|
|
|
ADEQUACY: A Revised Update William
L. Hinrichs September
1999 How much does it cost to provide adequate levels of education services in order for public elementary and secondary students to achieve at high levels? The focus of the original paper (Adequacy: Building Quality and Efficiency Into the Cost of Education, March 1996) was to address that question and the more vexing question “How much should a high-quality education cost?” This document is an update of the original paper. The original paper, written in the Spring and Summer of 1995, was intended to provide the Governor’s Commission on Education Funding with a methodology to determine an adequate General State Aid foundation level. The Commission chose to use an alternative method in the determination of adequacy. Answering the two questions above is necessary because, without a specific target, our efforts to measure efficiency and the ability to determine how well we are doing as a state in the funding of basic education are seriously impaired. The alternative is to continue to fund public education with little regard for or means to contain cost and few incentives to improve quality and efficiency. Adequacy and, to some extent, efficiency have been addressed in the past. Several early references in these areas are provided in the Appendix. The methodology in this paper builds on one recommended by The Illinois Task Force on School Finance, which concluded its work in 1993. The Task Force methodology incorporated such variables as selected school personnel-to-student ratios, statewide average salaries of certified personnel, a calculation for determining total education expenditures, and adjustments for regional cost variations to determine the per-pupil cost of school finance adequacy. The strength of the Task Force model was its simplicity and it was generally accepted for its numerous merits. However, the model was viewed by some as lacking because it captured explicitly only about 54% of the full costs of education for public school students enrolled in standard or regular education programs. Further, the fiscal (spending) practices of schools that reported high student achievement levels (quality) for the dollars spent (efficiency) were not included.The answer to the question, “How much should an adequate education cost?” will be determined by the values placed on each of the model’s designated parameters. The data used are based on 1997-98 test scores, 1997-98 teacher salaries and 1996-97 annual financial statements. THE REVISED ADEQUACY METHODOLOGY The Inclusion of Achievement in the Adequacy Model In order to incorporate a measure of efficiency as it relates to student achievement, Illinois Goal Assessment Program (IGAP) scores were obtained for all Illinois schools. A composite test score across all academic areas tested (reading, writing, mathematics, science and social studies) was then derived for each school. Simple linear regression was used to adjust the derived test score for the percentage of children from low-income families in the school. Revenue per pupil was used as the cost determinant. District-level revenues were apportioned to the school level using a methodology similar to one developed by Rosencrantz and Hess (“One Step Beyond!: Modeling School Level Revenues,” Chicago Panel on School Policy, March 1995). General education revenues were apportioned using total school enrollments. Revenues targeted to districts with concentrations of students from low-income families were apportioned using low-income enrollments. These apportioned revenues were then adjusted for regional cost differences. Schools with above-average, poverty-adjusted composite test scores and below-average, regionally-adjusted revenues per student were defined, for these purposes, as being “educationally efficient. Fiscal Practices of Educationally Efficient Schools/Districts Data on fiscal practices (defined here as spending patterns) of schools do not exist at the school level; therefore, fiscal practices of districts containing the educationally efficient schools were used as a proxy. Annual Financial Statements were used to determine how these selected districts spent money for salaries, benefits, supplies, etc. Personnel were divided into four categories: certified teachers (includes regular classroom teachers, art, music and physical education teachers, librarians, school nurses, guidance counselors, etc.), building-level administration, district-level administration and classified staff (includes secretaries, custodians, bus drivers, cafeteria workers, maintenance workers, security personnel, etc.). Salaries for certified teachers and building and district level administration used in the study were obtained from Teacher Service Records of the educationally efficient schools. Salaries for classified staff were obtained from Annual Financial Statements. The costs of personnel benefits were identified as percentages relative to salary expenditures for each of the four categories of personnel described above. Next, calculations were completed to determine the per-student costs in educationally efficient schools for supplies, purchased services, capital expenditures and other costs. Annual salary levels for the four categories of personnel were identified and put on a per-student basis. The personnel benefits percentages were applied against the per-student salary cost to obtain per-student benefit costs for each category of personnel. The per-student costs of salary and benefits in the four categories of personnel and the per-student costs of supplies, purchased services, capital and other costs were summed to obtain the per-student adequacy level.THE “WHAT IS” MODEL The “What Is” model is based totally on expenditures of districts containing educationally efficient schools. The per-student expenditures are based on full time equivalent enrollment. The following totals are across the four categories of personnel described above.
