This article has been retrieved   times since February 29, 2004

Calculation of the Cost of an Adequate Education in Kentucky: A Professional Judgment Approach Deborah A. Verstegen University of Virginia Citation: Verstegen, D. A., (2004, February 29). Calculation of the Cost of an Adequate Education in Kentucky: A Professional Judgment Approach. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(8). Retrieved [Date] from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n8/. Abstract What is an adequate education and how much does it cost? In 1989, Kentucky’s State Supreme Court found the entire system of education unconstitutional-“all of its parts and parcels”. The Court called for all children to have access to an adequate education, one that is uniform and has as its goal the development of  seven capacities, including: (i) “sufficient oral and written communication skills to enable students to function in a complex and rapidly changing civilization . . . .and (vii) sufficient levels of academic or vocational skills to enable public school students to compete favorably  with their counterparts in surrounding states, in academics or in the job market”. Now, over a decade later, key questions remain regarding whether these objectives have been fulfilled. This research is designed to calculate the cost of an adequate education by  aligning resources to State standards, laws and objectives, using a professional judgment approach. Seven focus groups were convened for this purpose and the scholarly literature was reviewed to provide multiple inputs into study findings. The study produced a per pupil base cost for each of three prototype school districts and an total statewide cost, with the funding gap between existing revenue and the revenue needed for current operations of $1.097 billion per year (2001-02).  Additional key resource requirements needed to achieve an adequate education, identified by professional judgment panels, include: (1) extending the school year for students and teachers, (2) adding voluntary half-day preschool for three and four year olds, and (3) raising teacher salaries. This increases the funding gap to $1.23 billion and suggests that significant new funding is required over time if the Commonwealth of Kentucky is to provide an adequate and equitable education of high quality for all children and youth as directed by the State Supreme Court. Introduction What is the cost of an adequate education in Kentucky? Note 1 This research  examines the cost of educational adequacy in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. The study is designed to determine the funding levels necessary for different school districts to meet State standards and objectives that define an adequate education, using a professional judgment approach. Work began for the Council for Better Education, Inc., in July 2002 and seven focus groups were held in Louisville and Lexington in November and December 2002. These meetings were convened for the purpose of conducting a “professional judgment” adequacy study. In total, 80 Kentucky citizens and educators with knowledge of education issues were invited to contribute to the information contained in this report; there was a 65 percent response rate. Information gathered from professional judgment panels was cross-referenced to the research literature to provide multiple inputs into study findings. Currently the State of Kentucky uses a three-tiered finance system, entitled SEEK (Support Education Excellence in Kentucky), to distribute State aid to school districts. SEEK was created by the Kentucky Education Reform Act of 1990 (KERA) in response to the Supreme Court ruling in Rose v. the Council for Better Education that found the entire education system unconstitutional. The Court called for all children to have access to an adequate education, one that is uniform and has as its goal the development of the seven capacities, including: (i) “sufficient oral and written communication skills to enable students to function in a complex and rapidly changing civilization . . . .and (vii) sufficient levels of academic or vocational skills to enable public school students to compete favorably with their counterparts in surrounding states, in academics or in the job market” (emphasis added). The Court directed the Kentucky General Assembly to create and enact into law a new system of education that was not only constitutional but also was based upon efficiency as defined by equity and adequacy. Note 2 The Kentucky Education Reform Act (KERA) has been referred to as the most comprehensive educational reform ever attempted in the United States; it called for systemic change in finance, governance, curriculum and assessment. The new finance system, created under KERA, is composed of three levels of funding: the minimum foundation program and two additional funding tiers. Under the foundation program, each school district is guaranteed a minimum amount of funding per pupil. Districts contribute to that amount through the proceeds of the equivalent of a uniform property tax. Wealthy districts that have higher property values per pupil raise more funding and less affluent districts with lower property values raise fewer dollars. The State makes up the difference between what a district raises and the State guarantee. This is referred to as “equalization”. In 2001-02 the base SEEK State guarantee per pupil (i.e., the foundation guarantee) was $3,066. Note 3 However, it is difficult to say what the foundation guarantee represents. In most States it is determined more by available revenue than rational analysis. Note 4 Often it is a number that is set by the State to allocate as much total support as the State legislature provides. Note 5 However, assuring that the system provides an adequate level of support requires the foundation level to be set at an appropriate level—a level that is aligned with State laws, standards and objectives. It is common practice to adjust the foundation guarantee for cost pressures beyond the control of the school district. For example, some districts have more students with disabilities, limited English Proficiency or economic disadvantages that require higher costs to educate to State standards and objectives.  