Current CEEP Research On Key K-12
Issues Facing Indiana Public Schools
2008 Summer ISBA Member Academy
July 10, 2008
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 P16 education policy not only in Indiana, but across the
nation
2
CEEP Associates focus their broad spectrum of
experience and capabilities to produce high impact
within the following "Areas of Excellence":
•Educational Evaluation
oEarly Childhood Education Evaluation
oLiteracy Evaluation
oMath, Science and Technology Evaluation
•Education Policy Research & Technical Assistance
•Health, Human Services & Community Development
Evaluation
3
Contents
I.
Virtual Education
II. School District Consolidation
III. Pre-Kindergarten Programs
IV. Full-day Kindergarten
V. Predictions for the 2009 General Assembly
4
I. Virtual Education
CEEP Report:
“Promises and Pitfalls of Virtual Education in the United
States and Indiana”
June 13, 2008
http://www.ceep.indiana.edu/projects/PDF/PB_V6N6_Spring_2008_EPB.pdf
5
Promises and Pitfalls of Virtual Education
in the United States and Indiana
• Virtual education is an emerging issue in the U.S. and
Indiana
o In 2007, Indiana legislature eliminated funding for
two virtual charters approved through Ball State
University and placed a two-year moratorium on
virtual charter school funding
o In 2008, Indiana legislature passed HB 1246, creating
an Interim Study Committee on K-12 Virtual Learning
to study program availability, quality, standards,
accreditation, pricing, and funding for virtual
education in the state
6
Growth of Virtual Education
• Virtual education is growing 30% annually in the U.S.
• 42 states, including IN, have some form of virtual
learning in place
• Currently, a total of 25 states have established or
financed state-led virtual programs
• An estimated 1 million online enrollments in 2007
• As of January 2007, 173 cyber charters in 18 states
serving over 92,000 students
7
Types of Virtual Education
• Two types of virtual education:
o Supplemental
 Allows for expanded course offerings, such as AP
courses and credit recovery
 Possible strategy to address teacher shortage
 Florida Virtual School served 52,000 students in 90
courses in 06-07
o Full-time
 Majority/entirety of courses offered online
 Provides full spectrum of school services
 Generally provides computer, Internet access, and
course materials free to student
8
Indiana Virtual Programs
• Indiana has several locally-initiated supplemental
virtual programs:
o Indiana Online Academy (administered by CIESC)
o Indiana Virtual School
o Indiana University High School (provides both
supplemental and full-time programs)
• All three programs:
o Use Indiana-certified teachers
o Offer asynchronous courses which meet or exceed
Indiana state standards
o Charge course fees (less than $300 per credit) to
student or school
9
Indiana Virtual Programs
• Indiana has no full-time virtual charter schools;
however, Hoosier Academy combines elements of both
virtual and traditional charters
o Conditionally approved through Ball State
University and working in conjunction with K12 Inc.
o Provides a blended curriculum consisting of a
combination of online course work at home and
traditional classroom work at a physical learning
facility
o Open to all K-10 Indiana students, but students
must attend one of two physical locations in
Indianapolis and Muncie twice a week
10
Pitfalls of Virtual Education
• Proper training and certification for teachers
• Equitable funding models
• Program quality and oversight
• Student accountability
• Student socialization
• Lack of explicit rules in Indiana
11
Policy Considerations
• State policy should ensure that virtual and traditional
education options complement each other in the
evolving education and workforce landscapes of the
21st century
• To ensure quality and oversight:
o Require online courses to meet or exceed state
standards
o Have online course titles/offerings approved by
SBOE
o Mandate same high school graduation
requirements for all types of schools
12
Policy Considerations:
Effective funding mechanisms
• Current education funding models, such as those based
on seat-time, may not be viable for many virtual
programs
• Potential models of funding distribution:
o Distribution of funds based on a sliding scale of
expenditures which is based on expenditures of
faculty, curriculum, and other educational services
o Distribution by course or credit to the various
providers of students’ education where programs
receive funding based upon student completion of
courses
13
Policy Considerations:
Accountability and Teacher Training
• To ensure effectiveness, virtual evaluation
management tools that create transparency should be
integrated into virtual programs to help identify strong
and weak programs
• Teaching in a virtual school setting takes different skills
and strategies than in a traditional school setting
• Establish online teacher training requirements for preservice teachers and include as a component of
professional development for all teachers
• Create explicit licensing requirement for teaching
online
14
II. School District Consolidation
CEEP Reports:
“Assessing the Policy Environment for School Corporation
Collaboration, Cooperation, and Consolidation in
Indiana”
July 18, 2007
http://ceep.indiana.edu/projects/PDF/PB_V5N5.pdf
“2007 Public Opinion Survey on K-12 Education in Indiana”
January 9, 2008
http://www.ceep.indiana.edu/projects/PDF/POS_Ed_IN_20080108.pdf
15
16
(Q9) To what extent do you agree or disagree with the perspective
that the consolidation of smaller school districts in Indiana will save
tax dollars?
