A CEEP Research Update on Hot
Topics in K-12 Education Policy
ISBA/IAPSS 58th Annual Fall Conference
October 1, 2007
Terry Spradlin
About the Center for
Evaluation & Education Policy
• The Center for Evaluation & Education Policy (CEEP) is a
client-focused, self-funded research center associated with the
School of Education at Indiana University.
• CEEP provides a wide range of evaluation and nonpartisan
policy research services to policymakers, governmental entities,
and non-profit organizations.
• CEEP is continually looking for new opportunities to help
inform, influence, and shape the development of P-16 education
policy not only in Indiana, but across the nation.
2
Table of Contents
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
The Achievement Gap
Pre-Kindergarten Programs
Full-Day Kindergarten
School Consolidation and Shared
Services
Predictions for the 2008 General
Assembly
All resources available upon request.
3
I. The Achievement Gap in Indiana
CEEP Report:
“Is the Achievement Gap in Indiana
Narrowing?”
9/19/2005
http://ceep.indiana.edu/projects/PDF/Achievement_Gap_091405.pdf
4
Achievement Gap Study Overview
• Not only timely, but most complete picture of
Indiana’s achievement gap since a state review in
2003.
• Report examined multiple performance measures
over time by race/ethnicity, income, English
proficiency, and special needs categories.
• Primary sources of data: IDOE, College Board,
NCES.
5
The Good News
•
When examining aggregate results over time, Indiana schools can boast
progress in a variety of important areas, including: Core 40 and Academic
Honors Diploma Completion, SAT and ACT scores, participation in and
achievement on AP tests, and ISTEP+ scores.
•
Hoosiers’ participation in higher education is also steadily increasing.
•
Particularly encouraging is the upward performance of Indiana’s Grade 4 and
8 students in the areas of mathematics and science on the NAEP and TIMSS
assessments. Grade 4 students, for example, scored the second highest of all
participants internationally on the TIMSS science assessment in 2003. Grade 4
students ranked 7th nationally in mathematics on the 2007 NAEP.
•
Overall, Indiana’s K-12 education system effectively serves a majority of our
students.
6
The Not-So-Good News
• Unfortunately, a significant number of poor, minority, LEP, and special
education students in Indiana’s K-12 public education system are not
succeeding academically and are falling through the cracks.
• Indiana has significant achievement gaps that exist whether examining
results by race/ethnicity, income, English proficiency, or disability.
• The achievement gaps have narrowed only marginally since the state
embarked on a series of comprehensive school reform initiatives
beginning in the late 1980s, including revisions to the school funding
formula that account for certain at-risk factors.
7
Grade 4 NAEP Reading
Percent Achieving at or Above Basic
100%
90%
80%
74%
73%
71%
70%
73%
71%
60%
70%
58%
54%
52%
51%
50%
46%
41%
40%
51%
46%
43%
41%
38%
34%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1992
White
Hispanic
1996
2000
2003
2005
2007
African American
8
Grade 4 NAEP Reading Gap in
Percent Achieving at or Above Basic
50
45
40
37
35
33
32
30
25
30
29
28
25
23
20
22
19
18
15
13
10
5
0
1992
1996
2000
2003
2005
2007
White/African American
White/Hispanic
9
Grade 3 ISTEP+ Percent Passing
Eng/LA & Math by Ethnicity
100%
80%
69%
62%
60%
44%
44%
40%
43%
20%
3 1%
0%
98-99
White
99-00
00-01
African American
01-02
02-03
03-04
04-05
05-06
06-07
Hispanic
10
Grade 10 ISTEP+ Percent Passing
Eng/LA & Math by Ethnicity
100%
80%
63%
60%
60%
40%
36%
33%
20%
25%
20%
0%
98-99
White
99-00
00-01
African American
01-02
02-03
03-04
04-05
05-06
06-07
Hispanic
11
Grade 3 ISTEP+ Percent Passing
