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 |
| Digital Camera |
3 |
3 |
4 |
$3,663 |
| Video Editing Complex |
X |
X |
X |
|
| Projector |
6 |
3 |
4 |
$28,587 |
| DVD-ROM Tower |
Built into
computer |
Built into
computer |
Built into
computer |
|
| Server |
2 |
2 |
2 |
$20,759 |
| (4) Admin.
/Support/Other Staff |
| Computer |
5 |
8 |
12 |
$17,975 |
| Printer (Laser) |
3 |
4 |
12 |
$43,727 |
| (5) Other |
| Faculty Laptop |
|
1 |
1 |
$3,144 |
| (6) Total |
$2,256,061 |
Table 7d. Estimated Costs Of
Technology
| |
Est. Cost |
| (1) Technology Costs* |
|
| Computer |
$719 |
| Printer (Inkjet)* |
$168 |
| Printer (Laser Network
Printer) |
$2,301 |
| Printer (LaserJet-Color Network
Printer) |
3,591 |
| TV* |
$549 |
| VCR* |
$80 |
| Scanner |
$82 |
| Digital Video Camcorder |
$699 |
| Digital Camera |
$366 |
| Video Editing Complex |
$1,499 |
| Projector |
$3,175 |
| DVD-ROM Tower |
$5,000* |
| Laptop |
$1,572 |
| Server |
$3,460 |
| Smart Board* |
$1,599 |
| Mobile Lab |
$35,000 |
| PDA (Palm) |
$320 |
| CD-ROMRW/DVD External |
$274 |
| CD-ROMRW/DVD Internal |
$84 |
*Estimates, See: Dell URL: www.dell.com/us/e
n/k12/default.htm;
Apple URL:www.apple.com/education;
http://www.apple.com/educ
ation/dvPalm URL: www.palm.com; Smart Technologies:
www.
smarttech.com/products/smartboard/index.asp. *Education prices
unless asterisk/Downloaded 1/15/03.
|
Panels were asked to identify additional resources or programs
that would be used outside the school day or had not traditionally
been offered in Kentucky. These are shown on Table 8. The expert
panel brought consistency to this work. Any program that would
seem to be necessary in one size district was reviewed and
considered for other size districts as well. As shown on the
table, universal preschool is available to all 3 and 4 year-olds
for ½ day on a voluntary basis. Full day kindergarten is
provided for all eligible students. Funding is allocated for
Limited English Proficient students and gifted and talented
students, in addition to low income and exceptional children (as
under current law). Extended School Services (ESS) are available
for a larger number of students, based on the number of students
scoring “novice” on Statewide tests. All panels
indicated the school year should be lengthened. It was concluded
that: 1) the school year should be extended by an additional 10
days to total a minimum 185 days, with the equivalent of 6 hours
of instruction each day; 2) the teacher contract year should be15
additional days beyond the student year, to total 200 days per
year. Currently, forty States have a school year of at least 180
days in contrast to Kentucky’s school year of 175 days. Note 38
Table 8. Other Programs Included as Resource
Needs of Prototype Schools Based on the Work of the Professional
Judgment Panels
| |
District Size |
| |
Small |
Medium |
Large |
| (1) Pre-School |
| All Students |
X |
X |
X |
| Ages: 3, 4 |
3&4
(Voluntary) |
3 & 4
(Voluntary) |
3 &
4 (Voluntary) |
| Time: |
M-F* |
M-F* |
M-F* |
| 3 year-olds |
½ day |
½ day |
½ day |
| 4 year-olds |
½ day |
½ day |
½
day |
| Class Size |
10:1 |
11:1/aide |
10:1 |
| Wrap around services |
Ages 3 & 4 |
-- |
-- |
| (2) Full-Day
Kindergarten |
| All Students |
X |
X |
X |
| At-Risk Students |
| (3) Gifted &
Talented |
| All Students |
| Eligible Students |
X |
X |
X |
| (4) Limited English
Proficient |
| All Students |
| Eligible Students |
X |
X |
X |
| (5) Extended School
Services* |
| All Students |
Optional
for All |
| At-Risk Students |
|
X |
|
| (6) Summer
Programs |
| All Students |
|
Optional |
X |
| Special Education |
|
-- |
|
| At-Risk Students |
X |
-- |
|
| Transportation Provided |
X |
Optional (All) |
|
| (7) Family &
Youth Service Centers |
| All Students |
|
Optional |
|
| Special Education |
|
Optional |
X |
| At-Risk Students* |
>30%
1/district
>60% 1/school |
Optional |
X |
| (8) Alternative
Schools
|
| All Students |
|
Available |
|
| Students-Eligible |
X |
X/Gr.4-12 |
X /Gr 6-12 |
| (9) Comprehensive
Reform Models |
| All Students (grades) |
SFA/K-5 |
-- |
SFA/K-5 Comer/9-12 |
| Students-Eligible |
| (10) Drop Out
Prevention |
| All Students |
X |
X |
X/Gr 6-12 |
| Students-Eligible |
| (11) Full Service
Centers |
| All Students |
See FYSC |
X |
-- |
| Special Education Students |
See FYSC |
-- |
X |
| At Risk Students |
See FYSC |
-- |
X |
| (12) Free Breakfast
Program |
| All Students |
-- |
|
-- |
| Students-Eligible |
-- |
Optional |
-- |
| (13) Summer
Institutes |
| Teachers |
-- |
-- |
X |
| Parent |
-- |
-- |
X
(required
tchr) |
| (14) Differentiated
Salary/High Poverty |
| All Teachers |
-- |
-- |
X-up to 20% |
| (15) Other:
specify
|
| Free breakfast programs |
-- |
Optional-All |
-- |
* ESS includes extended day (2 hours before /after school), summer
school, and Saturday school. Preschool classes are M-T/Friday
teachers would make home visits. At Risk based on eligibility for
free & reduced price lunch
|
Resource Prices
Salaries for school level personnel are displayed in Table 9A
(2001-02). It shows weighted (FTE) average salaries for all school
site classifications based on 185 days, except for principals and
assistant principals where salaries are calculated based on 220
days. Attaching prices to the resource elements focused on
personnel costs, including salary and benefits, and how costs and
expenditures might differ. The Commonwealth of Kentucky collects
certified and classified personnel expenditure data and FTEs (full
time equivalents) for many types of school personnel, based on 185
days employment. This permits daily rate computations for
personnel whose contract exceeds 185 days, such as principals and
assistant principals (220 days) as well as weighted averages to be
computed when one position includes multiple pay classifications
(e.g., secretary I, secretary II). Weighted (FTE) average salary
figures for 2001-02 are used in the study based on 185 days for
all school site personnel except principals and assistant
principals (220 days).
