Upload
asher-harmon
View
215
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
School Funding for Students in Poverty
Sarah Burks
Arkansas Political Science Association Conference
February 28, 2014
Outline
• Introduction to Poverty Funding• Allocation of Funding
– Other States– Arkansas
• Use of Funding• Our Recommendations
School Funding
• Since the 1970s, at least 45 states have had school funding court cases.– Serrano (1971): California school funding case
Adequacy Focused on the amount of funding:Providing enough resources to allow each district/school to ensure each child has an equal opportunity to receive an education
Equity Reduced variation in spending per pupil.
Horizontal equity: the equal treatment of students (“one scholar, one dollar”)
Vertical equity: providing additional funding for disadvantaged students to equalize educational opportunities
Vertical Equity Funding
• States recognize that schools/districts need additional funding to offset the costs necessary to educate certain students.– Including: English Language Learners; low-income students; etc
• Students in poverty face challenges that may require additional funding.– For example, districts may institute summer school, hire additional
school counselors and tutors, etc.
• Schools/districts with high concentrations of poverty face particular challenges that require additional funding. (Kahlenberg)
Performance• NAEP: “The Nation’s Report Card”
– Best ‘apples-to-apples’ comparison of students across the nation.
• Low-income (FRL) students consistently perform less well than non-FRL students.
4th Grade Reading 8th Grade Reading
Poverty Funding• Majority of states provide additional funding for students in poverty.
– Typically measured by % of free and reduced lunch students (FRL) or by census poverty data
• States vary in the methods used to allocate additional funding.– Weighted method: incorporates increased weights per low-income
pupil to the foundation base.• Federal Title I grants use 0.40 as the standard additional weight for
FRL students. – Categorical grant method: provides a flat/weighted grant per pupil
separate from the foundation base.
Poverty Funding in Other States
Source: Arkansas Bureau of Legislative Research
*Not comprehensive States place different weights on low-income students.
Poverty Funding in Illinois
• Provides additional funding to districts per pupil in poverty
• Accounts for concentration of poverty in districts through an exponential function
Poverty Funding in Minnesota
• Similar to Illinois’ model:– Provides additional funding to districts per pupil in
poverty – Accounts for concentration of poverty in districts
through an exponential function
• Assigns different weights to free lunch students vs. reduced lunch students in an attempt to better account for poverty– Free lunch students accounts for two times a reduced
lunch student.
Poverty Funding in Arkansas
• Public School Funding Act of 2003 – In response to the Lake View Decision, Arkansas
reconfigured school funding formulas.
• Categorical Funding– Not incorporated into the foundation base– Allocated to districts per pupil:
• English Language Learners; Alternative Learning Environment students; Free and reduced lunch students
Poverty Funding in Arkansas (NSLA)
• National School Lunch Act (NSLA)– Allocates additional funding per FRL pupil– Amount per FRL pupil dependent upon the
concentration of poverty in the district– Allocations accounts for growth/decline
0% 8% 16%24%32%40%48%56%64%72%80%88%96% $-
$200 $400 $600 $800
$1,000 $1,200 $1,400 $1,600 $1,800
% FRL of School
$ p
er
FR
L P
upil% FRL
Students2004-05 to
2006-072007-08 to
2010-112011-12
2012-13 and
2013-14≤69% $480 $496 $506 $51770%-89% $960 $992 $1,012 $1,033≥90% $1,440 $1,488 $1,518 $1,549
Benchmark Math Achievement (GPA Measure), By % FRL
Benchmark Literacy Achievement (GPA Measure), By % FRL
0-20% 20%-30%
30%-40%
40%-50%
50%-60%
60%-70%
70%-80%
80%-90%
90%-100%
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4
2011-12 2009-10 2007-08
0-10% 20%-30%
30%-40%
40%-50%
50%-60%
60%-70%
70%-80%
80%-90%
90%-100%
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4
2011-12 2009-10 2007-08
Achievement by %FRL
Evaluation of Arkansas’ System• The system does provide additional funding for students in poverty and
accounts for high concentrations of poverty.