Eng/LA & Math by SES
100%
80%
74%
60%
65%
50%
40%
4 1%
20%
0%
01-02
02-03
03-04
04-05
05-06
06-07
Paid Lunch
Free/Reduced Lunch
12
Grade 10 ISTEP+ Percent Passing
Eng/LA & Math by SES
100%
80%
60%
66%
64%
40%
36%
33%
20%
0%
01-02
02-03
03-04
04-05
05-06
06-07
Paid Lunch
Free/Reduced Lunch
13
Grade 3 ISTEP+ Percent Passing
Eng/LA & Math by LEP
100%
80%
65%
60%
56%
40%
36%
20%
28%
0%
00-01
01-02
02-03
03-04
04-05
05-06
06-07
LEP
Non-LEP
14
Grade 10 ISTEP+ Percent Passing
Eng/LA & Math by LEP
100%
80%
60%
58%
60%
40%
20%
17%
12%
0%
00-01
01-02
02-03
03-04
04-05
05-06
06-07
LEP
Non-LEP
15
Grade 3 ISTEP+ Percent Passing
Eng/LA & Math by Special Education
100%
80%
69%
63%
60%
39%
40%
28%
20%
0%
99-00
00-01
01-02
02-03
03-04
04-05
05-06
06-07
General Education
Special Education
16
Grade 10 ISTEP+ Percent Passing
Eng/LA & Math by Special Education
100%
80%
60%
59%
63%
40%
20%
14%
10%
0%
98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07
General Education
Special Education
17
High School Graduation Rates
Class of 2006
18
Graduation Rate by Ethnicity
19
Graduation Rate by Socioeconomic
Status
20
Conclusions
1)
The achievement gap is a not only a school and classroom
issue, but a societal issue that must be addressed by a
broad array of stakeholders that extends beyond
educators, including the governor, policymakers, business
and industry, labor, clergy, and parents.
2)
Parents and the larger community must increase the value
they place on elementary and secondary education and
become more engaged in supporting student learning. A
strong social support system that values and promotes
academic achievement is essential to reducing the
achievement gaps.
21
Conclusions (cont’d)
3)
State and local leaders must acknowledge and address
the impact that issues such as the high rates of mobility,
increasing levels of poverty, poor nutrition, and restricted
access to quality healthcare have on student achievement.
Effective economic development, fiscal management,
and public health policies will contribute to a reduction
of the K-12 academic achievement gaps.
22
CEEP Recommendations
1) Emphasize the role of state leadership.
2) Fulfill the recommendations of the P-16
Plan.
3) Promote early childhood education.
4) Support full-day kindergarten for all atrisk children.
5) Expand effective reading programs to all
elementary classes.
23
CEEP Recommendations (cont’d)
6) Examine middle school issues, particularly
suspension and expulsion trends, and conduct an
assessment of student engagement.
7) Continue the push to redesign high schools.
8) Revisit school improvement plan process.
9) Emphasize teacher quality.
10) Raise academic expectations.
24
IDOE Policy Strategies
• Supplemental Education Services- free
tutoring services for free or reduced-price
lunch students to pass the ISTEP+.
• Public Charter Schools Program- federal
grant for start-up of high quality charter
schools that serve diverse populations.
25
IDOE Policy Strategies (cont.)
• Corporations with overrepresentation develop
local improvement plans.
• TEAM Leadership Academy to address unique
needs of urban high-poverty, low-performing
schools.
• Title I School Improvement Grants to help schools
increase academic achievement in students.
26
IDOE Local Policy Option
Recommendations
• Break down achievement data.
• Use research-based instruction to meet needs of
low achieving groups.
• Create Freshman Academies to address needs at
pivotal time for potential dropouts.
• Provide instructional time and support for students
needing additional time to achieve.
27
IDOE Local Policy Option
Recommendations (cont.)
• Use technology to support students who
need extra assistance.
• Reduce class size to help meet individual
student needs.
• Create Professional Learning Communities