Table 9a. Prototype Salary Resource Elements
Across School Districts
| Certified &
Classified Personnel |
| Job Title |
Average
Salary |
| Guidance Counselor |
$47,845 |
| Media Librarian |
$44,842 |
| Classroom Instructor |
$37,959 |
| Preschool Instruction
Supervisor |
$47,278 |
| Nurse |
$19,999 |
| Media Technician |
$18,536 |
| Secretary |
$18,210 |
| Clerk |
$16,108 |
| Law Enforcement Officer |
$21,414 |
| Social Worker |
$25,773 |
| School Principal |
$68,154* |
| School Vice Principal |
$61,992* |
Source: KDE (2002). Funding types 1 (general fund) and 2
(grants) included. Weighted average, based on 185 contract days
except for principals and assistant principals (220 days).
Benefits Rate: 23.85% (U.S. Census, 2002).
Substitutes: For substitutes, 5% days for all certified
(excludes administration and guidance), converted to FTE and
adjusted by average teacher’s salary & benefits.
|
Table 9b. Comparison of 2001-02 Statewide
Average Teacher Salary in Kentucky to Seven Neighboring, Competing
States
| |
(1) |
(2) |
(3) |
(4) |
(5) |
(6) |
(7) |
(8) |
(9) |
| |
2000-2001 Average Teacher
Salary |
Relative Cost of Living
(COL)* |
Salary Adjusted for COL |
1999-00 % Teachers with More
Than BA |
Education Adjustment Factor
(EAF)** |
Salary Adjusted for COL and
EAF |
1999-00 Teacher Average Yrs
Exp |
Exper. Adjust. Factor
(XAF)*** |
Salary Adjusted COL,EAF and
XAF |
| State |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Kentucky |
$37,959 |
91.0 |
$37,959 |
0.766 |
1.0766 |
$37,959 |
13.7 |
1.0137 |
$37,959 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Ohio |
44,029 |
96.4 |
46,643 |
0.445 |
1.0445 |
48,075 |
15.3 |
1.0153 |
47,999 |
| Indiana |
44,195 |
92.4 |
44,875 |
0.680 |
1.0680 |
45,236 |
16.7 |
1.0167 |
45,103 |
| Illinois |
50,000 |
99.2 |
54,505 |
0.527 |
1.0527 |
55,743 |
15.7 |
1.0157 |
55,633 |
| Missouri |
37,904 |
93.0 |
38,737 |
0.510 |
1.0510 |
39,681 |
13.6 |
1.0136 |
39,685 |
| Tennessee |
38,554 |
91.5 |
38,766 |
0.491 |
1.0491 |
39,782 |
14.0 |
1.0140 |
39,770 |
| Virginia |
41,262 |
95.4 |
43,257 |
0.445 |
1.0445 |
44,586 |
14.3 |
1.0143 |
44,560 |
| West Virginia |
36,751 |
90.7 |
36,630 |
0.624 |
1.0624 |
37,119 |
19.4 |
1.0194 |
36,912 |
*Salary Adjusted for COL (col. 3) is calculated by multiplying the
unadjusted salary (col. 1) by the ratio of Kentucky's COL (0.91)
to each comparison State's COL
**The education adjustment factor (EAF) is calculated by
expressing the proportion of teachers with more than a B.A.
(column 4) as a decimal, dividing by 10, and adding the product to
1.00. Each state's adjusted salary (column 6) is the salary in
column 3 multiplied by the ratio of Kentucky's EAF (1.0766)
divided by each comparison State's EAF.
***The experience adjustment factor (XAF) is calculated like
the EAF.
Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of
Education Statistics, 2002. Washington D.C., Table
78. National Education Association, Rankings &
Estimates-Update, Fall 2002. [URL: www.nea.org]. Cost of Living Index
2000-AFT. Survey Analysis and Salary Trends, 2001,
Washington D.C. Table I-7. School & Staffing Survey,
U.S. Department of Education. Unpublished Data, 1999-00. Kentucky
Salary Data-KDE, 2002. Method adopted from Myers et al., 2002.
|
Current benefits rates used in the study are shown at the bottom
of Table 9A. Benefits are drawn from Kentucky data submitted to
the Census Bureau for certified and classified personnel Note 39 and compared for
consistency to SREB documents,
Note 40 and State reports.
Note 41 The benefit rate used in the study is 23.85 percent.
It includes, on average (as an estimated percent of salary),
retirement (13.105%), Medicare (1.45%-excludes social security),
major medical benefits (9%), other (0.85%)--but not the recent or
future increases in these costs. Note 42 Also shown at the bottom of the
table, substitute costs calculations are based on 5 percent of
contract days, computed as an FTE, and adjusted by teacher salary
and benefits. Again, although these figures were used to determine
costs for the study they do not dictate how funds would be used.
For example, some school districts might estimate fewer (or more)
than 5 percent of contract days for substitutes. A constant theme
of all professional judgment panels was that resource
configurations would drive costs but would not dictate how funds
would be distributed or used in schools and in classrooms.
To compare salary costs to expenditures, the price of teachers
in the same labor market for personnel is considered for the seven
surrounding States. With adjustments to assure comparability,
Kentucky teacher salaries are currently 81 percent of the
average salary for the seven surrounding States (Table 9B).
They are 85 percent of the national average teacher salary.
Compared to Southern Regional Educational Board (SREB) States,
Kentucky teacher salaries are 95.8 percent of the average
teacher salary. Given the gap that Kentucky must fill to provide
competitive salaries for teachers, a two-step strategy was
considered by the professional judgment panel: First achieve
better than the SREB average teacher salary. Second, move to the
surrounding States’ average teacher salary. For other
positions, the current percentage difference between the average
teacher salary and other personnel, such as guidance counselors,
is then incorporated into salary calculations using new salary
figures for teachers. An option to this approach would be to
extend the school year, as recommended by professional judgment
panels, with additional pay for additional work computed on
average daily rates and adjusted by additional contract days. The
resulting average teacher salary in Kentucky would then be
compared to the SREB State’s average salary. This latter
approach is employed in the final analysis of the study.
District level costs are shown in Table 10. The top portion of
the table shows expenditures for district administration,
including business services and central office. Also shown are
plant maintenance and operations, transportation and other (i.e.,
school support services). It can be observed that central costs
rise as district size increases. Professional judgment panels
adopted current expenditures statewide for these costs with the
exception of transportation.
Note 43 Professional panels found current transportation
funding to be inadequate. A State study of adequate student
transportation costs is recommended.
Table 10. District Level Costs per Pupil for
K-12 School Districts of Varying Size Based on the Work of the
Prototype Panels
| District Level
Spending* |
| |
Small to Moderate |
Moderate to Large |
Large to Very Large |
Combined |
(1) Administration
Per pupil
cost |
$433 |
$355 |
$521 |
$437 |
(2) Plant M & O
Per pupil cost |
$588 |
$607 |
$664 |
$620 |
(3) Transportation
Per pupil
cost |
$398 |
$421 |
$439 |
$419 |
(4) Other
Per pupil cost |
$233 |
$249 |
$261 |
$248 |
| Total: Current
Operations |
$1,724 |
(1) Facilities and Debt
Service
Per pupil cost |
$484 |
(2) Facilities: Unmet
Need
Per pupil cost |
$3,472** |
| Total: Facilities |
$3,956 |
*Note: End of Year ADA, 2002. Data Source: KDE-AFR02 by function;
sub-function data unavailable.