School systems can also have uncontrollably “high costs” due to e.g., size and location. The State of Kentucky provides funding to school districts in addition to the guaranteed base amount for transportation, children with disabilities (including home and hospital), and economic disadvantages. Under Tier I, districts can also supplement funding through additional taxes that are matched by the State to 15 percent above the SEEK base guarantee plus add-ons; and through Tier II, to 30 percent above base SEEK and Tier I funding, which is not matched by the State. Note 6 Although many aspects of KERA have been examined over time, still major questions remain almost thirteen years after Kentucky enacted a new school funding system and major education reforms into law. Key among them are the following:  What is the cost of an adequate education in Kentucky? How do costs vary for students and districts with special needs? Does the Commonwealth of Kentucky provide sufficient funding to support an adequate education? This study addresses these questions. It is designed to determine the funding levels necessary for different school districts to meet State standards and objectives that define an adequate education. Other States such as Alaska, Illinois, Ohio, Maryland, New Hampshire, Oregon, and Wisconsin have estimated funding school districts need to fulfill State laws, standards and objectives either as part of school finance litigation or at the request of State legislatures or education officials.  These States are using calculation procedures based on one of two data-based approaches that have been refined over the past several years: (1) the professional judgment model also called a resource cost model (RCM) or (2) the successful district approach, also referred to as the empirical approach. These are two of four approaches used to rationally determine an average base cost of an adequate education for a State. The other approaches include:  costing comprehensive school reform models (CSR), and the econometric approach--a complex statistical method. Of the latter two approaches only CSR has been employed by a single State. Note 7 The research approach used in this study to determine the average base cost of an adequate education, the professional judgment approach, is a version of what has been called the “resource cost model” or the “ingredients approach.” Note 8  In the past it asked professional educators to specify the resource needs of quality schools using their professional judgments. Currently the approach enlists professionals and service providers to specify the resource and service needs of prototype schools in order for students to have an adequate education. Once resources have been specified, prices are added which, when summed, provide a cost estimate. Costs for elementary, middle and high schools can be combined with district level costs to produce an overall cost of education per pupil. The district level costs include additional expenditures beyond school site costs or costs that cannot be disaggregated to schools, such as district administration, central office costs, transportation, plant maintenance and operations. To these costs, adjustments can be made to provide additional assistance to students with special needs, such as exceptional children, children who are English language learners, and economically disadvantaged children. The following sections will discuss alternative cost methods and explain in greater detail the professional judgment approach to studying adequacy as it was implemented in Kentucky. Alternative Methods for Determining an Adequate Base Cost of Education Scholars have identified a variety of methods for measuring the cost of education. Note 9 The principal methods include:  1) resource cost models (RCM)—based on research and/or professional judgments, 2) empirical approaches--deductive inference from exemplary districts,  3) econometric modeling--a complex statistical technique and 4) costing comprehensive school reform models.  Each of these methods provides an average base cost of education for a presumed or hypothetical student that is further adjusted for special student/district characteristics. Professional Judgment/Resource Cost Models Using the professional judgment approach for determining costs, resources or ‘ingredients’ deemed necessary to meet State laws, objectives and standards are identified by service providers and/or research, and then prices are attached and summed. The result is the estimation of an average, base cost of a defined set of resources in the average district needed to achieve particular State constitutional requirements and objectives that define adequacy. Resources that are priced include class sizes, personnel, materials, supplies, technology and equipment. As the approach has been implemented, it aligns resources with State laws and standards but does not determine how funding is distributed or how funds should be used in districts and schools. The advantages of the approach are that it is easy to understand and transparent. The disadvantages are that it tends to be based on current practice and it needs to be supplemented (not supplanted) by research to assure resource configurations/strategies are able to produce desired results. Note 10 For example, the professional judgment approach based on consultation with local experts has been used in Wyoming, South Carolina, Montana, Maryland, Missouri, Illinois and Alaska. In Wyoming, Note 11 the method for determining costs relied heavily on consultation with professional expert groups including teachers, counselors, principals, business managers and superintendents from elementary, middle and high schools; from large and small districts; and from rural and urban areas of the State. Note 12 Practitioners views were used to "form the consultant's views" related to the resource elements necessary to produce an adequate educational system, as was reliance on national research. Note 13 Complex statistical methods to calculate resource costs were avoided in Wyoming, and more transparent, prototypical model budgets for elementary, middle and high schools were constructed including adjustments for high cost students and districts. This included students with disabilities or economic disadvantages, and isolated rural school districts. For example, the prototypical model cost for elementary school assumed an average school size of 288 students, class size of 16 and average teacher compensation of $41,433 (1996); however, districts were permitted local control in the manner in which they deployed resources as the budget models were primarily used to determine costs. Required numbers of and/or costs for additional factors included personnel, supplies and equipment, food service, categorical aid, student activities, maintenance and operations, transportation and administration. Capital expenditures were not included in the estimates. This model was adopted by the Wyoming legislature but required a special session to address the special high costs of small schools/districts, which were omitted from the initial calculations. The Empirical Approach -- Deductive Inference of Costs from Exemplary Districts This strategy for defining costs—referred to as the successful school district approach--identifies schools or school districts where student performance meets desired targets, and determines the level of resources expended by such schools/school districts to estimate costs. It can include controls for non-school factors that may affect student achievement and adjustments for high cost students. This approach has been used in Illinois, Mississippi, Maryland and Ohio. In Ohio, Note 14 all school districts except outliers (defined by high and low property wealth and spending) meeting most of the State’s 18 outcome measures defined the foundation level of spending.  