to continuously examine and address issues.
28
II. Pre-Kindergarten Programs
CEEP/IIDC Report:
“Closing the Achievement Gap Series: Part I
Is Indiana Ready for State-Sponsored Prekindergarten
Programs?”
August 7, 2006
http://ceep.indiana.edu/projects/PDF/PB_V4N7_Summer_2006_Prekindergarten.pdf
29
Benefits of Pre-K Participation
Lower special education referral rates
Up to a 41 percent reduction in special education placements.
Reduced grade retention rates
Up to a 40 percent reduction in grade retentions
Improved academic performance
Higher performance on intelligence and achievement tests through age
27.
Increased educational attainment
Higher high school completion rates and higher rates of college
attendance.
Reduced crime rate
Lower arrest rates through age 40 and reduced arrests for violent
offenses.
Reduced social services usage
Lower rates of social services usage at ages 27 and 40.
Reduced child abuse and neglect
51 percent reduction in maltreatment of own children.
Increased earnings
Higher median monthly and annual earnings at ages 27 and 40.
Increased employment rate and job skill
level
Higher employment rate at ages 21, 27, and 40.
Higher rate of employment in skilled jobs at age 21.
Educational
Social
Economic
30
Benefits of Pre-K Participation (cont.)
• Research indicates that a child’s first years of life are a period of
“opportunity and vulnerability for healthy physical, emotional, social,
and cognitive development” (Karoly, Kilburn, & Cannon).
• Cost-benefit analyses indicated that prekindergarten programs
produce economic returns between $4 to $16 for every $1 invested in
the programs.
• “Politicians have a choice to make. They can do things like build
sports stadiums that offer virtually no economic return, or they can
invest in early education programs with a 16% rate of return” Art
Rolnick, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
31
National Snapshot of Pre-K
Programs
• In 2004-05, 38 states (excluding Indiana) offered state-funded pre-k
programs.
• Approx. $4.2 billion was spent on pre-k program in the last fiscal year
and 30 governors have called for increased pre-k spending this year.
• These states served 11% of all 3 and 4-year-olds in participating states.
• States offer these programs as strategy to close achievement gaps.
• Some states offer expanded services to at-risk students to ensure
accountability goals are met.
32
Indiana Snapshot of Pre-K Programs
• In 2005, 100,196 children, or 38% or children ages 3 and older,
participated in center-based early education (nursery school, preschool,
child care centers, registered ministries, prekindergarten; excludes
child care homes) in Indiana.
• Approximately, 21,000 were enrolled in a school-based
prekindergarten program.
• Of these children, 47% were served in a public school setting and 53%
were served in a private school setting. Thus, about approximately
10,000 three- and four-year-old children are served in prekindergarten
by a public school.
* Data from the Census Bureau: Indiana Enrollment in Early Education 2005
33
Indiana Snapshot of
Pre-K Programs (cont.)
• The state has taken several steps to improve the education
and preparedness of its students, including support for
early childhood education initiatives.
• However, state support for publicly-funded pre-k programs
is lacking.
• Despite this, 190 of Indiana’s 293 school corporations and
three charter schools provided some type of pre-k program
during the 2005-06 school year, including preschool
special education services.
34
Considerations of Pre-K Programs:
NIEER’s Evidence-Based Program Standards
• Programs that do not implement evidence-based standards do not achieve
desired outcomes.
• The evidence-based standards include:








