Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINACOUNTY OF WAKE
IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICESUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
95 CVS 1158
HOKE COUNTY BOARD )
OF EDUCATION, et al., )
Plaintiffs-Appellees, )
)
and )
)
ASHEVILLE CITY BOARD )
OF EDUCATION, et al., )
)
Plaintiffs-Intervenors, )
)
)
v. )
)
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; )
STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, )
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OF LAW AS AMICI CURIAETHE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION,
ADVOCATES FOR t:HILDREN'S SERVICES OFLEGAL 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 & Col1rlInunity Trust, and the University of North
Carolina School of Law Center for CiviJl Rights (together "amici curiae") submit this
memorandum of law prior to the December 7,2004 hearing directed by the Court.
~
budget request to the Governor for the years 2005-06 and 2006-07. In that request, 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
summer to meet the State's most pressing Leandro needs. Moreover, this additional $3
million will apparently be used exclusively for evaluative purposes, not for delivery of
any additional services to at-risk children. In sum, the State Board and DPI have not
requested that the Governor include sub'stantial new funding to implement the Leandro
decisions. They have made no request to the Governor for any additional funding from
the General Assembly during the next ~10 calendar years to support the crucial DSSF
program devised in response to Leandro, except to continue the funding stream begun by
the Governor during the summer and fall of2004. This request constitutes no more than
10% of the total proposed expansion budget, and is barely 10% of the $233 million that
the SBEIDPI indicated to the Court on June 7, 2004 would be necessary to support the
DSSF fund statewide. (A copy of the November 5,2004 letter from Hon. Howard N. Lee,
State Board Chair, and Superintendent Patricia N. Willoughby to Governor Michael F.
Easley, together with the two-page "Expansion Budget Requests for 2005-2007," is
annexed as Appendix B).
The SBEIDPI expansion request does contain a number of positive items-
including $3.86 million in additional fuJlding for students with Limited English
Proficiency (though this is apparently only to meet expected increases in the number of
eligible LEP students, not to increase p~:r-student funding) (Expansion Priority 7); $46.7
million in additional requests for childr(:n with disabilities (Expansion Priority 11); $5.3
million to expand the High School Learn and Earn program (Expansion Priority 6);
3
$33.29 million to provide full-time men1:ors for new teachers (Expansion Priority 5); and
$1.85 million to provide parent coordinaltors for the 25 school districts with the highest
numbers of disadvantaged students (Expansion Priority 14). Yet the State Board and
State Department do not appear to be suggesting any program to carry out, in every
school district, the management, and fis(~al assessment that it began, under this Court's
direction and using its new LEAAP teanls, in Hoke County and the other 15 districts
receiving DSSF funds. (We strongly su~~gest that LEAAPteams be sent to every district
in which substantial numbers of children are not receiving a sound basic education so as
to confer with parents, teachers, admini~:trators, and county officials, diagnose the
district's problems, and propose sufficient fiscal, management, or pedagogical remedies).
The SBEIDPI request also contaims a $15 million item for a five-year study-a
"control group of schools to participate in a Research Partnership with the Wisconsin
Center for Education Research" (see Expansion Priority 15). Our infonnation suggests
that this item contemplates a five-year c,ontrolled experiment involving some 50 North
Carolina schools that would be designedl to test what specific interventions might work
best to assist North Carolina's at-risk chi:ldren, principally in grades K-6. (See
http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:I-,IGYUqqLdLQJ:www .ncpublicschools.orgisb
Memorandum from Professor Allan Odden to Phil Price, entitled "Ideas for Structuring
Randomized Experiments on the Effectiveness of Interventions in At Risk Schools in
Nofth Carolina," at 9-14, appended as A.ppendix C).
We applaud the SBEIDPl's desire to study the best methods for reaching all at-
risk children, and we know that Dr. Odclen's work is highly regarded. We have some
questions and concerns about this proposed study, although we agree that an excellent,
4
the best approaches to reach at-risk chi11ren in North Carolina. Yet this study should
proceed along with, and not be preliminary to, the provision of effective services now to
a single day, a comprehensive effort to reverse the well-docum~nted crisis of low
academic perfonnances, 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
students failing to achieve a sound basic education statewide, as well as in Hoke County,
and that the low perfonnance of at-risk ~;tudents was similar regardless of the wealth and
resources of the school system attended." Memorandum of Decision at 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 studentperformance. According to DPI, preschool programs, use of trained tutors,improving teacher quality, loweling class size and supporting teachers'professional development are efj:ective methods for improving studentperformance. A large and well-accepted body of research establishes thatprograms that substantially impfove the academic performance of children frompoverty and at risk backgrounds (of course these programs would improve anychild'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. of Educ. 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
the DSSF program, or for Dr. Odden's study, or for fear that affording Leandro's
promise to every North Carolina child might somehow cost more than the General
Assembly feels inclined to spend during the upcoming legislative session.
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, that tens of thousands of North Carolina children are currently sinking
beneath the educational waves, and that the State is both able and constitutionally
obligated to save them. No slow-motion research and evaluation plan, however
conscientiously pursued, can substitute for the State's present duty to rescue those
children. Their plight was long ago identified 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
made detailed factual findings only in the Hoke County School District, it already held as
a matter of law that the State is ultimately responsible for the massive failures now
occurring everywhere in the State-including high schools such as W est Charlotte~ B.B.
Waddell, Garinger, and West Mecklenburg in Charlotte whose abysmal end-or-course
test scores this Court cited in its November 10th memorandum. Although it is presently
unclear whether those failures stem from an insufficient infusion of State funds, from ill-
advised student assignment policies that have concentrated Charlotte's low-income and
minority students in its central city schools, or from other administrative and
6
management failures, the State is presently obligated to must step forward now to
diagnose and remedy the situation.
