Diese Präsentation wurde erfolgreich gemeldet.
Wir verwenden Ihre LinkedIn Profilangaben und Informationen zu Ihren Aktivitäten, um Anzeigen zu personalisieren und Ihnen relevantere Inhalte anzuzeigen. Sie können Ihre Anzeigeneinstellungen jederzeit ändern.

"Advancing Equitable School Funding" - Presentation to the NASBE Legislative Conference

845 Aufrufe

Veröffentlicht am

This presentation was given by Karen Hawley Miles, President and CEO of Education Resource Strategies, to the National Association of State Boards of Education on March 6, 2018. It was presented in partnership with The Education Trust.

Veröffentlicht in: Bildung
  • Discover a WEIRD trick I use to make over $3500 per month taking paid surveys online. read more... ●●● https://tinyurl.com/realmoneystreams2019
    Sind Sie sicher, dass Sie …  Ja  Nein
    Ihre Nachricht erscheint hier
  • Your opinions matter! get paid for them! click here for more info...■■■ https://tinyurl.com/make2793amonth
    Sind Sie sicher, dass Sie …  Ja  Nein
    Ihre Nachricht erscheint hier
  • Gehören Sie zu den Ersten, denen das gefällt!

"Advancing Equitable School Funding" - Presentation to the NASBE Legislative Conference