Comprehensive early learning standards.
Teachers with bachelor’s degrees.
Teachers with specialized training in prekindergarten.
Assistant teachers with Child Development Associate or equivalent degree.
Inservice training for minimum 15 hours per year.
Maximum class size of 20 students.
Staff-child ratio of 1 to 10 or fewer.
Required screening for vision, hearing, health and minimum of 1 family
support activity.
 At least 1 meal per day.
 Required monitoring through site visits.
NOTE: NIEER is the National Institute for Early Education Research.
35
Considerations of Pre-K Programs
•
•
Along with the standards, states should monitor
how local programs are implementing these
standards.
Monitoring ensures that:
1. Funds are used responsibly.
2. Data are available to promote program improvement
and ensure best possible educational experience.
3. The goals and outcomes of the program are being
met.
36
Considerations of Pre-K Programs
• States with pre-k programs typically use a mixture of state, federal,
local, and private funding sources as well as parent fees.
• States provide the core of program funding, most commonly from
general revenue, dedicated funds, or school funding formulas.
• Section 62 of State Budget bill (HEA 1001-2007) calls for the creation
of a prekindergarten pilot program to be administered by IDOE, but
provided no funding for this purpose.
37
Considerations of Pre-K Programs
• The cost of pre-k education in Indiana would
depend on which children would be eligible and
the scope of services to be offered.
• Half-day pre-k programs for approximately
19,220 4-year-olds who are at risk, would cost
$68,250,220 at a rate of $3,551 per child.
• The same program expanded to all 4-year-olds
would cost $156,567,141 at the same rate.
38
Recommendations
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Build on existing foundations for studying and planning
publicly-funded pre-k programs.
Identify and agree upon the purpose, goals, and desired
outcomes of a publicly-funded pre-k program.
Examine service delivery options that build on existing
pre-k programs and phase in services statewide.
Link the level of funding for a statewide pre-k program
with the desired program goals and outcomes.
Identify a funding source that is stable and continuous.
Determine and commit to a state and local governance
system for pre-k programs.
39
III. Full-Day Kindergarten
CEEP Report:
“Short-Lived Gains or Enduring Benefits? The
Long-Term Impact of FDK”
April 2005
http://www.ceep.indiana.edu/projects/PDF/PB_Spring_2005_Full_Day_K
indergarten.pdf
40
Additional CEEP Research on FDK
CEEP Report conducted for IAPSS:
“The Effects of Full Day Versus Half Day
Kindergarten: Review and Analysis of National and Indiana
Data”
January 9, 2004
http://www.ceep.indiana.edu/projects/PDF/FDK_report_final.pdf
41
Full-Day Kindergarten Grant
• State Budget (HEA 1001-2007) increases the state
full-day kindergarten grant program to $33.5
million in the 2007-08 school year and $58.5
million in the 2008-09 school year – up from $8.5
million annually.
• Deadline to apply for grants was June 15, 2007.
42
Full-Day Kindergarten Grant:
Eligibility
• Eligibility for 2006-07 school year:
Any school corporation or charter school;
No demographic makeup considered;
School must include five hours of instructional
time for 180 days during the school year;
School must meet academic standards of
Indiana Code Title 20 and State Board of
Education rules adopted pursuant to IC 20.
43
Full-Day Kindergarten Grant:
Allocations
• Grant amount is equal to the total state appropriation divided by
the total number of FDK students funded by the grants during
2007-08 school year.
• Maximum = $2,500/Student
• Minimum = $440/Student
Assuming all public school corporations and charter
schools choose to participate
• As of June 26, 2007, 243 school corporations and 20 charter
schools received the grant.
• Each school will receive an estimated $665 per student, with an
estimated 50,000 students in FDK as a result of the grant.
44
Full-Day Kindergarten Grant:
Supplemental Funding
• If state FDK grant funding is insufficient, general funds
and/or voluntary parent fees (authorized by SECTION 9 of
state budget bill) may be used to fully fund program.
• Title I funds may also be used in combination with state
funds; however, special rules apply.