We sincerely hope that we have misread current tea leaves, and that the State
intends to come forward on December 7th, not only with a comprehensive planning
process but also with an aggressive, statewide interim plan to implement Leandro during
the next two years. We are submitting this memorandum, however, to share our concern
that the State's expansion budget request presages a 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 second portion of this memorandum, we will share our views on the four
minimum components of any meaningful statewide plan.
II. The Five Elements of a Sound, Comprehensive, Statewide Plan
The task presently before this Court is to fashion a comprehensive remedy that
will ensure that the State fulfills its constitutional duty. The first and most important step
should be for the State to develop a meaningful statewide plan to provide a constitutional
education system. To reach this end, the Court has appropriately directed the State its
proposed remedial plan, first on October 25,2004, and now, on December 7th. In our
view, the State's plan should reasonably include five essential elements that should be
employed by the Court in assessing the sufficiency of the State's plan.
First, the State must clearly articulate the standards and goals whose
achievement would constitute a sound basic education. The Court should not be satisfied
7
by broad, vague standards; instead, it should require the State to specify concrete
educational goals and outcomes demonstrating that all children residing in North
Carolina are, in fact, being afforded the opportunity to receive a sound basic education.
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 each child with at least: (1) sufficient
ability to read, write, and speak the English language and a sufficient knowledge of
fundamental mathematics and physical science to enable the student to function in a
complex and rapidly changing society; (2) sufficient fundamental knowledge of
geography, history, and basic economic and political systems to enable the student to
make infonned choices with regard to issues that affect the student personally or affect
the student's community, state, and nation; (3) sufficient academic and vocational skills
to enable the student to successfully engage in post-secondary education or vocational
training; and (4) sufficient academic and vocational skills to enable the student to
compete on an equal basis with others in further formal education or gainful employment
in contemporary society. Leandro v. State, 346 N.C. at 347,488 S.E. 2d at 255.
This initial definition of sound educational goals now needs further translation
into incremental, measurable educational goals and student outcomes, not only to focus
the day-to-day pedagogical choices and administrative decisions of State and local
educational officials-setting the mark for teachers and principals- but also to aid the
State in its ultimate assessment of whether local educational programs are affording
students a sound basic education-measuring whether state actors have been successful.
Thankfully, much of this work has previously been done. Indeed, this Court held at trial
8
that a sound basic education can be gauged, at least in part, by relying on the State's own
student achievement standards implemented under the ABCs of Education Act. As this
Court determined, moreover, the State's proficiency benchmark (Level III) under the
ABCs can significantly aid the Court in determining whether students are receiving a
sound basic education.
Beyond proficiency benchmarks, however, this Court and the Supreme Court
have pointed to other important indicators of educational success, including high school
graduation rates, dropout rates, and college remediation rates. Like student proficiency,
the State should now specifically incorporate these indicators into its comprehensive
plan, by using them to announce specific and measurable goals and outcomes that, if
achieved by local schools and districts, will demonstrate that the State has met its
constitutional duty.
Second, the State's comprehensive plan must ensure that all schools receive
sufficient funding, whether from local or state sources, to enable them to provide the
educational inputs and programs necessary to meet the constitutional standards it has
set. In other words, in its plan the State must answer the question: What amount of
money is "necessary" or "adequate" to afford all children the opportunity they need to
receive a sound basic education? While the State has long borne ultimate constitutional
responsibility to ensure adequate funding for all students, to our knowledge, it has never
before proceeded in this fashion. Instead, it annually employs a political calculation that
maybe aptly called an "education auction" to detennine the funding needs of North
Carolina schools and students.
9
The current process is rather simple. State leaders be by deciding how much
money they re willing to spend on education in that year and then have allocated that pot
of money to schools. Thus, money spent on a student's education in North Carolina has
depended, not upon student need or the requirements of the North Carolina Constitution,
but instead on the amount appropriated by the General Assembly, irrespective of 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
adequate to educate all children. Leandro necessarily requires such a study. To be
meaningful, it is essential for the State to reverse its traditional method and begin with an
analysis of educational standards, goals, outcomes, and needs, to be followed by a careful
assessment of the specific funding necessary to meet those educational goals.
Detennining what dollar amount will be "adequate" requires attention to: (1) the
standards, goals and educational outputs conducive a sound basic education (e.g.,
proficiency on ABCs, graduation from high school within four years, entry into college
without the need for remediation, etc.); (2) the special characteristics of local
communities with barriers to offering students a sound basic education (e.g., low tax
base, community remoteness, poverty, etc.); (3) the capacity and willingness of local
communities to support education financially; (4) the characteristics and demographics of
students who are not receiving a sound basic education; (5) the necessary in-school and
out-of-school inputs deemed essential to meet constitutional goals; (6) other factors such
as school district size; and (7) the voices of parents and others directly involved in their
children's learning. In the end, the State's comprehensive plan must provide 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.
Such studies have been part of virtually every major public school reform case in
the nation. See generally, Shena Reid & Rob Schofield, Common Ground: An Equal
Opportunity for a Sound Basic Education at 6-7 & n.7 (North Carolina Justice Center,
2004). Conducted by impartial outside experts, these studies typically can be completed
in less than one year. The average costs are far less than the $15,000,000 that the State
proposes to spend on the Odden study, or even the $2,400,000 DPI proposes to spend to
analyze the sixteen DSSF pilot districts. The State of Arkansas completed its entire study
for approximately $250,000 -less than 1/9th ofDPI's request. The State of New York,
with far larger student populations and problems, spent less than $2,000,000 on its study
of what it would cost to provide students with a 'sound basic education' consistent with
the New York Constitution. See, e.g., Greg Winter," Court Panel Says New York Schools
Need Billions More," New York Times, Dec. 1,2004, on the web at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/01/nyregion/Olschool.html (reporting that "a court-
appointed panel has found that an additional $5.6 billion must be spent on [New York
City's] schoolchildren every year to provide the opportunity for a sound, basic education
that they are guaranteed by 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 adequacy or "costing-out" study.
