milar across districts. Cost function studies attempt to determine how much a particular school district would need to spend relative to the average di strict to produce a set performance targ et, given the charac teristics of the school district and its student body.100 Specifically, cost function an alyses describe how levels of spending may vary for distri cts of different characteristics that serve different student populations.101 In Florida, the model would not provi de variations in spending and therefore would produce less valid results due to the sim ilar expenditure levels across districts. For the successful school dist rict approach, researchers or policymakers identify districts that have met state performance standards base d on state tests. Spending levels in those districts are used to calculate a base cost for adequate spending per pupil-the costs of serving a student with no special needs. Adjustments for student and district characteristics are then made.102 This approach assumes that differences in funding correlate to variations in performance. Since Floridas sc hool districts have similar expenditures no district in Florida would meet the definition for a successful school because the spending of the successful schools would be within the same spending pattern as non-successful schools. 100 Ibid, 1311-1312. 101 Ibid, 1312. 102 Picus and Blair, 4.

PAGE 216

216 For the professional judgment approac h, teams of education experts meet and independently identify the educational resource s needed to create schools in which educators have confidence that most of the students in the school will be able to m eet the state-established performance goals.103 Then the cost of the resources is c onfigured to ascertain the adequate cost for a school. This approach assumes that higher expenditures equal higher achievement which is not a guarantee and in a state like Florida with similar expenditures across districts, this assumption could not be validated. The evidence-based approach relies on curre nt educational research to identify the resources needed for a prototypical school to m eet a states student performance benchmarks.104 Then the costs of the prototypical school designs are estimated and applied to the actual schools in that state.105 One problem with the evidence-based approach is that the strategies are difficult to cost out and are not generalizable.106 Also, when the approach has been utilized in adequacy studies, the strategies are developed from a blank slate. The researchers do not investigate if any schools were already implem enting the strategies, what the schools were spending to implement the strategies and if the schools were achiev ing success with the strategies. Similar to the professional judgment m odel, the evidence-based approach is less valid and replicable when comparing the four adequacy models. Therefore, in a state like Florida with similar expenditures, the only recommendation th at could come from the evidence-based 103 Conley and Picus, 588. 104 Picus and Blair, 4-5. 105 Ibid. 106 Wood and Rolle, 53.

PAGE 217

217 approach would be to increase f unding in all districts which would not be reasonable since that would include districts that ar e already meeting state performance standards. Research Question 4 After exam ining the four adequacy models, it can be concluded at the present time that none of the four models can be applied to a state like Florida because the spending patterns are so similar across districts. All the models are predicated based on what others have spent in a state and the inference is draw n that if more money is spen t on a group of students then achievement will increase. This is not applicable in Florida or in any other state with similar expenditures across districts. There are not si gnificantly higher spending districts but there are many students who have high achievement. Conclusions The results of this study found that the four adequacy m ethodologies, cost function, successful school district, professi onal judgment, and evidence-base d, currently being utilized to configure the cost of an adequate education in several states cannot be used in the state of Florida or any state that has similar expenditures across di stricts. All of the approaches assume that higher expenditures equal higher achievement which can be refuted when comparing the achievement of students across Florida. This study exemplified the limited strengths and the many weaknesses found in the four adequacy methodologies. After examining the restricted ranges of the fifty states and Washington, DC, it can be concluded that restricted range determines adequac y. In states with a small restricted range like Florida there are no rich districts and therefore none of the four ad equacy models can be applied. The main reason for conducting an adequacy stu dy is to determine how much more money is

PAGE 218

218 needed to increase achievement. When money is removed from the equation (i.e. restricted range) there is no reason to conduct an adequacy study. The four adequacy methodologies cannot be us ed in the state of Florida to determine what an adequate education costs. The cost function method is not appropriate to use in the state of Florida because it compares the spending of school districts to the spending of the average school district. Since there are similar expenditures across Florid as school districts the cost function method would not provide variations in spending. The successful school district model is not ap propriate to use in the state of Florida because only average expenditures are considered fo r districts that are meeting state standards. This method assumes that differences in funding co rrelate to variations in performance. Since the restricted range for Floridas school districts is small, no district in Florida would meet the definition for a successful school because the sp ending of the successful schools would be within the same spending pattern as non-successful schools. The professional judgment approach is not ap propriate to use in the state of Florida because teams of educators identify the educatio nal resources needed to create prototype schools where most students can meet state standards. Then the researchers configure the cost of an adequate education by pricing out the resources. This approach assumes that higher expenditures equal higher achievement, which is not a guara ntee and in a state like Florida with similar expenditures across districts, this assump tion cannot be validated. The evidence-based approach is not appropria te to use in the state of Florida because researchers identify and cost out the resources needed in schools in order for students to reach state standards. This method assumes that more money will produce higher student achievement. In a state like Florida with a sm all restricted range, the only recommendation that