• School corporations must follow either Title I-Like Model
or Fair Share Model if Title I funds are used in conjunction
with state funds for FDK.
45
Full-Day Kindergarten Grant:
Supplement, Not Supplant
• Section 1120A of ESEA demands that federal Title I funds
only be used to supplement the amount of non-federal
funds available for the education of students participating
in Title-I programs.
• Section 1120A also states that an SEA or LEA may not use
the federal funds to take place of (supplant) funds that
would have been spent on Title I students in the absence of
Title I funds.
46
Full-Day Kindergarten Grant:
Title I-Like Model
• Requires that all students participating through Title I funds be
categorized as “educationally at-risk.”
• Corporation could use Title I funds to provide full-day
kindergarten for Title I students and use state grant funding to
provide full-day kindergarten in non-Title I schools to students
who are deemed educationally at-risk, or Title I-Like.
• Those students who are not deemed educationally at-risk are not
eligible for either Title I or Title I-Like funding and must be
funded by parent fees as federal or state funding would violate
the supplant provision in ESEA 1120A.
47
Full-Day Kindergarten Grant:
Fair Share Model
•
•
Assumption: state grant FDK funds are insufficient to
provide FDK for all students within a corporation or
charter school.
How does this model work?
1)
2)
3)
4)
One-half of the day would be supported by state and local
general fund dollars.
Part of the second half of the day would be supported by the
state FDK Grant.
Title I students would have Title I funds used to support the
remaining part of the day determined by the following formula.
Non-eligible students would need to be funded by additional
parent fees.
48
Full-Day Kindergarten Grant:
Fair Share Model
• Funding Model (to determine how much
Title I money can be used):
1. Compute the total costs for the second half of the
day.
2. Subtract FDK grant money (per pupil amount
times number of pupils)
3. Divide remainder by number of pupils.
4. Multiply Step 3 by the number of Title I-eligible
pupils.
5. This is the amount of Title I money available.
49
CEEP Research on FDK: Longitudinal Study
Objectives
• CEEP is in the third year of a multi-year longitudinal study, funded by the
U.S. DOE, comparing both the short- and long-term impacts of FDK on
students’ academic outcomes as compared to the traditional half-day.
• The study reports student scores on achievement tests from three different
elementary schools within two school corporations in Indiana, RichlandBean Blossom Community School Corporation and Monroe County
Community School Corporation.
• In the 2005-06 school year, the first year of the study, 16 classrooms (4
FDK and 12 HDK) were included. Students were randomly assigned to
either the full-day or half-day programs.
50
CEEP Longitudinal Study
Number of Students
Cohort
Half-Day
Kindergarten
Full-Day
Kindergarten
1st Grade
2nd Grade
0
151
23
190
178
1
189
67
209
n/a
2
165
77
n/a
n/a
Totals
505
167
399
178
51
CEEP Longitudinal Study
Number of Classes
Cohort
Half-Day
Kindergarten
Full-Day
Kindergarten
1st Grade
2nd Grade
0
8
1
8
5
1
12
4
11
n/a
2
8
4
n/a
n/a
Totals
28
9
19
5
52
Educational Importance of the Study
• This study provides two important contributions to the research and
knowledge of kindergarten:
1. Since previous research on the impact of FDK is either out of
date or difficult to generalize due to methodological issues,
the present study fills an important gap in the policy research
literature.
 This is one of the first studies on FDK to utilize random
assignment to treatment (FDK) and control (HDK)
groups.
2. The present research creates a solid foundation for a
longitudinal, long-term study of the effect of full- versus halfday kindergarten.
53
Methods and Techniques of the
Study
• DIBELS and the AIMSweb® online formative assessment
system were used as Curriculum Based Measures (CBM)
to benchmark all kindergarten students at the beginning of
the school year in order to measure the baseline differences
between HDK and FDK students.
• Stanford 10 Achievement Test was administered at the end
of each year to assess student achievement levels and to
assess whether there were any achievement differences
between HDK and FDK students.
54