• However, the tiered system creates arbitrary cutoffs such that districts with very similar demographics are treated differently in the funding system. – For example, a district with 69% FRL receives less funding per FRL pupil than a
district with 70% FRL; however, student bodies with 69% and 70% FRL look relatively similar.
• This discontinuous break in the funding system allows us to compare the academic achievement of districts around the 70% and 90% “cliffs.”– Based on the comparisons of these schools around the “cliffs”, we cannot claim
justification for the discontinuous 70% and 90% “cliffs.” (See following slide.)
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-132.00
2.20
2.40
2.60
2.80
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.60
3.80
4.00
64%-69% 70% - 75%
State Average
Benchmark Math GPA, 2007-08 to 2012-13
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-132.00
2.20
2.40
2.60
2.80
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.60
3.80
4.00
64%-69% 70% - 75%
State Average
Benchmark Literacy GPA, 2007-08 to 2012-13
• On the math and literacy benchmark exams, the districts just above and below the cliff (thus, districts who are socio-economically “equal”) perform nearly identically.
Achievement Comparisons at the 70% “Cliff”
14
Evaluation of Arkansas’ System
Evaluation of Arkansas’ System
• It is important to note that we do not have the counterfactual to examine how districts would perform without poverty funding.
• Nevertheless, we do know that:
1. Most agree that additional resources should be provided to schools with higher concentrations of poverty (to help students overcome additional challenges associated poverty).
2. No “silver bullets”: no research indicates exact funding is needed to create equal opportunities for poor students.
• Next, we examine how districts spend the money.
Poverty Funding Regulations
• States vary in how school funding (and poverty funding) is regulated.– Some states provide districts with more autonomy in
spending.– Other states prescribe certain uses for poverty funding, so
that funds are targeted to students/programs.
• Arkansas regulates poverty funding by limiting the usage to certain categories.
Expenditure Categories Year Coded
as Exp. Percent of NSLA Funding in
2011-12
Literacy, Math, and Science Specialists and Coaches 2003 16.51%
Other activities approved by the ADE - 11.56%High Qualified Classroom Teachers 2003 9.42%Transfer to ALE Categorical Fund - 8.63%School Improvement Plan - 8.62%Counselors, Social Workers, Nurses 2003 8.30%Teachers’ Aides 2003 8.17%Curriculum Specialist 2003 4.69%Pre-Kindergarten 2003 3.27%
Before and After School Academic Programs 2003 2.76%
Supplementing Salaries of Classroom Teachers - 2.77%
Tutors 2003 2.35%Transfer to ELL Categorical Fund 2.28%
Professional Development in Literacy, Math, and Science 2003 2.02%
Summer Programs 2003 1.28%Early Intervention 2003 1.22%Transfer to Special Educations Programs - 0.93%
Transfer to Professional Development Categorical Fund - 0.87%
District Required Free Meal Program 2011 0.70%Parent Education 2003 0.52%ACT Fees for 11th Graders and Operating/Supporting a Post-Secondary Preparatory Program 2011 0.10%Scholastic Audit - 0.37%
Districted Reduced-Lunch Meal Program 2011 0.05%
Remediation activities for college 2011 0.05%
Teach For America professional development 2011 0.03%
Implementing Arkansas Advanced Initiative for Math and Science 2011 0.01%
Hiring Career and College Coaches 2011 0.00%
Materials, supplies, and equipment including technology 2003 -
Expenses related to a longer school day 2011 -Expenses related to a longer school year 2011 -
Shaded box denotes a coded use originally set in 2003.
17
NSLA Expenditures
NSLA Expenditures
• The majority of districts distribute funding among 8 or more expenditure codes. – Districts seldom focus the money in one or two specific
areas.
• It is unclear as to whether all districts are specifically pinpointing the funding towards students in poverty (or schools serving these students).– For example, a district may spend a large portion of funding on
Highly Qualified teachers or Specialists – these teachers may or may not work specifically with the low-income students.
• Furthermore, districts do not use all the funding – many have balances at the end of the year.