PAGE 219

219 could come from this approach would be to increase funding in all districts which would not be reasonable since that would in clude districts that are alr eady meeting state performance standards. Implications and Suggestions for Future Research The purpose of this study was to determine if there were an adequacy model that could be used in the state of Florida by analyzing the di fferent methodologies utilized to configure the cost of an adequate education. The results of the content analysis determined that the four methodologies currently being utilize d cannot be used in the state of Florida. The results of the content analysis also revealed the many weaknesses found in th e four adequacy methodologies. Given that funding education adequately is a topi c that continues to be discussed throughout the United States there is a need for further re search on this topic. Since the four adequacy approaches assu me that higher expenditures produce higher achievement and this is not a guarantee, future studies should shift from identifying a specific cost to analyzing what programs or resources schools that are meeting state performance standards are utilizing. Beside s identifying successf ul programs for typical students, other factors (e.g., socio-economic status, race, lowe st performing students, special education, and second language learners) could be examined to determine what schools ar e specifically doing to help different groups of students achieve to the state standards. Another research study could ut ilize one of the adequacy studies already completed that had been adopted by a state legislature and im plemented into schools or districts. Then comparisons could be made to determine if the recommendations from the study had created higher student achievement than prior to the implementation of the program.

PAGE 220

220 Recommendations Through the literature review and data analys is, m any recommendations were discovered that would strengthen the reliability and valid ity of education adequacy methods and future adequacy studies. First, funding of basic adequacy research should be by neutral parties, such as foundations or the federal government, not pa rties with a direct in terest in the outcome.107 Second, every costing-out study should incorporate multiple methodologies.108 Third, participants should be randomly selected for the professional j udgment panels so that the study could be replicated. For the evidence-based and cost function approaches, interrater reliability could be tested by having differe nt researchers configure the cost s/programs for the same state at the same time period. 107 Duncombe, Responding to the Charge, 138. 108 Rebell, 1334.

PAGE 221

221 REFERENCES Adequacy Studies Am erican Institutes for Research (AIR). A n Independent Comprehensive Study of the New Mexico Public School Funding Formula, Volume I Final Report. (January 2008). Augenblick, John, Amanda Brown, Dale DeCesa re, John Myers, and Justin Silverstein. Estimating the Cost of an Adequate E ducation in South Dakota. (January 2006). Augenblick, John and John Myers. A Procedure for Calculating a Base Cost Figure and an Adjustment for At-Risk Pupils that Coul d be Used in the Illinois School Finance System. (June 2001). Augenblick, John and John Myers. Calculation of the Cost of an Adequate Education in Colorado using the Professional Judgement (s ic) and the Successful School District Approaches. (January 2003). Augenblick, John and John Myers. C alculation of the Cost of an Adequate Education in Indiana in 2001-2001 using the Professional Judgeme nt (sic) Approach. (September 2002). Augenblick, John and John Myers. Calculation of the Cost of an Adequate Education in Maryland in 1999-2000 Using Two Different An alytic Approaches. (September 2001). Augenblick, John, John Myers, Justin Silverstein, and Anne Barkis. Calculation of the Cost of a Suitable Education in Kansas in 2000-2001 us ing Two Different Analytical Approaches. (May 2002). Augenblick, John, Justin Silverstein, Amanda R. Brown, Douglas Rose, Dale DeCesare, and Amy Berk Anderson. Estimating the Cost of an Adequate Education in Nevada. (August 2006). Augenblick, John, Robert Palaich, and Associates. Calculation of the Cost of an Adequate Education in North Dakot a in 2002-2003 using the Prof essional Judgement (sic) Approach. (July 2003). Augenblick, John, Robert Palaich, and Associates. Calculation of the Cost of an Adequate Education in Tennessee in 2001-02 using the Professional Judgment Approach and the Successful School District Approach. (December 2003). Augenblick, John, Robert Palaic h, and Associates. Costing Ou t the Resources Needed to Meet Pennsylvanias Public E ducation Goals, (November 2007). Augenblick, John, Robert Palaich, and Associates. Estimating Colorado School District Costs to Meet State and Federal Education A ccountability Requirements. (October 2006). Augenblick, John, Robert Palaic h, Justin Silverstein, Douglas Rose, and Dale DeCesare. Estimating the Cost of an Adequate Education in Connectic ut. (June 2005).