In New Hampshire, a modified approach was used that included only the lower spending of those districts that were within a narrow range of meeting the State’s objectives; they were used to calculate base cost figures for instruction, administration, and plant maintenance and operations, which were then combined to produce a single, base cost figure. Note 15 This approach of inferring costs from "exemplary" districts is intuitively appealing and understandable. However, the approach necessitates a well-developed State accountability system and database. Also, as implemented, it usually eliminates ‘outlier’ school districts leading to the possibility of recommendations that underfund education and calling into question whether adequate costs have been defined for the entire State. “Exemplary” districts are generally affluent districts with few high need students raising questions about whether findings can be generalized to districts with a more diverse student population. Finally, and perhaps most importantly for the purposes of this study, if the funding system is inadequate for all districts in the State, as was the case in Kentucky under Rose, then correlating current spending in select districts to student outcomes will fail to capture the cost of an adequate education. Econometric Modeling Using econometric modeling, costs are derived by associating total district spending with predetermined pupil performance levels or proficiencies, such as student achievement test scores. The statistical technique is least squares analysis. In essence, this approach statistically isolates factors contributing to school costs independent of other related factors and adjusts them by the cost factors to achieve an overall cost figure; controls may be used for non-school factors contributing to these costs. Thus, the calculation summarizes all the information about costs into a single number, which indicates how much each school district must spend to achieve a given level of educational output, such as the average level of current student performance in a State. For example, an econometric study of the cost of education in New York Note 16 related student achievement to multiple schooling and non-schooling factors, including per pupil spending, for 631 school districts. The study resulted in six cost indices for New York school districts; however they provided widely divergent results for the same districts depending on the assumptions embedded in the model. The cost of education in New York City was found to be 30 percent higher than the average cost of education in the State, using the alternative measure for school district performance. Conversely, using pupil performance indicators directly for the outcome measure, the cost of education in New York city was found to be almost 300 percent higher than average when efficiency was not included in controls; it was 126 percent higher when efficiency was included but considered exogenous; it was 287 percent higher when efficiency was included but considered endogenous. Note 17 These widely varying costs of education produced through econometric modeling can weaken the confidence in the findings particularly because the assumptions undergirding the models are obtuse.  These and other problems raise questions about the defensibility of the findings emerging from the studies. While these models contribute to theory and academic interest, at a practical level they are difficult to understand or explain to policymakers and may be counterintuitive. No State has employed the resulting cost figures into law; those that have include them to adjust the final revenue allocation figure, in an effort to recognize the variations in the purchasing price of the dollar across the State--not as a determinant of the average base cost of education necessary to achieve an adequate education.  Comprehensive Schoolwide Reform Models Another approach for developing an adequacy target is based on costing-out comprehensive schoolwide reform (CSR) models, in an effort to link educational strategies to resources. Note 18 The approach is a variant of the original RCM: resources needed to implement a CSR model are identified, priced and summed. These model costs are then added to a base cost of education and/or substituted for resources currently deployed and used in schools to arrive at a cost estimate that can be adjusted for special needs students and districts. To be meaningful, the models used for developing cost estimates should be based on proven, effective programs with a long research track record demonstrating effectiveness in teaching all children to high levels and achieving State standards.  A difficulty is that most CSR models, particularly New American Schools (NAS), have not had the time to prove their effectiveness. According to a recent study: “Many of the newer approaches, including New American Schools approaches, showed promise, but had not been in schools long enough to build a substantial research base on student outcomes.” Note 19 In addition, CSR costs include design elements, consultant costs and training estimates—base costs must also be specified and priced apparently by employing one of the previously mentioned approaches. While several models of comprehensive reform are currently available and have been priced, at this time, few have been field tested or used for policy purposes. Summary In summary, there are several approaches for determining an average, adequate base cost of education that have been refined over the past decade and used in several States. However, as one researcher has noted, “none of these approaches are immune to manipulation; that is, each is subject to tinkering on the part of users that might change results.” Note 20 Moreover, it is not clear how results might compare using differing methods although the empirical approach and professional judgment method apparently have been successfully blended in at least one State. Nonetheless, each approach represents an attempt to rationally determine the cost of an adequate base education and other parameters that drive State aid levels, and therefore, the use of almost any rational approach improves current practice and raises the level of discussion, much of which is based on the availability of State aid rather than the costs necessary to provide an adequate education. Implementing the Professional Judgment Approach The professional judgment approach used in this study focuses on identifying resources needed to meet State laws, objectives and standards. Once resources are specified, prices are affixed, which, when applied across all resource components, and summed, produce a cost estimate. Costs for elementary, middle and high