Evaluation of Arkansas’ System
• Arguments for prescriptive use:– There is a current lack of focus of funds.– Funds should pinpoint only to students in poverty.– Use funding in a prescriptive manner as a way to
figure out what works
• Arguments against prescriptive use:– Flexibility is necessary: State-wide policies may not
fit for all.– What do you prescribe? Research isn’t conclusive on
what works best
Our Recommendations
• Distribution of Poverty Funding
– Progressive system: “Smooth sliding” scale to
replace the current tiered system
– Distribute more funding for districts with higher
concentrations of FRL students
– Weighting the funding to differentiate between
poverty levels by factoring in the difference
between “free” and “reduced” lunch students
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% $-
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
$1,800
Accel Smooth Option Status Quo
• Progressive system: “Smooth” sliding scale • Weighted to account for differences in “free” and “reduced”
• Weights are 75% for Reduced-Lunch Students and 100% for Free-Lunch Students.
21
Our Recommendations
Our Recommendations
• Regulations on spending: More or less
prescriptive?– Some argue flexibility is needed: perhaps offer this
to districts that are succeeding with poor students.– For those still not meeting the needs of poor kids,
develop a “menu” of promising programs targeted
to poor students. (This will help ADE learn more
about effectiveness.)
Questions? Comments?
Thank you.
The Effectiveness of Teacher from Rigorous Programs on Math & Literacy Achievement:
A Systematic Review
Panelist: Benton M. BrownCo-Authors: Alexandra Boyd, Sarah Burks, and
Alexandra Vasile
Alternative Certification
Outline• Research Question• Purpose• Background Information• Review Methodology
– Search Yield– Study Characteristics– Meta-analysis
• Results• Discussion
– Limitations– Implications for Policy & Practice
Research Question
Does having an alternatively certified teacher from a rigorous program lead to better outcomes in math and literacy?
Purpose
• Add to and synthesize the literature– To our knowledge, there is no systematic review that
compiles all of the studies on the effectiveness of rigorous alternative certification programs.
– Main studies primarily quoted: 2004 Mathematica Study, CREDO and Darling-Hammond Studies
– Need for a compiled complete list that is unbiased
• Policy and practice implications– Alternative certification is growing in Arkansas and across
the nation
Background Information
Common Alternative Certification ("Alt. Cert.") definition:
– To receive a license to teach in K-12 without completing the traditional process of teacher licensure (B.A. in Education or M.A. in Teaching with student teaching experience).
There are many different methods to gain an alternative certification. Programs are offered by:
– Universities– States' Department of Education– Private organizations
Background Information
Areas of research on alternative certification:– Effectiveness of alt. cert. teachers
• Compared to traditional teachers and novice teachers• Compared to other alt. cert. programs
– Training systems– Preparedness of teachers– Perceptions of alt. cert. teachers
Background Information
• Focus of our study:– Effectiveness of alternatively certified teachers from a
rigorous program
• Rigorous alternative certification program: – One that recruits, selects, and trains teachers – Distinguished from other programs based on the selectivity
of the program– NOT based on length of training or other training
components
Review Methodology
• Search Sources– Google Scholar– ProQuest– JStor– NBER– EBSCO
• Inclusion Criteria – Focuses on a particular rigorous alternative teacher certification program– Includes one or more of the following outcomes: math, reading, or ELA
(CRT or NRT) – Based on a rigorous research design: RCT or QED (matching with baseline
equivalence)– Counterfactual: Compares alt cert teachers with teachers already in the
classroom and/or novice teachers – 1990 and after
Review Methodology
Search Source
Search Terms Number of ArticlesReturned
Number of AbstractsReviewed
Google Scholar
“alternative teacher certification”, “alternative teacher certification program”, “alternative teacher certification program” AND “effectiveness”, “alternative teacher preparation program”, “alternative teacher preparation program” AND “effectiveness”, “alternative route licensure”, “alternative route licensure” AND “effectiveness”, “teacher education programs”, “teacher education programs” AND effectiveness, “teacher corps” AND effectiveness, “New York City Teaching Fellows”, “Teach For America”, “the New Teacher Project”
67, 735
35
ProQuest
---------"---------- 7,137
40
JSTOR
---------"---------- 3,547
11
NBER
---------"---------- 63
8
EBSCOhost
---------"---------- 3,568
15
Total Number of Abstracts (with duplicates) 109
Total Number of Unique Abstracts Reviewed 90
Review Methodology
Stage of Review # of Articles
Abstracts to review 90
Articles eliminated by abstract - 55
Full articles retained for coding 35
Articles eliminated in coding - 26
Articles retained for analysis 9
• Articles eliminated during abstract stage due to:
–Non-rigorous alt. cert. program–Unspecified alt. cert. program–Improper outcomes (e.g. lack of
quantitative outcomes)–Non-rigorous research design/methods–Improper counterfactual to alt. cert.