PAGE 222

222 Chambers, Jay, Jesse Levin, and Danielle DeLan cey. Efficiency and Adequacy in California School Finance: A Professional Judg ment Approach. (December 2006). Chambers, Jay, Lori Taylor, and Joe Robinson. A laska School District Cost Study. (January 2003). Chambers, Jay G., Thomas B. Parrish, Jesse D. Levin, James R. Smith, James W. Guthrie, Rich C. Seder, and Lori Taylor. The New York Adequacy Study: Determining the Cost of Providing All Children in New York an Adequa te Education. Volume 1 Final Report. (March 2004). Conley, David and William Freund. What Will It Take? Defining a Quality Education in Washington and a New Vision of Adequacy for School Funding. (March 2003). Conley, David T. and Kathryn C. Rooney. Washington Adequacy Funding Study. (January 2007). Duncombe, William. Estimating the Cost of an Adequate Education in New York. Working Paper no. 44. (February 2002). Duncombe, William and John Yinger. Estimating the Costs of Meeting Performance Outcomes Adopted by the Kansas State Boar d of Education. (December 2005). Fermanich, Mark, Michelle Turner Mangan, Alla n Odden, Lawrence O. Picus, Betheny Gross, and Zena Rudo. Washington Learns: Successf ul District Study. (September 2006). Gronberg, Timothy J., Dennis W. Jansen, Lori L. Taylor, and Kevin Booker. School Outcomes and School Costs: The Cost Func tion Approach [Texas]. (2004). Haveman, Mark. Determining the Cost of an Ad equate Education in Minnesota: Implications for the Minnesota Education Fina nce System. (February 2004). Imazeki, Jennifer and Andrew Reschovsky. Estimating the Costs of Meeting the Texas Educational Accountability Standard s. (May 2004/Revised July 2004). Legislative Council on the Oregon Quality Educa tion Model. The Oregon Quality Education Model: Relating Funding and Performance. (June 1999). Legislative Division of Post Audit State of Ka nsas. Elementary and Secondary Education in Kansas: Estimating the Costs of K-12 Edu cation Using Two Approaches. (January 2006). Maine Education Policy Research Institute. Essential Programs and Services: Equity and Adequacy in Funding to Improve Learni ng for All Children. (January 1999). Management Analysis & Planning Associates. A Proposed Costs Based Block Grant Model for Wyoming School Finance. (April 1997). Management Analysis & Planni ng Associates. Proposed Revi sions to the [Wyoming] Cost Based Block Grant. (January 2002).

PAGE 223

223 Management Analysis & Planning, Inc. A Pr ofessional Judgment Approach to Determining Adequate Education Funding in Maryland. (June 2001). Massachusetts Business Alliance for Educa tion. Every Child a Winner. (July 1991). Myers, John and Justin Silverstein. Calculation of the Cost of a Suitable Education in Montana in 2001-2002 Using the Professional Judgment Approach. (August 2002). National Conference of State Legislators. A rizona English Language Learner Cost Study. (February 2005). New York State Education Department. Estim ating the Additional Cost of Providing an Adequate Education. In Regents Proposal on State Aid to School Districts for 2004-05 (January 2004). Norman, Jack. Funding Our Future: An Adequacy Model for Wisconsin School Finance. (June 2002). Odden, Allan, Lawrence Picus, and Michael Goet z. Recalibrating the Ar kansas School Funding Structure. (August 2006). Odden, Allan, Lawrence O. Picus, Michael Goet z, Michelle Turner Mangan, Mark Fermanich. An Evidenced-Based Approach to Sc hool Finance Adequacy in Washington. (September 2006). Odden, Allan, Lawrence O. Picus, Sarah Archib ald, Michael Goetz, Michelle Turner Mangan, and Anabel Aportela. M oving From Good to Great in Wisconsin: Funding Schools Adequately and Doubling Student Performance. (March 2007). Oregon Quality Education Commission. Orego n Quality Education Model-2000. (January 2000). Picus, Lawrence O. An Evidence-Based Approach to Recalibrating Wyomings Block Grant School Funding Formula. (November 2005). Picus, Lawrence, O. An Evidenced-Based Approach to School Finance Adequacy in Arizona, Final Report. (June 2004). Picus, Lawrence, O. An Evidenced-Based Approach to School Finance Adequacy in Arkansas. (September 2003). Picus, Lawrence O., Allan Odden, and Mark Ferm anich. A Professional Judgment Approach to School Finance Adequacy in Kentucky. (May 2003). Picus, Lawrence O., Allan Odden, and Mark Ferman ich. A State-of-the-Art Approach to School Finance Adequacy in Kentucky. (February 2003). Silverstein, Justin, Doug Rose, a nd John Myers. Estimating the Co st of an Adequate Education in Minnesota. (November 2006).

