STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF WAKE
IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIORCOURTDIVISION
)
)
)
)
al.,
BOARD
et
COUNTY
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
EDUCATION,
OF
HOKE
95 CVS 1158
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CAROLINA;
EDUCATION,
OF
NORTH
OF
BOARD
Defendants.
STATE
STATE
)
v.
)
)
Plaintiffs-Intervenors,
)
al.,
BOARD
et
CITY
EDUCATION,
OF
ASHEVILLE
)
and
MEMORANDUM OF LAW AS AMICI CURIAE
THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION,
ADVOCATES FOR t:HILDREN'S SERVICES OF
LEGAL AID OF NORTH CAROI..INA, CAROLINA LEGAL ASSISTANCE,
NORTH CAROLINA JUSTICE CENTER, THE RURAL SCHOOL &
COMMUNITY TRUST, THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOL
OF LAW CENTER FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
The American Civil Liberties VIrion Foundation, Advocates for Children's
Services of Legal Aid of North Carolina.,Carolina Legal Assistance, the North Carolina
Justice Center, The Rural School & Col1rlInunityTrust, and the University of North
Carolina School of Law Center for CiviJlRights (together "amici curiae") submit this
memorandumof law prior to the December7,2004 hearingdirectedby the Court.
~
budgetrequestto the Governorfor the years2005-06and2006-07.In thatrequest,the
SBE and DPI sought only $3 million in additional monies to fund the Disadvantaged
Students Supplemental Fund beyond the:$22 million which the Governor located this
summerto meetthe State'smostpressingLeandroneeds.Moreover,this additional$3
million will apparentlybe usedexclusivelyfor evaluativepurposes,not for deliveryof
any additional services to at-risk children. In sum, the State Board and DPI have not
requested that the Governor include sub'stantialnewfunding to implement the Leandro
decisions. They have made no request to the Governorfor any additional funding from
the General Assembly during the next ~10 calendar years to support the crucial DSSF
program devised in responseto Leandro, except to continue the funding stream begun by
the Governorduring the summerandfall of2004. This requestconstitutesno morethan
10% of the total proposed expansionbudget, and is barely 10% of the $233 million that
the SBEIDPIindicatedto the Court on June7, 2004would be necessaryto supportthe
DSSFfund statewide.(A copyof the November5,2004 letter from Hon. HowardN. Lee,
StateBoardChair, and Superintendent
PatriciaN. Willoughbyto GovernorMichael F.
Easley, together with the two-page "Expansion Budget Requests for 2005-2007," is
annexed as Appendix B).
The SBEIDPI expansion requestdoes contain a number of positive items-
including $3.86million in additionalfuJldingfor studentswith Limited English
Proficiency(thoughthis is apparentlyonly to meetexpectedincreasesin the numberof
eligible LEP students,not to increasep~:r-student
funding)(ExpansionPriority 7); $46.7
million in additional requests for childr(:n with disabilities (Expansion Priority 11); $5.3
million to expandthe High SchoolLearnandEarnprogram(ExpansionPriority 6);
3
$33.29 million to provide full-time men1:orsfor new teachers (Expansion Priority 5); and
$1.85 million to provide parent coordinaltorsfor the 25 school districts with the highest
numbersof disadvantaged
students(ExpansionPriority 14). Yet the StateBoard and
State Department do not appearto be suggesting any program to carry out, in every
school district, the management,and fis(~alassessmentthat it began, under this Court's
directionandusingits new LEAAP teanls,in Hoke Countyandthe other 15 districts
receiving DSSF funds. (We strongly su~~gest
that LEAAPteams be sentto every district
in which substantialnumbersof childrenarenot receivinga soundbasic educationso as
to conferwith parents,teachers,admini~:trators,
and countyofficials, diagnosethe
district'sproblems,andproposesufficientfiscal,management,or pedagogicalremedies).
The SBEIDPIrequestalsocontaimsa $15 million item for a five-yearstudy-a
"control group of schools to participate in a ResearchPartnership with the Wisconsin
Centerfor EducationResearch"(seeExpansionPriority 15). Our infonnationsuggests
thatthis item contemplatesa five-yearc,ontrolledexperimentinvolving some50 North
Carolinaschoolsthatwould be designedl
to testwhat specificinterventionsmight work
best to assistNorth Carolina's at-risk chi:ldren, principally in gradesK-6. (See
http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:I-,IGYUqqLdLQJ:www.ncpublicschools.orgisb
Memorandumfrom ProfessorAllan Oddento Phil Price,entitled"Ideasfor Structuring
Randomized Experiments on the Effectiveness of Interventions in At Risk Schools in
Nofth Carolina," at 9-14, appendedas A.ppendix C).
We applaud the SBEIDPl's desire to study the best methods for reaching all at-
risk children,andwe know thatDr. Odclen'swork is highly regarded.We havesome
questionsandconcernsaboutthis proposedstudy,althoughwe agreethat anexcellent,
4
the bestapproaches
to reachat-risk chi11renin North Carolina.Yet this studyshould
proceedalongwith, and not be preliminaryto, the provisionof effectiveservicesnow to
a single day, a comprehensive effort to reverse the well-docum~nted crisis of low
academicperfonnances, high drop out rates, poor high school graduation rates, and other
widespread and ongoing failures among at-risk children in North Carolina schools.
These widespread failures have been persuasively documented by the parties and
this Court's own research.Indeed, in 2002 this Court found "that there were at-risk
studentsfailing to achievea soundbasic educationstatewide,aswell as in Hoke County,
and thatthe low perfonnanceof at-risk~;tudents
was similar regardlessof the wealthand
resourcesof the schoolsystemattended."Memorandumof Decisionat 6, Hoke County
Bd. ofEduc. v. North Carolina (Wake (:0. Super. Ct., Apr. 12,2002) (emphasis added).
Moreover, the State itself already knows many possible remedies. The Court noted in
2000 that
"DPI acknowledges that there are effective methods for improving student
performance. According to DPI, preschool programs, use of trained tutors,
improving teacherquality, loweling class size and supporting teachers'
professional development are efj:ective methods for improving student
performance. A large and well-accepted body of researchestablishesthat
programs that substantially impfove the academic performance of children from
poverty and at risk backgrounds (of course theseprograms would improve any
child's performance) include early childhood intervention, more instruction,
tutoring and lower class size, and recruitment and retention of good teachers.
Memorandum of Decision at 17, Hoke County Bd. ofEduc. v. North Carolina, (Wake Co.
Super.Ct., Oct. 26, 2000).
5
It would be a grave, constitutional error if statewide action were deferred-either
for the results of the two-year pilot program in the sixteen districts currently funded by
theDSSFprogram, or for Dr. Odden'sstudy,or for fear that affordingLeandro's
promise to every North Carolina child might somehow cost more than the General
Assemblyfeels inclined to spendduring the upcominglegislativesession.
We now know to a legal certainty that providing a sound basic education is no
longer a matter of discretion but of non-delegable, constitutional duty. We also know, to
a moral certainty,thattensof thousandsof North Carolinachildrenare currentlysinking
beneaththe educationalwaves,and thatthe Stateis both ableand constitutionally
obligatedto savethem.No slow-motionresearchand evaluationplan, however
conscientiously pursued, can substitute for the State'spresent duty to rescue those
children.Their plight was long agoidentified by this Court,and it was subsequently
given constitutional significance by the North Carolina Supreme Court in Hoke County
Board of Education v. State, 358 N.C. 605, 399 S.E.2d 365 (2004). Although this Court
madedetailedfactualfindings only in the Hoke CountySchoolDistrict, it alreadyheld as
a matterof law thatthe Stateis ultimatelyresponsiblefor the massivefailuresnow
occurringeverywherein the State-including high schoolssuchas W estCharlotte~
B.B.
Waddell,Garinger,and WestMecklenburgin Charlottewhoseabysmalend-or-course
test scoresthis Court cited in its November 10th memorandum. Although it is presently
unclearwhetherthosefailures stemfrom an insufficient infusionof Statefunds, from illadvisedstudentassignment
policies thathaveconcentratedCharlotte'slow-incomeand
minority studentsin its centralcity schools,or from otheradministrativeand
6
management
failures,the Stateis presentlyobligatedto muststepforward now to
diagnoseand remedythe situation.
We sincerelyhopethatwe havemisreadcurrenttea leaves,and thatthe State
intendsto comeforward on December7th, not only with a comprehensive
planning
process but also with an aggressive,statewide interim plan to implement Leandro during
the next two years.We aresubmittingthis memorandum,however,to shareour concern
that the State's expansion budget requestpresagesa pace of refonn that would fall
woefully below any minimum expectations set by this Court's prior orders, by the
Supreme Court's 1997 and 2004 decisions, or by the evident needs of North Carolina's at-
risk children.
In the secondportion of this memorandum,we will shareour views on the four
minimum componentsof anymeaningfulstatewideplan.
II. The Five Elements of a Sound,Comprehensive,Statewide Plan
The taskpresentlybeforethis Courtis to fashiona comprehensiveremedythat
will ensurethatthe Statefulfills its constitutionalduty. The first and most importantstep
should be for the State to develop a meaningful statewide plan to provide a constitutional
educationsystem.To reachthis end,the Courthas appropriatelydirectedthe Stateits
proposed remedial plan, first on October 25,2004, and now, on December 7th. In our
view, the State's plan should reasonablyinclude five essential elements that should be
employedby the Court in assessing
the sufficiencyof the State'splan.
First, the Statemust clearlyarticulatethestandardsandgoals whose
achievement would constitute a sound basic education. The Court should not be satisfied
7
by broad,vaguestandards;instead,it shouldrequirethe Stateto specifyconcrete
educational goals and outcomes demonstrating that all children residing in North
Carolinaare, in fact, being affordedthe opportunityto receivea soundbasiceducation.
The North Carolina Supreme Court and this Court have already taken meaningful steps
toward fulfillment of this first element. In its 1997 Leandro decision, a unanimous Court
held that a "sound basic education" should provide eachchild with at least: (1) sufficient
ability to read,write, and speakthe Englishlanguageanda sufficientknowledgeof
fundamental mathematics and physical science to enable the studentto function in a
complex and rapidly changing society; (2) sufficient fundamental knowledge of
geography,history, andbasiceconomicandpolitical systemsto enablethe studentto
makeinfonned choiceswith regardto issuesthat affectthe studentpersonallyor affect
the student'scommunity, state, and nation; (3) sufficient academic and vocational skills
to enablethe studentto successfullyengagein post-secondaryeducationor vocational
training; and (4) sufficient academic and vocational skills to enable the student to
competeon an equalbasiswith othersin furtherformal educationor gainful employment
in contemporarysociety.Leandrov. State,346N.C. at 347,488 S.E.2d at 255.