teachers
• Articles eliminated during coding stage due to:
• Non-rigorous research methods• Improper outcomes (e.g. lack of
quantitative outcomes)• Improper counterfactual to alt. cert.
teachers
Results
Teacher Counterfactual* Number of studies
All teachers 7 All teachers controlling for experience 6 Student Outcomes Math 9 Literacy 6 Grade Levels Primary (K-8) 7 Secondary (9-12) 2
Program type
Teach for America 9 New York City Teaching Fellows 2
*Studies with multiple counterfactuals or outcomes were double-counted
ResultsTable 4: Summary of Results, Grouped by Dataset
Dataset Study Number of Students Program Counterfactual 1: All teachers Counterfactual 2: All teachers with experience controlled
Math Literacy Math LiteracyNational
Grades 1 - 5; Iowa Test of Basic Skills
Antecol, et al. (2013) 1,710 Teach For America 0.144** -0.0361 0.145** Not ReportedDecker et al. (2004) 1,715 Teach For America 0.153*** 0.033 0.260*** 0.062
National
Grades 6 – 12; State assessment and NWEA assessment
Clark, et al. (2013) 4,573 Teach for America
0.070***
New York City
Grade 3-8; NY State Exam
Boyd, et al. (2005) 926,958 to 1,035,949 Teach For America 0.007 -0.031*** -0.001 -0.030**
New York City Teaching Fellows -0.023*** -0.030*** -0.025*** -0.022***
Kane, et al. (2006) 1,366,479 to 1,462,100 Teach For America 0.031*** 0.000New York City Teaching Fellows 0.004 -0.016***
Houston
Grades 4-8; Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) and SAT 9
Darling-Hammond, et al. (2005)
103,122 to 105,511
TAAS
Teach For America 0.066*** -0.003
60,488 to 60,607
SAT 9
Teach For America -0.046*** -0.030**
Raymond, et al. (2001)
Texas Assessment of Academic Skills
96,276 to 132,021
TAAS
Teach For America Grades 4-5: 0.029 Grades 4-5: 0.007 Grades 4-5: 0.120** Grades 4-5: 0.058
Grades 6-8: 0.109** Grades 6-8: 0.110 Grades 6-8: 0.044 Grades 6-8: 0.139
Arizona
Grades 2-8; SAT 9
Laczko-Kerr, et al. (2002)
Not Reported Teach For America1998: -0.225
1998:
-0.424
1999: -0.454** 1999: -0.399**
North Carolina
High School; North Carolina End-of-Course Exams
Xu, et al. (2009) Not Reported Teach For America
0.109***
*Significant at 10%; ** significant at 5%; *** significant at 1% or less
Results
Study Effect Size 95% Confidence Interval %Weight
Boyd, et al. -0.001 -0.032 0.030 39.56
Decker, et al. 0.260 0.046 0.474 15.90
Raymond, et al. 0.120 0.026 0.214 31.34
Raymond, et al. 0.044 -0.203 0.291 13.19
Grand pooled Effect Size
0.084 -0.025 0.193 100.00
Results
Grade Level Comparison Group
# of unique samples
Effect Size Grade Level Comparison Group
# of unique samples
Effect Size
Primary Math Primary Literacy
All Teachers 6 0.044 All Teachers 6 -0.007
Controlled forexperience
4 0.084Controlled for
experience4 0.018
Secondary Math
All Teachers 2 0.089***
Discussion
• Complications in Data Analysis– Studies on the same dataset looking at same outcomes– Different models or tests within each study - with
