1. Design of the Rhode Island School Funding Formula: Toward a Coherent System of Allocating State Aid to Public Schools
Kenneth K. Wong | Center for American Progress | August 2011
SUMMARY
In this report, the Center for American Progress report details how Rhode Island enacted a new funding formula in June 2010. Before the creation of this formula, Rhode Island was the only state without a school funding formula – the state had been spending a relatively high amount per pupil, yet its method for distributing those funds was increasingly disconnected from the needs of students in high-poverty communities. It also created large disparities in funding among districts. Following a series of efforts that began in 1999, Rhode Island’s pursuit of Race to the Top funds provided the final push to bring about a state formula that equitably distributes state aid to schools. The Board of Regents, at the behest of Commissioner of Education Deborah Gist, approved a set of design principles to: 1) allow money to follow students, 2) identify a “market basket” to determine a per-pupil cost that specifies key factors to learning, and 3) clarify what expenditures should be the responsibility of the state versus the district. A formula design team from Brown University, led by Dr. Kenneth Wong, developed a weighted student funding formula based on the principles established by the Board of Regents. The formula uses a foundation amount ($8,295) and provides additional money, or weights, for student poverty (40% for Free or Reduced Price Lunch students), to determine the funding level for each student. The amount of a student’s funding paid by the state and by his/her town is determined by a state share ratio that accounts for each town’s ability to pay (i.e., local wealth and poverty concentration). To facilitate implementation of the new formula, the state planned for a 10-year phase-in period and adopted a common chart of accounts for school districts. Wong concludes that effective state leadership and independent analysis were essential to the passage of Rhode Island’s funding reforms. Additionally, Dr. Wong recommends that other states introduce more accountability and transparency for school funding by establishing a uniform chart of accounts.
CT CONTEXT
Connecticut can learn a lot from Rhode Island’s effort to implement a new school funding formula. Our current system of funding schools, driven largely through the tangled and ineffective Education Cost Sharing formula, is deeply flawed. Governor Malloy has made it clear that he wants to fix school finance in Connecticut once and for all, and we hope that the new state task force charged with studying this problem is able to meet this challenge. Rhode Island’s story provides a powerful example for Connecticut to learn from, and demonstrates that strong leadership and a commitment to clear and rigorous data analysis is essential for any solution. Connecticut can also learn from Rhode Island’s approach to implementing low-cost and high-return policies, such as a common chart of accounts for school districts that could replace and improve current reporting requirements. In Rhode Island, having a common chart of accounts has increased public transparency and understanding of spending, facilitated fair and accurate inter-district spending comparisons, and increased accountability for expenditures. We need bold leadership on this issue to ensure quick and forthright action to ensure all students’ learning needs are funded equitably across all public schools.
Download this report...
2. Recent Teacher Evaluation Legislation – How Do the States Stack Up?
Bellwether Education Partners | August 2011
SUMMARY
Bellwether Education Partners released this analysis of recent legislation to improve teacher effectiveness in five states: Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, and Tennessee. The authors rated teacher effectiveness policies against 13 criteria to identify strengths and weaknesses of these policies. Indiana’s policy receives the strongest overall rating, followed closely by Colorado. These two states overhauled their teacher evaluation process by requiring annual evaluations that are significantly influenced by student growth. Both states also require a statewide framework with at least four performance categories, give more autonomy to principals over the teacher hiring process, require educators to demonstrate effectiveness in order to earn tenure, and end the practice of seniority-based layoffs. The authors acknowledge that while the overall effect of these laws is unknown until they are fully implemented, these policies serve as a useful example for other states that seek to enact similar reforms.
CT CONTEXT
In 2010, Connecticut’s Public Act 10-111 established a Performance Evaluation Advisory Committee (PEAC) tasked with developing a new model for teacher evaluations. Previous studies have documented the unsatisfactory nature of teacher evaluations in Connecticut. The PEAC has an opportunity to significantly improve educator evaluation in Connecticut school districts, and can build on lessons learned in these five states as well as from evaluation systems within our own state in districts like New Haven. This group has less than a year to develop recommendations – the state board of education is required to adopt guidelines for a new evaluation system by July 1, 2012. We hope the state leaders and PEAC members will take advantage of the opportunity to get this policy right and create a system that recognizes great educators, helps those who are struggling improve, and quickly removes educators who fail to improve.