This initial definition of soundeducationalgoalsnow needsfurthertranslation
into incremental,measurableeducationalgoalsand studentoutcomes,not only to focus
the day-to-daypedagogicalchoicesandadministrativedecisionsof Stateand local
educational officials-setting
the mark for teachersand principals-
but also to aid the
Statein its ultimate assessment
of whetherlocal educationalprogramsareaffording
studentsa soundbasiceducation-measuringwhetherstateactorshavebeensuccessful.
Thankfully, muchof this work haspreviouslybeendone.Indeed,this Courtheld at trial
8
that a soundbasic educationcanbe gauged,at leastin part, by relying on the State'sown
studentachievementstandardsimplementedunderthe ABCs of EducationAct. As this
Courtdetermined,moreover,the State'sproficiencybenchmark(Level III) underthe
ABCs can significantlyaid the Courtin determiningwhetherstudentsarereceivinga
soundbasiceducation.
Beyondproficiencybenchmarks,however,this Courtandthe SupremeCourt
havepointedto otherimportantindicatorsof educationalsuccess,including high school
graduationrates,dropoutrates,andcollegeremediationrates.Like studentproficiency,
the Stateshouldnow specificallyincorporatetheseindicatorsinto its comprehensive
plan, by using themto announcespecificandmeasurablegoalsandoutcomesthat, if
achieved by local schools and districts, will demonstratethat the State has met its
constitutionalduty.
Second, the State's comprehensiveplan must ensure that all schools receive
sufficientfunding, whetherfrom local or statesources,to enablethemto provide the
educational inputs and programs necessaryto meet the constitutional standards it has
set. In otherwords, in its plan the Statemust answerthequestion:What amountof
moneyis "necessary"or "adequate"to afford all childrenthe opportunitytheyneedto
receivea soundbasiceducation?While the Statehaslong borneultimateconstitutional
responsibilityto ensureadequatefunding for all students,to our knowledge,it hasnever
beforeproceededin this fashion.Instead,it annuallyemploysa political calculationthat
maybe aptly calledan "educationauction"to detenninethe fundingneedsof North
Carolinaschoolsand students.
9
The current process is rather simple. State leadersbe by deciding how much
money they re willing to spend on education in that year and then have allocated that pot
of moneyto schools.Thus,moneyspenton a student'seducationin North Carolinahas
depended,not upon studentneedor the requirementsof the North CarolinaConstitution,
but insteadon the amountappropriatedby the GeneralAssembly,irrespectiveof its
sufficiency.
In the history of this State, no credible study or analysis has ever been done to
detemline whether the existing money budgeted for education is truly sufficient or
adequateto educateall children. Leandro necessarilyrequires such a study. To be
meaningful,it is essentialfor the Stateto reverseits traditionalmethodand beginwith an
analysisof educationalstandards,goals,outcomes,andneeds,to be followed by a careful
assessment
of the specificfundingnecessaryto meetthoseeducationalgoals.
Detennining what dollar amount will be "adequate"requires attention to: (1) the
standards,goalsandeducationaloutputsconducivea soundbasic education(e.g.,
proficiencyon ABCs, graduationfrom high schoolwithin four years,entryinto college
without the need for remediation, etc.); (2) the special characteristics of local
communitieswith barriersto offering studentsa soundbasic education(e.g.,low tax
base,communityremoteness,
poverty,etc.); (3) the capacityandwillingnessof local
communitiesto supporteducationfinancially; (4) the characteristicsanddemographicsof
studentswho are not receiving a sound basic education; (5) the necessaryin-school and
out-of-school inputs deemed essentialto meet constitutional goals; (6) other factors such
as school district size; and (7) the voices of parents and others directly involved in their
children'slearning.In the end,the State'scomprehensive
plan mustprovide a reasonable,
10
objective, and honest process by which to analyze these variables and to calculate the
actual cost of providing every student with an opportunity to receive a sound basic
education.
Suchstudieshavebeenpart of virtually everymajorpublic schoolreform casein
the nation. Seegenerally, Shena Reid & Rob Schofield, Common Ground: An Equal
Opportunity for a Sound Basic Education at 6-7 & n.7 (North Carolina Justice Center,
2004).Conductedby impartial outsideexperts,thesestudiestypically canbe completed
in lessthanoneyear.The averagecostsarefar lessthanthe $15,000,000thatthe State
proposesto spend on the Odden study, or even the $2,400,000 DPI proposes to spend to
analyzethe sixteenDSSFpilot districts.The Stateof Arkansascompletedits entire study
for approximately $250,000 -less than 1/9th ofDPI's request. The State of New York,
with far largerstudentpopulationsandproblems,spentlessthan $2,000,000on its study
of what it would costto provide studentswith a 'soundbasiceducation'consistentwith
the New York Constitution.See,e.g.,GregWinter," CourtPanelSaysNew York Schools
NeedBillions More," New York Times,Dec. 1,2004, onthe webat:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/01/nyregion/Olschool.html
(reportingthat "a courtappointed panel has found that an additional $5.6 billion must be spent on [New York
City's] schoolchildreneveryyearto providethe opportunityfor a sound,basic education
that they are guaranteedby the State Constitution."
If our State intends to invest money in anything other than front-line children's
programs; its first priority should be a similar statewide adequacyor "costing-out" study.
The State'salternativeproposalsseem"frills andwhistles," thatwill, by designor
inadvertence,simplypostponethe daywhenfull Leandrocompliancewill begin.
11
Third, the State's cofprehensive plan must determine a rational and equitable
funding formula to allocate ~tate and local educationfunds to school districts and
schoolsacrossthestate.At i,s core,this funding fonnula and systemmustinsurethat
schoolshaveaccessto the nepessary
resourcesto afford everyNorth Carolinastudent,
regardlessof their place of refidence or their individual needs,the opportunity to receive
a soundbasiceducation.
Fourth, the State'sc9mprehensive
plan mustspeaknot onlyto the in-school
needs of North Carolina chil¥ren, but to pre-school and out-oi-school needs that affect
their opportunityto receive~ soundbasiceducation.If "the infant Zoe andthe toddler
Riley" need pre-kindergartenlinstruction to overcome obvious at-risk factors that would
otherwiseimpedetheir abilitt to benefit from public schooling,if poor childrensuffer
from significantuntreatedvi~ion,hearing,or speechdifficulties thatwould seriously
impedetheir learning,but th~tprescriptioneyeglasses
or hearingaids might remedy,then
the Hoke Countyopinionins~cts the Stateto plan for provisionof thoseschool-related
servicesaswell. This will re~uireclosecoordinationbetweenthe Departmentof Public
Instructionand otherexecutiyeagencieswith responsibilityfor children'sservices.The
State'scomprehensive
plan ~ust do morethanproposeinteragencyconversationsor task
forces.It musthelpthesechitdrengetwhat theywill needto succeedin school.
Fifth, the State 's co~rehensive plan must include an effective accountability
systemthat holdsthestatea~d local schoolsaccountablein at leasttwo ways.Theplan
mustfirst establish reasonabte and meaningful systemsthat insure that the State and
schools are fiscally responsi~lefor thefunds theyreceive from the legislature, local
communities,the federalgo~emmentand othersourcesto delivereducation.Thus,the
12
plan must establishmechanisms that insure that education funds are spentwisely,
efficiently and targeted towards studentneed. The plan should must also craft a system
that holds the State and schools accountablefor making meaningful educational progress
on and ultimately meeting the State's standards, goals and outcomesas stated in the
comprehensive
plan. In otherwords,theremustbe accountabilityto ensurethat schools
aregetting educationresultsfor students.
CONCLUSION
The North Carolina Supreme Court has spoken in constitutional tenns, not once,
but twice, and not in fractured opinions, but clearly and unanimously. Leandro and Hoke
Countyrequirereal changenow, not only for everyat-riskchild who is not currently
receivinga soundbasiceducation,but for prospectiveenrolleesaswell. While the State
needsa reasonableopportunityto shapeits constitutionalresponse,we asamici curiae
cautioned the Court in our October 4th memorandum that "enormous political pressures
continueto bearuponall educationalfunding systems,"and "the inevitableexistenceof
thesepowerful forcesmakesthis court'scontinuedsupervisionabsolutelyindispensableif
Leandro rights are to be fully honored and implemented."
If the State'sDecember 7th plan is inadequate in scope or reach, if it does not set
out a meaningfulplan thatpromisespromptlyto addressthe pressingneedsof all North
Carolina'schildren- prospectiveenrollees,strugglingK-3 students,alienatedmiddle
schoolers,imminenthigh schooldropouts-and if it doesnot providemeaningful
oversight of every troubled district-whether urban or rural, from the mountains, the
Piedmont,or the Coastalregion-then we stronglyurgethis Courtto rejectthe plan
outright and selid the State back to the drawing boards.
13
Were this Court to allow the State to drift into early January without a meaningful
long-range planning process in place--one in which all can reposejustifiable confidence,
one augmentedby an aggressiveintermediate-termimplementationstrategy-then the
2005 legislative sessionwould fly swiftly by, and the chance it presentsto begin
statewide implementation of Leandro would be lost. The Court, the parties, and most
especiallythe childrenof the State,havecometoo far to let this opportunityslip away.
Respectfullysubmittedthis 3rd dayof December.
John Charles Boger
Member of the New York Bar
School of Law, CB # 3380
ChapelHill, NC 27599
(919) 843-9288
Deborah Greenblatt
StateBar No. 2847
P.O. Box 2446
Raleigh, NC 27602
(919) 856-2195
Counselfor the American Civil
Liberties Union of North Carolina
Legal Foundation,Inc.
Counselfor Carolina Legal Assistance
SheriaReid
StateBar No. 24477
P.O. Box 28068
Raleigh, NC 27611
(919) 856-3192
Gregory C. Malhoit
StateBar No. 6275
3344 Hillsborough St., Suite 302
Raleigh, NC 27607
(919) 833-4541
CarleneMcNulty
Counselfor the Rural Schooland
Community Trust
StateBar No. 12488
Counselfor North Carolina
Justice Center
LewisPitts
StateBar No. 20592
201 W. Main Street,Ste. 400
Durham, NC 27702
(919) 226-005t1 ext.422
John CharlesBoger
Member of the New York Bar
School of Law, CB # 3380
Chapel Hill, NC 27599
(919) 843-9288
Counsel for Advocates for Children's
Services, Legal Aid of North Carolina
14
Anita S. Earls
N.C. StateBar 15597
Schoolof Law, CB # 3380
ChapelHill, NC 27599
(919)843-7896
Counsel for the UNC School of Law
Center for Civil Rights
15
Appendix A
"Proposed Elements of 2005 Legislation to Implement Leandro-Based School Reform"
&
"Initial Comments on October 25, 2004 State Plan To Implement
Leandro-Based School Reform
16
Proposed Elements of 2005 Legislation
To Implement Leandro-Based School Reform
Submitted to the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction
and the StateBoard of Education
by Amici Curiae for At-Risk Children
November 5, 2004
I.