somewhat different results– Difficulty in separating effect size for outcome of interest:
Xu et al. (2009)
Discussion
• Implications for Policy and Practice– Alternative certification should be supported as a fast-track
way to certification• Rigorous programs
– Alt. Cert. Teachers provide districts a viable way to fill teacher vacancies
– Districts, state departments of education, and legislatures should be open to rigorous alternative certification teachers and programs
Additional Information
Study Effect Size 95% Confidence Interval %Weight
Boyd, et al. 0.007 -0.022 0.036 33.46
Decker et al. 0.153 0.049 0.257 24.87
Laczko-Kerr et al -0.225 -0.917 0.467 1.90
Laczko-Kerr et al -0.454 -0.871 -0.037 4.75
Raymond, et al. 0.029 -0.216 0.274 10.94
Raymond, et al. 0.109 -0.001 0.219 24.08
Grand pooled Effect Size
0.044 -0.054 0.142 100.00
TFA Math All Teachers’ Studies
Study Effect Size 95% Confidence Interval %Weight
Boyd, et al. -0.001 -0.032 0.030 39.56
Decker, et al. 0.260 0.046 0.474 15.90
Raymond, et al. 0.120 0.026 0.214 31.34
Raymond, et al. 0.044 -0.203 0.291 13.19
Grand pooled Effect Size
0.084 -0.025 0.193 100.00
TFA Math Novice Teachers’ Studies
Study Effect Size 95% Confidence Interval %Weight
Boyd, et al. -0.031 -0.055 -0.007 42.42
Decker, et al. 0.033 -0.165 0.231 3.99
Laczko-Kerr, et al
-0.424 -1.116 0.268 0.35
Laczko-Kerr, et al
-0.399 -0.816 0.018 0.96
Raymond, et al. 0.007 -0.009 0.023 45.93
Raymond, et al. 0.110 -0.043 0.263 6.35
Grand Pooled Effect Size
-0.007 -0.048 0.034 100.00
TFA ELA All Teachers’ Studies
Study Effect Size 95% Confidence Interval %Weight
Boyd, et al. -0.030 -0.055 -0.005 57.69
Decker, et al. 0.062 -0.399 0.523 2.75
Raymond, et al. 0.058 -0.056 0.172 26.72
Raymond, et al. 0.139 -0.055 0.333 12.84
Grand pooled Effect Size
0.018 -0.060 0.096 100.00
TFA ELA Novice Teachers’ Studies
Charter Authorizers in Arkansas
Jennifer Ash
February 28, 2014
Presentation Outline
1. Introduction to Charter Schools and Authorizers
2. National Snapshot
3. Single vs. Multiple Authorizers
4. Charter School Authorizing in Arkansas
5. Policy Recommendations
6. Conclusion
Charter Schools
• Open-enrollment charter schools
• Debate has largely shifted from whether or not to have charters is over to how to ensure high quality charters
Charter Authorizer Responsibilities
• Responsibilities1. Review applications
2. Grant “charters”*Many authorizers consider this most important step of process. Quality control on front-end (Zimmer, et al. 2012)
3. Ensure compliance• Financial audits, academic reports, site visits, etc.
4. Renew contracts (or not)
National Snapshot
• 42 states and the District of Columbia have enacted charter school laws.
• Of these 42, 14 states have one charter authorizer, while the majority of states have more than one charter authorizing entity.