PAGE 224

224 Silverstein, Justin, Douglas Rose Robert Palaich, John Myers, and Amanda Brown. Estimating the Cost of an Adequate Educa tion in Montana. (January 2007). Smith, James. R. and James W. Guthrie. An Exploration of Educa tional and Demographic Conditions Affecting New Hampshire s Adequacy Aid. (October 2000). Sonstelie, Jon, Irene Altman, Sarah Batters by, Cynthia Benelli, Elizabeth Dhuey, Paolo Gardinali, Brad Hill, and Stephen Lipscom b. Aligning [California] School Finance with Academic Standards: A Weighted-Student Fo rmula Based on a Survey of Practitioners. (March 2007). Standard and Poors. Resource Adequacy Study for the New York Commission on Education Reform. (March 2004). Thornton, Grant. State of Hawaii Adequacy Funding Study. (March 2005). Verstegen, Deborah. Calculation of the Cost of an Adequate Education in Kentucky: A Professional Judgment Approach. Education Policy Analysis Archives 12, no. 8 (2004). Retrieved May 4, 2007 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n8/ Wood, R.C. & Associates. State of Rhode Is land Education Adequacy Study. (March 2007). Wood, R. Craig, Donald Robson, Merle Farrier, S tephen Smith, Joyce Silverthorne, Michael Griffith. Determining the Cost of Providi ng an Adequate Education in the State of Montana. (October 2005). Books and Articles Addonzio, Michael F. From Fiscal Equity to Ed ucational Adequacy: Lessons from Michigan, Journal of Education Finance 28, no. 4 (2003): 457-484. Augenblick, John G., John L. Myers, and Am y Berk Anderson. Equity and Adequacy in School Funding. The Future of Children: Financing Schools 7, no. 3 (1997): 63-78. Baker, Bruce D. Evaluating the Reliability, Validity, and Usefulness of Education Cost Studies, Journal of Education Finance 32, no. 2 (2006): 170-201. Baker, Bruce D. The Emerging Shape of Educational Adequacy: From Theoretical Assumptions to Empirical Evidence. Journal of Educational Finance 30, no. 3 (2005): 259-287. Borman, Geoffrey D., Gina M. Hewes, Laura T. Overman, and Shelly Brown. Comprehensive School Reform Achievement: A Meta-Analysis, Review of Educational Research 73, no. 2 (2003): 125-230. Carey, Kevin. Overview of K-12 Education Finance, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (Washington, DC, 2002): 1-16. Chambers, Jay G. Public School Teacher Co st Differences Across the United States: Introduction to a Teacher Cost Index (TC I). Washington, D.C: National Center for

PAGE 225

225 Education Statistics, 1995. Retrieved May 2007 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=95758 Clune, W illiam H. Educational Adequ acy: A Theory and its Remedies. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 28, no. 3 (1995): 481-491. Clune, William H. The Shift From Equ ity to Adequacy in School Finance. Educational Policy 8, no. 4 (1994): 376-394. Coleman, James S. et al. Equality of Educati onal Opportunity. Washi ngton: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welf are, Office of Education, 1966. Conley, David T. and Lawrence O. Picus. Oregons Quality Education Model: Linking Adequacy and Outcomes. Educational Policy 17, no. 5 (2003): 586-612. Cubberley, Elwood P. School Funds and Their Apportionment New York City: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1905. Dayton, John. Rural School Funding Litigation: A Review of Recent Cases, Judicial-Legislative Interactions, and Emerging Trends. Journal of Education Finance 29, no. 2 (2003):157184. Duncombe, William. Responding to the Charge of Alchemy: Strategies for Evaluating the Reliability and Validity of Costing-Out Research, Journal of Education Finance 32, no. 2 (2006): 137-169. Duncombe, William D. and John M. Yinger. P erformance Standards and Educational Cost Indexes: You Cant Have One Without the Other. In Equity and Adequacy in Education Finance, Edited by Helen F Ladd, Rosemary Chal k, and Janet S. Hansen. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, (1999): 260-297. Dunn, William N. Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1994. Education Commission of the States, Determini ng the Cost of a Basic or Core Education, 1999. Retrieved July 2005 from www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/13/18//1318.htm Evans, W illiam N., Sheila E. Murray, and Robe rt M. Schwab. Schoolhouses, Courthouses, and Statehouses After Serrano. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 16, no. 1 (1997): 140-31. Fine, Lisa R., Tina P. Hsu, Kristen G. King, and Joshua D. Janow. Education: Federal Rights and Racial Equity, Adequacy, and Standards in K-12 Education. Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law (Washington, DC, 2003):1-18. First, Patricia F. and Barbara. M. DeLuca. The Meaning of Educational Adequacy: The Confusion of DeRolph. Journal of Law and Education 32, no. 2 (2003): 185-215. Fraenkel, Jack R. and Norman E. Wallen, How to Design and Evaluate Research 2d ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1993.