Funding Proposal
We agree with DPI and SBE that the State should initiate a new funding
mechanism to addressthe unmet needsof North Carolina school children who are not
currently receiving a sound basic education. We suggestthat the fund should have the
following characteristics:
A. General Basis of Funding:
The funds should be distributed to school districts:
1. based in principal part on their number of at-risk students;
2. measuredby eligibility for free or reduced price lunch;
3. and based, in further part, on a formula that weights the concentration of atrisk students in a district (so that districts with higher overall proportions of
at-risk studentswould receive additional dollars).
Within each school district, the funds should be distributed to schools
4. based on the relative concentration of at-risk students in a school, so that
greaterdollars flow to those schools with higher proportions of at-risk
students.,
Within schools,fundsshouldbe directedtoward students
5. basedon their low academicperformanceand/ortheir likelihood of dropping
out or failure to graduate
B. Amount
We suggestthat the State appropriate $223 million for 2005 implementation of
this program. This is the amount the SBEIDPI indicated, in June of2004, would be
neededto fund the DSSF fund statewide..
C. Distribution in 2005
We suggestthat funds be distributed to
1.
2.
the 16 school districts that currently are eligible for DSSF funding;
the plaintiff and plaintiff-intervenor districts in the Leandro litigation; and
17
b.
2.
3.4.
additional districts based upon demonstratedneed; and .
that some percentageof the funds be reserved for those school districts
that agreeto undertake district-wide school reform planning, consistent
with the State'scomprehensiveplanning process. (SeeIII.B.! infra).
(The currentdistributiondoesnot include anyurbandistricts,andits geographicalreach
is very confined,althoughit is clear thatthereare at-riskstudentswho areperfonning at
low levels in districts throughoutthe State.The Statepresentlyneedsexperience
implementingLeandroremediesin a varietyof settingsasa preludeto statewide
implementation).
D. Use & Restriction of Funds
1.
We suggestthat the funding categories set forth in the SBEIDPl's August,
2004 fonnulation be divided into two sub-categories,with the following
restrictions:
a.
At least 25% of a school district's total grant presumptively must be
expended on a 1'schools"subcategorycomprising the presentcategories of
"recruiting and retaining teachers," "personnel" and "professional
development activities."
At least25% of a schooldis.trict'stotal grantpresumptivelymustbe
expendedon a "students"subcategory,
comprisingthe present
subcategories
of "extendinginstructionaltime" and "instructional
materials,supplies,andequipment."
c.
The SBEIDPI should be allow to waive the required minimum
expenditures upon demonstration that no unmet needs in the district
require additional funding in a particular subcategoryin order to meet
Leandro objectives.
We suggestthat an additional categorybe identified for critical needs in
many schools-for example, for full-time social workers, for school health
workers, for health and wellness examinations-all of which directly
affect the practical opportunity of children to obtain a sound basic
education. These categories of need should be addedto the roster of
acceptableexpenditures.
3.
We suggestthat other funds appropriated for Limited English Proficient
students should not be aggregatedwith this fund.
4.
We suggestthatthesefunds notbe usedto supplantany otherfunds or
programs,suchas LEP or "at risk" funds, alreadybeing appropriatedat the
federalor statelevel, and thatlocal districtsbe requiredto executenon-
18
2.
supplant agreements,under which they agree not to reduce their own
funding contributions upon receipt of these funds.
E. Name
We have mixed views on whether the name of the fund should be modified to an
alternative, for example, "the Sound Basic Education Fund." We can identify some
reasonsto retain the current name or alternatively, to modify the name to some broader
and more inclusive title.
II.
Accountability for Funds
A. The Statemustassureaccountabilityby schooldistricts for the useof these
funds in two distinctways:
III.
1.
financial accountability, to assurethat all funds are expended in
compliance with the plans submitted by districts and approved by
the SBE/DPI; and
2.
educationalaccountability,to assurethat, overtime, the particular
programsandexpendituresselectedby the district andapprovedby
the SBEIDPIactuallylift academicperformanceof students.
StatewidePlanning Requirements
A.
The StatewideEffort
1.
The 2005 General Assembly should direct the SBEIDPI to convene a
special committee-its membership drawn from state and local
educational leaders,teachers,knowledgeable experts, parents, advocates
for at-risk and low-performing children, and business and community
leaders-to complete a comprehensivestatewide plans.
The comprehensiveplan should be prepared by September30, 2005, for
adoption by the General Assembly and implementation beginning in the
spring of 2006.
3.
The comprehensive
plan mustaddressnot only the in-schoolneedsof
students,but the whole complexof education-related
needsof
"prospectiveenrollees"who are at risk of educationalfailure.
4.
The plan should set clear statewide goals that addressnot only issuesof
improving studentperformance (e.g., 90% of all students at Level III)
but also dropout reduction rates and graduation rates (e.g., 95% graduation
rate).
19
5.
The plan should addresscurrent policies and practices of SBEIDPI that
function as unnecessarybarriers to teacher recruitment and retention,
or to student achievement.
B.
The Local Effort
1
The SBEIDPIplanningapprovalprocessshouldrequireseparate"costing
out" studiesbe completedin everylocal district by the fall of2006.
2.
The Stateshouldprovideplanninggrantsto everyqualifying district that
is unablewithout stateassistance
to completea "costingout" study.
20
Initial Commentson October 25, 2004State Plan
To Implement Leandro-BasedSchool Reform
Submitted to the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction
and the State Board of Education
by Amici Curiae for At-Risk Children
November5, 2004
1.
The proposal to expand the More at Four program from its current level, serving
approximately 12, 000 at-risk children, to reach a total of 40,000 at-risk children, is most
welcome. To assurethat all prospective emollees receive pre-kindergarten education to
prepare them for public school is one necessaryand important step in implementing
Leandro. It is not, however, a complete or sufficient Stateresponse.We trust that
sufficient funds will be committed to addressall outstanding Leandro needs. If not, we
question whether a disproportionate expenditure of limited funds on this one element of
Leandro compliance would be appropriate.
2.
The Disadvantaged Students Supplemental Fund ("DSSF") is described as a pilot
program that apparently will be expanded only gradually "[b ]ased on an evaluation of the
pilot DSSF Programs in the 16 initial pilots." (October 25,2004 Plan, at 1; id. at 7).
There is no constitutional justification to delay statewide implementation of researchproven methods that educators know can meet the needs of at-risk and low-performing
stUcdents.
For example, (1) the provision of high quality, certified teachers,teaching
within their field, in every class, (2) the provision of highly qualified principals in every
school, and (3) the provision of educationally proven, special services to at-risk students
do not need further field testing. The State should begin to support implementation of
these methods in every district as soon as possible.
3.
The Local Education Agency Assistance Program ("LEAAP") is a commendable
approachwhich createsa state-local partnership for educational improvement. We
approve the creation of the LEAAP as a "full-time unit under the State Board of
Education." (State Plan, at 2.) However, we do not understand why the LEAAP's
jurisdiction should extend only to "a set of especially needy school districts," (id.); see
also id. at 8 (describing "districts that need immediate and intensive support"), when it is
clear that some students in every school district in the State are failing to receive a sound
basic education. Indeed, very high percentagesof studentsare falling below state EGG
standards,are dropping out, and are failing to graduate, in both urban and rural districts,
in low-wealth and high-wealth districts, and in all geographical regions of the State. We
suggestthat, over time, LEAAP teams should be sentto offer advice and counsel to every
district in which substantial cohorts of studentsare not receiving a sound basic education.
4.
The TeacherWorking Conditions Survey, the New Schools Project, and Earn and
Learn Schools are potentially worthy initiatives. They do not, however, constitute a
comprehensiveresponseto the Leandro needs of the State'schildren, even when the
21
expansion of More at Four and the DSSF fund are included. In sum, the State's October
25, 2002 Plan, though a commendable start, does not yet constitute a comprehensive
approachtoward the provision of an opportunity for a sound basic education for all North
Carolina children.
22
November5, 2004
Hon. Patricia N. Willoughby
Superintendent
Department of Public Instruction
301 North Wilmington Street
Raleigh, NC 27601
Dear Superintendent
Willoughby:
As undersigned counsel and friends of amici curiae in the Leandro/Hoke County
case,we appreciate your invitation to meet today to share our ideas with the Department
of Public Instruction ("DPf') and the State Board of Education ("SBE") as you develop
plans, in responseto Leandro, to improve the opportunities of the State's children. We
have submitted a memorandum to the Superior Court on October 4, 2004 which contains
a number of suggestionsand ideas, as you noted in your email invitation of October 20,
2004. We commend those ideas to your further attention.
In the attacheddocuments, we have two aims: to set forth our suggestions for a
remedial plan to be pursued in the near future; and to offer brief comments on the
preliminary plan put forward by the State at the October 25, 2004 hearing before Judge
Manning. We hope to discuss eachof the major points raised in these documents with
you today. We seekleave to supplement our submissions with further written comments
and suggestions,as necessary,if new ideas or issues arise during our conversations today.
Again, thank you for this opportunity.
Sincerely,
JohnCharlesBoger
ShannahSmith
Universityof North Carolina
Centerfor Civil Rights
Angella Dunston
Carlene McNulty
North Carolina Justice &
Community Development
Center
23
GregoryC. Malhoit
Rural School&
CommunityTrust
Lewis Pitts
Advocatesfor Children's
Services,Legal Aid of
North Carolina
JonathanSher
North CarolinaChild Advocacy
Center
24
Appendix B
November5, 2004Letter from Hon. HowardN. Lee, StateBoard Chair,
and Superintendent
PatriciaN. Willoughbyto GovernorMichael F. Easley,with
ExpansionBudgetRequestsfor 2005-2007
25
November 5, 2004
The HonorableMichael F. Easley
Governor,Stateof North Carolina
Office ofth-e Governor
116WestJonesStreet
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603':'8001
D'ear Governor Easley:
The State Board of Education would like to expressits appreciation for your continued
commitment to t11epublic schools of North Carolina. Through your leadership, we have made
signifiCaIlt progress in closing the achievenlent gap and our students' peiform~ces have
continued to move North Carolina towards the top of educational progress and successin the
United States~We look forward tp working closely with you over the next four years as we
accelerate our progress in. our continued goal to lead the nation in education refonnand student
success.
.
.
.
We believe that the attached Expansion Budget request contains the items that reflect your
priorities and that these funding priorities will enable us to meet the education needs of our most
disadvantaged studeuts as well as our students that are currently performing at and above grade
level Our requests identify funding areas that are cUri"entlylimiting pur schools from waking
the progress we all desire, funding for focused J:esearchthat will validate the improvement
strategieswe are recomme~ding our schools use, and key instructional funding strategies that
need to be increased to better serve their targeted stlld~nt.population. We would like to direct
your attention to all the items listed on the attached Expansion Budget request. We would also
like to emphasize that every item is important toassuIe we continue the progress we have
realized under your leadership. For example:
Eliminating the recurring discretionary reduction win allow our schools to utilize all their
appropriated re.sourcesto meet the needs of theit students.