Download the full report...
3. Mapping State Proficiency Standards Onto the NAEP Scales: Variation and Change in State Standards for Reading and Mathematics, 2005-2009
National Center for Education Statistics | August 2011
SUMMARY
In this report, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) compares how each state’s standards for “proficiency” align with the standard on the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). NCES also uses its previous analyses of this subject from 2003, 2005, and 2007 to evaluate how the rigor of state standards has changed over time. The authors find that nearly every state’s “proficiency” standard is at or below the “basic” standard on the NAEP, defined as partial mastery of skills needed for grade-level proficiency. Connecticut’s standards are alarmingly low compared to NAEP standards. Connecticut’s standards for “proficient” on the Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) in 4th grade math, 4th grade reading, and 8th grade reading align with the NAEP “basic” standard. The most concerning finding for Connecticut is that the CMT standard for “proficient” in 8th grade math aligns with the “below basic” standard on the NAEP. Since 2005, the proficiency standard for 8th grade reading has remained unchanged, but standards have actually lowered in the other tests and subjects examined – that is to say, students meet those same standards with less and less mastery of the content knowledge. The authors also found that students have demonstrated greater growth over time on the CMT than on the NAEP, which suggests that CMT gains, tracked using lower standards for achievement, may distort our understanding of actual student achievement.
CT CONTEXT
The terms “proficient” and “at goal” on Connecticut’s tests are a source of confusion. Parents, educators, and others need to know whether our children are on track to master the skills and knowledge they need to succeed. ConnCAN relies on the higher “at goal” standard to analyze CMT and CAPT results, and to report on school and district performance in our annual report cards (2011 report cards will be available this fall) because Connecticut’s “goal” standard is much more aligned with what students should be mastering than the “proficient” standard. The Connecticut State Department of Education, meanwhile, continues to use Connecticut’s unacceptably low “proficient” standard for school accountability and reporting purposes. This practice is unacceptable, particularly since that already low standard has been watered down over time. We hope that a new state commissioner of education and other state leaders can reverse this course to improve transparency around student performance levels and, as we implement reforms like the Common Core standards, ensure that high and consistent expectations are set for student performance.
Download the full report...
4. Globally Challenged: Are U.S. Students Ready to Compete?
Paul E. Peterson, Ludger Woessmann, Eric A. Hanushek, Carlos X. Lastra-Anadon | Harvard’s Program on Education Policy and Governance & Education Next
SUMMARY
Using data from two assessments, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), this report compares the performance of U.S. students from the high school Class of 2011 to their international peers. The authors apply the same methods used in previous reports to compare student proficiency rates across these tests. The results show that U.S. students were significantly out-performed by students in 22 countries in math and 10 countries in reading. In math, U.S. students perform on par with students in Latvia. In reading, U.S. students perform as well as students in Poland. Even our most advantaged students, those with at least one college-educated parent, don't stack up as well internationally as we would hope. These students were compared with students overall in other countries, and the researchers found that U.S. students with at least one college educated parent were significantly out-performed by students overall in 13 countries in math. In reading, on the other hand, students in only four nations out-perform U.S. students with at least one college-educated parent. The authors conclude as a result that the United States needs to place a greater emphasis on math education and high math standards to remain competitive in an increasingly integrated global economy.
CT CONTEXT
This study confirms that every state, including Connecticut, must not only address our challenging achievement gaps, but also ensure that even our more advantaged students perform well. In math, Connecticut ranks 21st among states, coming in a full 16 percentage points behind the leading state, Massachusetts, in the percent of students scoring at the proficient level. In reading, we rank 6th among states and are five points behind Massachusetts (which also leads in reading). Internationally, Connecticut students are out-performed by students in seven other nations in reading and 19 in math. In Connecticut, students with at least one college-educated parent do quite well in reading, and are on par with students in Finland; however, when it comes to math, these students rank 21st among similar students in other states, and are out-performed by all students in 10 other countries. In adopting the Common Core standards, Connecticut has taken a step towards setting higher standards for our students, but that won’t be enough on its own. In particular, our state and national math results suggest that we need to significantly improve math instruction, especially as math and science become an increasingly critical component of jobs in our state and global economies.
Download the full report...
|