PAGE 226

226 Garms, Walter, James Guthrie, and Lawrence Pierce. School Finance: The Economics and Politics of Public Education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1988. Garms, Walter I., James W. Guthrie, and Lawrence Pierce. School Finance and Education Policy: Enhancing Educational Efficiency, Equality, and Choice 2d ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1988. Guthrie, James. W. and Richard Rothstein. Enabling Adequacy to Achieve Reality: Translating Adequacy into State School Finance Distribution Arrangements. In Equity and Adequacy in Education Finance, edited by Helen F Ladd, Rosemary Chalk, and Janet S. Hansen. Washington, DC: Nati onal Academy Press, (1999): 209-259. Hanushek, Eric A. A Jaundiced View of Adequacy in School Finance Reform, Educational Policy 8, no. 4 (1994): 460-469. Hanushek, Eric A. Assessing the Effects of School Resources on Student Performance: An Update. Educational Evaluati on and Policy Analysis 19, no. 2 (1997): 141-164. Hanushek, Eric A. Is the Evidence-Based Appr oach a Good Guide to School Finance Policy? Stanford University: 2006. Retrieved on April 7, 2008 at http://media.hoover.org/doc um ents/ednext20073_73ua.pdf Hanushek, Eric A. Science Violated: Spending Projections and the Costing Out of an Adequate Education. In Courting Failure: How School Finance Lawsuits Exploit Judges Good Intentions and Harm Our Children Edited by Eric A. Hanushek. Stanford: Education Next Books, (2006): 257-311. Hanushek, Eric A. The Alchemy of Costing Ou t an Adequate Education. Revised paper presented at the conference Adequacy La wsuits: Their Growing Impact on American Education. Cambridge, MA: Harv ard University, Oct. 2005. Hanushek, Eric A. The Failure of Input-Based Schooling Policies. Economic Journal 113, no. 485 (2003): F64-98. Hanushek, Eric A. The Impact of Diffe rential Expenditures on School Performance. Educational Researcher 18, no. 4 (1989): 45-51. Hedges, Larry V., Richard D. Laine, and Rob Greenwald. Does Money Matter? A MetaAnalysis of Studies of the Effects of Differential School Inputs on Student Outcomes. Educational Researcher 23, no. 3 (1994): 5-14. Herrington, Carolyn D. and Virginia Weider. Equity, Adequacy and Vouchers: Past and Present School Finance Litigation in Florida. Journal of Education Finance 27, no. 1 (2001): 517-534. Holsti, Ole R. Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities Reading, MA: AddisonWesley Publishing Company, 1969. Imazeki, Jennifer and Andrew Reshovsky. Financi ng Adequate Education in Rural Settings. Journal of Education Finance 29, no. 1 (2003): 137-156.