Placing full-time mentors in our schools will help us retain our teachers who are leaving the
teaching profession during their fit'st three years in OJIrpublic schools.
Funding the Professional Development Initiative will provide useful data to improve decisions,
to establish a resource center for teac11eIs,and to identify training that will help all our teachers
to addressbetter the needs of all students.
Expanding the J'Learn and Earn" program and the restructuring of our high schools into smaller
.curriculum-targeted schools will help erisure student success,reduce dropouts, and promote
economic development in communities.
;; OFFICE OF FINANCIAL AND BUSINESS SERVICES
:: PHILIP W. PRICE, Associate State Superintendent;; EMAIL pprice@dpi.state.nc.us
~~ 6326 Mail Service Center::
RCllelgh, North Carolina
27699-6326
:;
919.607.3600
::
Fax 919.807.3604
GoveroorEasley
Page 2
Nove:mber5, 2004
Addressing the needs of oUr increasing limited English proficiency student population by
increasing the resources directly targeted to this population will help close the achievement gap
and reduce dropouts.
Expanding funding targeted to our most a(:ademically advanced students will assure that we
addresstheir needs at all grade levels.
Expanding technology in our schools is one of our most efficient tools 1.lSed
to addressthe
educational needs of our students.
The specifically listed items in this letter and attachment arejust examples of the important
priorities that the State Board would like to seefunded and does not include other important
initiatives the State Board believ~s must be continued or enhanced. Continuing the funding for
the ABC Incentive Awards is imperative as we continue to ask our teachersto improve the
perfonnance of all students. The State Board also believes that tlle bonus should be increased to
reflect the challenge and accomplishment of a school~eeting federal NCLB adequate yearly
progress targets. The need to increase the pay of our teachers, other school personnel, and our
State employees continues to' be a major priority.
On behalf of the State Board, the DepaTbnentof Public Instrl.1ction,and the many educators
and citizens whose thoughts are reflected it! theserequests,we respectfully request your .
consideration of these items. Your inclusion of our funding priorities in yourFY 2005-06
Expansion Budget would be appreciated.
Sincerely,
J{g~-~~~~~~""
Howard N. Lee
HNL/PNW Ipwp
Attachment
PatriciaN. Willoughby
lm
~
Public
nC-North
Schools
Carolina
Expansion
of North Carolina
Department
Budget
"
(;f PubliC-instruction
~equests
"
.",
for 2005-~!OO7
"
-,"
State
BOa!d
PriorityI
l
(Note 1)
1
EEO
2
HSP
Eliminate Discnoltonary Reducticn which requir..
rerum 0 potlion of their allotment
LEAs ono oilatler schools to
$
44,291,248
-,",--,,
,
pro!,lde
supplemental
to oddrns.
theSupteme
fundin9
for .the Disadvanto~ed
Court
rull"9
0" Lea"dro
Stude"t..
a key
.tn.tegy
25000
.,
000
R
,
$
_..,
44,291.248
R
~_.,R
25000000
,
,
R
Increase fI,Inding for P(of~ional
Development b:V10% white further study of
a prDfessional development initiative. takes place
1.204.672
R
1,204.672
R
Jn~ase fundlt:19for Academically ~nd Intellectually Gifted students
3.143,075
R
3.143,075
R
33,297.580
R
33,297.580
R
3
QP
4
HSP
5
QP
Provide Full-Time Mentors at 1 per 15 teachers in Uleir first three years of
teaching (it Is anticipated that this will reduce teac:her turnOverwhich is
excessive In ~ teacher's first three years of employmant)
QP.
Provide Full-Time Mentors ~t 1 per 1S instructional support per$onnelln their
first two years
1.356,394 R
1,356.394 R
High School Reform efforts -Expand
5,328,200
5,328,200
6
-HSP
'the Learn ~I,d Earn program
HIgh School Refo!'m Efforts -Fund ttte R~strI.lCt\Jl1ing High Schools segmeryt
of the GCltes Foundation New Schools Project
R
.3,200,000
R
R
3,200;000
f{
.$,000,000
NR
32,615,133
R
32,615.733
R
5 738 590
'
,
R
5 738,590
,
R
46.704,793
R
7
8
EEO
e
HSP
Fund $ci)ool Technology fa~ll1tat?r$in schools with 8thgrad~ and IncreaS?
.fundIng
for LEA on-line subscriptions (SAS In Soh,ools)"end dIStancelearning.
.
10
S$
1.1 HSP
Pay for NCWISE Connec~
Decrease
students
the ratio of School
to 1 :1,400 students
~t the Optimal level fori,.owWealth LEAs
Nurses
to students
ft'om
approx
1:1,686
Increase funding for Childrert with .Disabilities
46.. 704,793
R
...
12 EEO
Add 10 positions In the Infon11ationSerVIces Area of DP1:security program
manager and anaIY$t, business continuity planning analyst ~n~ 7 instructIonal
technology consultants_. :rovlde funds for Infrastrlucture and data tran$port
upgrades. network Intruslol:\software, storage arel~network and system
744,892 R
2 020,000 NR
.,
repl;lcements
13
HSP
744,8.92 R
996.0OQ NR
..
..
Reduce the ratio. of Guidance Counselors in grade5 9.12 from 1:367 students
to 1:352 students
6,208,111
R
6,208,111
R
14
FCB
ProviQQP~rel'\t Coordinator3 1025 LEAs with !'Ilghl~$t# of disadvantaged
students along With2 positions at DPI to impJemerlt and coQrdinate the
academic support network
.
.
1,854,225
R
1,854,225
R
15
HSP
Provide funds for a control group of schools to p~rticJpateIn a Research
Partner3hip with the. Wisconsin Center for Educatf'Jn Research called
"Funding What Works"
15,000;000
R
15,000,000
R
1
~OO5
I
r-: .
:
~
.
.(Note
1) L~
16
EEO'
~--,-~~~
HSP
J
Add a PurchasIng and Contract Support POSir:iOrf2ffid
a BI,I$Garage H~lp
~--:-:-: ~~~~E~~~~~~!:!
17
CJ
I
Stete
Priority
Board
~
.2006-07
163 330
R
80,000
R.
163.330
R
80,000
R
~-
Add a Middle School Gvirjance Consultant po$ition at DPI
18
19M..-9.e..~_~~~~~~~~~~~---
---
$
Note 1: State Board Priorities are:
t
EE::O.Effective"and ~ffjciellt Operations"
" ""
HSP -High Student Performance
Op"- Quality Teachers. Administr:a.tors, alld Staff
.FCB -strong Family, Community, al1d ElusinE!SSSuppol't
SS ~ Heal~hy"Children in Safe, Orderly, and Caring Schools
2
229,450.261
AppendixC
(Executive Summary of SBE 2005-07 Biennial Budget Request, including
Memorandum from ProfessorAllan Odden to Assistant SuperintendentPhillip Price,
"Ideas for Structuring Randomized Experiments on the Effectiveness of Interventions
in At Risk Schools in North Carolina")
SBEMeeting 11/2004
Attachment EEOI
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Title:
2005-07 Biennial Bud!!et Reouest
Type of ExecutiveSummary:
~ Action
D ActiononFirstReading
0 Discussion
D Infonnation
PolicyImplications:
D Constitution~ GeneralStatute#115C-12(1 a)
SBEPolicy#SBEPolicyAmendment
SBEPolicy (New)
APA#D APA Amendment
D APA(New)
D OtherPresenter(s):
Mr. Philip Price (Associate Superintendent,Financial and Business Services) and Mrs. Becky
McConkey (Manager,Office of Budget Management)
Description:
The Office of State Budget and Management approved the delay of the agency's submission of the 2005-2007
biennial budget expansionrequestsuntil immediately following the November meeting. A great deal of preparation
has gone into the developmentof our expansionbudget requeststo insure that all needsand priorities are addressed.
Input has been received from superintendents,school administrators, teachers,local boards of education, education
associations, and State Board of Education members as well as DPI staff. The submitted recommendationshave
beenpresented at the August, Septemberand October State Board meetings. Final approval is required this month
of those items to be sent forward to the Office of State Budget and Management for consideration of inclusion in
Governor Easley's budget.
Resources:
None atthis time.
Input Process:
Superintendents,school administrators, teachers,local boards of education, education associations,State Board of
Education members,and DPI staff.
Stakeholders:
Everyone with an interest in North Carolina public schools.
Timeline For Action:
This item was submittedfor Discussionin August,September
and October. It is being submittedfor approvalin
November.
Recommendations:
It is recommendedthat the StateBoard of Education approve expansionbudget items to be submitted to Governor
Easley for considerationof inclusion in his 2005-2007 biennial budget.
Audiovisualequipmentrequestedfor thepresentation:
D
DataProjectorNideo(Videotape/DVDand/orComputerData,Internet,Presentations-PowerPoint
preferred)
Specify:
D
Audio Requirements
(computeror other,exceptfor PA systemwhichis provided)
Specify:
0
DocumentCamera(for transparencies
or paperdocuments
-white paperpreferred)
*Personresponsible for SBE agendamaterials and SBE policy updates:
BeckY McConkey. 807-3741
c
0
N
I"-.
(.)
~
~
...0
I
-0
In
C
N
...
0
(.) 0
-It)
=
..c
cn ~
t:o. 0 ~0
'-e
Q)
In
5-
cn-
Co) C
Q)
~ E
't:~
Q)
Q)
CO ~
~0 a.
CO "'C
~
C
...
0001
~
0
0
~
C
0=
0
(.)...
~
a.
><
C/)~ .~
(.)
C
'-..c
CO
0
o.zw
-~
'§
EO
t~~
cn
Q)
c
E
E
0
c
()
--.Q
a
0
-$
0
0
~0
-OICX)
"oc
CD CD
_: E
z
>-
-
--c
CD It)
"Or-C
COlt)
L-,.(l)r--
« ri
-
"0.,
CD
aNOI
~:I:
~
>.
L-"O
~
:J(.)
"'50
:Jw~
0" 0
.
CD=
~O
L-«
-0CD_C
->.
L-~O
C
~ ---0
'u -'u
C
(I) ,.. U
--:J
O~"O
-C:J
O--~
CD
U.c:"(I)-I;.
_~CD
~O~
-O-C
L- C
COO-
.c:
u
cn
aNc
N~~
>ce~
---==
LL
E
u
CD
-
-"'
a N .c
<'>-.r:J
o(OL-
Q)
';::
CD
-
E .c:
Cco"O
CO
(l)
:J-
(k:
z
o.
0
0
~
0
CD
~
r--
~
U
Q)
~...
~-~Q)
o~.cQ)t:Q)Q)
~
z
>-
.tU-
t:.c
--Q)Q)
EUJI-.c-E.c
--Q)"-
-OI'OQ»W"':'UJOUJ~
UJt:
£O~t:~~Q»
Q)'5
~-C:>CO,g
OIQ).!!!