**Unmet needs list certified by the School Facility Construction
Commission. |
Finally, determining adequacy for facilities is considered to
be outside the scope of the current study. Current expenditures
for facilities and debt service, as well as “unmet
need” figures, certified by the School Construction and
Facilities Commission, are reported in lower portion of Table 10
and summed.
Prototype Cost Estimates
School level costs that resulted from applying the prices
discussed above to the resources specified in the study are
summarized in Tables 11A, 11B, and 11 C. Per pupil figures are
computed for general education students and special needs students
by combining all resources and dividing by the number of students,
respectively.
The information on the tables is divided into three categories.
The first category, basic spending, includes personnel salaries
and benefits, substitute costs, materials, supplies, technology,
equipment and other costs. Professional development, based on five
days for certified personnel, is listed separately, as are
technology costs (excluding infrastructure costs). Other programs,
such as full-day kindergarten add-on costs and ESS (Extended
School Services) are shown next in part two of the table. For
special needs students, shown in the bottom portion of the table,
prices are based on funding averages. Note 44 Current State funding weights for
special education and low-income students are adopted by the
panels. However, both free and reduced price lunch students are
included in the “low income” student count. Currently
low-income students are targeted through Federal free lunch
eligibility. The inclusion of reduced price lunch students adds,
on average, 10.83 percent in additional students (ADA) ranging
from none to 22 percent among school districts. Limited English
Proficient student funding, weighted at 15 percent, is based on
current practice in other States. Note 45 Given the lack of research on costs
for gifted and talented students, an additional $15 per student is
included, mainly for special supplies and materials.
As shown in Tables 11A, 11B, and 11C, for schools in small
districts, basic costs are highest for grades 6-8 ($6,002), and
lowest for high school ($4,867). In the moderate to large size
district, basic costs are lowest for middle school ($4,174) and
highest for elementary schools ($5,726), with high school costs
between the two. For large to very large school districts, basic
costs are highest for elementary school ($5,227), and lowest for
middle school ($4,248), with high school costs between the two.
Elementary schools, with full day kindergarten, are relatively
more costly. Middle school costs, based on staffing in the
moderate to large district based on teacher “teams”,
appears relatively less costly. High school costs vary. The cost
of full day kindergarten, distributed among all students in the
school, adds $207 on average to these figures, professional
development adds $105 per pupil and technology adds $300 per
pupil. The cost of special education adds between $6,937 and
$9,687 per student, with similar variations for at-risk and
Limited English Proficient pupils, but with smaller diversity
among schools in different size districts.
Table 11a. School Level Costs for K-12 School
Districts of Different Sizes Based on the Work of the Prototype
Panels
Small to Moderate District
| |
Primary & Grades 4, 5 |
Middle School |
High School |
Combined |
| (1) Base Spending* |
| Basic** |
$5,274 |
$6002 |
$4,867 |
$5,320 |
| Prof. Devel. |
109 |
114 |
92 |
105 |
| Technology |
300 |
300 |
300 |
300 |
| (2) Other Programs* |
| Full-Day Kindergarten |
443 |
-- |
-- |
207 |
| ESS*** |
187 |
187 |
187 |
187 |
| (3) Additional Spending*** |
| Special Educ. (16.1%) |
| Base |
8,562 |
9,687 |
7,941 |
8,635 |
| At-Risk (59.29%) |
| Base |
851 |
962 |
789 |
858 |
| Limited English Proficient
(0.42%) |
| Base |
851 |
962 |
789 |
858 |
| Gifted & Talented (14.65%) |
| Base |
15 |
15 |
15 |
15 |
Note: Combined figures are based on Statewide proportions of
students: grades K-5, 47%; grades 6-8, 23.5%; and grades 9-12,
29.4%* Costs are shown per all pupils in school.
**Basic spending includes school level personnel salaries and
benefits, supplies and materials, equipment, assessment,
technology, professional development and other expenditures.
***Costs are shown per pupil with the indicated need (special
education or at-risk). ESS=Extended School Services.
****Rounding results in no cost appearing although the service
is provided.
|
Table 11b. School Level Costs for K-12 School
Districts of Different Sizes Based on the Work of the Prototype
Panels
Moderate to Large District
| |
Primary & Grades 4,5 |
Middle School |
High School |
Combined |
| (1) Base Spending* |
| Basic** |
$5,726 |
4,248 |
5,185 |
$5,213 |
| Prof. Devel. |
107 |
79 |
99 |
98 |
| Technology |
267 |
267 |
267 |
267 |
| (2) Other Programs* |
| Full-Day Kindergarten |
505 |
-- |
-- |
207 |
| ESS*** |
187 |
187 |
187 |
187 |
| (3) Additional Spending*** |
| Special Educ. (16.0%) |
| Base |
9,136 |
6,937 |
8,381 |
8,388 |
| At-Risk (55.22%) |
| Base |
908 |
689 |
833 |
834 |
| Limited English Proficient
(0.54%) |
| Base |
908 |
847 |
689 |
832 |
| Gifted & Talented (14.32%) |
| Base |
15 |
15 |
15 |
15 |
Note: Combined figures are based on Statewide proportions of
students: grades K-5, 47%; grades 6-8, 23.5%; and grades 9-12,
29.4%. ESS=Extended School Services.
*Costs are shown per all pupils in school.
**Basic base spending includes school level personnel salaries
and benefits, supplies and materials, assessment, technology,
professional development and other expenditures.
***Costs are shown per pupil with the indicated need (special
education or at-risk), ESS=Extended School Services.
****Rounding results in no cost appearing although the service
is provided.
|
Table 11c. School Level Costs for K-12 School
Districts of Different Size Based on the Work of the Prototype
Panels
Large to Very Large District
| School District Size |
Primary & Grades 4, 5 |
Middle School |
High School |
Combined |
| (1) Base Spending* |
| Basic** |
$5,227 |
4,174 |
4,302 |
$4,702 |
| Prof. Devel. |
98 |
80 |
102 |
95 |
| Technology |
308 |
308 |
308 |
308 |
| (2) Other Programs* |
| Full-Day Kindergarten |
764 |
-- |
-- |
359 |
| ESS*** |
187 |
187 |
187 |
187 |
| (3) Additional Spending*** |
| Special Educ. (14.4%) |
| Base |
9,678 |
6,767 |
7,114 |
8,230 |
| At-Risk (49.35%) |
| Base |
961 |
672 |
707 |
817 |
| Limited English Proficient
(2.19%) |
| Base |
961 |
672 |
707 |
817 |
| Gifted & Talented (11.66%) |
| Base |
15 |
15 |
15 |
15 |
Note: Combined figures are based on Statewide proportions of
students: grades K-5, 47%; grades 6-8, 23.5%; and grades 9-12,
29.4%. ESS=Extended School Services.
*Costs are shown per all pupils in school.
**Basic base spending includes school level personnel salaries
and benefits, supplies and materials, assessment, technology,
professional development and other expenditures.