schools are combined with district level costs to produce an overall average base-cost of education. District costs are those in addition to school site expenditures, such as plant maintenance and operations, transportation, central office personnel and other costs that cannot be disaggregated to school sites. The average cost of education produced is then adjusted to include the excess costs necessary to educate students with special needs, and districts with exceptional circumstances or uncontrollably high costs. Special needs students can include students in special education, with economic disadvantages, and English language learners. Size and location can create cost pressures for school districts. In Kentucky, using panels of highly qualified education professionals and the professional judgment method for determining costs resulted in the identification of the resource needs of prototype elementary, middle and high schools with a particular set of characteristics based on current Kentucky school districts and student demographics. Because the State’s schools could not reasonably be represented by one set of characteristics, multiple panels were constructed to represent the diversity that exists across the State, and focused on districts of different sizes. Multiple panels were used for each set of districts and each cost level—school, district and State. Three school level panels worked exclusively on estimating the resource needs of school sites. Three district level panels reviewed the work of the school level panels and estimated district-level resource needs. An expert panel brought consistency across divergent State resource elements identified by the previous panels, and made decisions about prices. Defining Adequacy The first step in estimating the cost of an adequate education is to identify the State’s definition of adequacy. States utilize a variety of measures to which districts are held accountable, including input and output measures. For example, there are input measures defining State requirements for specific resource inputs, such as the minimum number of days and/or hours school must be in session, graduation requirements, maximum class sizes, curriculum standards and personnel requirements. The second type of measure is based on outputs that include indicators of student performance levels, dropout and attendance rates, average yearly progress on tests, and gaps between disaggregated demographic student groups. This study began with a review of input and output measures that currently exist in the State. In Kentucky, six student-learning goals were established in 1990 and the Core Content Standards Note 21 provide lists of curriculum content that will be assessed for accountability and therefore should be taught and learned by all students in all schools. Kentucky’s key output indicator--CATS, the Commonwealth Accountability Testing System--is perhaps one of the most clearly articulated accountability systems in the nation. CATS consists of academic and nonacademic indictors for all students. As part of the academic indicators, students are assessed in writing, reading, science, mathematics, social studies, arts and humanities, and practical living/vocational skills. Student outcomes are then classified as novice, apprentice, proficient or distinguished. A level of proficient is required of all students by 2014. Both academic and non-academic indicators are assessed and represented by a separate Index; they are also combined in the Accountability Index score by student, school and district. The goal is an Accountability Index of 100 (proficient) by 2014. Indicators included in the Index are aligned to student achievement on content standards as well as other nonacademic State standards included in regulations such as dropout rates and attendance. Other important output measures are contained in the high Court decision in Rose v. the Council for Better Education, which called for efficiency in education defined, by a system that is “uniform, adequate, and unitary”, with seven essential competencies listed to define adequacy. Note 22 After reviewing both input and output measures, it was decided in concert with school officials and professional judgment panels, both were needed. Appendix A shows how these measures were summarized with equal emphasis on inputs and outputs, including CATS, Rose definitions and post-Rose learner goals. Also utilized were State trajectories for improvement on student assessments that delineate average yearly progress if proficiency is to be reached by 2014; and disaggregated data between population groups-- by race, gender, disability, and English proficiency--with a goal of closing the gaps. Note 23 Thus, for the purpose of this study, these input and output measures define an adequate education in Kentucky. Determining the Characteristics of Prototype Schools and School Districts There are over half a million public school students in Kentucky’s 176 school districts, which are organized as 120 county and 56 independent districts. The typical county district has about 2,500 students while an independent district has approximately 900 students. Note 24  School size is an important characteristic because it bears some relationship to school spending. To better understand the variations in size and demographics of districts across the State, three equal groups (thirds) were formed based on: (1) districts, and (2) students (Table 1 & 2). The first set of groups, based on equal numbers of school districts, showed that one-third of all school districts in the State with the lowest enrollments number 59 and have only 8 percent of the total number of students, with an average enrollment (ADA) of 797. The middle one-third of school districts includes 59 districts with an average ADA of 2,059. The one-third of school districts with the largest number of enrollments have over 70 percent of all students, with an average ADA of 6,822, and include 59 districts. Percentages of special needs students (based on total ADA) are also shown by thirds of school districts. Table 1. Characteristics of Kentucky School Districts Based on Thirds of School Districts District Size Small-Medium Medium-Large Large-Very Large State Total Range in Enrollment (ADA) 125-1,363 1,404-2,707 2,723-80,378 125-80,378 Number of Districts 59 59 58 176 Total Number of Students 47,074 121,475 395,649 564,197 Average Number of Students per District 798 2,059 6,822 3,206 # Special Education 7,670.0 19,359.0 60,364.0 87,393 % Special Education 16.3% 15.9% 15.3% 15.5% # Free & Reduced Lunch 28,338 70,908 208,793 308,039 % Free & Reduced Lunch 60.2% 58.4% 52.8% 54.6% # Limited English Proficient 321 423 5226 5,970.0 % Limited English Proficient 0.68% 0.35% 1.32% 1.06% # Migrant 227 277 4,208 4,712 % Migrant 0.48% 0.23% 1.06% 0.84% # Gifted & Talented 6,898 17,309 51,076 75,283 % Gifted & Talented 14.65% 14.25% 12.91% 13.34% Note: n=176; 2001-02   Table 