01
t:
'5'"
t:NU:JW.-tUQ)U
-~~~.cQ)
OI:J
01
~
--
UJ-
~~..9~
Q).c
01
UJ 0
tU 00
Q)tUa.UJ
C Q)-
5 U
?"'C6E?§E
-a.
5-t::JOQ)~:=UtU-t:.c.ct:OQ)~tU
Q).2
UJ UJ.c ~ E"fij:!:J"'C6'5:;;::'5
>..~
oE
-E _tV ';'"$
~ -;, ~ ..9 t: ~ .2 ffi ~ .2 % ~ 0.. ~
tU 01:5 t: UJ t:W>.O
t:r--.c~"iij
E~.5
tU
o..§tUQ)E'5t:0I~'E9~t:t:Q)
;?:-.!!!
aloa..cQ)t:Q)2=ocotUQ)oo2Q)u
Q):=tU-U:J.ctU:JUOQ»""-tU>-a.u:J-~ ~
UJ""'-U:J""
UJ
~-t:
Q) *w~
gWt~~
~ ~~~"iij
~ 0
(/)'-:5
Eu-=
>.:J
5 t: t:~~U
>=:;
E
Q)Q)._Q)O>-oQ)
tUQ)Q)~ :J
Q)OI
.cQ)UJoOl~E~U>
cn
Q) x > t: . E
->
-..c
~;~
aN
tU Q) OI~U~~
v..9~
E t: Q)~
°
E.~9
3!-w
Ot:"UQ)tUUJW!!!.Q)UVtU-~.coQ)Q)
MOtU->OUJtU~t:o.cO,-,UJ-~U
0=
UJU_Q)UJa..2°ut:OtUUJQ)t:
°E.9
~~J?
~'_~coN
Q).Q~.c
N
E-'5.c.c.!P.-9~-g"'C6-
Q)°
>__~N-Q)Q).-
>-~tUg_tUa.:Jt:"'-tU:JQ)o:Ja.oQ)
E > ~ 0
~N~.c~~O§~o~a."iij£="iijut~
t: N -U
-WUJUJ
z
~
0
0
00
0
ON
N
a:
0
0
0-
CX)
> c:-
CO)
m
m
Q)
0)
"0
~
U5
"0
cQ)
"Q.
a.
~
U)
Q)
C
Q)
E
"CO
N
It')
0
0
~
~
~
c:
ro
c:
.2
?:-
~Q)
"C
~
f5
0
tA-
-.t
-.t
0>
~
-.t
~
~
~
"i"
~
0)
~
"i"
CX>
---
a:
W"iCD
-IL-(I)
«
UOU
"0
0. -~
~L-L-
0
In
Q)
:;,
0
Q)
~
"'§
u
In
is
Q)
"0"
m"O
CI) c:
.-~
011.
m
c:
w
:§
:I:
Do
0
w
w
N
(/)
~
ro
~
~u
-(I
W
0
c;
WI
~
~
0
.q
II)
~
Q)
0
E
E
t)
-0
~
(.)
:g
';::
II)
Q)
C)
cn
Q)
:J
(7
Q)
!r
-co --5
o
--.c
.c
CO
co
Q)
(/)
°c'-'-NC).-
C)(/)
Q)
C'-~(/)
0
(/)
~"OC)-
Q)
§ .~ N
co."O
--~.c(.'.c
«
~-
c
'-
Q)
~
co
Q)
.>
(/)
Q)
=-'"--
Q) .1::
'-
'"
Q)
---'+-
c
0
00
E o
-.: --.£
co
Q)
~
(/)Z
Q)
.c
§
t
,.O«Q)
'co-'.,-
CN.c.
E
CO
"0
-
a> 0
roa>c
tt
~
In
'w
0
ro
I::
0
Q)
~
o
C-
E
Q)
"E
~
~
0
,...
(0.q
('II
~
~
N
~
O.
N
N
CD
1
CI:
E.~~~~
.aroa.
t;~a>a.o
mo"OeE
U)~2?>ro
a>
-Q
(.)
C
"a>.c-ai
"0
c
--a>
c.Qwro
> ,--a>
C)a.ro"O
,gro=::-
,-c"Oo
ooa>a.
,-->
a.
"0 a> -E
-'--'-
c~cU)
E
"0
o-a>
--c
U) a>
a>
U)"Oa.>
a> --0
0
roo>'--
"O~E"O
-"
a>U)0a>
>a>"Oc
a..c.Qe.g}.
a>roa>-
~
z
0
~
E
z
ijj.c:IULt>O
:J1-(/)ria>
E
.~ ...C
(/) 0 IU 0
...>
0
"C.-CO
:J
:J (/) 'C (/) -
mo.oa>"C
.c:O_>-C
-.c:~'CIU
a> U C .->-
IU
0
0
C(/)IUCO
-:J
(/)~O)a>C
(/)
-.-(/)
.-'"
(/)
~
(/)-~.oa>
.-~
$
a> .-
-(/)
u.c:
.-U
'C
(j)
"E
a>
z
-C
.0a>~"CSa>
a> C '":5
>r-"C ...
.
>-
0>
O>N'"
="C$
OCO
-"'N
0-
O>OL-
L--L0
(/)
'E~00
0>
E oo
ENo>E
.-~
~
>
"C
>lUe:::;I
O.c:c.CC
C
C
'"
->.
-!._~
'"
'" E f!
(/)
0
0')
N
00.
(j)~
'S
r:
(j)u.
(j)
:c:C"=:.
-0)
0"- -
(j) to '"
;t:tO"'I
...~~
.""tJ '"
0)0, to
"0)-.r: "...
"-
r:"tJ
to (j)
~.a
to(/)
~
"- "tJ
.Q
--
'-='5
2-§
r: 0,
0
r:
"~ "CO
'S.Q
"~ .§
(j)
a>"CCa>OW
1-1U.2c._-I
.c:a>(/)-gIU
g
-C "C
...(/)
a>
2~~~~
0>
()
'-000>
0..",-
~Oo",
"Co.c
.-L-
0> 'x
'-3$-
~
>-
ro .
"0
(/)
"0 0
-
~
Q)
°
Q)
(/)
~
()
~~
c-
co
E co
C.c
co .--t
«'- ~ ..Q
C)co
co
"C.c
c
O
.c -co
o(/)co"O.c0
u,o
co cn o
c
G'
co u,(.) co -co
I;::>co.£'-,-
co~O(!)
Cl.c"O
u)
c
0
(/) C 0.
(/)
u,.'" ~ 0
Q)
~ c; 5! ° "0 .!!!
>-Q).I:-
I-
Q) --"0
u',
G
c
0
O-;Q)OCo.
E .~ "E J:. :g .2
~
C>-'-~--~
Q) ~- ~
(/)C)
0
-0---'--
-Q)-_.
c
-"0
._(/)Q)C)Q)Q):J
2g~co-,:Q)EcoQ)Oo"..~(/)~'~Z
'- Q)
-0
.c
..."0
CW
'-
Q)
Q)co~-t:(/)O"I-C,-CO'+(/)-
E >
Q):
a:
Q)=
(/) o.;'.~ -=0=Q)C«"O
;:.co
(/)Q):6-fij.s-u,Q).cc.(/)
.c
co >- G,
0 ~ 5 ~~~.~Io:_£"O.c
co
.-,.
,.~,
° -5 -co Q) co .£ .c>- -S ~"E
0
~.£
:J,-o-c"O
"Oco:Jco=
c"O>-co"OoQ)
wQ)"OQ)O:JQ)ID~.-O-C).cc.jcoQ)
,-(/)Q)G(ij'+-.c
0
Q) -"
"0 (/) .;
c
Q):J
0.Q)
Q)~._,-~-a;.':(/)'-.mO,-~,~~o
=
.c'-CO~-C)Q) .c
Q)-~-COco
~ (/)
° -co
-~coB'-'Q)=-:Jc"oQ)~"Ci.
0;
>-0;
Q).c
(/)
0.8
0 co'p'.c
-o"O(/)t2,E.c.,:o.mO.c:JO
C=Q):JO,
OoCO(/)--O(/).'w~COQ)
Q)OZ.cO(/»Q)Q)"Oco
oO-coB
oO~.c.-"OQ)Q)OG,o"ooQ)
--oO~"
(/) -'+CE"O
0
O.~=:J.c
~ -0
t:~
.!!! to.o
~
c:J
co
.->-Q)Io:
(/)°t5,o.c.o.c.c;Q)'-Oo
-Q)tG)"OQ),0.0
0.Q)1-~
>.c.~
I-O.c:
"
~
0
~
0
0
~
Q:
0
0
cx:>
0
<0
0
0
CX>-
u
c:
0
m
c:
"E
.Q
Q)
"'Q)
~
(\I
c:
"0
"E
Q)
U)
E 'Q)
(\I
o
2 u
Q)
.-.c
Q)
U
o.
I"0>
~
.e
0.
"-
0>
~
0>.
II)
"-
0-
"~
.(:
c:
CO II)
0
...
Q)
-:S
"t)
~
-,."t);;::
=:3
"t)
r.- U
"-c: -Q)
"'i5~Q.
.c: ~ II)
=:3 Q)
=:3
COe c:
."
--'-~
~
-II)
"'=
I -'
~
0
cQ)
~
Q)c:o
Q)Q)-
:S§2:
Ou-
E
i=
-!.
~I-
o
CD
C-
0
U')
C-
~
c..
":5
u.
Q)
~.g"'fj"(ij
Q)-EII)
-f3
&=:3
~CO"t)Ug.
=:3 0 I;;
~.Q"t)Q.
U)
:)
0
0
0
L{)
..-
>oo.~Q)co~.£
>(/)co
Q)c(/»-t"iij.!!!-"OQ)
.c
0
co Q)
U
.c
Co
OJ
rn
OJ
rn
~
~
"'to
~
.co.
~:E
(I)
O>~
.S OJ
"C c:
c:t
:J
u.c..
DC/)
I
Ct)
(.)
(/)
~
~u
<I
co
:::
0
0
W
~
WI
~
0
(I)
c
Q)
E
0
E
-()
c
.Q
a
u
.;::
(I)
Q)
(::I
In
Q)
:J
0'
Q)
~
!9.
0
0
I.)
'"
.c
0>:2
.-I.)
'-
.c:c:
0>.-
"iij
::I
~) ..-:..
-':
Q)
1::-1.)
", 0
c:
"0
-_.c: ..>
().-"iij
>"="
~~
--~"t,
"0
~
Q) .-c.
.--c.
1.)":
-u
c:
:::;.
tU Q) OJ tU
.c:
'-
~
.I::
-
c: ;;
.Q)",
",c.~~~tUc:
::I
Q) .,
E:
::I
tU Q) ""Qi
>",
tU .c
0
c:
"0
Q)
~.3
:>.ctU
E
c."O
"-
--00.1::
-ro
.-
ro
~
..
"C !!!. .I::
O)O)_ro
"C:ero~fAN
'0' -~
uu-_c~
0)
0
.UI
a.