The State's alternative proposals seem "frills and whistles," that will, by design or
inadvertence, simply postpone the day when full Leandro compliance will begin.
11
Third, the State's cofprehensive plan must determine a rational and equitable
funding formula to allocate ~tate and local education funds to school districts and
schools across the state. At i,s core, this funding fonnula and system must insure that
schools have access to the nepessary resources to afford every North Carolina student,
regardless of their place of refidence or their individual needs, the opportunity to receive
a sound basic education.
Fourth, the State's c9mprehensive plan must speak not only to the in-school
needs of North Carolina chil¥ren, but to pre-school and out-oi-school needs that affect
their opportunity to receive ~ sound basic education. If "the infant Zoe and the toddler
Riley" need pre-kindergartenl instruction to overcome obvious at-risk factors that would
otherwise impede their abilitt to benefit from public schooling, if poor children suffer
from significant untreated vi~ion, hearing, or speech difficulties that would seriously
impede their learning, but th~t prescription eyeglasses or hearing aids might remedy, then
the Hoke County opinion ins~cts the State to plan for provision of those school-related
services as well. This will re~uire close coordination between the Department of Public
Instruction and other executiye agencies with responsibility for children's services. The
State's comprehensive plan ~ust do more than propose interagency conversations or task
forces. It must help these chitdren get what they will need to succeed in school.
Fifth, the State 's co~rehensive plan must include an effective accountability
system that holds the state a~d local schools accountable in at least two ways. The plan
must first establish reasonabte and meaningful systems that insure that the State and
schools are fiscally responsi~le for the funds they receive from the legislature, local
communities, the federal go~emment and other sources to deliver education. Thus, the
12
plan must establish mechanisms that insure that education funds are spent wisely,
efficiently and targeted towards student need. The plan should must also craft a system
that holds the State and schools accountable for making meaningful educational progress
on and ultimately meeting the State's standards, goals and outcomes as stated in the
comprehensive plan. In other words, there must be accountability to ensure that schools
are getting education results for 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
County require real change now, not only for every at-risk child who is not currently
receiving a sound basic education, but for prospective enrollees as well. While the State
needs a reasonable opportunity to shape its constitutional response, we as amici curiae
cautioned the Court in our October 4th memorandum that "enormous political pressures
continue to bear upon all educational funding systems," and "the inevitable existence of
these powerful forces makes this court's continued supervision absolutely indispensable if
Leandro rights are to be fully honored and implemented."
If the State's December 7th plan is inadequate in scope or reach, if it does not set
out a meaningful plan that promises promptly to address the pressing needs of all North
Carolina's children- prospective enrollees, struggling K-3 students, alienated middle
schoolers, imminent high school dropouts-and if it does not provide meaningful
oversight of every troubled district-whether urban or rural, from the mountains, the
Piedmont, or the Coastal region-then we strongly urge this Court to reject the 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 repose justifiable confidence,
one augmented by an aggressive intermediate-term implementation strategy-then the
2005 legislative session would fly swiftly by, and the chance it presents to begin
statewide implementation of Leandro would be lost. The Court, the parties, and most
especially the children of the State, have come too far to let this opportunity slip away.
Respectfully submitted this 3rd day of December.
Deborah GreenblattState Bar No. 2847P.O. Box 2446Raleigh, NC 27602(919) 856-2195
John Charles BogerMember of the New York BarSchool of Law, CB # 3380Chapel Hill, NC 27599(919) 843-9288
Counsel for the American CivilLiberties Union of North CarolinaLegal Foundation, Inc.
Counsel for Carolina Legal Assistance
Sheria ReidState Bar No. 24477P.O. Box 28068Raleigh, NC 27611(919) 856-3192
Gregory C. MalhoitState Bar No. 62753344 Hillsborough St., Suite 302Raleigh, NC 27607(919) 833-4541
Counsel for the Rural School andCommunity TrustCarlene McNulty
State Bar No. 12488
Counsel for North CarolinaJustice Center Lewis Pitts
State Bar No. 20592201 W. Main Street, Ste. 400Durham, NC 27702(919) 226-005t1 ext.422John Charles Boger
Member of the New York BarSchool of Law, CB # 3380Chapel Hill, NC 27599(919) 843-9288
Counsel for Advocates for Children'sServices, Legal Aid of North Carolina
14
Anita S. EarlsN.C. State Bar 15597School of Law, CB # 3380Chapel Hill, NC 27599(919) 843-7896
Counsel for the UNC School of LawCenter 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 ImplementLeandro-Based School Reform
16
Proposed Elements of 2005 LegislationTo Implement Leandro-Based School Reform
Submitted to the North Carolina Department of Public Instructionand the State Board 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 fundingmechanism to address the unmet needs of North Carolina school children who are notcurrently receiving a sound basic education. We suggest that the fund should have thefollowing 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. measured by eligibility for free or reduced price lunch;3. and based, in further part, on a formula that weights the concentration of at-
risk students in a district (so that districts with higher overall proportions ofat-risk students would receive additional dollars).