PAGE 227

227 Johns, R.L. The Evolution of the Equalization of E ducational Opportunity in Florida 1926 to 1976. Gainesville, FL.: Institute fo r Educational Finance, 1976. Lindkvist, Kent. Approaches to Textual Analysis, In Advances in Content Analysis. Edited by Karl Erik Rosengren. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1981. Lu, K. Arkansas Increases Funding After Court Rules (2006) Retrieved March 2007 from http://www.schoolfunding.info/news/litig ation/4-13-06arspecialsession.php3. Mathis, W illiam. Financial Challenges, Adequacy, and Equity in Rural Schools and Communities. Journal of Education Finance 29, no.2 (2003): 119-136. Mathis, William J. Equity and Adequacy Challenges in Rural Sc hools and Communities. Paper presented at the Annua l Meeting of the American E ducation Finance Association. (Orlando, FL, 2003): 1-16. Mathis, William J. How to Analyze Your States Education F unding System. A Workbook from the Rural School and Community Trus t Policy Program, Washington DC: Rural School and Community Trust, 2001. McUsic, Molly S. The Use of Education Cl auses in School Finance Reform Litigation. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 28, no. 2 (1991): 307-340. Minorini, Paul A. and Stephen D. Sugarman. School Finance Litigation in the Name of Educational Equity: Its Evolu tion, Impact, and Future. In Equity and Adequacy in Education Finance: Issues and Perspectives edited by Helen F. Ladd, Rosemanry Chalk, and Janet S. Hansen. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999. Nakib, Yasser and Carolyn D. Herrington. The Political Economy of K-12 Education Finance: the Context of a Fast Growing Large State. Journal of Education Finance 23 (1998): 351-373. National Commission on Excellence in Education. A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform (1983). Odden, Allan R. and Lawrence O. Picus. School Finance: A Policy Perspective. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, 2004. Picus, Lawrence O. Does Money Matter in Education? A Policymakers Guide. In Selected Papers in School Finance 1995 edited by William J. Fowler, Jr. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1997: 19-35. Picus, Lawrence O. and Leslie Blair. School Finance Adequacy: The State Role Insights on Education Policy, Practice, and Research, no. 16 (March 2004): 4. Retrieved June 2007 from http:// www.sedl.org/policy /insights/n 16/in sights 16 .pdf. Rebell, Michael A. Professional Rigor, Public E ngagement and Judicial Review: A Proposal for Enhancing the Validity of Education Adequacy Studies, Teachers College Record 109, no. 6 (2007): 1303-1373.

PAGE 228

228 Reschovsky, Andrew and Jennifer Imazeki. Achieving Educational Adequacy through School Finance Reform. Journal of Education Finance 26, no. 4 (2001): 373-396. Taylor, Lori. Adjusting for Geographic Variations in Teacher Compensation: Updating the Texas Cost-of-Education Index. A report prepared for the Texas Legislature Joint Committee on Public School Finance, The Texas School Finance Project, 2004. Thomas, M. Donald. And E. E. Gene Davis. An Adequate Education Defined. Bloomington, Indiana: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation, 2001. Thro, William E. Judicial Analysis During the Third Wave of School Finance Litigation: The Massachusetts Decision as a Model. B.C. Law Review 35, no. 4 (1994): 597-617. Verstegen, Deborah A. Financing the New Adequacy: Towards New Models of State Education Finance Systems That Support Standards Based Reform. Journal of Education Finance 27, no. 3 (2002): 749-782. Weimer, David L. and Aidan R. Vining. Policy Analysis: Concepts and Practice 3d ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1992. Williams, Walter. Social Policy Research and Analysis. New York, NY: American Elsevier Publishing Company, Inc., 1971. Wood, R. C. Educational Finance Law: Constitutional Challenges to State Aid Plans, An Analysis of Strategies. 3d ed. Dayton, Ohio: Education Law Association, 2007. Wood, R. Craig and R. Anthony Rolle, Improving Adequacy Concepts in Education Finance: A Heuristic Examination of the Profe ssional Judgment Research Protocol, Educational Considerations 35, no. 1 (2007). Legal Citations Abbeville County School District v. State 515 S.E. 2d 535 (S.C. 1999). Abbott v. Bu rke, 495 A.2d 376 (N.J. 1985). Abbott v. Burke 575 A.2d 359, 363 (N.J. 1990). Abbott v. Burke 643 A.2d 575 (N.J. 1994). Abbott by Abbott v. Burke 693 A.2d 417 (N.J. 1997). Abbott v. Burke 798 A.2d 602 (N.J. 2002). Alabama Coalition for Equity v. Hunt reprinted in Appendix to Opinion of the Justices 624 So. 2d 107 (Ala. 1993). Bismarck Public Schools v. North Dakota 511 N.W.2d 247 (N.D. 1994).