National SnapshotSix main types of Charter Authorizers
Local Education Authorities
(LEA)
State Education Authorities
(SEA)
Non-Educational Government
Agencies (NEG)
Not-for-Profit Organizations
(NFP)
Higher Education Institutions (HEI)
Independent Charter Boards
(ICB)
National SnapshotCharter School Authorizers in Arkansas’ Neighboring States, 2013
State Year Charter Law Passed
# of Authorizers
Type of Authorizers
# of Charter Schools
Arkansas 1999 1 SEA 37
Louisiana 1995 8 1 SEA, LEAs 77
Mississippi 2013 1 ICB 0
Missouri 1998 12 LEA, HEI 65
Oklahoma 1999 7 LEA, HEI, NEG 22
Tennessee 2002 5 LEA, ICB 50
Texas 1995 15 1 SEA, LEAs 571
Arguments for Single Authorizer• Economies of scale• Can spread
administrative costs without losing quality
• Bigger authorizers
(authorizers overseeing
more charters) may do
better
• AR is a small state
Arguments for Multiple Authorizers
• Shen (2011)– “Competition among several authorities can lead to
more rigorous oversight…” (p. 4)
• Center for Education Reform (2011)– Multiple authorizers provide several routes to
getting a charter• Less subject to politics and pressures from traditional
education groups
– States with multiple authorizers have more charter schools
Evidence on Different Types of Authorizers
Within State Analyses• Minnesota: no difference between authorizer
types on charter quality (Carlson, Lavery, Witte 2012)
• Ohio:– Authorizer types: public school districts, county-
based educational service centers, nonprofits– Some evidence that NPO authorizers are less
effective (Zimmer, et al. 2012)
Charter School Authorizing in AR
1995: Law passed to allow existing schools to transition to become a charter school (district-conversion schools
1999: Law passed to allow open-enrollment schools.
-SBE as charter authorizer
-Cap for open-enrollment charter schools; later removed and replaced with a “rolling cap”
-cap increases by 5 every time number of charters is within 2 of the cap
-Each charter granted for a five-year period, then can be reauthorized
Charter School Authorizing in AR
• 2013 Legislative Session: Several proposals for change in charter authorizer
• Motivation: Charter hearings were monopolizing a great deal of the State Board of Ed.’s time
• HB1040- 5 person commission: Governor, President Pro Tempore of the Senate, Speaker of the House, and chairs of the House and Senate Committees on Education.– Questions over whether would be impartial
• HB1528- 5 to 11 member board within Arkansas Department of Education
• Under law proposed, SBE will only play a role if a party appeals the charter authorizing panel’s decision AND SBE agrees to hear the appeal
Charter School Authorizing in AR
1. 2013 General Assembly, Act 509 was passed to change Arkansas’ charter authorizer from the State Board of Education to a panel within the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE).
2. The 5 to 11 person panel was appointed by the Commissioner of Education, Dr. Tom Kimbrell.
3. Main tasks of the panel: – Review applications– Grant charters– Oversee compliance of charter– Renew/terminate contracts
Charter School Authorizing in AR
First Charter Authorizing Panel
November 2013– 7 proposals for open-enrollment charter– 2 were approved– 3 were denied– 2 were tabled (then later denied)
Charter School Authorizing in ARCharter Authorizing Panel’s (implicit) priorities
• Detailed Plan• Innovation• Need/Parental Demand
• It appears that the Panel members viewed proposals more favorably if the applicants were able to:
• Clearly articulate curricular plans, operational details, and potential student body;• Show that the school would offer an innovative model that is not currently
available; and/or• Demonstrate a compelling need in the community for an alternative to the
traditional system, ideally by bringing actual parents who are seeking alternative schooling options
Charter School Authorizing in AR
• Appeal Process
• SBE agreed to review two appeals and denied them both.
• SBE made conscious decision not to start the precedent of reversing
Charter Authorizing Panel’s decisions
It takes time to create procedures for new systems. We expect
that answers to questions that have come up in this first year
of implementation will become clearer with time.