New Question in 2007
 Respondents who believe to some
extent that consolidation of school
districts in Indiana will save tax
dollars:
•
All Respondents 49%
•
•
White Residents 50%
Non-White Residents 45%
•
•
•
High School or Less 44%
Some College 49%
College Grad or More 53%
16
17
(Q10) Would you support or oppose the school district in your
community being consolidated with another district if there was
only a slight possibility the consolidation would lower your tax
burden?
New Question in 2007
•
All Respondents:
Support 35% Oppose 59%
•
White Residents :
Support 33% Oppose 61%
Minority Residents:
Support 45% Oppose 51%
•
 Support Declines with More
Education:
• High School or Less 40%
• Some College 38%
• College Grad or More 28%
17
2007 Local Government Reform Commission
Recommendations Concerning Schools
(Note: A total of 27 recommendations were issued on December 11,
2007; this Commission is often referred to as the Kernan-Shepard
Commission)
Recommendation #11: Reorganize school districts to achieve a
minimum student population of 2,000. Establish state standards
and a county-based planning process similar to that established in
1959 legislation
Recommendation #12: Require that school corporation bonds be
approved by the fiscal body of the municipal or county
government containing the greatest proportion of assessed value
in the school district
18
2007 Local Government Reform Commission
Recommendations Concerning Schools
(continued)
Recommendation #13: Prompt joint purchasing by schools
Recommendation #14: Conduct all non-partisan school
elections during November in even years
19
Local Government Unit Trends in
Indiana
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
1,008
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
1,236
1,125
20
Descriptive Data
•In 2005-06, Indiana ranked 14th in the nation with the
number of public school students at 1,035,074. The
average number of students per school was 519, ranking
the state 16th in this category. The national average was
498 students per building
•In 2005-06, Indiana ranked 18th (from largest to
smallest) in the nation for its number of schools (1,993)
and its number of corporations (364 including charter
schools and co-ops)
21
Descriptive Data (continued)
• The average number of students per school corporation
of 2,843 ranked the state 25th in the nation, just
slightly above the national average of 2,824 students
per school corporation
• According to the NCES Common Core of Data for the
2005-06 school year, Indiana had fewer teachers,
guidance counselors, librarians, school building
administrators, school district administrators, and
administrative support staff than the national average,
but more instructional aides, instructional
coordinators/supervisors, and other support staff
22
District Enrollment Size (2007-08)
23
Corporations Compared to Counties
In Indiana:
• The 10 smallest school corporations are in counties
where the total population is lower than 100,000 and
the total number of school corps. range from 3 to 7
• The 10 largest school corporations are in counties
where the total population is over 100,000 and the
total number of school corps. range from 1 to 16
• 8 of the 10 smallest counties have only one school
corporation
24
Perceived Benefits and Obstacles to
Central Office Consolidation
Benefits
Enhanced curricular opportunities
Obstacles
Public perception/community
relationships
Shared/combined services, pooling Job loss
of resources
Savings of time
Multiple boards
Potential cost savings
No educational benefit
Better communication opportunity Accuracy of financial analysis
25
Texas School Consolidation Policy Study
• Research furnishes little evidence that consolidation
controls costs or improves academic achievement (i.e.,
“bigger isn’t necessarily better”)
• Most studies concur that students perform better in
smaller elementary and middle schools. Research on
small high schools is inconclusive
*Patterson, C. (February 2006). School District Consolidation and Public School Efficiency: What
Does the Research Say? Texas Public Policy Foundation, Center for Education Policy Studies.
26
Kansas – Policy Paper on School
Consolidation
• The benefits of small schools is one of the promising
areas of research in education
o Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation have invested
more than $750 million in touting the benefits of
smaller schools, or “smaller learning communities,”
whether in rural or urban settings
o As a result, across the country some school districts
are getting smaller rather than larger
*Laplante, J. (December 2005). School Consolidation: An Ineffective Way of
Improving Education. Policy Paper. Flint Hills Center for Public Policy.