***Costs are shown per pupil with the indicated need (special
education or at-risk).
****Rounding results in cost appearing although the service is
provided.
|
For each category of school district shown in Tables 11A, 11B,
and 11C, costs have been combined based on the average percentage
of students in Kentucky attending schools in these grade levels
(see note on table). When costs are combined across grade levels
for different size districts, clear patterns emerge. Basic costs
per pupil are highest in the small district, as would be expected
due to diseconomies of scale and other considerations ($5,320).
The moderate size district has slightly lower costs ($5,213), and
the large district has the lowest per pupil cost ($4,702). The
small district also has higher professional development costs.
Technology costs and the cost of special needs students vary
little across different size districts.
Districtwide costs and total costs are shown in Table 12 by
district size. The table is divided into three sections: (1)
district level costs, (2) total costs for school site and district
level items, and (3) added costs for special needs students and
transportation. District level costs are displayed in the top
portion of the table and show that, for administration, funding is
lowest for moderate size districts; plant maintenance and
operations is lowest for small districts; and other programs (e.g.
student support, hospital and homebound programs and KETS
technology transfer funding) is lowest in large
districts--although funding varies only slightly among different
size categories. These costs are summed and shown in section 2 of
the table under district level costs. Combined school level base
costs (discussed earlier) are also listed and both figures are
totaled.
Table 12. District Level Costs and Total
Costs for K-12 School Districts Based on the Work of Prototype
Panels
| |
Size of School
District |
| |
Small |
Moderate |
Large |
| (1) District Level
Spending |
| Administration* |
$432 |
$355 |
$521 |
| Plant M&O* |
588 |
607 |
664 |
| Other* |
233 |
249 |
261 |
| (2) Total Spending |
| Base Spending** |
| School Level |
$5,932 |
$5,578 |
$5,105 |
| District Level |
1,254 |
1,210 |
1,445 |
| Total Base Cost |
$7,186 |
$6,788 |
$6,551 |
| (3) Added Costs |
| Transportation** |
$398 |
$420 |
$438 |
| ESS*** |
187 |
187 |
187 |
| Special Needs
Students*** |
| Special Education |
$8,635 |
$8,388 |
$8,230 |
| At-Risk |
858 |
834 |
817 |
| Limited English Proficient |
858 |
834 |
817 |
| Gifted and Talented |
15 |
15 |
15 |
| Average Total Expenditures |
$9,582 |
$9,112 |
$8,438 |
*Costs are shown per all pupils in school.
**Basic spending includes school level personnel salaries and
benefits, supplies and materials, assessment, technology,
professional development and other expenditures.
***Costs are shown per pupil with the indicated need (special
education or at-risk). Debt and Facilities not included.
|
The base cost figures show the highest cost for the small school
district ($7,186) followed by the moderate size district ($6,788)
with lowest costs for the large to very large district ($6,551).
Excluding federal aid, base costs are $6,460 for the small
district, $6,102 for the medium district, and $5,889 for the large
district. Note 46 These
figures compare to Kentucky’s SEEK base guarantee of $3,066
per pupil (2001-02). The differences among districts might be
expected based on economies of scale considerations and clearly
are captured through the professional judgment approach to cost
calculations.
As shown in Part II of Table 12, added to the total base cost
of education in each of the district categories (small, moderate
and large), are costs for transportation, extended school services
(ESS) and special need students. In addition to base costs,
districts would need to spend on average: over $419 per pupil for
transportation costs, $187 per pupil receiving extended school
services, Note 47 between
$8,230 and $8,635 per special education student, between $817 and
$858 per Limited English Proficient student or student at-risk,
and $15 per gifted and talented student. Unmet facility needs,
certified by the School Construction and Facility Commission, add
$3,472 per pupil to these figures. With these additions (excluding
facilities), average total costs per pupil are highest for the
small district ($9,582), followed by the moderate district
($9,112) and lowest for large to very large district ($8,438).
These figures can be compared to Kentucky’s current
expenditure per pupil of $7,271 in 2001-02 (Federal, State and
local sources). Note 48
Overall, a total of about $5.199 billion would be needed to
address State standards and objectives. Note 49 In fact, in 2001-02, about $4.102
billion was available to pay for current operating expenses from
Federal, State and local revenue. Therefore, the funding gap
between existing revenue and the revenue needed for current
operations is $1.097 billion per year (2001-02).
Additional key resource requirements, identified by
professional judgment panels, include: (1) extending the school
year for students and teachers,
Note 50 (2) adding voluntary half-day preschool for three and
four year olds, and (3) raising teacher salaries. The cost of
extending the school year ten days for students (185 days total)
and teachers (195 total) would raise teacher salaries above the
SREB State average Note 51
and substantially increase instructional time for students, while
increasing the annual funding gap to $1.230 billion (2001-02). Note 52 This 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.
About the Author
Deborah A. Verstegen
University of Virginia
Curry School of Education
Charlottesville, VA
Email: dav3e@cms.mail.virginia.edu
Deborah Verstegen is Professor of Education Policy and Finance
at the University of Virginia's Curry School of Education. She
earned her Ph.D. at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where she
received a Alumni Achievement Award in 1997. Dr. Verstegen has
served as a consultant to local, state and national
organizations/governments, has twice been a member of the Board
of Directors of the American Educational Finance Association and
has served as editor of the Journal of Education Finance. She
has published extensively in the areas of equal educational
opportunity and education finance policy--including adequacy and
equity--and is co-editor (with James Ward) of Spheres of
Justice in Education and (with Julie Underwood) of The
Impacts of Litigation and Legislation on Public School Finance.
She is currently on numerous editorial boards, policy editor of
the Journal of Education Finance, President of the
AAUP-VA, Chair of the AERA SIG on Fiscal Issues, Policy and
Education Finance, and Founder of Women Education Leaders in
Virginia.
Appendix A
Table A-1. The Commonwealth of Kentucky
Standards & Objectives for Public Schools
Kentucky Constitution
…to provide an efficient system of common schools
throughout the state…(Ky. Const. Sec. 183).
Capacities required of students in public
education system
- Communication skills necessary to function in a complex and
changing civilization;
- Knowledge to make economic, social and political choices;
- Core values and qualities of good character to make moral and
ethical decisions throughout his or her life;
- Understanding of governmental processes as they affect the
community; the state, and the nation;
- Sufficient self-knowledge and knowledge of his mental and
physical wellness,
- Sufficient grounding in the arts to enable each student to
appreciate his or her cultural and historical heritage;
- Sufficient preparation to choose and pursue his life’s
work intelligently; and
- Skills to enable him to compete favorably with students in
other states. (Kentucky School Laws, Sec. 158.645).
Legislative declaration on goals for
Commonwealth’s schools—[KERA Goals].
- The General Assembly finds, declares, and establishes that:
- Schools shall expect a high level of achievement of all
students.