.0
1;=
,-"CNO)C-
ro
.--~
O)a..-tUl.a
I/)
-~UI~UI-O).a
OOUl-,-O
,--"CO)~"C
.-0
~
U
O O)CT
--'- .I:: 0)
0)
.I::.,~?!.0"C~
ro
.-0)
Ul;=cro.l::l/)
oO)roco~
UI"C"C"CO
-"C
O)
E
_c
~ m8 "[:;;:
uroro
,.,-MUIc"C~ro
O)c-~
"Ca.
0)
0).c-
C
'"
'-"0
'"
0)
ro
'-U)mU)
u-o-
~
co
tV)
>
C')
,-,-0
0:
Q)
U
""Q)
cn
C
::I
0
0
!!?
.S
C>
'-ro
"0
Q)
cn
0">
N
"-;-
~
CO
0
CX)
~
~
~
0:
g
m
In
I::
.-
Ii) 'CX):J1n
--
f'-U:J
-.-0.
CX)°o.
~r
--I:: 0
""rot
tV)
t-ONOJZUC')OJro
C/)
"6
"0
~==
'"
CO
O)~
, N
m.
~'"
ro
'-
0
ro
",
U
U"'
cc
uO
"O
ro.-
""0
.croO,-°Oa>~"O
U)"6°m()O)<{C'=>
'O).c'"
roN"OtC
O)-Oro
'-'WC')';-ro..Q'-fjm
"OC
c.U:'-_='-~o~
O)~roNO"'o
_roOoCC._~C
o-~
-"-ro~"'
O-C~'-ro
W C'":QrooO)-..Q
0,-0)0)
N
~:.-roO)ro-'-_c
uro'-u,-~O)
"0~Ci5~50)e:",~",
~ '"
"""~~~~O)~o
-c.2
0) 0 'OJ£
OJU
0uO)c
._"'OJ
OJ.-co~ '-~
.--c.-
.-0
-0
0"000)
()
c._"'o"O~~-
E
00)3.-ro.-roNE
E
-'-'-
- """
orocC')c.roc.Oo
()£O)NO)~
c"'"O"'-N2
'---r--ro"'"ro~c
..-"0-
z
Q)
.c
-.c
z
U
II)
Oz
.c
z
m
C
..Q o>"iij
-'"
E
c_coro~
.c'-Q).9?w"O_-",tUo -ro,.,.-°0'-~UI
.-'-
~o>tU
.5
o'~'-.~tU
0
z
0
mm
c.tU
'- a>
c.
0
W X
.!Q
>-
c:
E
>-
~
.
.
>-
-'"
-:>.c: Q)
0
'"
.I::
>-
Cm-
"O..;u;
~
-q- :J .c
C
C
.c
~
-.u
C_Ul~ro
~Ulro-
"I"UlC'-.l::-O)
O"C~rouUl0
O'-Ula.roOO)
N
ro .-UI
a:
z
~
>O
tU .21 ~
E.cOtUa>g
tU-q-M
-CD,
CI
'-.cNOO"U
0
N
a.Cu)OCLO
0
0
C~m
CI.-
'-"O"E>-Ca>
ca"O-u.tU-
WtU~
0
.0; '5
C~CICI
ca .c
C
"0
C ~
'-.;~
m:'-ol.)
Q)
c.
C,
='"
-0>
Q) .--tU
~'::~'-::IN tU
Q)
o
E
"O-q-Q)c."O..,--o
C
c:
~
c: 1:: c.
Q) =~ "~
.-:>
c. E .-0)
Q)
E
'-
::1-=
5~o~~Q)"t'o
-",="5
U Q) tU
';)~~Bmolt""
Gl Q)
a>
t:
camtU.a.5c~
U
"~CC-~
a> -"B.
CI~
tU.-
'C "0
..2.
0
a> a.
CI
E
-Jo
U
a> .-'0 C
C
a>
0
u"O
Q)-.c
a> .c
C
-°ClCa>:J
.c
U
'S:
(/) .-:J
-.-a>UCtU
0 .c
U
C
.-'Cla>,0
:I:
--.0"-'-'- Q) c: o" 0)0>"0
o.-"'ih
..Qo(L>
o>tU"' 8 ",.c:
c:.5c.0 0 Q) o~)<~._"0
~~ Q) .c
tU
c: .~ .c .c ~ .cO> ,1. c: I.) "0
::I .c
I.)
0
I.) .-,1.
Q) tU c:
u.1-1I)-",.c:,~o>WtU
...Q)
c:
.-m
~LOOC.c
tU~omm.!Q
~:Sm~.c
c.O£tUtU~
~
0
0
0.
0>
0>
Co
I/)
c
.?;
Q)
~
"C
~
-q<.0-q<.0
-q-10
N
N
Ir
~
0
CX)
0
0
"-.
-.t
-.t
0.
~
"-T""
oc
~
0
0
o.
0
0
O0
0
C'-!.
(t)
M
.."""-
a:>
~
~
~
E
w
(;
"Q)
~
0
-0
u
ro
E-
"0
"5
(!)
c
o
~
cn
~
.c
u
.c
:I:
U)
a-
m
I
Coo
I
0)
OJ
:I:
co
D-
"'"
LO
In
~
=ro
()
~
0
0
«I
W
WI
0
"I"
..-
(/)
-'" c
M'-
z
>a. .~
W-
~Qa>
-15
"~, '. '"tu .C
La>
0
a> U
0
-0
"'
oo~a>-a.-o
'"
tu
c o.
E-q
or--
L-
tu
:J
r--NU"'L-~tU
ctUa> -0 ~ a>
c .-a>
E -
tUtU-L-L-a>.c
-:JCc
LC
:Ja>C~L-"'U
~-a>
a>-o a>'-
~a>a."'a>
~ca..c-
x
c
a> La.
tu -0
:J a.
.E
~wa> e ",.2:-
-q"'EW",tUt-tU
C'>
-U
ro
0
C
--'"
,."
"C
'"
'"
--ro
"CG>",oo-ro~o
~UG>-
.c
~
ro
z
>-
~
C
,.
>-0
G>
..-~
~.c-~
~
-'"
E '"
G>
00-
~O>
0
-0>
'"
~
z
>-
t;
C)~~.c--
UI
?:
"co>
0
-.0
0
(9
0
ro
.
UI
0
~~:"-OO>a5
«
-o~o
-~
O'--~U)1U-o
~.-O_UlU) -
0>.-
E
0>«0>
UI't:
0>2~~50>-;;;
:5o>roro~.cC)
->0>-04;-.5
o
O'a;t;~>-o~
~o~roo~t:
~UI~
00-
°
.-°"C
~
UI ~ .-0>
~:5~"5U1
>- -.-0
0(9
.-COO>~~
«
0 C) 'tJ UI "Q)
.,
=u
..0
a.
U
-0
0 .c
u a. u
tJ
tJ
:.::O l:)
"C.c_ro
ro -"-
~?:.§c~rom
0>
'"
.-N
°G>-o.",c
-CO),."
~CN"CG>~:o=
~o
.::;0:0=
"C
2roG>.,"C~~
ro U-~,ro"'rocu
0
~_cf-_="t:o
ro .-.~
>- -' 0
E.:g.2G>~~0-,
.-G>
"C .c
'-
a.g"Cc
a..-
0>
.-C)
:z:.«It)~:5Wa.
.-0>
X
0
-~
E":~a.C):5.c
O >
0-000>
O'-~UI
--I
ro
.0-00 -0>
O>W«C)o--I.c
0-0>
«
a.~0>-5§=.c
«.ca.°.cUl_ro-
--w
o
z
>.-
.c
::J
c ro ~
Q) .
C.c°Q)
Q)
~
-0)
Wro'--
°
.->
~
=
ro
Q)
a.>-w"C
X
C-::JW1Q
'->Il):I:Q)
W
Q)
(:5
Q)
=
;?:-
u
m
::I
.9}.
"aJ:
E
"0
c:
co
;?:-
m
u
Q)
°e
"0
co
«U
:I:
Q.
CJ)
I
N
..-
::J
c
~
C
"':00
'-
W
<.0 I::
(V)
.-
C
""CO
~
0>
It)-
co
(V)
"""It)
In
Q)
~
~
z
0
""6
.!:
U
C/)
U)
U)
C')
.-
.Q
Q)
.Q
==
.a.
0
Q»
a.
E
.-
Q)~- -
ro °
.!!i.,g~ci
roasCin'.,2Q)V:I:.c
"Co~QQ)~ '-
~ ~o
..~
.-W
ro"EQ)~Evmo"C"C"C~
U>c.3"C"5.:.:
0
tV>
v~,...Q)c1Q
-Il)
-W,-wtI)ro
cu1QUIl)
N.c.-.c
ooooE~
0°0°,...'-
~
.-ro
roa..aG> Z'oa.",
-~~
"""",a.CII>-'"
a.
"C
"'>-CcroCIIOa.ro"C
CII°.c.cE@-5c
a. OJ OJ
"'c~:2"CtJ»':co~33~"C
Oc:5°ooG>.a
Zoo-ro",~
-~-.c~~.c",
a:
~
~""COt
(V)
I:: C
t-N
CO:J:J
It)
'- cn
r-:~o.
COCo.
~
"'L()
I'--
CD
L()t-(D
°L()
0>.
-
"'c.
It)
..-
00
~
a
-.t
L()
a:
Ir
(V)
0)
1'-.-
(")
~
..-
(")
1'-.-
0
~
(0
In
II)
:c
~
Q)
In
~
CD
C")
>u
c:
Q)
e
.0
I;::
D-
.~
c:
is
:5
~
"0
00.
.q-
M.
T-
0
(%:
C'>
CX)
~
T-
C'>
0
0:
E~!:.:S~EwtU
U --0.,.~, :E
,. a> c
0
o.c-o~.-
OtU:J-I.-c
(Y)~o-Q)
uoc.!9co
.c
-0
-IL-"':J-oXtU~
a> a»
w~
-Ca>tU:J
a. 0-0
a>-oE
a>ocujU"Qj.co
0tu-
tUo:StU.c>.a.
-o.c
Uo.ctUotUa>tU
Q)
a>
.-a>
~ ~.c
"E
~.ctUUO
Q)
c:
0
E
E
t)
""c:
.Q
C
.t:
u
(/)
Q)
0
In
Q)
::J
0Q)
~
oC
c:
.~
""61
W
"C
:c
$
c..
~
()
"E
::J
(/)
:!2
C-
I
U)
0
~
()
(\I
"'
~
~
«,
0
W
'0
WI
.C)
~
cn
c:
Q)
0
E
E
<->
--
c:
Q)
~
0
C
0
.~
0
~
.-0
0
_.
0)
-.-co
-COo
0)0)
~
>c:
>~
"iij
-0)
.!!1
.cU
0)
~
"S;
c:
~O)-~
.0;
0)-
E
.!!1 0) .c
.c-
0;'
(Y) -(t;
CO-
>O0 U 0) I-
~
,"
->.