2. Characteristics of Kentucky School Districts Based on Thirds of Enrollment (ADA) District Size Small-Medium Medium-Large Large-Very Large State Total Range in Enrollment (ADA) 125-2,885 2,935-8,074 8,155-80,378 125-80,378 Number of Districts 125 41 10 176 Total Number of Students 188,257 185,413 190,527 564,197 Average Size of District 1,506 4,522 19,053 3,206 # Special Education 30,299 29,682 27,412 87,393 % Special Education 16.1% 16.0% 14.4% 15.5% # Free & Reduced Lunch 111,626 102,380 94,033 308,039 %Free & Reduced Lunch 59.29% 55.22% 49.35% 54.60% # Limited English Proficient 791 998 4181 5,970 % Limited English Proficient 0.42% 0.54% 2.19% 1.06% # Migrant 543 613 3556 4,712 % Migrant 0.29% 0.33% 1.87% 0.84% # Gifted & Talented 26,513 26,548 22,222 75,283 % Gifted & Talented 14.08% 14.32% 11.66% 13.34% Note: N=564,197, 2001-02. The second group of districts shown in the table is based on equal numbers of students (ADA) in the State divided by thirds. There are about 188,500 students in average daily attendance (ADA) in each third.  The first third was made up of 125 of the 176 school districts in the State with an average size of 1,500 students in ADA. The middle third, with 41 districts, averaged 4,522 ADA. Only ten districts made up the largest one-third of districts, with an average size of 19,052. Based on this information, it was decided to divide the State into three groups of school districts based on enrollments (ADA), not only because schools are largely funded based on the number of students (ADA), but also because this breakout captured important variations among the 176 districts across the State. For example, the small to moderate cluster contained most of the districts in the State (125), and the large to very large cluster contained the 10-12 very large districts of about 8,000 ADA or above, including Jefferson County. There was also a medium to large size cluster of 39 districts that contained between 3,000-8,000 students. The table above shows the characteristics of students in each size grouping as well as the averages for the State. It shows the enrollment, number of districts, average number of students per district, and the characteristics of the student population based on thirds of enrollment (ADA). The percentage of students with disabilities, economic disadvantages (free and reduced price lunch) and limited English proficiency (LEP), as well as migrant and gifted and talented students are provided. These demographic features, based on actual numbers of children and youth in each category, suggest the extent to which districts face cost pressures associated with special need students. Additional or excess costs are usually associated with educating children with these characteristics. Students with disabilities are generally an accepted added cost factor. Low-income children are used as a proxy for children in danger of failing or dropping out of school. Limited English Proficient students cannot perform ordinary class work in English. Migrant students often need extra assistance to catch up or become acquainted with school procedures. These factors translate into extra costs. These students groups are also highlighted in State and district reports by the Kentucky Department of Education and compared to their more advantaged counterparts on Kentucky’s academic and nonacademic indicators with a goal of closing the gap between them. Thus, with districts divided into groups based on size for the purposes of the study, it was necessary to establish the grade level organization of the prototype schools within districts. Analysis was performed on information provided by the Kentucky Department of Education to determine the major organizational patterns across the State. The data showed that of the 1,745 regular academic schools, Note 25 the largest cluster of elementary schools were organized as either primary and upper elementary or entry through 5th, and contained grades K-5 (47.5%), with most middle schools containing grades 6-8 (74%), and 98 percent of high schools, consisting of grades 9th-12th. These grade configurations were used in designing the prototype schools by the professional judgment panels. Professional Judgment Panels The next step was to identify the prototype school panels. Three school site panels were created to identify the resource “ingredients” that were needed to deliver an adequate education to students.  They were assembled from experienced, well-qualified professional educators, including teachers, curriculum personnel and administrators employed in Kentucky’s schools. The CBE with assistance from the Kentucky Education 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. Twenty-three individuals participated in the school site panels that met in Lexington on November 15th (Appendix B). School site panel members were asked, “What, in your experience and judgment, are key resource requirements of schools needed to provide an adequate education to children and youth in Kentucky?”   Each panel was given a set of materials to guide their work and designated a reporter for the group. This person kept a record of the decisions made by the panel and consulted with the facilitator to compare, record and verify information that would be entered into a computer summary after the meeting. Each panel also worked with a facilitator (Professors’ Verstegen, Gurley and Knoeppel) who, for example, answered questions, moved the discussion from topic to topic, recorded decisions, and maintained a focus on the alignment of resources to an adequate education. The school site panels worked together to create prototype elementary, middle, and high schools based Kentucky’s student demographics, for districts of different sizes: 1) a small to moderate size district, 2) a moderate to large district, and 3) a large to very large district.  This included defining prototypical school sizes, the number and size of classes, and the required numbers and types of personnel, supplies, equipment, technology, categorical aid, student activities and any opportunities that would be available outside of the school day--such as extended school services for Saturday school, summer school, and before and after school programs. Panels provided adjustments to general “ingredients” and resource items as needed for students with disabilities, Limited English Proficiency, economic disadvantages and gifted and talented students, based on actual demographics (Table 3). The work of each of the panels was subsequently entered into computer records and summarized for review by the prototype school district panels. Table 3. Characteristics Of K-12 Prototype Schools by Size of School District   Level of School   Elementary Middle High School Schools in Small School Districts Enrollment (ADA) 348 315 480 Grade Span K-5 6-8 9-12 % Special Education 16.1% 16.1% 16.1% % Limited English Proficient 0.42% 0.42% 0.42% % Low Income Students 59.29% 59.29% 59.29% % Gifted and Talented 14.65% 14.65% 14.65% % Migrant 0.29% 0.29% 0.29% Schools in Moderate School Districts Enrollment (ADA) 384 567 768 Grade Span K-5 6-8 9-12 % Special Education 16.0% 16.0% 16.0% % Limited English Proficient 0.54% 0.54% 0.54% % Low Income Students 55.22% 55.22% 55.22% % Gifted and Talented 14.32% 14.32% 14.32% % Migrant 0.33% 0.33% 0.33% Schools in Large & Very Large Districts Enrollment (ADA) 288 504 672 Grade Span K-5 6-8 9-12 % Special Education 14.4% 14.4% 14.4% % Limited English Proficient 2.19% 2.19% 2.19% % Low Income Students 49.35% 49.35% 49.35% % Gifted and Talented 11.66% 11.66% 11.66% % Migrant 1.87% 1.87% 1.87% Note: 2001-02. For the district level, three additional panels, composed of twenty-three, well-qualified school and district level professional educators and other personnel, met in Louisville, December 10th. At least one individual (or like position) served in both school and district level sessions to aid the facilitiator, and provide overlap and continuity between sessions.  