Preliminary Results of the Study for
Cohort I
• FDK and HDK students appear to perform roughly the same at the
beginning of kindergarten.
• At the end of kindergarten, FDK students scored significantly higher
than HDK students on all three Stanford 10 subtests: word reading,
sentence reading, and mathematics.
• Subsequent analysis will examine ongoing long-term effects of fullday kindergarten for the three cohorts of students as they progress
through Grade 3, and perhaps additional grades.
55
Non-Achievement Data on Full-Day
Kindergarten
• This same study also provides meaningful insight into how
full-day kindergarten and half-day kindergarten differ on
non-achievement related dimensions.
• Data were gathered from three different sources:
1. a parent/guardian survey
2. a focus group of participating teachers
3. classroom observations of HDK and FDK student
behaviors
56
Results and Conclusions: Parent
Survey
• Parents of FDK and HDK students did not differ in their
own education levels, but rather in their assessment of how
the kindergarten year would best be spent for their child.
 HDK parents were more likely to be influenced by the
amount of time they could spend with their child, as
well as ease of transition to Grade 1.
 FDK parents were more likely to be influenced by
academic concerns.
57
Results and Conclusions: Teacher
Focus Group
• Findings show almost universal preference by teachers for
FDK over HDK.
• The extra time allotted to FDK classes allowed teachers to
cover more academic and non-academic material.
• The only reservation of FDK was it potentially taking time
away from non-school related activities.
58
Results and Conclusions: Classroom
Observation
• Findings support the argument that FDK and HDK classes
provide similar environments.
• However, FDK classes provide this environment over a
longer time period, which the teachers believe better
allows them to meet the academic and social needs of the
students.
59
IV. School Consolidation and Shared
Services Information & Research
CEEP Report:
“Assessing the Policy Environment for School
Corporation Collaboration, Cooperation, and
Consolidation in Indiana”
7/11/2007
http://ceep.indiana.edu/projects/PDF/PB_V5N5.pdf
60
Local Government Unit Trends
1952
County
Township
City and Towns
School Districts
Special Districts
(including
libraries)
1962
1972
1982
1992
1997
2002
92
92
91
91
91
91
91
1,008
1,008
1008
1,008
1,008
1,008
1,008
541
547
546
564
566
569
567
1,115
884
315
305
294
294
294
293
560
832
897
939
1236
1125
61
District Size
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
85
94
49
18
46
Under 750
751-1,500
1,501-3,000
3,001-6,000
Over 6,000
# of Districts
62
School Corporation Count in Smallest
Counties
Ten Smallest Counties
County
Co. POP
School Corps.
1. Ohio
5,826
1
2. Union
7,291
3. Warren
County
Co. POP
School Corps.
6. Martin
10,340
2
1
7. Crawford
11,137
1
8,701
1
8. Pike
12,855
1
4. Benton
9,050
1
9. Blackford
13,603
1
5. Switzerland
9,721
1
10. Pulaski
13,861
2
63
Benefits and Obstacles to Central
Office Consolidation
Benefits
Obstacles
Enhanced curricular opportunities
Public perception/community relationships
Shared/combined services, pooling of
resources
Job loss
Savings of time
Multiple boards
Potential cost savings
No educational benefit
Better communication opportunity
Accuracy of financial analysis
64
Variables Contributing to High
Achievement
• Little evidence that corporation consolidation has a
positive or negative effect on student achievement.
• Most significant variables that contribute to high student
achievement include: smaller class sizes, effective
professional development, highly qualified teachers, and
a handful of socioeconomic factors -- primarily family
income.
• These relationships are complex and have a point of
diminishing returns (e.g., class size).
65
Financial Impact of
Consolidation
• Minimal cost savings
 Savings possible by moving from a very small district
(500 or less) to a district with 2,000 – 4,000 students.
 Consolidation can increase administrative costs leading
to larger classes, fewer teachers, and lower student ach.
• Small rural district consolidation generally offers little cost
savings because much non-instructional spending
represents uncontrollable costs related to geographic
isolation.
66
Financial Impact of
Consolidation (cont.)
1 20 0 0