  1. 1. © Education Resource Strategies, Inc., 2018 Advancing Equitable School Funding NASBE Legislative Conference, March 6, 2018
  2. 2. 1 ▪ What do we mean by “equity”? ▪ What would it mean to allocate resources equitably? ▪ What tools do ESSA requirements provide? ▪ How will we make sure it matters? Agenda
  3. 3. 2 Equal Funding Schools get comparable resources based on size and/or other fixed allocation drivers. Equitable Funding Schools get resources that are comparable based on student needs and what it will take to reach high learning goals. With empowering, rigorous learning standards for all children…
  4. 4. 3 Spending levels vary significantly across States Districts Schools Classrooms
  5. 5. 4 Inequities we can see today: between states Source: Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary Education, National Center for Education Statistics 2013-14 More than $15,000 $10,000 - $12,999 $9,000 - $10,999 Less than $9,000 Utah: $6,546 New York: $20,156 $13,000- $14,999
  6. 6. 5 Between states: even adjusted for cost of living, highest spending state spends nearly 3X the lowest $6.5K $19.6K $0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 Utah Arizona Idaho Nevada Texas NorthCarolina California Georgia Colorado Tennessee Oklahoma Florida Washington Mississippi Virginia Alabama Indiana Kentucky SouthCarolina NewMexico Oregon Michigan Missouri Minnesota Arkansas SouthDakota Ohio Wisconsin Kansas Louisiana Iowa Illinois Hawaii Maryland WestVirginia Delaware Nebraska Pennsylvania Massachusetts Montana NorthDakota RhodeIsland NewHampshire Maine NewJersey Connecticut NewYork Alaska Wyoming Vermont Total K12 Per Pupil Expenditure, 2013-14 (adjusted for geography) Source: NCES; per-pupil expenditures adjusted using CWI; ERS analysis National median = $11K While spending levels don’t predict outcomes, they limit or create possibility.
  7. 7. 6 Inequities we can see today: between districts  High-poverty districts receive roughly $1,000 / student less than low-poverty districts around the country.  In 16 states high-poverty districts receive less per pupil than low-poverty districts.
  8. 8. 7Source: Funding Gaps 2018, The Education Trust Gaps in State and Local Revenues per Student Between Districts Serving the Most and the Fewest Students in Poverty -25% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% UT OH MN NJ SD GA NC AR DE LA WA MD SC CA IN VA CO OK KY OR MA NM WI NE KS ND AZ CT VT TN MT FL MS PA IA ID WV ME WY NH TX RI MI AL NY MO IL Progressive Moderately Progressive Neutral Moderately Regressive Regressive Inequities we can see today: between districts
  9. 9. 8 Unfortunately, we know that the concentration of poverty predicts outcomes in most cases Data on school average proficiency from 4 large districts R² = 0.74 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% R² = 0.81 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% R² = 0.72 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% R² = 0.77 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% A B C D ELAProficiency15-16 % FRL
  10. 10. 9 School-level concentration of poverty lowers performance for ALL students Source: ERS Analysisof 8 large districtsacross 8 states 89 83 82 74 56 67 63 62 56 40 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0-19% 80-100% PercentofStudentsRatedProficient 20-39% 40-59% 60-79% Percent of Poverty Students in School Student Performance vs. School Level Concentration ofPoverty Non-Economically DisadvantagedStudent Economically DisadvantagedStudent
  11. 11. 10 Inequities we don’t see today: between schools Source: ERS Analysis; District Financial File 2016 $0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000 $14,000 Elementary Schools Middle Median $5.8K Hi-Lo Spread 1.6X District Example- ERS analysis School Level Gen Ed. Dollar per Gen Ed. Student by School Excludes Federal Funds High Median $7.0K Hi-Lo Spread 1.9X Median $6.5K Hi-Lo Spread 1.6X Secondary schools tend to be higher funded than elementary schools.
  12. 12. 11 Districts do not intentionally allocate resources inequitably …but district policies often unintentionally create inequity. Funding inequity is never intentional…
  13. 13. 12 Most districts use average (as opposed to actual) teacher salary for budgeting which disguises inequity Using average salary School A School B District average salary $60,000 $60,000 Number of teachers 10 10 Budgeted for salary $600,000 $600,000 Though the district would appear to be making an equal investment in these schools on an average salary basis… …School B actually invests $300k more than School A Using actual salary School A School B Novice teachers earning $30,000 each 5 0 Mid-level teachers earning $60,000 each 5 5 Experienced teachers earning $90,000 each 0 5 Actual salary $450,000 $750,000
  14. 14. 13 Identifying drivers of spending variation within districts District Strategy School opening/ closure $ School Level $ School Type $ Student Need Special Education $$$ English Language Learners $$ Economic Disadvantage $$ Other Student Needs $ Unplanned Enrollment/ School Size $$$ Teacher Compensation $ Building Utilization $ Enrollment Projections $ Ad-hoc exceptions $
  15. 15. 14  Low and declining funding in a growing number of states  Most states do not provide significantly more to districts with higher concentrations of students living in poverty  Districts don’t systematically ensure equitable funding across schools and they don’t report it either  Per-pupil spending data doesn’t tell the whole story—it needs more interpretation to be useful Let’s review
  16. 16. 15 Defining “equity” – a tale of two schools Sky Blue Academy Green Street H.S. 9-12 550 22 84% 9-12 565 23 82% Grades Students Teachers Pct Poverty (FRL) $12,960 $13,080
  17. 17. 16 Defining “equity” – a tale of two schools 13% 10% / 3% 7% 100% 24% 11% / 13% 22% 35% Special Ed Resource / Self-Contained 9th graders in bottom quartile ELA Chose to attend school Sky Blue Academy Green Street H.S. $12,960 $13,080
  18. 18. 17 Defining “equity” – a tale of two schools % ELA Proficient/Advanced Sky Blue Academy Green Street H.S. $12,960 $13,080 20 Year Vet “Star” Hand-picked Novice 8 Force placed, 8 subs, no ELA certified Principal Teaching Staff 68% 35% 7% %ELA in Lowest Quartile 22%
  19. 19. 18 Resource equity Resource Equity is the allocation and use of resources (people, time, and money) to create student experiences that enable all children to reach empowering, rigorous learning outcomes – no matter their race or income.
  20. 20. 19 Dimensions of resource equity Early Learning & Early Intervention Teaching Quality School Funding School Leadership Instructional Time & Personalized Attention Whole Child Approach Academic Rigor Diverse and Inclusive Schools Support for Family Academic Engagement These dimensions are: • Informed by research and effective practice • Controlled by system and school leaders • Driven by school and system context – there is no set “recipe” for great school systems
  21. 21. 20 Districts and States are working to create dashboards that measure these dimensions There are many factors that influence the quality of education, and the distribution of key educational resources won’t show up in spending per pupil. How do these schools compare to the district median? High $pp Schools Low $pp Schools A B C X Y Z % students proficient Below Below Below Above Above Above Dimension Metric Teaching Quality % highly effective teachers Below Below Similar Similar Above Above % novice teachers Similar Above Above Similar Below Below School Leadership # of principals in last three years Above Similar Above Below Similar Below Academic Rigor % secondary students enrolled in at least one AP course Similar Below Below Above Above Similar # of AP courses offered Below Below Similar Similar Above Above Instructional Time Length of school day (hrs) Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Diverse and Inclusive Schools % poverty Similar Above Above Below Below Similar % Black or Latino students Above Above Similar Below Similar Below
  22. 22. 21 Organizing for high performance means making big shifts from traditional ways of organizing Dimension From: To: Teaching Quality Teaching as an individual enterprise. Teamsof teachers whowork together to plan and adjust instruction so all children reach learning goals A“one-size-fits-all” teaching job. Roles and assignments that match each individual’s unique skills and expertise to needed roles. Instructional Time & Personalized Attention Standardized class sizesin “one-teacherclassrooms.” Groups of teachers and students that vary across subjects, activities and students. Rigid time allocations. Flexible schedules that allow time to vary with needs of students. WholeChild Investments in culture and social-emotional support that remove resources from coreinstruction. Investments that are embedded within and reinforce the school’s core instructional work.
  23. 23. 22 ▪ Design new teacher and principalcompensation structures andstaffingmodelsthat attract and keep the most effective ▪ Shift staffing resources to highest prioritysubjects ▪ Enable more flexible roles in schools that fit today's work world ▪ Explore innovative ways of delivering instructionthrough technology and outside partners ▪ Extend and vary instructionaltime Catalyzing higher performing school designs requires funding transition investment and flexibility to:
  24. 24. 23  Set funding levels sufficient to support students in reaching new higher learning standards  Allocate more dollars to districts and schools with higher concentrations of poverty  Ensure policies and supports that enable district and school leaders to buy and organize the resources they need to accelerate learning for all students What would it mean to allocate resources equitably?