'-= "C
OJ
.c"OJ=;
w -'"
0
C/) --C'
>0.,
"C:5
E~-C/J'
0)
0)
~
C/)
:.-co:.C:~o.
0)
OJ
"Co.
._~O»_tJ'
I-
.-"C
.11.1
>- 0 'w u:'
~
0)
0 0) 0 COc.
U .c --"C
(t;
«o-'-'o"t:;
W =OJ'"
~ Z~ U ..
c,
-J
0
~
CO
coO)=.i:'~o:,
0) .c
.-'S;
.0)0)c:-
~o~
U/2oromo
-
"E!I'IV
o-l2Q»--"'0.
::I-CQ)'-IVO_",
0_0.0.",0._>~
-.-0.
IV-C"C-C::I-:-
Q)O:CIVCUQ)
::I
-.-
0'-C)~-",~IV
IV-
I-U-C"'.-IV.-
-Co
E
U
0
0
0
0
Q)
>
~C)
C"~IV2!.Q)EQ).,g
Q) .-C)
~
Q)
E) Q)>
Q
'"'-"C~
"- .-"C
"Co "C-~
IV o
"- o > ::I
m
'-
IV
-
E U
Q)",OO"C~:!2~O>
"C«Q)
'>WC)NIV~e
5.. LC> ~ "C .~ Q) o
N U
Q) ._
>
.~ ~ '"
"C
---Q)'-OU,-IV-:
IV
IVC"'OOo..e
0. Q)
U 'U/
"C"C~OO'"
'-'-IV~OIV'-
~Q»
Q)1;="C-
IV~_~_C')
-"CIVIV.-~ER-
~-IV
Q) -C)1l.Q)
z
0)
z
.c
'0
z
«
0
U
-~
(/)
cn .~
-'" '"
o
0)
I- -J ~ 8 .!!1 :z
.cQ;~:5C:oS
w
c: U c.;,
I
>-
~.-
~,.c
.-C:
OJ 0;'
>-
C
(/)
>0)
C
--CD
~'"
.2 .>
c.og'
~.-
~~
CD >. c.
CD 0 C
C 10 ro -
C
(/).-.'~ro
.-.c
.cu
-0
~
O)
0
CD
:>
.-C
'"
~>CD
0)
C"'CD(/)
0
.- .c
=E
->
f/)~"'roo-(/)CD
c~~'-cCD
In 'c
c..8
C C 0)
ro~c
C .-ro
0),~:>u-.c°ro
>~CD-.c"'ii)
(/) >. u .-
~"3""CDcn-U
.!!! ~
0 = .c
-
C C '"C
C .-CD
C '"
..Q ~ '"
:C°c~ro.ccn",
C
~
'"
Olnl--",(/)oro
Of/)
roroc
N
>u.
CD~u-~CDCCD
...~u~co~.c--~
ro
"E
-c-
z
>0)
E
":3.0
W""Q5o
CW.c
0 C (.)
(.)~U)
ro°"C
W()C
ro"Cro
U C
roro~
oQ)":3 (.)
-(.)
"C
'-Q)
.
C
()
-.GI"C~ro
w~
"Cro,GI~"C<
0 N
~-Q)w
CQ)OU)
O-Q)
.-"C
'-
W(.)O)~ '.-U)
0
$:
Q)
'-GI .c0 ""ro .-23
W .-.c
O..Q[%:
~"CQ)t:
O~-'-'-GI
T"-.-
Coo
~
Q)cQ)
z
>.E"CB
-a;~~
Q) .:sw
OJ:J
ID
:J"'~,-U>
.QOJ-COQ)
"CO>"C
C'-°.c
.'" 0.,Q .Q -a)
Q)=:J00~
CO
'"
C CO
-Q)
.QQ»co
E Q)U!.--
-",-,-",
~-g"Cf:.B?:
U> :JQ)-",Q)
.c
Q)
cU!oU!"C.c
"C
'.
Q)
CO C
'-0-
Q)
t-
Q) :c
-
U!
0
"C
"C E "Ca.~coxoco
.-Q) .c Q)
~£U! -OJ -.E~
'a."CucoQ)
Q)Q),.,
'a..-
.~o
Q)
~~
~
"-0'-Q)"':J
Q) =
a.
N
c:
"'§
.2
::I
"0
W
III
0
"5
"E
10
Q)
m
Ci5
0
w
w
co
~
"C~
CO
'-
.-.c
"'co-o"C~
Q)
CO
'.c
.0
u Q)
Q)
.c.ca.-.c
t-5:U!0-
a:
IX)
0
co.
IX)
t-t--
a:
I!:
0
0
[k:
0.
oc
0-
S
"3
In
c:
0
Q)
U
CO
c:
u
"C
.5
(9
"6
0
.c
u
f/)
a>
"<0
a.
:I:
l!)
0
CO
-.t
..-
CO.
I/)
«w
10
..J
10
c:
u
Q)
[l)
I'-
"C
'5
u.
T-
(/)
<0
<->
~
C
"E
N.
L()
N
(Y)
5:
:s:
0
-l
.2;.>
.E
'E
0
t:
Q)
t:
0
W
U)
-In
Ow
:s:~
Z-l
0
0
0
:g
L()
N
1'--It)
T-
<D-
>OJ
0
Q)
(Y)
(Y)
:5
ro
0
0
T-
0
0-
0
0
0-
0
0
n:
Ou","'ii)""~c.§~
z~~.~~(/)~-~
CDCD~~.c.c-"'~
.9-
E .cCDCD
.-U
(/).2
~,
-OcOUCDcnc
0
= (/).c
.~ .-~
.Q
a
..l~
.;::
u
cn
a
In
Q)
:J
0
Q)
rr
a
c:
.c:
u
Q)
I-
a0
U)
u
.c:
0
w
w
c..
:I:
It)
~
~
U)
~
(/)
~
.-
S
.c
u
0
~I
.W
0
~
0
WI
.-
To:
Phil Price
From: Allan Odden
Re:
Ideas for StructuringRandomizedExperiments on the Effectivenessof Interventions in
At Risk Schools in North Carolina
In our view, understandingthe cost of reform is a critical policy issue for accomplishingthe
goals of statestandardsbased educationrefonn, and ofNCLB. It is critical for two reasons:first,
becausethe way we will detennine costsis by identifying and then costing only programs that
work and needto be part of school strategiesto boost studentperfonnance;and second,because
if suchprogramsare not fully funded then it is unlikely that studentachievementgoals will be
attained. Theseassertionsare particularly s,alientand important for at-risk students,and for
schoolswith high percentagesof at-risk, 101"erperfonning students. In this memo, we layout
the key researchquestionspertaining to the costsand effectivenessof refonns, and we propose
an approachto answeringthesequestionsthat will help North Carolina meetits goals for
achieving high standardsfor all students.
I. Assessingthe costsof reform
The major cost or schoolfinance question/issue/problemaroundthe country is: What is the
amountof money neededper pupil to accomplishthe studentachievementgoals of a state's
standardsbasededucationreform? In schololfinance terms, this is the adequacyquestion: What
is an adequateamount of money? In North Carolina,the cost or adequacyissueis focused on the
high poverty, low performing schools with high concentrationsof low performing, at risk
students. The key goal is to use the dollars that are provided -and any new dollars that may be
provided -in the most efficient, or most cost effective ways.
Fully answeringthe generalschool fmance adequacyquestion-How much does it cost? meansnot only identifying a gross dollar amount (albeit with adjustmentsfor pupil needs,scale
economiesand geographicprice difference!)),but also identifying school and district educational
strategies/usesof dollars that produceimprovementsin studentlearning, becauseat the district
and school level, the grossdollars needto be translatedinto programs,servicesand educational
strategies,which in turn needto be transformedinto instructional strategiesthat educatestudents
to proficiency performancelevels. Thesegeneralstatementsare very true for North Carolina.
The issueis not just how much money, or how much more money is neededfor the at-risk, high
poverty districts/schools/studentsthat are the focus of the court decision, but which programs
and serviceswork, i.e., help to enhancethe achievementof studentsfrom lower income
backgrounds,and how much do thoseprogramscost.
To date, four major methodshave beendevelopedto answerjust the first part of the school
finance adequacyquestion-How much moneyis needed?: I) cost function, 2) successful
district, 3) professionaljudgment, and 4) evidence-based.Odden(2003) provides a full a
description of theseapproaches.Although no approachis perfect, they are the approachesbeing
used by statesaddressingthe schoolfinanct~adequacyagenda.
The cost function and successfuldistrict approachesto detennining adequacyprovide a gross
dollar per pupil figure, actually a high and low figure respectively,and adjustmentsfor pupil
9
needs(struggling studentsfrom lower income backgrounds,ELL studentsand disabled students),
scaleeconomiesand geographicprice differences,but provide no information on how to use the
dollars. If theseapproachesare usedto determinethe adequatespendinglevel, schoolsand
districts still needto determine how most effectively -on what programsand educational
strategies-to use the dollars.
The professionaljudgment and evidence-basedapproachesalso provide an adequacyper pupil
number (with similar adjustmentsfor pupil ][}eeds,scaleeconomiesand geographicprice
differences)but build to this per pupil amountby identifying educational.strategies/usesof
resourcesat the school level that wouldpro~/ide all studentsan opportunity to achieveto
proficiency levels. The former usesthe "professionaljudgment" of educatorsto identify a level
of resourcesby educationalstrategyand usulallyidentifies a higher level of resourcesfor each
strategy than the evidence-basedapproach,'whichrelies mainly on researchand bestpractices,
but both cover essentiallythe samewithin si;:hooleducationalstrategies.
Thus, all four methodsproduce an overall per pupil dollar number, but only two methods
identify how those dollars would be used on educationalprogramsand strategiesat the school
level. And only one of thosemethods-the evidence-basedmethod-attempts to take a
scientific approachto the issue by premisin!~its key recommendationson research-based
evidencewhere evidenceexists. But even £orthe evidence-basedapproach,the problem is both
that there is an insufficient evidentiarybaseand little evidenceis gatheredto confinn impact
when a new program is funded and put into place. Our Centerwould remedy both of these
deficienciesusing what we considerthe best approachto answeringthe school finance cost and
adequacyquestion.
As statedabove,all methodsto determine s,~hoolfinance adequacyat somepoint in the process
must addressboth aspectsof the major school financequestion: How much moneyis needed
and what are the bestusesof thosedollars? So the urgentneed in North Carolina is fully
consistentwith the national issue. We would argue,moreover, that answeringthesequestionsis
best done through evidence-basedor scientific methods,i.e., methodsthat seekto provide
evidenceon what educationalstrategyand their resourceneeds,and what combinations of
strategiesand their resourceneeds,work -make an impact on studentlearning, the magnitudes
of those impacts, and the total costsof what it would take for all or nearly all students-in North
Carolina, the studentsmost at risk -to meet state and/or NCLB performancelevels.