- Schools shall develop their students’ ability to:
- Use basic communication and mathematics skills for purposes and
situations they will encounter throughout their lives;
- Apply core concepts and principles from mathematics, the
sciences, the arts, the humanities, social studies, and practical
living studies to situations they will encounter throughout their
lives;
- Become self-sufficient individuals of good character exhibiting
the qualities of altruism, citizenship, courtesy, honesty, human
worth, justice, knowledge, respect, responsibility, and
self-discipline;
- Become responsible members of a family, work group, or
community, including demonstrating effectiveness in community
service;
- Think and solve problems in school situations and in a variety
of situations they will encounter in life; and
- Connect and integrate experiences and new knowledge from all
subject matter fields with what they have previously learned and
build on past learning experiences to acquire new information
through various media sources
- Schools shall increase their student’s rate of school
attendance.
- Schools shall reduce their students’ dropout and
retention rates.
- Schools shall reduce physical and mental health barriers to
learning.
- Schools shall be measured on the proportion of students who
make a successful transition to work, post-secondary education,
and the military. (Kentucky School Laws, Sec. 158.6451).
Maximum Number of Pupils Enrolled in a
Class:
157.360 (4) a. Except for those schools which have
implemented school-based decision-making, the chief state school
officer shall enforce maximum class sizes for every academic
course requirement in all grades except in vocal and instrumental
music, and physical education classes. Except as provided in
subsection (5) of this section [relating to combined grades 4-6],
the maximum number of pupils enrolled in a class shall be as
follows:
- Twenty-four (24) in primary grades (kindergarten through third
grade);
- Twenty-eight (28) in grade four (4);
- Twenty-nine (29) in grades five (5) and six (6);
- Thirty-one (31) in grades seven (7) to twelve (12);
(4)b. …class size loads for middle and secondary
school classroom teachers shall not exceed the equivalent of one
hundred fifty (150) pupil hours a day.
158.070 School Term, Professional Development, Continuing
Education
(1)The minimum school term shall be one hundred eighty-five
(185) days, including no less than the equivalent of one hundred
seventy-five (175) six (6) hour instructional days...
(4)Each local board of education shall use four (4) days of the
minimum school term for professional development and collegial
planning activities for the professional staff without the
presence of pupils….up to a maximum of four (4) days of the
minimum school term for holidays and two (2) days for planning
activities without the presence of pupils….
(9)>Schools shall provide continuing education for those
students who are determined to need additional time to achieve the
outcomes defined in KRS 158.6451, and school shall not be limited
to the minimum school term in providing this education. Continuing
education time may include extended days, extended weeks, or
extended years….
Requirement for library media center—Employment of
Librarian
(1) The board of education for each local school division shall
establish and maintain a library media center in every elementary
and secondary school….
(2)(a) Schools shall employ a school media librarian to
organize, equip, and manage the operations of the school media
library…[who] may be employed to serve two (2) or more
schools in a school district with the consent of the school
councils.
Establishment of a strategy to address school dropout
problem
The Kentucky Department of Education shall establish and
implement a comprehensive statewide strategy to provide assistance
to local districts and schools to address the student dropout
problem in Kentucky public schools…. [Using] State and
federal resources and programs, including but not limited to,
extended school services; early learning centers; family resource
and youth service centers; alternative education services,
preschool; service learning; drug and alcohol prevention programs;
School-to-Careers; High Schools That Work; school safety grants;
and other relevant programs and services that could be used in a
multidimensional strategy…. [Comprising] student programs
and services that include, but are not limited to, identification,
counseling, mentoring, and other educational strategies for
elementary, middle, and high school students who are demonstrating
little or success in school, who have poor school attendance,
or who possess other risk factors that contribute to the
likelihood of their dropping out of school. (Kentucky School Laws,
Section 158.146)
Minimum High School Graduation Requirements
for the Class of 2002
[Program of Studies]
| Subject |
Credits |
Courses |
| Language Arts |
4 |
English I, II, III, IV |
| Social Studies |
3 |
Credits to incorporate U.S.
History, Economics, Government, World Geography and World
Civilization |
| Mathematics |
3 |
Algebra I, Geometry, and one
elective |
| Science |
3 |
Credits to include life science,
physical science, and earth |
| Health |
1/2 |
|
| Physical Education |
1/2 |
|
| History and Appreciation of Visual
and Performing Arts |
1 |
History and appreciation of visual
and performing arts or another arts course which incorporates such
content |
| TOTAL: 15 required
credits plus 7 electives (22 credits) |
| (704 KAR 3:305) |
Requirements for the Commonwealth Diploma
Meet the State’s (or district’s) minimum graduation
requirements, complete the State’s pre-college preparatory
curriculum (specific courses in Language Arts 4 units, Mathematics
3 units, science 2 units, social studies two units), earn a grade
of “C” or better in four Advanced Placement or
International Baccalaureate courses in the subjects of English,
Mathematics or Science, Foreign Language, Elective, and complete
advanced placement exams in three subjects. (704 KAR 3:340)
Table A-2. Academic Index by Area
Kentucky Statewide Results
| |
2000-2001 |
2001-2002 |
Goal* |
| Elementary |
| Reading |
80.69 |
81.90 |
100 |
| Math |
63.91 |
66.07 |
100 |
| Science |
77.03 |
77.32 |
100 |
| Social Studies |
68.48 |
71.04 |
100 |
| Arts & Humanities |
44.56 |
49.25 |
100 |
| Practical Living/Voc. Std. |
72.08 |
73.77 |
100 |
| Writing Total |
58.67 |
62.05 |
100 |
| Total |
68.80 |
70.80 |
100 |
| Middle School |
| Reading |
80.48 |
81.34 |
100 |
| Math |
62.26 |
61.26 |
100 |
| Science |
64.45 |
67.41 |
100 |
| Social Studies |
67.28 |
67.72 |
100 |
| Arts & Humanities |
64.15 |
64.24 |
100 |
| Practical Living / Voc. Std. |
67.81 |
67.62 |
100 |
| Writing Total |
43.51 |
46.33 |
100 |
| Total |
64.00 |
65.00 |
100 |
| High School |
| Reading |
68.85 |
67.75 |
100 |
| Math |
60.68 |
62.29 |
100 |
| Science |
62.07 |
64.49 |
100 |
| Social Studies |
64.80 |
68.12 |
100 |
| Arts & Humanities |
56.83 |
62.55 |
100 |
| Practical Living/Voc. Std. |
73.60 |
72.72 |
100 |
| Writing Total |
59.03 |
60.12 |
100 |
| Total |
63.40 |
65.10 |
100 |
* Represents for schools where student achievement needs to be to
achieve proficiency.