Within each school district, the funds should be distributed to schools4. based on the relative concentration of at-risk students in a school, so that
greater dollars flow to those schools with higher proportions of at-riskstudents.,
Within schools, funds should be directed toward students
5. based on their low academic performance and/or their likelihood of droppingout or failure to graduate
B. Amount
We suggest that the State appropriate $223 million for 2005 implementation ofthis program. This is the amount the SBEIDPI indicated, in June of2004, would beneeded to fund the DSSF fund statewide..
C. Distribution in 2005
We suggest that 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
3.4. additional districts based upon demonstrated need; and .that some percentage of the funds be reserved for those school districtsthat agree to undertake district-wide school reform planning, consistentwith the State's comprehensive planning process. (See III.B.! infra).
(The current distribution does not include any urban districts, and its geographical reachis very confined, although it is clear that there are at-risk students who are perfonning atlow levels in districts throughout the State. The State presently needs experienceimplementing Leandro remedies in a variety of settings as a prelude to statewideimplementation).
D. Use & Restriction of Funds
1. We suggest that the funding categories set forth in the SBEIDPl's August,2004 fonnulation be divided into two sub-categories, with the followingrestrictions:
a. At least 25% of a school district's total grant presumptively must beexpended on a 1'schools"subcategory comprising the present categories of"recruiting and retaining teachers," "personnel" and "professionaldevelopment activities."
b.
At least 25% of a school dis.trict's total grant presumptively must beexpended on a "students"subcategory, comprising the presentsubcategories of "extending instructional time" and "instructionalmaterials, supplies, and equipment."
c. The SBEIDPI should be allow to waive the required minimumexpenditures upon demonstration that no unmet needs in the districtrequire additional funding in a particular subcategory in order to meetLeandro objectives.
2.
We suggest that an additional category be identified for critical needs inmany schools-for example, for full-time social workers, for school healthworkers, for health and wellness examinations-all of which directlyaffect the practical opportunity of children to obtain a sound basiceducation. These categories of need should be added to the roster of
acceptable expenditures.
3. We suggest that other funds appropriated for Limited English Proficientstudents should not be aggregated with this fund.
4. We suggest that these funds not be used to supplant any other funds orprograms, such as LEP or "at risk" funds, already being appropriated at thefederal or state level, and that local districts be required to execute non-
18
supplant agreements, under which they agree not to reduce their ownfunding contributions upon receipt of these funds.
E. Name
We have mixed views on whether the name of the fund should be modified to analternative, for example, "the Sound Basic Education Fund." We can identify somereasons to retain the current name or alternatively, to modify the name to some broaderand more inclusive title.
II. Accountability for Funds
A. The State must assure accountability by school districts for the use of thesefunds in two distinct ways:
1. financial accountability, to assure that all funds are expended incompliance with the plans submitted by districts and approved bythe SBE/DPI; and
2. educational accountability, to assure that, over time, the particularprograms and expenditures selected by the district and approved bythe SBEIDPI actually lift academic performance of students.
III. Statewide Planning Requirements
A. The Statewide Effort
1. The 2005 General Assembly should direct the SBEIDPI to convene aspecial committee-its membership drawn from state and localeducational leaders, teachers, knowledgeable experts, parents, advocatesfor at-risk and low-performing children, and business and communityleaders-to complete a comprehensive statewide plans.
2.
The comprehensive plan should be prepared by September 30, 2005, foradoption by the General Assembly and implementation beginning in thespring of 2006.
3. The comprehensive plan must address not only the in-school needs ofstudents, but the whole complex of education-related needs of"prospective enrollees" who are at risk of educational failure.
4. The plan should set clear statewide goals that address not only issues ofimproving student performance (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 address current policies and practices of SBEIDPI thatfunction as unnecessary barriers to teacher recruitment and retention,or to student achievement.
B. The Local Effort
1 The SBEIDPI planning approval process should require separate "costingout" studies be completed in every local district by the fall of2006.
2. The State should provide planning grants to every qualifying district thatis unable without state assistance to complete a "costing out" study.
20
Initial Comments on October 25, 2004 State PlanTo Implement Leandro-Based School Reform
Submitted to the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction
and the State Board of Education
by Amici Curiae for At-Risk Children
November 5, 2004
1. The proposal to expand the More at Four program from its current level, servingapproximately 12, 000 at-risk children, to reach a total of 40,000 at-risk children, is mostwelcome. To assure that all prospective emollees receive pre-kindergarten education toprepare them for public school is one necessary and important step in implementingLeandro. It is not, however, a complete or sufficient State response. We trust thatsufficient funds will be committed to address all outstanding Leandro needs. If not, wequestion whether a disproportionate expenditure of limited funds on this one element ofLeandro compliance would be appropriate.
2. The Disadvantaged Students Supplemental Fund ("DSSF") is described as a pilotprogram that apparently will be expanded only gradually "[b ]ased on an evaluation of thepilot 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 research-proven methods that educators know can meet the needs of at-risk and low-performingstUcdents. For example, (1) the provision of high quality, certified teachers, teachingwithin their field, in every class, (2) the provision of highly qualified principals in everyschool, and (3) the provision of educationally proven, special services to at-risk studentsdo not need further field testing. The State should begin to support implementation ofthese methods in every district as soon as possible.
3. The Local Education Agency Assistance Program ("LEAAP") is a commendableapproach which creates a state-local partnership for educational improvement. Weapprove the creation of the LEAAP as a "full-time unit under the State Board ofEducation." (State Plan, at 2.) However, we do not understand why the LEAAP'sjurisdiction should extend only to "a set of especially needy school districts," (id.); seealso id. at 8 (describing "districts that need immediate and intensive support"), when it isclear that some students in every school district in the State are failing to receive a soundbasic education. Indeed, very high percentages of students are falling below state EGGstandards, 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. Wesuggest that, over time, LEAAP teams should be sent to offer advice and counsel to everydistrict in which substantial cohorts of students are not receiving a sound basic education.