Weare conceptualizingour proposedFinance Centeraroundmaking advancesin the evidencebasedapproachto school finance adequacy. We seekto amassmore evidence for identifying
what level of resourcesare needed,supporting what combinations of educationalstrategies,to
provide all students,and particularly at risk students,with opportunitiesto achieveto state
performancestandards,or in North Carolin~lterms, to receive a sound,basic education. More
specifically, the following resourceuse questionsare those that both accountfor the bulk of
proposededucationcosts(aside from operationsand maintenance,transportation,food and
district administration)and needmore evid{:nceto be answeredmore definitively(interestingly,
theseeducationalstrategiesare thoseaddressedby both the professionaljudgment and
evidenced-basedapproaches):
10
1. What is the impact of pre-school,particularly for children from lower income families,
on accomplishing studentperformancegoals? And are half or full day programs equally
or differentially effective?
2. Should kindergartenbe full- or half day? What is the impact of half- versus full-day
kindergarten?
3. Is there an optimum school size, or rangesof school size? What scale adjustmentsshould
be made for small (or very large) schools?
4. What should class sizesbe: K-3, 4-5, 6-8, 9-12.
5. In addition to core teachersstaffing core classes(mathematics,science,history/social
studies,English/reading/languagearts, and perhapsforeign language),how many
specialist/planningand prep teacher:;(art, music, physical education,vocational
education, etc.) should there be?
6. What are the resource-needsof effe<:tiveprofessionaldevelopmentstrategiesre: numbers
of onsite instructional facilitators/coaches,teachertime for summerinstitutes and during
the regular school year, dollars for tJ..ainers
whethercentral office or externalconsultants?
7. What are the most effective strategit:sfor struggling students-individual tutoring (and
what is the load per FTE teacheranclhow many studentsneedtutoring?), pull out
remedial classes,mainstreaming,etc:?
8. What additional extra help is neededlfor ELL students,what are the most effective
educationalstrategies,and what are the resourceneedsof those strategies?
9. What are the most effective strategit:sfor serving high incidence/lower cost disabled
studentsand what are the resourceneeds? What are the costsof serving low
incidence/highcostdisabled students?
10. What are the most effective service:;trategiesfor gifted and talented studentsand what
are their resourceneeds,if any?
11. What are effective pupil support/family outreachstrategiesand what are their resource
needs?
12. How many studentsneedextendedclayprograms,and what are the structures,resource
needsand impacts of thoseprogram:s?
13. How many studentsneed summersc:hoolprograms,and what are the structures,resource
needsand impacts of thoseprogram:s?
[Question6 abovecould be madeto be more general,as a questionof what are the strategies,
including incentives,to recruit, developand retain a high quality teacherworkforce, especially
for low performing schoolsas well as in the technical- math, science,computertechnology areasin secondaryschools?]
II. Proposed studies in North Carolina
When we reviewed the programs that are on the North Carolina "Menu of Recommended
Strategies,"we sawa strong overlap with tbleabovequestions. So we are offering the following
as a setof suggestionsfor how a seriesof ralndomizedexperimentscould be conductedas North
Carolina phasedin the $225 million extra that seemsto be neededfor the at-risk schools/students
that are the focus of the Leandro decisions.
11
.
!
-,_~SR
As I noted in my last email message,the randomizationneedsto be made on a school basis. In
order to have sufficient "power" in the statistical analysisto detecta program impact of about a
quarterof a standarddeviation, we need about 50 or so schools,25 with the program and 25 as
controls. So here are someideas.
We'd try and get a universe of75-l00 elementaryschools(as we wil~ be assessingmore than
two programs). Each schoolwould be provided with an equal sumof dollars per pupil, so there
is incentive for all to participate. But, the Statewould specify that the dollars would needto be
used on a random assignmentbasis for a fix.ed set of programs, which would vary by grade level.
Unfortunately, this kind of strategyeliminatesdoing someexperimentswith professional
development,becauseprofessionaldevelopmentof teachersfrom just somegradeswould too
likely "leak" to other teacherstherebyconulminatingthe treatment. But this strategywould
allow us to use studentsat the non-programgradesto be the controls for studentsin the school
that receivedthe funds for a programmaticJgradelevel intervention. Further, this strategyand'
this number of schoolswould allow us also to studythe impact of a couple of combinationof
programsas well.
So the following chart is an exampleof what could be studied,via controlled experiments,at the
elementarylevel. We assumeelementarysc::hools
are K-6; if not, we could make modifications.
We had to pick someprograms for gradesI<~-2,
3-4, and 4-6. So we picked the following
(obviously, thesecould change,but they se~~med
relevantto your situation and to the menu of
programs):
Class size reduction (CSR) to 15 in gradesK-2. The current allotment now is 1:18, but
the averageclasssize is 21, so this vvouldbe to reducethe actual classsize to 15.
A within school 1-1 tutoring (Tutor) program for studentsnot learning to standardsin
grades3-4.
An extendedday program (EDP) wiith focusedacademicservicesfor struggling students
in grades5-6.
And in the subsequentyears, as money was increased,a summer(Summer) school
program for struggling studentsin grades5-6.
We also assumedthat in some subsequent)i'ear,I have it in year 3 in the attachedchart, but it
could be any subsequentyear, the money would increase,and eachschool could have two
programs.
Following is the chart:
m
I Year!
I Year!
Year!
I Tutor
5-6
5-6
I Year 2
Year 2 I Year2-'
CSR
3-4
-2
Year 3
I Year 3
Year 3
I CSR+
I Tutor-
I Tutor
I EDP
'EDP
I Tutor +
IEDP
IEDP+
I Summer
So, in Year 1 (which could be the secondyc~arof the Center), eachschool would get $X/child.
That would be sufficient to fund all four programs. Schoolswould be randomly assignedto a
12
particular use of the dollars -class size reduction, 1-1 tutoring, extendedday program. Class
size reduction would be just for gradesK-2" 1-1 tutoring just for grades3-4, and extendedday
programsjust for grades5-6. Let's saywe had 75 total schools. 25 would get CSR, 25 Tutoring,
and 25 ExtendedDay. Studentsin gradesI<~-2in the non-CSRschoolswould serveas the
controls for the studentsin the CSR schools:;studentsin grades3-4 in the non-Tutoring schools
would serveas the controls for the studentsgetting tutored in the Tutor schools;and studentsin
grades5-6 would serveas the controls for studentsgetting extendedday servicesin the EDP
schools. The treatment-SCR, Tutor, and EDP -could be for one year or eventwo years. The
abovechart shows it going for two years: For eachyear, we could determinethe programmatic
impactsof thesetreatments.
Then in Year 3 in the above chart (it could be year 2 if the monies were phased-inmore quickly),
eachschool would get $2X/pupil. They the:ncould add a program. In our example, the CSR
schoolswould then add the tutoring, which is for the next group of students-fIrst you get CSR,
and then if the studentsare still strugglingto get up to proficiency, they get Tutoring servicesin
grades3-4. The Tutoring schoolswould get extendedday programs;tutoring in grades3-4, and
then extendedday servicesin grades5-6 if "theystill needextra help. The Extended Day
Programschoolswould then get summerschool. Eachof theseadditional programsare natural
extensionsof the initial programs. And there would still be gradesin 25 schoolsto serveas the
"controls" for the gradesthat got both treabnents.
So we could testthe impact ofCSR alone in gradesK-2, Tutoring alone in grades3-4, and
Extended Day Programsalone in grades5-() for the fIrst two years of the experiment,and then
testthe impact of CSR and Tutoring, Tutoring and ExtendedDay, and ExtendedDay and
SummerSchool, in the third year. Further, in the third year, we'd still have 25 control schools in
all gradesfor studentsin the specified grad(~sstill getting just the CSR, Tutoring and Extended
Day services,so could extend that analysis.
The specific programmaticinterventionscould be different, but we have tried to pick someof the
most popular and most expensiveinterventions,and to sequencethem as they would be normally
sequenced.All the schoolswould get the money, but their use of the moneywould be
programmatically structured,in a random"ray, so that we could studythe impacts of the
intervention in an experimentallycontrolled way.
We didn't think we had the samedifferential gradelevel opportunity at the middle and high
schoollevel, so we thought at that level, we:would be able to studyjust one intervention. We
proposeto study incentives for teachersto move to high poverty, low performing middle schools,
and to study similar incentives for teachersin mathematicsand sciencein high schools. And we
believe the incentivesneedto be largerthaI! most placeshave beentrying.
One idea, which has beentried aroundthe (:ountry,is the following. At $250/pupil, one could
fund an incentive of $5000 per teacher,assllllling just a classsize of 20 kids. So the incentive
would b~ $5000 per teacher. For the middle schools,we would work with the stateto analyze
the effectivenessof teachersin teachingma.thematicsand reading at the middle school level. We
would conducta Sanders-typevalue addedanalysis. We would identify a confidenceinterval for
identifying the most effective teachers-say a 10-15 percentconfidence level (teachersget in the
13
.
categorybut there could be an error rate of 10-15 percent-a lower level would reducethe
number of teachersidentified). So, only tea.cherswho were identified as effective would be
eligible for the incentive. The idea is to provide the incentive not just for anyonewilling to teach
in a low performing school, but only to pro,reneffective teachers. [We supposethat the
incentive could be for any subjectto make it "fairer" acrossteachers,but we'd have the
effectivenesscontrol just for the teacherswJl1oteach subjects that the statetests.] For teachers
already in the school, those in the effective 'categorywould get the $5k to stay, those in the
middle categorywould only get half the incentive, and those in the bottom category(we'd
suggesta five percentconfidence interval) would not get any incentive.
We'd have to randomly assignschoolsto the treatment, or a universe that would be interested.
The other option would be to comparethis Icind of focused interventionto schools that got
money but could use it for whateverPurpOSI~
they wanted, but that isn't as good a design.
We would do somethingsimilar at the high school level. We could do the samething, but we'd
suggestfocusing on just mathematicsand s<:ienceteachers,with the sameeffectivenesscriterion.
We'd also needto focus on those scienceareasthat the statetests,so we could do the
effectivenessanalysisand also determinethe impact of the incentive re studentachievement.
This studydesignwould provide controlled experimentsfor severalprogrammaticinitiatives that
are on the North Carolina agenda:
.
.
.
.
.
Classsize reduction in gradesK-2
Tutoring within school
Extended day programs
Summerschoolprograms
Incentives for effective reading/Englishor math teachersto move to or stay in low
performing middle schools
Incentives for effective mathematicsand scienceteachersto move to or stayin high
poverty high schools.
In addition, we would also analyze the studentlteacherlschoollinked North Carolina data base for
effects of a wide variety of other issues that occur naturally, such as school size, class size, etc.
.We think such a study design approach would provide much useful information for North
Carolina, would also make a very, very attractive proposal to IES, and would have national
implications, as the issues studied are on th(~agenda either directly or indirectly in nearly all
states.
14