PAGE 229

229 Brigham v. State of Vermont 692 A.2d 384 (Vt. 1997). Campaign for Fiscal Equity v. State of New York 86 N.Y.2d 307, (N.Y. 1995). Campaign for Fiscal Equity v. State, 655 N.E.2d 661 (N.Y. 1995). Campaign for Fiscal Equity v. State, 100 N.Y. 2d 893 (N.Y. 2003). Campaign for Fiscal Equity v State of New York, 8 N.Y.3d 14 (N.Y. 2006) Campbell County School District v. State 907 P.2d 1238, (Wyo. 1995 ). Charlet v. State, 713 So.2d 1199 (La. Ct. App. 1998). City of Pawtucket v. Sundlum 662 A.2d 40 (R.I. 1995). Claremont School District v. Governor 635 A.2d 1375 (N.H. 1993). Claremont School District v. Governor 703 A.2d 1353 (N.H. 1997). Claremont School District v. Governor, 794 A.2d 744 (N.H. 2002). Coalition for Adequacy and Fairness in School Funding v. Chiles 680 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 1996). Coalition for Equitable School Funding v. State, 811 P.2d 116 (Or. 1991). Columbia Falls Elementary School District No. 6; East Helena Elementary District No. 9; Helena Elementary District No. 1 and H.S. Dist No. 1; Billings Elemen tary District No. 2 and H.S. Dist No. 2; White Sulphur Springs El em. District No. 8 and H.S. District No. 8; Troy Elementary District No. 1 and H.S. District No. 1; MEA-MFT; Montana School Boards Association; Montana Rural Educa tion Association; School Administrators of Montana; Alan & Nancy Nicholson; Gene Ja russi; Peter & Cheryl Marchi; and Michael and Susan Nicosia, for themselves and as parents of their minor children, v. The State of Montana. Montana First Judicial District Court (Mont. 2004). Columbia Falls Public Schools v. State, 109 P.3d 257 (Mont. 2004). Committee for Educational Equality v. State, 878 S.W.2d 446 (Mo. 1994). Committee for Educational Rights v. Edgar 672 N.E.2d 1178 (Ill. 1996). Danson v. Casey, 399 A.2d 360 (Pa. 1979). Department of Education v. Glasser, 622 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 1993); DeRolph v. State, 79 Oh.St.3d 297, (Ohio 1997). DeRolph v. State, 91 Oh.St.3d 1274 (Ohio 1997).

PAGE 230

230 DeRolph v. State, 677 N.E. 733, 747 (Ohio 1997). DeRolph v. State, 728 N.E.2d 993 (Ohio 2000). DeRolph v. State, 754 N.E.2d 1184 (Ohio 2001). DeRolph v. State, 97 Ohio St.3d 434 (Ohio 2002). DeRolph v. State, 786 N.E.2d 60 (Ohio 2003). Dupree v. Alma School District 651 S.W.2d 90 (Ark. 1983). East Jackson Public Schools v. State 348 N.W.2d 303 (Mich. 1984) Edgewood Independent School District v. Kirby, 777 S.W.2d 391 (Tex. 1989). Edgewood Independent School District v. Kirby, 804 S.W.2d 491 (Tex 1991). Edgewood Independent School District v. Kirby, 826 S.W.2d 489 (Tex. 1992). Edgewood Independent School District v. Kirby, 893 S.W.2d 450 (Tex. 1995). Fair School Finance Council v. State 746 P.2d 1135 (Okla. 1987). Faith L. Honore, et al., v. Fl orida State Board of Education, No. CV 99-17 (Fla. 2d. Cir., Filed Jan 4, 1999). Florida Department of Education v. Glasser, 622 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 1993). Gindl v. Department of Education 396 S. 2d 1105 (Fla. 1979). Gould v. Orr 506 N.W.2d 349 (Neb. 1993). Governor v. State Treasurer, 203 N.W.2d 457 (Mich. 1972). Helena Elementary School District No. 1 v. State 769 P.2d 684 (Montana 1989). Helena Elementary School District v. State, 784 P.2d 412 (Mont. 1990). Hornbeck v. Somerset Board of Education, 458 A.2d 758 (Md. 1983). Horton v. Meskill 376 A.2d 359 (Ct. 1977) Idaho Schools for Equal Educa tional Opportunity v. Evans 850 P.2d 724 (Idaho 1993). Idaho Schools for Equal Educa tional Opportunity v. Evans, 976 P.2d 913 (Idaho 1998). Kukor v. Grover 436 N.W.2d 568 (Wisconsin 1989).