THE “WHAT IS / WHAT SHOULD BE” MODEL To combine elements of what currently exists with what should be, determinations were made regarding programmatic needs at different levels of instruction. Specifically, determinations of program, courses, class size, and number of classes per teacher were made. Determination of Regular Program Parameters Program for Elementary Grades K - 3 The initial decisions which need to be made to determine funding adequacy are appropriate class size and the number and type of personnel needed. Previous research conducted by the Illinois State Board of Education indicated that the target class size for a standard elementary classroom is 23 students; however, current research indicates that benefits can be derived by placing emphasis and resources on early childhood programs. Therefore, for grades K - 3, the class size recommended will be 20 students. A classroom with 20 students and 1 regular education teacher would require .05 (1 divided by 20) teachers per student. In this example of the methodology, assumptions regarding total teacher needs for one student in a standard education elementary classroom are:
.0595 = TOTAL TEACHER NEEDS FOR ONE STUDENT In addition, the support and administrative personnel needs are:
Program for Elementary Grades 4 - 6 The initial decisions which need to be made to determine funding adequacy are appropriate class size and the number and type of personnel needed. For grades 4 - 6, the recommended class size is 23 students.
.0530 = TOTAL TEACHER NEEDS FOR ONE STUDENT In addition, the support and administrative personnel needs are:
Program for Junior High/Middle School Grades At the middle level, the two main decisions which need to made are class size for each subject area and which subject areas are to be studied. It is assumed that the curriculum studied will be the same each year, that each day contains seven periods and that teachers teach five periods per day. A typical one-period class of 24 students and .2 (1 teacher divided by 5 periods) teachers would require .0083 (.2 divided by 24) teachers per student. Assumptions regarding teacher needs for one student in the middle grades are:
.0513 = TOTAL TEACHER NEEDS FOR ONE STUDENT The support and administrative needs are:
Program for High School Grades In senior high, as in junior high, the two main decisions which need to made are class size for each subject area and which subject areas are to be studied. It is assumed that the curriculum studied in senior high will change each year, that each day contains seven periods and that teachers teach five periods per day. A typical one-period class of 23 students and .2 (1 teacher divided by 5 periods) teachers would require .0087 (.2 divided by 23) teachers per student for one year. That same class for four years would require .0087 x 4 = .0348 teachers per student. Assumptions regarding teacher needs for one student in senior high school for four years (28 periods) are:
.2194 = TOTAL TEACHER NEEDS FOR ONE STUDENT FOR FOUR YEARS .0549 = TOTAL TEACHER NEEDS FOR ONE STUDENT FOR ONE YEAR The support and administrative needs are:
The class sizes suggested above, while based on a consensus of education professionals, should be viewed as parameters. Current research findings of class sizes agreed to by educators and policy makers can and should be substituted. This would yield the class sizes that SHOULD lead to an adequate education for all students. These parameters, the actual salaries of teachers in educationally efficient schools and district expenditure data on benefits, supplies, etc. can be combined to determine funding for the “What Is/What Should Be” model. Funding the “What Is / What Should Be” Model The costs of regular education teachers, other certified staff, and district and building administrators in this example are based on the average salaries in educationally efficient schools in the 1993-94 school year. The costs of classified staff are based on the average salaries in districts containing efficient schools. Other costs are based on averages of districts containing educationally efficient schools. Funding for K - 3 Elementary Programs 1. The average regular education teacher salary was $43,357. 2. The average salary for other certified staff was $43,357. 3. The average salary for a building principal was $74,737. 4. The average salary for a district superintendent was $82,297. 5. The average salary for a classified support employee was $23,202. Given these average salaries and the assumptions regarding personnel needs for standard education programs at the elementary level, the cost of standard education for one student is outlined below.
The total cost per student for regular K - 3 elementary education is $5,793. Funding for 4 - 6 Elementary Programs The salaries for grades 4 - 6 elementary education are the same as those used for K - 3 education. Given these salaries and the assumptions regarding personnel needs for education programs at the 4 - 6 elementary level, the cost of standard education for one student is outlined below.
The total cost per student for regular 4 - 6 elementary education is $4,739. Funding for Junior High/Middle School Programs 1. The average regular education teacher salary was $42,857. 2. The average salary for other certified staff was $42,857. 3. The average salary for a building principal was $67,114. 4. The average salary for a district superintendent was $83,082. 5. The average salary for a classified support employee was $22,493. Given these average salaries and the assumptions regarding personnel needs for standard education programs at the junior high/middle school level, the cost of standard education for one student is outlined below.
The total cost per student for regular junior high/middle school education is $4,748. Funding for High School Programs 1. The average regular education teacher salary was $44,457. 2. The average salary for other certified staff was $44,457. 3. The average salary for a building principal was $66,408. 4. The average salary for a district superintendent was $81,669. 5. The average salary for a classified support employee was $23,103. Given these average salaries and the assumptions regarding personnel needs for standard education programs at the high school level, the cost of standard education for one student is outlined below.