Policy Recommendation 1: Allow for more time between charter school approval and opening
Timeline for Open-Enrollment Charter School Approval, 2013
Charter School Opening Timeline Comparisons
Arkansas• Must determine many
details prior to approval including location, finance plans, curriculum plans, 5-year staffing and enrollment plan
District of Columbia• Allows a year between
authorization and opening
Arizona • Approved schools can
choose to open in 6 months or wait an additional year (18 months) to open
Policy Recommendation 2:Review Meaningful Evidence for Renewal of Charters
• Academic Indicators– Matched twin analysis
• Other Indicators/Goals Beside Test Scores– Academics Plus- accountability for transportation– Parental satisfaction
Conclusion • Authorizer structure in AR unlikely to change anytime
soon
• Charter Authorizing Panel still determining role and priorities
Recommendations:
• Option for more time between authorization and opening
• More and better information for renewing charters
K-12 School Vouchers as an Education Solution
Michael Crouch
Arkansas Political Science Association Conference
February 28, 2014
Outline
• Introduction to School Vouchers• The Issue at Hand
– History of School Choice, School Vouchers– Legislation in Arkansas
• Educational Impacts• Benefits, Concerns, and Financial Impacts• What to Look For
Introduction to School Vouchers
• What is a School Voucher?
– School Vouchers work as a means of paying a
student’s tuition at the school of choice for parents
and that student.
– As opposed to traditional funding mechanisms,
this payment structure is meant to free the
educational consumer to choose a best option for
their educational purpose.
77
The Issue at Hand
• History of School Vouchers
– School Vouchers finds its intellectual roots in the
work of Milton Friedman in the 1950s
– Local, private school vouchers are hard to date or
point to an origin
– First modern program: Milwaukee, 1990
– Expanded to 16 programs serving 80+ thousand
students
78
The Issue at Hand
• 16 Programs, some listed below:State (Program Type) State (Program Type)
Florida (Special Needs/Tax Credit) Utah (Special Needs)
Georgia (Special Needs) Washington, D.C. (Low Income)
Indiana (Low/Middle Income) Wisconsin (Low Income)
Louisiana (Low Income) Colorado (Not Currently Running)
Mississippi (Special Needs) Arizona (Tax Credit)
Ohio (Special Needs/Failing Schools) Iowa (Tax Credit)
Oklahoma (Special Needs) New Hampshire (Tax Credit)
79
The Issue at Hand
• Legislation in Arkansas
– HB 1197
– Tax Credit Program
– Non-Profit Organization
– $10 million per year, 2,500 scholarships,
$4,000 each
80
The Issue at Hand
• Legislation in Arkansas– SB 577 (Sen. Jane English)
– Tax Credit Program
– Non-Profit Organization
– $10 million per year, 2,500 scholarships, $4,000
each
– Cost? Net Positive or Net Negative?
81
The Issue at Hand
• Current Market Composition
– 190-207 Private Schools; 29,962 students
– 24% Minority Enrollment
– Average Tuition: $4,669
– Minimum: $415; Maximum: $21,250
– Highest in NW and Central Arkansas
Regions
Educational Impacts
• What the studies have shown:Study Finding
Chingos, Peterson (New York City, 2012) College Enrollment +24%
Ladd and Hansen (1999) Positive Gains, Not Statistically Significant
Wolf, Gutmann, and Puma (D.C., 2010) Statistically Significant Gains in Reading and Graduation
Levin (Meta-Analysis, 2001)) Positive Gains, Not Statistically Significant
Costrell (Milwaukee, 2010) +$50 Million Net Fiscal Impact
Benefits, Concerns, and Financial Impacts
• Benefits– Civic Engagement/Values– Educational Outcomes?
• Concerns– Private School Pricing/Integration– Educational Outcomes?– Religious Integration– Selection Issues, Scale
Benefits, Concerns, and Financial Impacts
• Financial Impacts– Net Gains: Students/Families who qualify; State
Budget; Tax Credit Recipients– Net Losses: Total Budget of School Districts– Net Neutral: Per Pupil Budget of School Districts– $7,000 is break-even point for state– <$7,000 is cost saving for states
85
Benefits, Concerns, and Financial Impacts
• Participation at Price Points, Missouri (Schuls)
86
Benefits, Concerns, and Financial Impacts
• Seats at Price Points, Missouri (Schuls)
87
Benefits, Concerns, and Financial Impacts
• Reasons to Not Participate, Missouri (Schuls)
What to Look For
• Impact Groups– Who are the groups this bill is intended to help?
• Accountability– How do we measure the ROI?– Nondiscrimination, Health, Background, Financials,
Independent Evaluations
• Restrictions on Program– What type of schools qualify?– State Restrictions?