4. The Teacher Working Conditions Survey, the New Schools Project, and Earn andLearn Schools are potentially worthy initiatives. They do not, however, constitute acomprehensive response to the Leandro needs of the State's children, even when the
21
expansion of More at Four and the DSSF fund are included. In sum, the State's October25, 2002 Plan, though a commendable start, does not yet constitute a comprehensive
approach toward the provision of an opportunity for a sound basic education for all NorthCarolina children.
22
November 5, 2004
Hon. Patricia N. Willoughby
SuperintendentDepartment of Public Instruction301 North Wilmington StreetRaleigh, NC 27601
Dear Superintendent Willoughby:
As undersigned counsel and friends of amici curiae in the Leandro/Hoke Countycase, we appreciate your invitation to meet today to share our ideas with the Departmentof Public Instruction ("DPf') and the State Board of Education ("SBE") as you developplans, in response to Leandro, to improve the opportunities of the State's children. Wehave submitted a memorandum to the Superior Court on October 4, 2004 which containsa number of suggestions and ideas, as you noted in your email invitation of October 20,2004. We commend those ideas to your further attention.
In the attached documents, we have two aims: to set forth our suggestions for aremedial plan to be pursued in the near future; and to offer brief comments on thepreliminary plan put forward by the State at the October 25, 2004 hearing before JudgeManning. We hope to discuss each of the major points raised in these documents withyou today. We seek leave to supplement our submissions with further written commentsand suggestions, as necessary, if new ideas or issues arise during our conversations today.
Again, thank you for this opportunity.
Sincerely,
Gregory C. MalhoitRural School &Community Trust
John Charles BogerShannah SmithUniversity of North CarolinaCenter for Civil Rights
Angella DunstonCarlene McNultyNorth Carolina Justice &
Community DevelopmentCenter
23
Jonathan SherNorth Carolina Child AdvocacyCenter
Lewis PittsAdvocates for Children'sServices, Legal Aid ofNorth Carolina
24
Appendix B
November 5, 2004 Letter from Hon. Howard N. Lee, State Board Chair,and Superintendent Patricia N. Willoughby to Governor Michael F. Easley, with
Expansion Budget Requests for 2005-2007
25
November 5, 2004
The Honorable Michael F. EasleyGovernor, State of North CarolinaOffice ofth-e Governor116 West Jones StreetRaleigh, North Carolina 27603':'8001
D'ear Governor Easley:
.
.
.
The State Board of Education would like to express its appreciation for your continuedcommitment to t11e public schools of North Carolina. Through your leadership, we have madesignifiCaIlt progress in closing the achievenlent gap and our students' peiform~ces havecontinued to move North Carolina towards the top of educational progress and success in theUnited States~ We look forward tp working closely with you over the next four years as weaccelerate our progress in. our continued goal to lead the nation in education refonnand studentsuccess.
We believe that the attached Expansion Budget request contains the items that reflect yourpriorities and that these funding priorities will enable us to meet the education needs of our mostdisadvantaged studeuts as well as our students that are currently performing at and above gradelevel Our requests identify funding areas that are cUri"ently limiting pur schools from wakingthe progress we all desire, funding for focused J:esearch that will validate the improvementstrategies we are recomme~ding our schools use, and key instructional funding strategies thatneed to be increased to better serve their targeted stlld~nt.population. We would like to directyour attention to all the items listed on the attached Expansion Budget request. We would alsolike to emphasize that every item is important toassuIe we continue the progress we haverealized under your leadership. For example:
Eliminating the recurring discretionary reduction win allow our schools to utilize all theirappropriated re.sources to meet the needs of the it students.
Placing full-time mentors in our schools will help us retain our teachers who are leaving theteaching profession during their fit'st three years in OJIr public 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 teachersto address better 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 [email protected]~ ~ 6326 Mail Service Center:: RCllelgh, North Carolina 27699-6326 :; 919.607.3600 :: Fax 919.807.3604
Goveroor EasleyPage 2Nove:mber 5, 2004
Addressing the needs of oUr increasing limited English proficiency student population byincreasing the resources directly targeted to this population will help close the achievement gapand reduce dropouts.
Expanding funding targeted to our most a(:ademically advanced students will assure that weaddress their needs at all grade levels.
Expanding technology in our schools is one of our most efficient tools 1.lSed to address theeducational needs of our students.
The specifically listed items in this letter and attachment are just examples of the importantpriorities that the State Board would like to see funded and does not include other importantinitiatives the State Board believ~s must be continued or enhanced. Continuing the funding forthe ABC Incentive Awards is imperative as we continue to ask our teachers to improve theperfonnance of all students. The State Board also believes that tlle bonus should be increased toreflect the challenge and accomplishment of a school~eeting federal NCLB adequate yearlyprogress targets. The need to increase the pay of our teachers, other school personnel, and ourState employees continues to' be a major priority.
On behalf of the State Board, the DepaTbnent of Public Instrl.1ction, and the many educatorsand citizens whose thoughts are reflected it! these requests, we respectfully request your .consideration of these items. Your inclusion of our funding priorities in yourFY 2005-06Expansion Budget would be appreciated.