The total cost per student for regular high school education is $5,155. It should be noted that because the data in this model are actual salaries, benefits, etc., teacher salaries differ by level of instruction. The same is true for superintendent salaries, principal salaries and classified salaries. While it is likely that justification exists for differential salaries for building level administrators across programs, the same can not be said for teachers, superintendents and classified staff. These adjustments are made in the next model. Salaries and benefits are roughly averages from the “What Is / What Should Be” model. THE “WHAT SHOULD BE” MODEL Salaries, benefits and other costs of providing educational programs can also be viewed as parameters. The “What Should Be” Model combines the programmatic need parameters established above with funding parameters, represented here by average salaries and benefits. These parameters could also be established by consensus. If educators and policy makers could agree on salaries and benefits to be paid to school personnel delivering high quality educational services and producing high levels of student achievement in an efficient manner, the question of “How much SHOULD an adequate education cost?” could be answered. Funding the “What Should Be” Model The following assumptions (these are proxies for consensus decisions among educators and policy makers) are combined with the programmatic parameters to define the “What Should Be” model.
The following totals are derived by applying these funding parameters to the input parameters described in the “What Is / What Should Be” model.
September 1999 The “What Is” Model The total cost per student for elementary education is $4,355. The total cost per student for regular junior high/middle school education is $4,351. The total cost per student for regular high school education is $4,485.
The “What Is / What Should Be” Model The total cost per student for regular K - 3 elementary education is $5,793. The total cost per student for regular 4 - 6 elementary education is $4,739. The total cost per student for regular junior high/middle school education is $4,748. The total cost per student for regular high school education is $5,155.
The “What Should Be” Model The total cost per student for regular K - 3 elementary education is $5,740. The total cost per student for regular 4 - 6 elementary education is $4,784. The total cost per student for regular junior high/middle school education is $4,893. The total cost per student for regular high school education is $5,150.
ADJUSTMENTS TO COST It is generally agreed by school finance researchers that the cost of education varies across this state because of various factors including cost differences for housing, labor and transportation. Stated another way, the goods and services that can be purchased for $1.00 in one part of Illinois may cost $ .95 or $1.25 in another part of the state. For these reasons, the costs derived by completing the first seven steps of the recommended funding adequacy methodology should be adjusted for geographic cost differences. In order to adjust, it is assumed that the costs in the example program will provide not only an adequate educational program but are “average” in some respect. This simply means that in some areas of the state these costs will have to be increased and in some areas decreased. One method of determining the appropriate amount of increase or decrease for each geographic area is to assign each Illinois county an index. The one chosen for this example was developed by Dr. Walter McMahon at the University of Illinois. Using his most recent data, the highest index (121.17 in Lake County) is approximately 28% greater than the lowest index (94.57 in Alexander County). Adjusted adequate funding levels for a standard education elementary program, based on the “What Is/What Should Be” level of $4,739 per student are given below.
Appendix The Governor’s Commission on Education Funding (Report of the Governor’s Commission on Education Funding for the State of Illinois, March 1996) completed a study to determine an adequate foundation level. The study was based on a sample of high achieving, low to moderate spending school districts. That study recommended a formula foundation level of $4,225, which was eventually incorporated in the formula reform of 1997. Augenblick and Myers (“Determining Base Cost for School Funding Systems,” Education Commission of the States - ISSUEGRAM, February 1994) provide an excellent summary of strategies for determining adequacy. The Illinois Task Force on School Finance, (Report of the Illinois Task Force on School Finance, January 1993), recommended a methodology for costing out an “adequate” education. While the Task Force did not formally define adequacy, it was implied that an adequate education was in some sense reasonable and would offer students the opportunity to achieve at a high level and to gain access to higher education and/or career opportunities. Students receiving an adequate education would be able to compete favorably with those from school systems offering exemplary educational programs. Andersen, et al (Performance Rankings of Illinois School Districts, Taxpayers Federation of Illinois, September 1993) categorized schools based on performance and expenditure. Genge and Hickrod (The Biggest Bang for the Buck: A Further Investigation of Economic Efficiency in the Public Schools of Illinois, Illinois State University - Center for the Study of Educational Finance, September 1990), introduced the terminology “economically efficient school district” and categorized districts based on performance and expenditure. Jim Ward (The Concept of Adequacy in Illinois School Finance, Illinois State University - Center for the Study of Educational Finance, October 1987) discussed the concept of adequacy in Illinois. |