CBE invited individuals to serve on the panels with assistance from the Kentucky School Board Association. Professors Verstegen, Gurley and Knoeppel oversaw the groups’ work. Like the school site panels, the members of the district level panel were given a set of materials to guide their work and one participant acted as the recorder for each group. The district panel reviewed the work of the school site panels, changed the resource configurations as needed, reviewed approaches for determining district level costs and made judgments. District budgets were used for reference. The panels adopted current figures for districtwide costs except for transportation expenditures that were considered “inadequate.” Recommendations were made for a State study to determine the full and adequate cost of student transportation, including transportation to and from summer school, Family and Youth Service Centers, and Extended Day programs. After the work of the panels was completed, the decision choices were entered into computer records and comparisons were made for review by the expert panel. The expert panel met on December 20th in Lexington. Panel members responded to an invitation issued by CBE. A set of materials guided their work. The panel reviewed variations in resource configurations across all panels as related to State level issues, such as the length of the school year, and made decisions. Refinements were also made, in part, to resource lists for the school prototypes that were developed by previous panels. Finally, the panel discussed prices and made recommendations for different resource elements that would be used to cost out the prototypes. Resource Needs of Schools and Districts Based on the work of the professional judgment panels, the resource needs of elementary, middle and high schools are shown in Tables 4A, 4B, and 4C for staffing. When reviewing these tables it is important to keep in mind that the figures indicate the resource needs of schools, not the manner that resources should be deployed and used in schools and in classrooms. The resource configurations that are shown were developed based on demographic specifications from actual school districts in Kentucky, which are shown in the top half of each table. As shown in the balance of the table, when determining personnel units, panels distinguished between general education students and special needs students while treating each group of special needs students as separate. In practice it is possible that there is some overlap between special student populations, however, leading to some extra resources due to double counting, but this may be warranted to some extent. For example, a student receiving special education services may also be an English language learner. Table 4a. Personnel Requirements of K-12 Prototype Schools to Achieve State Standards & Objectives Given Specified School Characteristics Small to Medium School District   K-5 School Middle School High School Specified Characteristic   Enrollment (ADA) 348 315 480   Number of Students with Disabilities 56 50.7 77   Number of Limited English 14.6 13.2 20.2   Number of Students At-Risk Students 206 186.8 284.6   Number of G&T Students 49 44.4 67.6   Number of Migrant Students 10 9 13.9 (1) Personnel: Teaching Staff Regular Student   Classroom Teacher 22 21 24   Other Teacher 5 5.2 7.8   Instructional Aides (Kindergarten) 4 0 0 Special Education*   Teacher (10:1) 6 5 8   Other Teacher: 0 0 0   Clerk/Sec’y 1 1 1   Instructional Aide 4 4 4 Low Income*   Classroom Teacher   Other Teacher 1 2 2   Aide Limited English Proficient*   Classroom Teacher 1 1 1   Other Teacher   Aide   Gifted and Talented*   Classroom Teacher 1 3 3   Other Teacher   Aide (2) Pupil Support Staff Regular Student   Guidance Counselor 1 2 2   Nurse 1/school 1/school 1/school Special Education*   Psychologist 1 districtwide   Occupational Therapy-district ½ time districtwide   Physical Therapy-district ½ time districtwide   Speech Pathologist 1 FTE 1 FTE 1 FTE (3) Other Staff All Students   Library Media Specialist 1 1 1   Technology/Technician 1 1 1   Substitutes** 1 1 1 (4) Administration All Students   Principal 1 1 1   Assistant Principal 0 1 1   Clerk/Bookkeeper 2 3 3   Other: Instructional Facilitator 0.5 0.5 1 Note: *Weighted. Additional staff not shown in this table may be available although they are counted at the district level. Table 4b. Personnel Requirements of K-12 Prototype Schools to Achieve State Standards & Objectives Given Specified School Characteristics Moderate to Large School District   K-5 School Middle School High School Specified Characteristics   Enrollment (ADA) 384 567 768   Number of Students in Special Education 61 91 123   Number of Limited English Proficient 21 31 41   Number of Students At-Risk Students 212 313 424   Number of G&T Students 55 82 110   Number of Migrant Students 13 19 25 (1) Personnel: Teaching Staff Regular Student   Classroom Teacher 24 27 44.8   Other Teacher 5.8 6.4 14   Aide 4 0 0 Special Education*   Classroom Teacher 12 10 16   Other Teacher   Aide 12 10 16 Low Income*   Classroom Teacher 4 9 10   Other Teacher   Aide Limited English Proficient*   Classroom Teacher .5 .5 1   Other Teacher   Aide Gifted and Talented*   Classroom Teacher 1 1 1   Other Teacher 0 0 0   Aide 0 0 0 (2) Pupil Support Staff Regular Student   Guidance Counselor 2 3 5   Clerk/Guidance 0 0 0   Nurse 1 1 1   Social Worker 1 1 1 Special Education   Psychologist 1 1 1   Speech Pathologist 1 .25 .25 (3) Other Staff All Students   Librarian/Media Specialist 1 1 1   Media Aide 1 1 1   Technology Specialist** 1 1 1   Substitutes (4) Administration All Students   Principal 1 1 1   Assistant Principal 1 1 2   Clerical/Data 3 4 7.5**   Other: Instructional Facilitator .5 .5 1   Safety Officer 1 1 2 Note: *Weighted. Additional staff not shown in this table may be available although they are counted at the district level. Table 4c. Personnel