Sincerely,
J{g~-~~~~~~""Patricia N. WilloughbyHoward N. Lee
HNL/PNW Ipwp
Attachment
lm ~ Public Schools of North Carolina " "
nC-North Carolina Department (;f PubliC-instruction .",
Expansion Budget ~equests for 2005-~!OO7 "
-,"
State BOa!d
lPriorityI (Note 1)
Eliminate Discnoltonary Reducticn which requir.. LEAs ono oilatler schools to1 EEO rerum 0 potlion of their allotment $ 44,291,248 R $ 44,291.248 R, -,",--,, , _.., ~_.,2 HSP pro!,lde supplemental fundin9 for .the Disadvanto~ed Stude"t.. a key .tn.tegy 25000 000 R 25000000 R
to oddrns. theSupteme Court rull"9 0" Lea"dro ., , ,
Increase fI,Inding for P(of~ional Development b:V 10% white further study ofa prDfessional development initiative. takes place
3 QP 1.204.672 R 1,204.672 R
4 HSP 3.143,075 R 3.143,075 R
5 QP 33,297.580 R 33,297.580 R
Jn~ase fundlt:19 for Academically ~nd Intellectually Gifted students
Provide Full-Time Mentors at 1 per 15 teachers in Uleir first three years ofteaching (it Is anticipated that this will reduce teac:her turnOver which isexcessive In ~ teacher's first three years of employmant)
Provide Full-Time Mentors ~t 1 per 1S instructional support per$onnelln theirfirst two years
QP. 1.356,394 R 1,356.394 R
6 -HSP 5,328,200 R
3,200;000 f{
5,328,200 RHigh School Reform efforts -Expand 'the Learn ~I,d Earn program
HIgh School Refo!'m Efforts -Fund ttte R~strI.lCt\Jl1ing High Schools segmerytof the GCltes Foundation New Schools Project
.3,200,000 R
7
.$,000,000 NR8 EEO Pay for NCWISE Connec~ ~t the Optimal level fori,.owWealth LEAs
e HSP Fund $ci)ool Technology fa~ll1tat?r$ in schools with 8thgrad~ and IncreaS? 32,615,133 R 32,615.733 R.fundIng for LEA on-line subscriptions (SAS In Soh,ools)" end dIStance learning.
.
S$ Decrease the ratio of School Nurses to students ft'om approx 1:1,686 5 738 590 R 5 738,590 Rstudents to 1 :1,400 students ' , ,10
HSP Increase funding for Childrert with .Disabilities 46.. 704,793 R 46.704,793 R
...Add 10 positions In the Infon11ation SerVIces Area of DP1: security programmanager and anaIY$t, business continuity planning analyst ~n~ 7 instructIonal 744,892 R 744,8.92 Rtechnology consultants_. :rovlde funds for Infrastrlucture and data tran$port 2 020,000 NR 996.0OQ NRupgrades. network Intruslol:\ software, storage arel~ network and system .,
repl;lcements ....
HSP Reduce the ratio. of Guidance Counselors in grade5 9.12 from 1:367 students 6,208,111 R 6,208,111 Rto 1 :352 students
1.1
12 EEO
13
ProviQQ P~rel'\t Coordinator3 1025 LEAs with !'Ilghl~$t # of disadvantaged .14 FCB students along With 2 positions at DPI to impJemerlt and coQrdinate the 1,854,225 R 1,854,225 Racademic support network .
Provide funds for a control group of schools to p~rticJpate In a ResearchPartner3hip with the. Wisconsin Center for Educatf'Jn Research called 15,000;000 R 15,000,000 R"Funding What Works"
15 HSP
1
~OO5
r-: : ~ I .I CJStete Board . Priority
.(Note 1) L~ ~--,-~~~ J .2006-0716 EEO' Add a PurchasIng and Contract Support POSir:iOrf2ffid a BI,I$ Garage H~lp 163 330 R 163.330 R
~--:-:-: ~~~~E~~~~~~!:! ~ ~-17 HSP Add a Middle School Gvirjance Consultant po$ition at DPI 80,000 R. 80,000 R
18
1 9M..-9.e..~_~~~~~~~~~~~--- ---
$ 229,450.261t
Note 1: State Board Priorities are:
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'tSS ~ Heal~hy"Children in Safe, Orderly, and Caring Schools
2
Appendix C
(Executive Summary of SBE 2005-07 Biennial Budget Request, includingMemorandum from Professor Allan Odden to Assistant Superintendent Phillip Price,"Ideas for Structuring Randomized Experiments on the Effectiveness of Interventions
in At Risk Schools in North Carolina")
SBE Meeting 11/2004 Attachment EEOI
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Title: 2005-07 Biennial Bud!!et Reouest
0 DiscussionType of Executive Summary:
~ Action D Action on First Reading D Infonnation
Policy Implications:D Constitution-~ General Statute #115C-12 (1 a)
SBE Policy #-SBE Policy AmendmentSBE Policy (New)APA#-
D AP A AmendmentD APA(New)D Other-
Presenter(s): Mr. Philip Price (Associate Superintendent, Financial and Business Services) and Mrs. BeckyMcConkey (Manager, Office of Budget Management)
Description:The Office of State Budget and Management approved the delay of the agency's submission of the 2005-2007biennial budget expansion requests until immediately following the November meeting. A great deal of preparationhas gone into the development of our expansion budget requests to insure that all needs and priorities are addressed.Input has been received from superintendents, school administrators, teachers, local boards of education, educationassociations and State Board of Education members as well as DPI staff. The submitted recommendations have,been presented at the August, September and October State Board meetings. Final approval is required this monthof those items to be sent forward to the Office of State Budget and Management for consideration of inclusion inGovernor Easley's budget.
Resources:None at this time.
Input Process:Superintendents, school administrators, teachers, local boards of education, education associations, State Board ofEducation members, and DPI staff.
Stakeholders:Everyone with an interest in North Carolina public schools.
Timeline For Action:This item was submitted for Discussion in August, September and October. It is being submitted for approval inNovember.
Recommendations:It is recommended that the State Board of Education approve expansion budget items to be submitted to GovernorEasley for consideration of inclusion in his 2005-2007 biennial budget.