27
Academic Drawbacks to Consolidation
• Brasington (2004) found that doubling school size
caused school performance to fall by one percentage
point
• Berry (2004) determined that increasing the average
size of a school by 100 students was associated with a
3.7% decline in earnings by high school graduates
• In this light, consolidation does not appear to help
prepare students for their futures
28
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)
29
Financial Impact of Consolidation
• Minimal cost savings
o Savings possible by moving from a very small district to a
district with 1,000 – 4,000 students
o Consolidation can create districts too large that result in
increase administrative costs, larger class size ratios, and
lower student achievement
• Andrew Coulson, at the Cato Institute’s Center for
Educational Freedom, has done research on optimal district
size in five states
o Results have varied
o New York districts are most efficient at 2,280 students
o An optimal size could not ultimately be determined in
Michigan
30
Financial Impact of Consolidation
(continued)
• In a doctoral dissertation, Tim Zimmer, finds that
according to one cost model for Indiana, the optimal
student enrollment is 1,030 students with a cost of
$9,824 per student. Diseconomies emerge beyond the
optimal.
• If consolidation is considered, it is only consistent that
deconsolidation be open to discussion.
• According to his data analysis of Indiana school
corporations, student performance is optimal with
enrollments between 1,000 and 3,000 students, and
peaks at an enrollment level of 2,238 students
Tim Zimmer. Doctoral Dissertation. Purdue University: West Lafayette, IN.
31
Financial Impact of Consolidation
(continued)
1 20 0 0


Spearman’s rho = -.19, p < .001

1 00 0 0

ADM$
• Research from Dr.
Lowell Rose suggested
that there is a
statistically
insignificant
relationship 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
32
Unintended Consequences
• Possible unintended consequences of consolidation
include:
o Loss of community identity
o Impact on funding formula
o Changes to AYP and PL 221 category placements
33
Legislative Funding (HEA 1001-2007)
• 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
• This academy is to ensure that business and finance officials in
each corporation are equipped with adequate analysis,
communication, and leadership skills to maximize the efficient use
of resources
• Also appropriated $100,000 for school corporation consolidation
feasibility studies. A total of four studies underway in Randolph,
White, and Delaware Counties
• From July 1 through July 15, 2008, the IDOE is accepting grant
proposals for studies being conducted during the 2008-09 school
year
34
Findings and Recommendations
1.
Consolidation has no proven impact on student achievement
2.
Some research suggests optimal school and school corporation
sizes exist (i.e., smaller schools in bigger districts); however,
research is inconsistent and inclusive
3.
At best, limited research available that indicates meaningful
cost savings are realized from consolidation on a systemic basis
4.
Thus, consolidation should be encouraged on a case-by-case
basis only, not mandated on a wholesale basis (e.g. state of
Maine). In particular, consolidation may be beneficial for the
smallest school corporations with proper strategic planning. (A
case can be made to consolidate districts with less than 1,000
students; less compelling the bigger the target population)
35
Findings and Recommendations
5.
Encourage corporations to participate in the feasibility study
program funded by the Indiana General Assembly
6.
Encourage the IGA to fund implementation grants after
feasibility studies concluded
7.
Implications of consolidation on AYP and PL 221 categories
should be addressed
8.
Shared services hold considerable promise and should be a
point of emphasis
9.
School corporations should be given incentives to save by
allowing inter-fund transfers of documented savings to GF to
provide more money for classroom instruction
36
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
37
III. 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
38
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
39
Benefits of Pre-K Participation (continued)
• 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
40
National Snapshot of Pre-K Programs
• In 2006-07, 38 states (excluding Indiana) offered statefunded pre-k programs
• Approximately $3.7 billion was spent by state
governments
• These states serve 1,008,597 3- and 4-year olds, over
an 8% increase from the previous year
• 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
41
Indiana Snapshot of Pre-K Programs
• In 2005, 40% of all 3- and 4-year olds (or approximately 101,694
children) participated in center-based early education (nursery
school, preschool, child care centers, registered ministries,
prekindergarten; excludes child care homes) in Indiana
• Of these children, 49% were served in a public school setting.