|
Table A-3. Non-Academic Index by Area
Kentucky Statewide Results
| |
2000-2001 |
2001-2002 |
Goal* |
| Elementary |
Attendance Rate |
|
95.08 |
|
| Dropout Rate |
n/a |
n/a |
5.3 - <6.0* |
| Retention Rate |
1.11 |
0.93 |
|
| Successful Trans-Adult Life |
n/a |
n/a |
|
| Total |
95.87 |
95.88 |
|
| Middle School |
| Attendance Rate |
94.47 |
94.34 |
|
| Dropout Rate |
0.32 |
0.27 |
5.3 - < 6.0* |
| Retention Rate |
2.04 |
1.91 |
|
| Successful Trans-Adult Life |
n/a |
n/a |
|
| Total |
96.91 |
96.92 |
|
| High School |
| Attendance Rate |
92.51 |
92.51 |
|
| Dropout Rate |
5.10 |
4.79 |
5.3 - < 6.0* |
| Retention Rate |
7.14 |
6.73 |
|
| Successful Trans-Adult Life |
95.32 |
95.08 |
|
| Total |
94.48 |
94.52 |
|
*Note: Non-academic indicators are lagged one year. By 2006 the
statewide annual average school dropout rate will be cut by fifty
percent (50%) of what it was in the year 2000; no school will have
a drop out rate that exceeds five percent (5%); and each county
will have thirty percent (30%) fewer adults between the ages of
sixteen (16) and twenty-four (24) without a high school diploma or
GED than the county had in the year 2000. (Kentucky School Laws,
Section 158.145). To be eligible for rewards, novice reduction and
drop out criteria apply. For the drop out rate, high schools must
have a dropout rate less than or equal to 5.3 percent or reduce
their percent of dropouts by 0.5 percent, but still have a dropout
rate less than or equal to 6 percent. School must reduce their
percent of novices on a schedule so that by 2014, the school has 5
percent or less of its students scoring novice. See
“Kentucky Performance Report” for more information on
these indicators.
|
Table A-4. Accountability Index, Combined
Academic and Non-Academic Index by School Level
Kentucky Statewide Results
| |
2000-2001 |
2001-2002 |
Goal |
| ACCOUNTABILITY INDEX |
|
|
|
| Elementary |
70.9 |
72.8 |
100 |
| Middle School |
67.8 |
68.7 |
100 |
| High School |
66.9 |
68.4 |
100 |
| NON-ACADEMIC INDEX |
|
|
|
| Elementary |
95.87 |
95.88 |
* |
| Middle School |
96.91 |
96.92 |
* |
| High School |
94.48 |
94.52 |
* |
| ACADEMIC INDEX |
|
|
|
| Elementary School |
68.8 |
70.8 |
100* |
| Middle School |
64.0 |
65.0 |
100* |
| High School |
63.4 |
65.1 |
100* |
Note: * = Proficiency. The Accountability Index target is 100 by
the year 2013-2014. Academic index: target represents for school
districts where student achievement needs to be to achieve
proficiency (100). Non-academic Index: Targets vary--see
Kentucky Performance Report for more information.
|
Appendix B
Prototype School Site Panel Members
November 15, 2002
Lexington, KY
| Name of
Individual |
Position |
School District |
| LuAnn Asbury |
Elementary Teacher |
Mason County |
| Ellen Blevins |
High School Teacher |
Barren County |
| John Beisel |
Executive Director ASBO |
Davies County |
| Nancy Toombs |
Custodial Supervisor |
Henderson County |
| Eleanor Mills |
Elementary Principal |
Murray Ind. |
| Carol Daniels |
Elementary Principal |
Mercer County |
| Pam Stephens |
Special Ed. Director |
West Point Ind. |
| Bill Woolridge |
Elementary Teacher |
Hardin County |
| Arletta Kennedy |
Middle School Teacher |
McCracken County |
| Sharron Oxendine |
High School Teacher |
Clark County |
| Darrell Wilson |
Elementary Principal |
Henderson County |
| Retha Wilcoxin |
Middle School Principal |
Nelson County |
| Ray Read |
Curriculum Supervisor |
Madison County |
| Dottie Miller |
Middle School Teacher |
Kenton County |
| Mattie Katz |
Elementary Teacher |
Fayette County |
| Ann Walls |
Elementary Teacher |
Jefferson (Louisville) County |
| Teddy Taylor |
High School Teacher |
Madison (Alternative High) |
| Mariann Stopher |
Clerk/Business Manager |
Scott County |
| Mike Byers |
Elementary/HS Principal |
Hardin County |
| Denise Woodard |
Elementary Teacher-Alternative
|
Jefferson County |
| Debbie Wooton |
Middle School Teacher |
Boone County |
| Leslie Dunn |
Elementary Counselor |
Jefferson County |
| William Day |
Director of Finance |
Hardin County |
| Tim Hitzfield |
Teacher |
Boone County (Owen County) |
| Ed McNeel |
Superintendent |
Corbin Independent |
| Bill Lovell |
Board of Education |
McLean County |
| Bob Rogers |
Superintendent |
Caldwell County |
| Mark Cleveland |
Superintendent |
Owen County |
| Chuck Holiday |
Superintendent |
Fulton County |
| Gary Jackson |
Superintendent |
Trimble County |
| Terry Brooks |
Principal |
Anchorage Independent |
| Sabrina Olds |
Business Manager |
Owen County |
| James Francis |
Superintendent |
Hazard Independent |
| Fred Bassett |
Superintendent |
Beechwood Independent |
| Jan Vance |
Superintendent |
Nelson County |
| Larry Holloway |
Board of Education |
Ft. Thomas |
| Jack Moreland |
Superintendent |
Covington County |
| Joe Dan Gold |
Superintendent |
Williamstown/Mason Co/Morgan
Co |
| Brenda Jackson |
Board of Education |
Shelby County |
| Tim Hockensmith |
Chief Financial Officer |
Nelson County |
| Austin Moss |
Board of Education |
Christian County |
| Walter Hulett |
Superintendent |
Laurel County |
| Frank Welch |
Superintendent |
Pike County |
| Dale Brown |
Superintendent |
Warren County |
| Chuck Littrell |
Business Manager |
Oldham County |
| Cheryl Chedester |
Program Coordinator |
Laurel County |
| Faurest Coogle |
Kentucky School Boards
Association. |
State of Kentucky |
| Blake Haselton |
Facilitator, Supt Training &
Testing/School Finance |
Kentucky Department of
Education |
| Jack Herlihy |
Associate Professor |
Eastern Kentucky University |
| Kyna Koch |
Associate Commissioner |
Kentucky Department of
Education |
| Tom Willis |
Office of State Budget
Director |
Kentucky State Government |
Notes
- This article is
based on the report: Verstegen, D. A. (February 2003). The
Calculation of the Cost of An Adequate Education in
Kentucky.” Oldham, KY: Council for Better Education, Inc.
The author gratefully acknowledges the Kentucky Department of
Education for information, data, and other assistance throughout
the study; the dedicated and knowledgeable individuals who
participated in the prototype panels; and the scholars who have
contributed to thinking and research in this area, and upon whose
prior work this study draws: Myers, J. & Silverstein, J.
“Calculation of the Cost of A Suitable Education in Montana
in 2001-2002 Using the Professional Judgment Approach”.
Mimeo. (August 2002).; Verstegen, D.A., “Financing the New
Adequacy: Towards New Models of State Education Finance Systems
That Support Standards-Based Reform.” Journal of
Education Finance (Winter 2002)749-782). Guthrie, J. W. &
Rothstein, R. “Enabling "Adequacy" to Achieve Reality:
Translating Adequacy into State School Finance Distribution
Arrangements.” (pp. 209-259). In Ladd, H. F., Chalk, R.