PAGE 231

231 Lake View School Disrict. v. Huckabee 10 S.W. 3d 892 (Ark. 2000). Lake View School District v. Huckabee, 91 S.W.3d 472 (Ark. 2002). Lake View School District No. 25 v. Huckabee 351 Ark. 31, 91 S.W. 3d 472 (Ark. 2002), cert den. Sub. Nom. Wilson, J.L., et al. v. Huckabee, Gov. of Ark., et al ., 538 U.S. (Ark. 2003). Lake View School District No.25 of Phillips County, Arkansas, et. al., v. Governor Mike Huckabee, et. al. in Special Masters' Report to the Supreme Court of Arkansas. Supreme Court of Arkansas (Ark. 2005). Leandro v. State 472 S.E.2d 11(N.C. 1996). Leandro v. State, 488 S.E.2d 249 (N.C. 1997). Levittown School District v. Nyquist, 439 N.E.2d 359 (N.Y. 1982). Lewis E. v. Spagnolo, 713 N.E. 2d 798 (Ill. 1999). Lujan v. Board of Education, 649 P.2d 1005 (Colo. 1982). Matanuska-Susitna Borough Sc hool District v. State, 931 P.2d 391 (Alaska 1997). McDaniels v. Thomas 285 S.E.2d 156 (Ga. 1981). McDuffy v. Secretary of the Executive Office of Education 615 N.E.2d 516 (Mass. 1993). Milliken v. Green, 212 N.W.2d 711 (Mich. 1973). Olsen v. State, 554 P.2d 139 (Or. 1976). Pauley v. Kelly 255 S.E.2d 859 (W.Va. 1979). Pennsylvania Association of Rura l and Small Schools v. Ridge, 737 A.2d 246 (Pa. 1999). Richland County v. Campbell, 364 S.E.2d 470 (S.C. 1988). Robinson v. Cahill, 303 A.2d 273 (N.J. 1973), cert. denied. Robinson v. Cahill 414 U.S. 976 (1973). Robinson v. Cahill 355 A.2d 129 (N.J. 1976); Roosevelt Elementary School District 66 v. Bishop 877 P.2d 806 (Ariz. 1994). Rose v. Council for Better Education, 790 S.W.2d 186 (Ky. 1989). San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez 411 U.S. 1 (Tex. 1973).

PAGE 232

232 School Administrative District No. 1 et al. v. Commissioner 659 A.2d 854 (Me. 1994). Scott v. Commonwealth 443 S.E.2d 138 (Virginia 1994). Seattle School District No. 1 v. State 585 P.2d 71 (Wash. 1978). Serrano v. Priest, 487 P.2d 1241 (Cal. 1971). Serrano v. Priest, 557 P. 2d. 929 (Cal. 1976). Sheff v. ONeill, 678 A.2d 1267 (Ct. 1996). Skeen v. State 505 N.W.2d 299 (Minn. 1993). St. Johns County v. Northeast Florida Builders Association 583 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 1991). State v. Campbell County School District, 19 P.3d 518 (Wyo. 2001). State v. Campbell County School District, 32 P.3d 325 (Wyo. 2001). Tennessee Small School System v. McWherter 851 S.W.2d 139, 141 (Tenn. 1993). Tennessee Small School Systems v. McWherter, 894 S.W.2d 734 (Tenn. 1995). Thompson v. Engelking, 537 P.2d 635 (Idaho 1975). Unified School District v. State, 885 P.2d 1170 (Kan. 1994). Vincent v. Voight, 614 N.W.2d 388 (Wis. 2000) Washakie County School District v. Herschler 606 P.2d 310 (Wyo. 1980) West Orange Cove v. Neeley, 107 S.W.3d 746 (Tex. 2005). United States and Florida Documents Elem entary and Secondary Education Act, 20 U.S.C. 6516. Florida Constitution, art. 9, sec.1. Florida Constitution (1968), art. 9, sec. 1. Florida Constitution (1998), art. 9, sec.1. Florida Constitution, art. 12, sec. 5. Florida Constitution, art. 12, sec. 9a2. Florida Department of Education 2005-2006 Funding for Florida School Districts, EIAS Series 2005-06.

PAGE 233

233 Florida Statutes, 236.012(1) (1998). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. 6301. U.S. Department of Education, 2002. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: The Public Law print of PL 107-110. Retrieved May 2008 from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/ leg/esea02/index.html?exp=0

PAGE 234

234 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Lori Rosen Benton was born in Morristown, New Jersey, the youngest of five children. She received her public school education in Parsippany, New Jersey, and graduated from Parsippany High School in 1992. She graduated from the University of Florida with a Bachelor of Arts in Education with honors in 1996, a Mast er of Education in 1997, and a Specialist in Education in educational leadership in 2002. In December 2008, she received a Doctor of Philosophy degree in educational leadership from the University of Florida. Lori began her professional career teaching first grade at Oak Hill Elementary School in Orlando, Florida. Then she taught a multi-age ki ndergarten and first grade class at Windy Ridge K-8 School in Orlando, Florida. After that Lori served as the primary reading specialist for kindergarten through third grade students at Windy Ridge K-8 School. In 2003, she was appointed as assistant principal at Oakshire Elementary School in Orlando, Florida where she served for two years. While working on her Bachelor of Arts degree at the University of Florida, Lori met her husband, Rich. They married after graduation and have two daughters. In 2007, she resigned from Orange County Public Schools to stay home with her small children. She plans to return to administration when her daughters are older. Her long-term career goals include writing books and becoming a professor