Thus, about approximately 50,000 3- and 4-year-old children are
served in prekindergarten by a public school
• 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
* Data from the Census Bureau: Indiana Enrollment in Early Education 2006
42
Indiana Snapshot of
Pre-K Programs (continued)
• 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 absent
• Despite this, there were 93 school corporations and
three charter schools that provided some type of pre-k
education (not including preschool special education)
during the 2006-07 school year
43
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:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Comprehensive early learning standards
Teachers with bachelor’s degrees
Teachers with specialized training in prekindergarten
Assistant teachers with Child Development Associate or equivalent
degree
In-service 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.
44
Considerations of Pre-K Programs
(continued)
• 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 4year-olds who are at risk, would cost $68,250,220 at a
rate of $3,551 per child (2006 estimate)
• The same program expanded to all 4-year-olds would
cost $156,567,141 at the same rate (2006 estimate)
45
Considerations of Pre-K Programs
(continued)
• The Economic Policy Institute released a study on the
costs and benefits of pre-k programs
• In Indiana, a targeted program, serving only 3- and 4year olds from families in the lowest quarter of the
income distribution, would pay for itself within 8 years
• The annual cost of the program in 2008 would be $211
million
• By 2050, the program would cost $598 million, but the
benefits would equal $5.9 billion in the same year
• The ratio of total benefits to costs in 2050 is 9.8 to 1
46
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
47
IV. Full-Day Kindergarten
CEEP Report:
“Short-Lived Gains or Enduring Benefits? The LongTerm Impact of FDK”
April 2005
http://www.ceep.indiana.edu/projects/PDF/PB_Spring_2005_Full_Day_Kinde
rgarten.pdf
48
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
49
Full-Day Kindergarten Grant
• State Budget (HEA 1001-2007) increased the state fullday 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 for the 2008-09 school year
May 2, 2008
50
Full-Day Kindergarten Grant: Eligibility
• Eligibility for 2008-09 school year:
o Any school corporation or charter school
o No demographic makeup considered
o School must include five hours of instructional time
for 180 days during the school year
o School must meet academic standards of Indiana
Code Title 20 and State Board of Education rules
adopted pursuant to IC 20
51
Full-Day Kindergarten Grant:
Allocations
• Actual grant amount is dependent on how many FDK
students are present on “count day” in September
• Grant amount per student is equal to the total state
appropriation divided by the total number of FDK
students statewide
• As of June 25,2008, 291 school corporations and 28
charter schools applied to receive the grants. The
grants will fund an estimated 2,681 FDK classrooms
• Based on applications submitted May 2, 2008 to the
IDOE, there will be an estimated 56,468 FDK students
(approximately 75% of all kindergarten students
statewide) for the 2008-09 school year, making the
grant $1,047 per student
52
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
53
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 nonfederal 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
54
Full-Day Kindergarten Funding
http://www.doe.in.gov/TitleI/pdf/funding_fdk.pdf
55
V. Predictions for the 2009 General
Assembly
•Virtual education, FDK funding, and school corporation
consolidation are expected to be hot topics in this
upcoming session
•Other issues may include: moving school board elections
to November; an appointed state superintendent of public
instruction; modifications to the 2008 voter referendum
law concerning school construction; school choice;
privatization of Hoosier Lottery to fund Hoosier Hope
Scholarships; and of course school funding
56
School Funding Issues
• Full funding for FDK = $160 million
• School transportation funding issues: 1) Move to state
funding system? 2) Rising fuel costs driving costs up to
exceed 5% cap
• Formula issues: 1) What level of funding increase can
be expected? 2) Will per pupil funding inequities
between corporations be eliminated? How will the
Complexity Index, growth factor, deghoster
mechanism, and vocational and special education
funding change, if at all?
• Fiscal year/school year budgeting implementation: 6month or 18-month transition period?
57
School Board Elections
• Local Government Reform Commission
Recommendation #14: Conduct all non-partisan school
elections during November in even years
• 2008 legislation: HB 1373 and SB 002 (passed the
Senate with a 34-13 vote)
58
Study Committee Issues
• The Interim Study Committee on Education Matters
will be considering several issues:
o A review of high school athletic steroid testing
o The feasibility making the Indiana Technology Fund
a continuing appropriation
o Making recommendations to the General Assembly
for a formula to fund school transportation costs
o College readiness
o K-12 virtual learning and related issues of
standards, funding, etc.
59
CEEP Contact Information
Terry E. Spradlin, MPA
Associate Director
509 East Third Street
Bloomington, Indiana 47401-3654
812-855-4438
Fax: 812-856-5890
http://ceep.indiana.edu
60