Spearman’s rho = -.19, p < .001

1 00 0 0

ADM$
• New research from Dr.
Lowell Rose suggests
that there is a weak,
negative correlation
between the size
(ADM) of a school
corporation and the
expenditures per
student in that
corporation.


8 00 0
6 00 0




   
 


 


 



















 



 
   










 
  














   
















  

 




 





    
    



 

0


1 00 0 0










2 00 0 0
3 00 0 0
4 00 0 0
ADM
67
Unintended Consequences
• Several unintended consequences of consolidation should
be considered and include:
 Loss of community identity
 Impact on funding formula
 Changes to AYP and PL 221 category placements
68
Continuum of District Consolidation
Strategies
Shared
Services
What’s
consolidated?
Administrative
Consolidation
Everything:
Districts, schools,
services
Administration,
Services, not
schools
Services
Research
Verdict?
Total
Consolidation
Little evidence of
achievement or
savings effects
Limited evidence
of benefits for
small districts
Evidence of
considerable
savings
69
Recent Activity in Indiana
• Indiana Government Efficiency Commission: K-12 Education
Subcommittee in 2006 examined funding related to nonclassroom expenditures.
• Suggested privatizing transportation services and streamlining
the bid process for construction projects.
• Stated that total administrative costs needed reduction, but
noted that consolidation is not a cure-all.
• Touted the enhanced role of Educational Service Centers
(ESCs).
70
Recent Activity in Indiana (cont.)
• HEA 1006 (Public law 191) in 2006 made school expenditures more
transparent through a new financial management and reporting system
(referred to as FinMARS):
 To encourage school corps to save money in non-academic areas
 To generate more funds for student learning
• The plan would improve on the old system these areas: data collection,
demarcation of educational expenses, and the production of transparent
financial statements among other areas.
• The plan also called for the creation of the Indiana School Business
Official Leadership Academy to equip business and finance officials
with the skills to cope with the school finance environment.
71
Recent Activity in Indiana (cont.)
•
According to a 2006 report from the Indiana Department of Education,
mandated by HEA 1006-2006, consolidated purchasing agreements initiated
by Education Service Centers saved an estimated total $18 million statewide
last year, ranging from $300,000 to $8 million, region by region. Primary
savings were in the areas of consolidated purchasing for food services,
petroleum, and copy paper.
•
Shared service agreements saved an estimated $6.5 million, ranging from
$330,000 to $1 million, region by region. Primary shared service agreements
were in the areas of media services, professional development and community
food.
•
Education Service Centers report further exploration of joint purchasing and
shared services in the areas of property/casualty insurance, natural gas/fuel,
wireless Internet, textbooks, and school bus purchases.
72
Recent Activity in Indiana (cont.)
•
According to the same 2006 IDOE report, school corporations report entering
into consolidated purchasing and shared services arrangements with other
school corporations or charter schools.
•
Most common areas of consolidated purchasing arrangements were in the
areas of natural gas/fuel, health insurance trust, food service, school bus
purchases, information technology, and office supplies.
•
The most common shared services were in the areas of special education
services and career and technical education instruction. It is worth noting that
there are 70 special education planning districts, including approx. 50 co-ops,
and approx. 60 Career & Technical Schools/Programs statewide.
•
Areas of further exploration for joint purchasing and shared services reported
by school corporations included property/casualty insurance, workman’s
compensation, and shared staff/personnel.
73
Recent Activity in Indiana (cont.)
• The Indiana General Assembly delayed funding for the FinMARS Plan
until at least 2009; however, it provided $150,000/year for the Indiana
School Business Official Leadership Academy.
• HEA 1001-2007 appropriated $100,000 for feasibility studies of school
corporation consolidation or shared services.
• 4 applications were funded this year:
 In Randolph County, Randolph Eastern with Randolph Southern and
Randolph Central studying the feasibility of merging services.
 In White County, Twin Lakes with North White, Tri-County, and Frontier
for the feasibility of consolidating and of merging services.
 Also in Randolph County, Monroe Central with Union School Corp. for
the feasibility of consolidating.
 In Delaware County, Cowan Comm. School Corp. with Daleville Comm.
School Corp. for the feasibility of merging services.
74
Findings and Recommendations
1. Consolidation has no proven impact on student
achievement.
2. Some research to suggest optimal school and school
corporation sizes exist (i.e., smaller schools in bigger
districts)