& Hansen, J. S., Eds. Equity and Adequacy in Education
Finance: Issues and Perspectives. Washington, D. C.: National
Academy Press (1999). Management Analysis & Planning, Inc.
“Wyoming Education Funding Adequacy Study.”
Sacramento, CA: Author, (May 18, 1998). Ohio Coalition for Equity
& Adequacy of School Funding. “Basket of Essential
Learning Resources for the 21st Century.” Columbus, OH:
Author (n.d.). Note: All data are for 2001-02; End of year ADA is
used throughout (564,198)
- The high court
called for an education system that is “uniform, adequate,
and unitary”. Rose v. Council for Better Educ. Inc.
790 S.W.2d 186 (Ky. 1989), at 212
- The Kentucky
Department of Education URL: http://www.kde.state.ky.us/
. According to Jacovitch, D. et al. the agency request was $3,041.
See: Jacovitch, D., Otto, S., Upton, C. & Hager, G. “The
SEEK Formula for Funding Kentucky’s School Districts: An
Evaluation of Data, Procedures and Budgets (DRAFT).”
Frankfurt, Kentucky: Legislative Research Commission. (2003), p.
84.
- Verstegen, D. A.
“The New Finance.” American School Board
Journal (October 2002), 24-26.
- Myers et al.
“Calculation of the Cost of a Suitable Education.”
Ibid.
- See: Jacovitch et
al. “The SEEK Formula.” Ibid.
- See: Verstegen,
D.A., “Financing the New Adequacy.” Ibid. R.
Rothstein, “What Does Education Cost?” The American
School Board Journal, (September 1998). J. W. Guthrie & R.
Rothstein “Enabling ‘Adequacy’ to Achieve
Reality” Ibid. Reschovsky, A & Imazeki, J.
Reforming State Aid to Achieve Educational Adequacy: Lessons
from Texas and Wisconsin. Paper presented at the Symposium on
Education Funding Adequacy & Equity in the Next Millennium.
Nashville, TN: Center of Excellence for Research and Policy on
Basic Skills, (1999). Verstegen, D. A. “What is Adequacy?
How is It Defined? What Does it Cost?” Paper presented at
the Symposium on Education Funding Adequacy & Equity in the
Next Millennium. Nashville, TN: Center of Excellence for Research
and Policy on Basic Skills (1999)
- See, for example,
Levin, H. M. Cost-Effectiveness: A Primer. (Newbury Park,
CA: Sage Publications, 1983).
- This review
relies on published research studies and manuscripts available in
the field and on-line, c.f., Verstegen, D. A.
“Financing the New Adequacy.” Ibid. Guthrie, J.
W. & Rothstein, R. (1999). “Enabling Adequacy”
Ibid. Myers et al. “Calculation of the Cost.”
Ibid.
- Verstegen, D.
A. “Financing the New Adequacy.” Ibid.
- Management
Analysis & Planning, Inc. “Wyoming Education
Funding,” Ibid. Guthrie & Rothstein.
“Enabling Adequacy,” Ibid.
- Day long
meetings over a one week period of time were convened; experts
were asked "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 post-secondary endeavors"? Responses
varied and no effort was made to reach consensus nor were
systematic procedures used to identify and utilize professional
viewpoints. See, Management Planning and Analysis Associates,
“Wyoming Educational Adequacy.” Ibid.
- Guthrie &
Rothstein, “Enabling Adequacy”, Ibid. pp.
231.
- Augenblick, J.,
Alexander, K. &. Guthrie, J.W. “Report of the Panel of
Experts: Proposals for the Elimination of Wealth Based Disparities
in Education.” Report submitted by Ohio Chief State School
Officer T. Sanders to the Ohio State Legislature.” Mimeo
(1995).
- Augenblick, J.
, J. Silverstein, J. “Alternative Approaches for Determining
a Base Figure and Pupil-Weighted Adjustments for Use in a School
Finance System in New Hampshire.” Mimeo. (November 30,
1998). See also: Augenblick, J., & Silverstein, J.
“Determining An Adequate Per Pupil Funding Level for Public
Education in South Carolina in Relation to Pupil Performance
Objectives.” Mimeo (July 2000).
- Duncombe, W. D.
& Yinger, J. M. “Performance Standards and Educational
Cost Indexes: You Can't Have One Without the Other.” (pp.
260-297). In Ladd, H. F., Chalk, R. & Hansen, J. S., Eds.
“Equity and Adequacy,” Ibid, (1999). See also,
Duncombe, W. Lukemeyer, A. “Estimating the Cost of
Educational Adequacy: A Comparison of Approaches.” Paper
presented at the American Education Finance Association Annual
Conference. Albuquerque, New Mexico (March 2002).
- A district was
found to be inefficient if it spent more on education than other
districts with the same performance and the same educational
costs. Duncombe & Yinger, “Performance Standards,”
Ibid.
- See, for
example, A. Odden and Busch, C. Financing Schools for High
Performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers,
(1998).
- American
Institutes for Research, URL: http://www.air.org/projects
(12/8/00). See also, Borman, G. D., Hewes, G. M & Overman, L.
T. and Brown, “Comprehensive School Reform and Achievement:
A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, vol. 73, no. 2
(Summer 2003), 125-230.
- Myers et al.
“Calculation of the Cost of A Suitable Education,”
Ibid. p. 6.
- http://www.kde.state.ky.us/
- See: Rose v.
Council for Better Educ. Inc. 790 S.W.2d 186 (Ky. 1989), at
212.
- http://www.kde.state.ky.us/
- Jacovitch et
al. Ibid.
- This number
includes alternative schools but not early childhood schools,
vocational schools or extension centers.
- See, for
example: Schweinhart, L.J., Barnes, H.V., & Weikart, D. P.
Significant Benefits: The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study
Through Age 27. Ypsilanti, Michigan: High/Scope Educational
Research Foundation (1993). Campbell, F. A., Helms, R. Sparling,
J. J. & Ramsey. “Early-Childhood Programs and Success in
School: The Abecedarian Study.” (pp. 145-166). In Barnet, W.
S. & Boocock, S. S. (Eds.) Early Care and Education for
Children in Poverty: Promises, Programs and Long-Term Results.
Albany, N. Y.: State University Press (1998).
- See:
Alber-Kelsay, K. “Full-Day Kindergarten vs. Half-Day
Kindergarten: The Outcome of First Grade Reading
Achievement.” ERIC: ED 417 380; McClinton, S. L. and C.
Topping. “Extended Day Kindergarten: Are the Effects
Tangible?” Journal of Educational Research 75,
39-40. Fusaro, J. A.. “The Effect of Full-Day Kindergarten
on Student Achievement: A Meta-Analysis.” Child Study
Journal 27(4) (1997)269-277.