Audiovisual equipment requested for the presentation:D Data ProjectorNideo (Videotape/DVD and/or Computer Data, Internet, Presentations-PowerPoint preferred)
Specify:
D Audio Requirements (computer or other, except for P A system which is provided)Specify:
0 Document Camera (for transparencies or paper documents -white paper preferred)
*Person responsible for SBE agenda materials and SBE policy updates: BeckY McConkey. 807-3741
c0~(.)~
I"-.
...0-0In
NC
I
-It)(.) 0
=
0..c
Ncn
~
...t:o.
0'- e
0 ~
cn- In
Co)
C
Q)
~
E
5-'t:~
Q
)0
CO
~~
a. -Q
) Q
)
0001"'C
~
CO
~
0 C
...
0=
~~
0
C(.)...
0C
/) ~ .~
(.) C
'-..c C
O-~
a.
'§ 0
><
o.zw
EO
t~~
cn-cQ
)
EE0()---c.Qa';::ucnQ
)0-InQ
):;,0Q
)~
tA-
~~CX
)-.t~~0>~-.t-.t a:
---C
X>
"i"~~0)
~"i"~ >-
z0ww c:0f5~"CQ)
~?:-roc:
.2"'§uInisQ
)mc::§w
0 c
~
--0
"Or--
0 C
D It)
0-O
ICX
)
C
-
-$ C
Olt)
"oc L-,.-
CD
C
D
(l)r--_:
E
« ri
:J- w
~0" 0
.C
D=
~
OL-«
-0-C
D_C
->
.L-~
OC-
~
'u --C
'u ---0(I)
,.. U
--:J
-C:J
"'50O
~"O
:J(.)
O--~
"0.,
.c: C
D
CD
~
U.c:"-
L-"O(I)-I;.
>.
~O
~
~:I:
-O-C
L- C
CO
O-
~
-_~
CD
aN
OI
~L-L-
o(OL-
UO
U
<'>
-.r:J"0
0. -~
a N
.c
Cco"O
aN
cC
O
CD
N
~~
(l)E
.c:>
--"'
«-
Eu
:J- LL
CD
W"iC
D
ce~-IL-(I)
---==
(k:z00o.0CD
~r--~
~-~
Q)
01 ~
o~.cQ
)t:Q)Q
) t:
--E
UJI-.c-E
.c '5'"
01U
~
... --Q
)Q)
Q)
--Q)"-
.tU-
t:NU
--O
I'OQ
»W"':'U
JOU
J~
:JW.-tU
Q)U
UJt:
£O~
t:~~
Q»
-~~
~.cQ
)Q
)'5 ~
-C:>
CO
,g ~
t:.c
OIQ
).!!! O
I:J U
J- 01
5-t::JOQ
)~:=
UtU
-t:.c.ct:OQ
)~tU
Q).2
UJ U
J.c ~
E
"fij:!:J"'C6'5:;;::'5
>..~
oE
-E
_tV ';'"$
~
-;, ~
..9
t: ~
.2
ffi ~
.2
%
~
0.. ~tU
01:5
t: U
J 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:JU
OQ
»""-tU>
--a.u-
:J-- ~
~
U
J""'-U:J""
UJ
~-t:
Q) *w
~
gWt~
~
~
~~
~"iij
~
0(/)'-:5
Eu-=
>
.:J 5
t: t:~
~U
>
=:;
EQ
)OI
Q)Q
)._Q)O
>-oQ
) tU
Q)Q
)~.cQ
)UJoO
l~E
~U
>
-a. :J
-..c ~
;~
aN
tU
Q)
OI~
U~
~
~~
..9~v..9~
E
t:
Q)~
°
E.~
9 3!-w
Q
).c U
J 0
Ot:"U
Q)tU
UJW
!!!.Q)U
VtU
-~.coQ
)Q)
MO
tU->
OU
JtU~
t:o.cO,-,U
J-~U
0=
UJU
_Q)U
Ja..2°ut:OtU
UJQ
)t:°E
.9 ~
~J?
~'_~
coN
Q).Q
~.c
5 U
tU
00
N
E-'5.c.c.!P
.-9~-g"'C
6- ?"'C
6E?§E
>-~
tUg_tU
a.:Jt:"'-tU:JQ
)o:Ja.oQ)
~N
~.c~
~O
§~o~
a."iij£="iijut~
t: N
-U
E>
~
0
Q) °
Q) x
>
t: .E->
C
Q) -
-WU
JUJ
>__~
N-Q
)Q).-
Q)tU
a.UJ
"CO
CQ)
EQ)
"Q.
a.~U)
cQ)
"0~U5
"0Q)
0)mCO
)m
c:
>
-"0"m
"OC
I) c:
.-~011. a:000-00~It')
N ~z000-00O-
NN >-
zN Do
cn:I:
(/)
~~uro~-(I
c;0WWI
~~.q0
II)-~Q
)
EE0t)--~0:g';::(.)II)Q
)C
)
-cnQ)
:J(7Q)
!r
.cUCo
OJ
rnOJ
~rn~~"'to.co.~
:EO
>~
.S
OJ
"C
c:c:t:J
(I)u.c..