3. At best, marginal research that indicates meaningful cost
savings are realized on a systemic basis.
4. Consolidation can be beneficial on a case by case basis
with proper strategic planning, and most likely with the
smallest school corporations.
5. Implications of consolidation on AYP and PL 221
categories should be addressed.
75
Findings and Recommendations
6.
7.
Consolidation should be encouraged but not mandated.
Encourage corporations to participate in the feasibility
study program funded by the Indiana General Assembly.
8. Encourage the IGA to fund implementation grants after
feasibility studies concluded.
9. Shared services hold considerable promise and should be
a point of emphasis.
10. School corporations should be given incentives to save
by allowing inter-fund transfers of document savings to
GF to provide more money for classroom instruction.
76
V. Predictions for the 2008 General
Assembly
77
Emerging K-12 Issues for 2008
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Property tax crisis
Privatization of the Hoosier Lottery
Teacher preparation program improvements
School board elections
Implementation of the Long-Term Assessment
Plan
F. Education Matters Interim Study Committee
78
A. Property Tax Crisis &
Implications for Schools
•
Some critics claim that school construction spending and
increased K-12 education spending overall has
contributed greatly to the current tax crisis.
•
Tightened petition-remonstrance process has led to
defeat of many school building projects.
•
Others argue that the property tax increases in 2007 are a
product of the assessment methods, and not necessarily
increases in local government operation expenses.
79
Homeowner Property Taxes, 2007
(Source: Larry DeBoer, Purdue University)
Total estimated average increase in
homeowner taxes, statewide (before end-ofyear rebate)
Inventory tax elimination in 51 remaining
counties
Cap on state tax relief
24%
Trending from 1999 to 2005 prices; possible
business trending error
Increases in local government tax collections
10%
4%
4%
6%
80
A. Property Tax Crisis (cont.)
• New Local Government Reform Commission examining local
government reform including K-12 education governance and
operations issues.
• Situation will likely intensify discussion about school corporation
consolidation.
• Commission on State Tax and Financing Policy have discussed the
possibility of the elimination of property taxes as a source of funding
for schools’ General Fund.
• This Commission has also discussed the petition/remonstrance process
and voter referendums. Proposals concerning voter referendum on
bonding projects may surface as a result.
81
B. Privatization of Hoosier Lottery
• Governor’s plan to privatize the Hoosier Lottery and use a
portion of the proceeds to create the Hoosier Hope
Scholarship Program will likely be reintroduced.
• Students would receive $5,000 annually for tuition and
fees as a forgivable loan that would not have to be repaid
if the student remains in Indiana to work for three years
after graduation.
• Scholarships based on merit (SAT/ACT and GPA scores).
• Some will advocate that proceeds should also be used to
fund K-12 initiatives (e.g., FDK, high school reform, etc.)
82
C. Teacher Preparation Program
Improvements
• Education Roundtable discussed postsecondary teacher
preparation programs on July 23, 2007.
• Issues discussed included attracting the “best and
brightest” to the teaching profession and improving teacher
preparation programs to better equip new teachers by
raising admissions and graduation standards of programs.
• Art Levine, President, The Woodrow Wilson National
Fellowship Foundation, presented the report, “Educating
School Teachers.” One study recommendation suggests
increasing the teacher education programs to five years.
83
D. School Board Elections
• Proposals to shift all school board elections
to general election will resurface.
• See SB 139 and HB 1109 from 2007
• May see more proposals for appointed
school boards during 2008 legislative
session.
84
E. Long-Term State Assessment Plan
• Additional funding of $10 million/year included in HB
1001.
• Funds intended for enhanced remediation efforts, but may
be consumed by implementation of the new long-term
assessment plan adopted by the SBOE.
• Announcement about new assessment contract(s) possibly
will be announced during Indiana State Board of Education
meeting on Wednesday, October 3, 2007.
85
F. Interim Study Committee on
Education Matters
The 2007 Interim Study Committee on Education Matters has
been charged with studying the following topics:
A. Juvenile education within the Department of Correction
(Unnumbered SR).
B. Future of higher education in Indiana (SCR 26).
C. Recruitment and retention of teachers and school psychologists
and the value of creating incentive funds for teachers to attain
national board certification (HR 86).
86
CEEP Contact Information:
Terry E. Spradlin, MPA
Associate Director for Education Policy
509 East Third Street
Bloomington, Indiana 47401-3654
812-855-4438
Fax: 812-856-5890
http://ceep.indiana.edu
87