- See, for
example: Achilles, C. M. Let’s Put Kids First, Finally:
Getting Class Size Right. Thousand Oakes, CA: Corwin (1999).
Word, E., Johnston, H., Baln, H. P., Fulton, B. E., Zaharias, J.
B., Lintz, M. N., Achilles, C. M., Folger, J., Breda, C. (n.d.).
“Student/Teacher Ratio (STAR), Tennessee's K-3 Class Size
Study, Final Summary Report (1985-1990)”, 32 pp.; Nye, B.A.
et al. “The Lasting Benefits Study: A Continuing Analysis of
the Effects of Small Class Size in K-3 on Student Achievement Test
Scores in Subsequent Grade Levels, Seventh Grade Technical Report,
1992-1993”, 23 pp (n.d.).
- See, for
example, Raywid, M. A. “Current Literature on Small
Schools.” Eric Digest, 1-2. http://
www.ael.org/eric/ digests/edorc988.htm.(1999). Meier, D. W.
“The Big Benefits of Smallness.” Educational
Leadership, 12-15 (September 1996). Lee, V. E. and Smith, J.
B. “High School Size: Which Works Best and For Whom?”
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, vol. 19, no. 3,
pp. 205-227 (Fall 1997).
- See for
example, National Education Commission on Time and Learning.
Prisoners of Time. Washington, D.C. (September 1994).
- Rossmiller, R.
A., Hale, J. A., & Frohreich, L. E. Educational Programs
for Exceptional Children: Resource Configurations and Costs.
(Special Study No. 2). Madison, Wisconsin: National Education
Finance Project(1970). Walker, L. J., & Holland, R. P.
Finetuning Special Education (1982); Kakalik, J.
S., Furry, W. S., Thomas, M. A. & Carney, M. F. “The
Cost of Special Education” (Rand Note). Santa Monica, CA:
Rand Corp.(1981). Moore, M. T., Finance: A Guide for State
Policymakers. N.J.: Educational Testing Service; Moore, M.
T., Strang, E. W., Schwartz, M. & Braddock, M. Patterns in
Special Education Service Delivery and Cost. Contract No.
3000-84-0257. Washington, D.C.: Decision Resources Corporation
(1988). Chaikind, S., Danielson, L.C. and Baven, M. L. (1993).
“What Do We Know About the Costs of Special Education? A
Selected Review.” Journal of Special Education,
26(4), 344-370; Parrish, T. B. & Verstegen, D. A.
Fiscal Provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act: Policy Issues and Alternatives. (Policy Paper
Number 3). Palo Alto, CA: Center for Special Education Finance,
American Institutes for Research (June 1994).
- Parrish, T. B.
& Matsumoto, C. S. “Disparities in Public School
District Spending, 1989-90”. NCES 95-300. Washington, D.
C.: U.S. Department of Education: National Center for Education
Statistics (1989). Parrish, T. B. “A Cost
Analysis of Alternative Models for Limited English Students in
California”. Journal of Education Finance, 19(3),
(1994)256-278. See also, The Costs of Educating Arizona’s
English Learners Study Submitted in Response to Judge Alfredo
Marquez’s October 12, 2000 Order (January 2001).
- See, for
example: Parrish, T., Matsumoto, C. S. & Fowler, W.
Disparities in Public School District Spending, 1989-90.
(NCES 95-300). Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education
Statistics, U.S. Department of Education (February 1989). Allgood,
W. & Rothstein, R. Adequate Education for At-Risk
Youths. Washington, D. C.: Economic Policy Institute. Mimeo
(2000). Rothstein, R. Equalizing Education Resources on Behalf of
Disadvantaged Children. (p. 31-92). In, Kahlenberg, R. D. Ed.,
A Notion At Risk. N.Y.: Century Foundation Book (2000).
Clune, W. H. “The Shift From Equity to Adequacy in School
Finance.”Educational Policy, 8(4),
(1994)376-394. Reschovsky, A. & Imazeki, J. “The
Development of School Finance Formulas to Guarantee the Provision
of Adequate Education to Low Income Students.” In, U.S.
Department of Education, Developments in School Finance
1997. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education
Statistics (1998).
- Figures were
included to support specialized materials and equipment, until
research cost estimates become available.
- See for
example, Achilles, “Let’s Put Kids First
Finally,” Ibid.
- Other teachers
include, for example, art, music, physical education, technology
and foreign language. Teachers were allotted a planning period
each day and duty free lunch.
- See ftnt.
#27-28.
- National Center
for Education Statistics. Digest of Education Statistics.
Washington, D.C.: Author (2002). Data year, 1999-2000, Table
129.
- U.S. Census
Bureau. Public Education Finances. Table 6, “Current
Spending of Public Elementary-Secondary School Systems by State:
1999-00.” Washington, D.C.: Bureau of the Census, Government
Division, Data Tabulations (2002). Employee benefits in the
tabulations include amounts paid by the school system for fringe
benefits and payments made on behalf of the local education agency
by the state. These amounts are not included in salaries and wages
paid directly to employees. They include contributions on behalf
of employees for retirement coverage, social security, group
health and life insurance, tuition reimbursements, workmen’s
compensation and unemployment compensation. Mead, S. (Sept. 6,
2002). Personal communication. URL: http://www.censu
s.gov/ govs/www/school.html
- Southern
Regional Education Board. “Beyond Salaries: Employee
Benefits for Teachers in the SREB States.” SREB: Atlanta, GA
(n.d.).
- Legislative
Research Commission. “Compensation and Benefits of Kentucky
Public School Employees.” Research Report 306. Frankfurt, KY
(June 2002).
- Southern
Regional Education Board. “Beyond Salaries.”
Ibid. Data are reported from State Education Departments
for 2000-01.
- Data Source:
Kentucky Department of Education. Annual Financial Report 2002
(AFR02). For subfunctions, district costs are rolled up to a
higher level and not available. It is estimated that Home and
Hospital expenditures add about $6-$8 per pupil; technology
transfer funding (KETS) would add between $16-$22 per pupil.
- Resource
elements related to these funds are shown in Tables 4A, 4B, and
4C.
- This is an
average of weights used by Texas and Florida for LEP (2000).
- NEA, Rankings
and Estimates. <URL: www.nea.org.>
- This
calculation is based on 200,000 eligible students; the number of
students scoring novice on statewide tests is currently
unavailable.
- Data source:
Kentucky Department of Education. Personal communication
(2002).
- For
comparability to current spending, this figure includes the FY
2002 preschool grant ($46,300,000) and the Family and Youth Center
grant ($51,800,000).
- Panels
recommended increasing the school year ten days for students and
fifteen days for teachers.
- Extending the
school year 10 days, and increasing teacher salaries to account
for the additional 10 days (at an average daily rate), would raise
teacher salaries: above the SREB State average (101%), from 85% to
90% of the national average teacher salary and from 81% to 86% of
the surrounding, competing seven-State average teacher
salary.
- The total
funding gap includes preschool expenditures under current
law; current elementary school costs are 66.7% of the cost per
preschool pupil based on FTE; total costs would vary depending on
the projected participation rate.
|