Requirements of K-12 Prototype Schools to Achieve State Standards Given Specified School Characteristics Large to Very Large School District   K-5 School Middle School High School Specified Characteristics   Enrollment 288 504 672   Number of Students in Special Education 41.5 72.6 96.8   Number of Limited English Proficient 6.3 11 14.7   Number of Students At-Risk Students 142.1 248.7 331.6   Number of G&T Students 33.6 57.8 78.4   Number of Migrant Students 5.4 9.4 12.6 (1) Personnel: Teaching Staff Regular Student   Classroom Teacher 18 24 39.2   Other Teacher 4.5 5.8 12.9   Aide (kindergarten) 3     Special Education *   Teacher (Ratio) 3 5 7   Other Teacher 0 0 0   Aide 3 3 3 Low Income*   Teacher Needs addressed by small class size   Other Teacher SFA, Elementary; Comer, Middle/HS   Aide Limited English Proficient*   Teacher   Other Teacher   Aide 1 1 1 Gifted and Talented*   Teacher 1 2 2   Other Teacher   Aide (2) Pupil Support Staff Regular Student   Guidance Counselor 1 1.5 4*   Clerk/Guidance Counselor 0 0 0   Nurse .5 .5 1   Social Worker 0 0 0 Special Education   Psychologist .2 .5 .5   Speech Pathologist .5 .5 0 (3) Other Staff All Students   Librarian/Media Specialist 1 1 2   Technology Specialist 1 1 1   Media Aide 0 0 0   Substitutes** (4) Administration All Students   Principal 1 1 1   Assistant Principal 0 2** 2   Clerical/Data 3 3 4   Other: Instructional Facilitator .5 .5 1   Safety Officer 0 1 1 Note: *Weighted. Additional staff not shown in this table may be available although they are counted at the district level. Panels developed a philosophy that guided resource deployment, that was later cross referenced to research as follows: 1) Early learning opportunities are cost effective and improve student outcomes Note 26—half day preschool (voluntary) and full day kindergarten Note 27 were recommended. 2) Small classes Note 28 and small schools Note 29 support student success—class sizes for grades K-5 were recommended to be fifteen to eighteen students. Elementary, middle and high school size averaged 340, 462, and 640, respectively. 4) Time and learning are related Note 30—summer school, Saturday school, and an extended school day and school year were recommended. 5) Needs drive costs—excess funding was recommended for students with disabilities, Note 31   Limited English Proficiency, Note 32 economic disadvantages, Note 33 and gifted and talented students Note 34. 6) Those closest to the students should have flexibility in making most instructional decisions—the “ingredients” included in prototype budgets were provided only for pricing resource components not for controlling resource allocations or deployment in schools and in classrooms. To compare staffing among different school districts, figures were standardized to personnel per 1000 students, as shown in Tables 5A, 5B, and 5C. The schools consist of similar grade levels but are located in different size school districts. Full time kindergarten for all students is reflected in K-5 staffing ratios for classroom teachers. In each district size category, each kindergarten was allocated a full time teacher’s aide. Teacher aides are nearly absent from all other staffing arrangements, reflecting the thinking of panel members that additional funding for special needs students could provide additional aides for those populations; however, little evidence exists to show aides provide value added in terms of students outcomes. Note 35 The category “other teachers” was estimated based on 20 percent of school time, to allow core teachers a planning period each day. Note 36 Table 5a. Personnel per 1,000 Students for Selected Types of Personnel by School District Size Based on the Work of Professional Judgment Panels Primary and Upper Elementary School   Small Moderate Large (1) Teaching Staff Classroom Teacher 63.2 62.5 62.5 Other Teacher 14.4 15.1 15.6 Aide 11.5 10.4 10.4 (2) Pupil Support Staff* Guidance Counselor 2.9 5.2 3.5 Nurse 2.9 2.6 1.7 (3) Other Staff* Librarian/Media Spec. 2.9 5.2 3.5 Technology Spec. 2.9 2.6 3.5 (4) Administration Principal* 2.9 2.6 3.5 Asst. Principal -- 2.6 -- Clerical/Data 5.7 7.8 10.4 (5) Other Instr. Facilitator 1.4 1.3 1.7 Safety Officer -- 2.6 -- Social Worker -- 2.6 -- * Minimum staffing ratio.  **: Other personnel may not be assigned at the school level but counted at the district level. Table 5b. Personnel per 1,000 Students for Selected Types of Personnel by School District Size Based on the Work of Professional Judgment Panels Middle School   Small Moderate Large (1) Teaching Staff Classroom Teacher 66.7 47.6 47.6 Other Teacher 16.5 11.3 11.5 Aide -- -- -- (2) Pupil Support Staff* Guidance Counselor 6.4 5.3 3.0 Nurse 3.2 1.8 2.0 (3) Other Staff Librarian/Media Spec. 3.2 1.8 2.0 Technology Spec. 3.2 1.8 2.0 (4) Administration Principal 3.2 1.8 2.0 Asst. Principal 3.2 1.8 4.0 Clerical/Data 9.5 7.1 6.0 (5) Other Instr. Facilitator 1.6 0.9 0.9 Social Worker -- 1.8 -- Safety Officer -- 1.8 2.0 * Note: Other personnel may not be assigned at the school level but counted at the district level. Table 5c. Personnel Per 1,000 Students for Selected Types of Personnel by School District Size Based on the Work of Professional Judgment Panels High School   Small Moderate Large (1) Teaching Staff Classroom Teacher 50.0 58.3 58.3 Other Teacher 16.3 18.2 18.2 Aide -- -- -- (2) Pupil Support Staff Guidance Counselor 4.2 6.5 6.0 Nurse 2.1 1.3 1.5 (3) Other Staff Librarian/Media Spec. 2.1 1.3 3.0 Technology Spec. 2.1 1.3 1.5 (4) Administration Principal 2.1 1.3 1.5 Asst. Principal 2.1 2.6 3.0 Clerical/Data 8.3 9.8 6.0 (5) Other Instr. Facilitator 2.1 1.3 1.5 Social Worker -- 1.3 -- Safety Officer -- 2.6 -- * Note: Other personnel may not be assigned at the school level but counted at the district level. At the elementary level there is remarkable similarity in staffing core classrooms, although support staff and other staff vary across school districts with the highest ratios in the moderate size school district. The moderate size district includes extra staff (social worker and safety officer) and the highest numbers of clerical personnel per 1,000 students in elementary schools. The small school district has the highest number of classroom teachers in elementary and middle school and relatively more support and administrative staff per 1,000 students overall (the above notwithstanding). This is likely because of the high fixed costs and minimum staffing ratios that account for the high costs of very small schools/districts due to diseconomies of scale. Staffing patterns reflect professional judgments of panel members and research that indicates small class sizes in grades K-3, and small schools generally result in higher average outcomes for all students. Note 37 For the middle school, the small school district employs the most staff per 1,000 students. Staffing declines as the district size increases, particularly for core teachers and support staff. At the high school level, however, the highest teaching staff ratios are at the moderate and large to very large school district. The small school district tends to have the highest ratio of non-teaching staff per 1,000 students at the high school level. Although the staffing arrangements shown in Table 5A, 5B, and 5C could be compared to the work of professional judgment panels in other States, participants did not feel that this would be appropriate due to different laws, goals, objectives, and standards across the States. The commonly expressed view was that Kentucky had high standards and goals that would render comparisons unsuitable and misleading. Non-personnel resources, including instructional supplies, equipment, and technology are shown in Table 6A, 6B, and 6C. Instructional supplies were funded the highest overall in high schools. For equipment, assessment, co-curricular, athletics and textbooks, when variations occurred between schools (elementary, middle and high school) higher allocations are found in the higher grade levels. Textbooks are shown as a separate category and are considered a special area of need. Technology was treated separately (see Table 7A, 7B, and 7C) with detailed specifications provided for an entire district, summed and reported based on a five-year replacement cycle (except in the small school district where costs were based on research estimates). Costs that are affixed to technology specifications were taken from current computer websites and dealer prices, as displayed in Table 7D. Technology costs listed do not include infrastructure; it is included in districtwide costs (under KETS). Panel members also added assessment costs to pay for non-State supported tests, including tests every other year for CATS in addition to annual assessments using NAEP, ACT and SAT. Panel members treated athletics differently. The moderate school district did not include funding, considering this to be a revolving account paid for by e.g., gate receipts. Both the small and the large district estimated partial costs for such areas as bus drivers and gas, field watering, coaching supplements, utilities, etc. Professional development is also listed on this table. Panel members indicated that five days of professional development are needed for all certified staff (excluding guidance and administration); four days of professional development are included for certified staff. There was no discussion of library media center materials. Table 6a. Other Non-Personnel Costs to Operate Prototype Schools in K-12 Districts of Different Size Based on the Work of the Professional Judgment Panels Small to Medium School District   Grade Levels   Elementary Middle High School (1) Professional Development 5 days cert. 4 days class. 5 days cert. 4 days class. 5 days cert. 4 days class. (2) Instructional Supplies/Materials $200/pup. $225/pup. $250/pup. (3) Equipment $100/pup. $100/pup. $125/pup. (4) Technology* $300/pup. $300/pup. $300/pup. (5) Assessment $20/pup. $20/pup. $20/pup. (6) Co-curricular/Student Activities $/pup. $/pup. $/pup. (7) Athletics $25/pup. $100/pup. $200/pup. (8) Textbooks $100/pup. $140/pup. $140/pup. Note: Cert. = Certified staff; Class. = Classified staff. * 5-year replacement cycle. Table 6b. Other Non-Personnel Costs to Operate Prototype Schools in K-12 Districts of Different Size Based on the Work of the Professional Judgment Panels Medium to Large District   Grade Levels   Elementary Middle High School (1) Professional Development 5 days cert. 4 days class. 5 days cert. 4 days class. 5 days cert. 4 days class. (2) Instructional Supplies/Materials $200/pup. $200/pup. $200/pup. (3) Equipment $25/pup. $25/pup. $25/pup.* (4) Technology* $267/pup. $267/pup. $267/pup. (5) Assessment $15/pup. $15/pup. $15/pup. (6) Co-curricular/Student Activities $8/pup. $25/pup. $35/pup. (7) Athletics $5/pup. $33/pup. $83/pup. (8)Textbooks $75/pup. $75/pup. $100/pup. Note:  Cert. = Certified staff; Class. = Classified staff. *5-year replacement. Table 6c. Other Non-Personnel Costs to Operate Prototype Schools in K-12 Districts of Different Size Based on the Work of the Professional Judgment Panels Large to Very Large District   Grade Levels   Elementary Middle High School (1) Professional Development 5 days cert. 4 days class. 5 days cert. 4 days class. 5 days cert. 4 days class. (2) Instructional Supplies/Materials $128 /pup. $ 133 /pup. $142 /pup. (3) Equipment* above above above (4)  Technology** $ 308/pup. $308/pup. $308/pup. (5) Assessment $10/pup. $10/pup. $10 /pup. (6) Co-curricular/Student Activities $ 5/pup. $ 5/pup. $ 20/pup. (7) Athletics** above above above (8) Other: Textbooks*** n/a n/a n/a Note:  Cert. = Certified staff; Class. = Classified staff. *Equipment is included in instructional supplies; athletics included with student activities.  **5-year replacement.  ***Textbook funds needed; estimate not available (n/a). Table 7a. Technology Needs of Prototype Schools in Districts of Different Size Based on the Work of the Professional Judgment Panels Small Size District   Elementary Middle High School Est. Cost Total -- -- -- $300/pup/year Replacement Cycle -- -- -- 5 years Table 7b. Technology Needs of Prototype Schools in Districts of Different Size Based on the Work of the Professional Judgment Panels < Moderate Size District   Elementary Middle High School Est. Cost (1) Classroom Computer 5/class (120) 6/class (227) 1/staff/desktop (58.8) 5 laptops/class(225) $443,475 Printer (Inkjet) 5/class (120) 1/class (37.8) 1/class (44.8) $37,076 TV/VCR 1/class (24) 1/class (37.8) 1/class (44.8) $67,046 (2) Computer Lab Computer One 30-station lab (30) Two 30-station labs (60) Three 25-station labs (75) $118,635 Mobile Lab 1/classrm (456) 1/grade level (72) 4 (96) $1,085,000 Scanner 1 2 10 $1,062 Printer (Laser) 1 2 40 (dist. among labs) $98,960 (3) Media Center Computer 10 10 20 $28,760 Printer 10 1 10 $48,329 Digital Video Camera 2 1 10 $9,087 Digital Camera 2 1 10 $4,762 Video Editing Complex 1 0 1 $2,998 Projector 3 1/classroom 10 $111,709 DVD-ROM Tower 3 1 1/server $370 Server 1 3 1 $17,300 (4) Admin./Support/Other Staff Computer 5 8 1/person (20.5) $24,087 Printer (Laser) 5 8 1/person (20.5) $77,097 (5) Other Faculty Laptop 10 1/teacher (24) 1/every two teachers (27) $95,903 Server 2 2 2 $20,759 (6) Total $2,293,418 *Note: See Table 7D for prices Table 7c. Technology Needs of Prototype Schools in Districts of Different Sizes Based on the Work of the Professional Judgment Panels Large to Very Large Size District   Elementary Middle High School Est. Cost (1) Classroom Computer 5/class (90) 10/class (336) 5/class (196) $447,218 Printer (Laser) 1/class (18) 1/class(33.6) 1/class(39.2) $208,967 TV/VCR 1/class (18) 1/class(33.6) 1/class(39.2) $65,285 (2) Computer Lab 1 3 4   Computer* 20 75 108 $145,957 Mobile Lab Scanner 2 3 4 $735 Printer (Laser) 1 3 4 $18,411 (3) Media Center Computer 20 30 25 $53,925 Printer (Laser) 1 1 1 $6,904 Digital Video Camera 3 3 4 $6,999