.c 0
Q)
Q)
.1:: Q
)
°c- --~
.c(.'.c'-
oco
co."O
(/)C)
=-'"--
EC
O
--.c (/)
Q)
0 c
(/) '-
'" .c
CO
Q)
(/)-co --5
§ .~
N
E
.~
"E
J:. :g
.2 Gu',
§ t
"0 "0
-'-NC
).- -0---
,.O«Q
)2g~
co-,:Q)E
coQ)O
o"..~(/)~
'~Z
(/)
..."0 '-
Q)«
-0 .c
Q) ~
- ~
Q
) --"0 "0
0C
WC
)(/) ~
"OC
)- -'--
O-;Q
)OC
o.Q
)~
-c
c -"0
C>
-'-~--~
O0
C'-~
(/) ._(/)Q
)C)Q
)Q):J
'co-'.,-~
.£ 0
~
5 ~
~~
.~Io:_£"O
.c 0
.'" (/)0
C
0.co
.-,. ,.~
, I-
(/) u, ~
Q
)°
-5 -co Q
) co .£.c>
- -S
~"E
~
0
~
c; 5!
° "0 .!!!
:J,-o-c"O
-Q)-_.
o(/)co"O.c
"Oco:Jco=
c"O
>-co"O
oQ)
>-Q
).I:-0
-
wQ
)"OQ
)O:JQ
)ID~
.-O-C
).cc.jcoQ)
c
,-(/)Q)G
(ij'+-.c
(/)Q):6-fij.s-u,Q
).cc.-0
Q) -"
"0 (/) .;
(/) .c co
>-
G, .c -co ~
-~coB
'-'Q)=
-:Jc"oQ)~
"Ci.
-=0=
Q)
0; >
-0; Q
).c (/)
0.8 0
co'p'.c (/)
o.;'.~
C«"O
-o"O(/)t2,E
.c.,:o.mO
.c:JO
;:.coC
=Q
):JO,
OoC
O(/)--O
(/).'w~
CO
Q)
Q)O
- Z
.cO(/»Q
)Q)"O
co u,o
c-oO
-coB
oO~
.c.-"OQ
)Q)O
G,o"ooQ
).c'-C
O~
-C)-
cC
N.c.
c '-
'- Q
) ~
co
Q)
.>
Q)
---'+-
0co
cn c co .--t
--oO~
"Q
)Q
)-~-C
Oco
G'
o'-
(/) -'+-
=
~
(/) .c °
-co -.:
--.£ «
~
..QC
E"O
0.Q
) Q
)co~-t:(/)O
"I-C,-C
O'+
-0
Q)~
._,-~-a;.':(/)'-.m
O,-~
,~~
o Q
)
O.~
=:J.c
Q):J
(/)- Q
) co
Eo
co u,- C
)co C
.c.!!! to.o
~
-0E
>Q
) 00
(.) co
-co °
>oo.~
Q)co~
.£ .->
-Q)Io:
I;::>co.£'-,-
>(/)co
c:J (/)°t5,o.c.o.c.c;Q
)'-Oo
Eco
Q)c(/»-t"iij.!!!-"O
Q)
-Q)tG
)"OQ
),- Q
).c
0 co
Q)
co >
.c.~
t:~
Q)=
0.0
Cl.c"O
co
co (/)
I-O.c:
0.Q)1-~
~
Q
): ~
(/)Z
u)
co~O
(!) ~
"~
II).(:
"--:S"t)
...Q
) 0
"t) C
O
II)=
:3 u
-,."t);;::~
c:
"-
c: r.- U
"- -Q
)"'i5~
Q.
.c: ~
II)
-II)"'=
=
:3 Q
)C
O e
c:." --'-~
~
I -'
=:3
Q)c:o
Q)Q
)-:S
§2:O
u-~
.g"'fj"(ijQ
)-EII)
-f3 &
=:3
0
CO
"t)Ug.
~
=:3 0
I;;~
.Q"t)Q
.
~000.000-L{)..-C
t)
D-
C/)
I
ro .
~~
"C.cc
()
O>
N'"
="C
$O
CO
-"'NL--L-0
(/) 0>
'E~
00O
>O
L-E
oo0-0>
-C
EN
o>.-~
E
->.
-!._~3$-'-
'" '"
'" E
f!0>
'x 0>
"Co.c
.-L- ()
~O
o",'-000>0..",-
Q:
0<0
CX
>-
I"-0>
0>.
0>~ 0~~00~cx:>
>-
z~ c..0 ~0cQ
)~Q
)Ei=-!.":5u.
"
.eU)
:)c:0mc:.Q"EQ
)
"'Q)
~"0c:(\I
"EQ)
U)
E
'-Q)
.-.c2 u
U
(\IQ
) Q
)
~I-
r--"C
...
a>~
"CS
a>.0
a>
C
'":5
ijj.c:IULt>
O:J1-(/)ria>E
.~
...C
(/) 0
IU
0
mo.oa>
"C.c:O
_>-C
-.c:~'C
IUa>
U
C
.->
-:J
(/) 'C
(/) -(/)~
O)a>
C(/)
-.-(/) :J
.-'" (/)
0-:J
C(/)IU
CO
IU
0 0
(/)-~.oa>
.-~
~"C
.-CO
~
...>
0
>lU
e:::;IO
.c:c.CC
C
C
a> .-
"C
-(/)
2~~
~~
...(/) ~
u.c:
a>
(/) >
.-U
.c:a>(/)-gIU
.
g -C
"C
'C
$
~
a>"C
Ca>
OW
1-1U.2c._-I
a:00o.00')
00.N >
-
zU')
C-
o (j)~'S
(j)
"~ .§
'S.Q
"~ "C
Or:
0,0 r:'-=
'52-§(j)u.--.Q
r:
~
(j)"- "tJ~
.ato(/)r:"tJto
(j)0)0,"-
to0) -."-
r: "...;t:tO
"'I...~
~.""tJ
'"(j)
to '"
-0) (j)
0"- -
:c:C"=
:.
"Ea> -
E
~a..c-.Q
e.g}.a>
roa>-
>a>
"Oc
a>U
)0a>"O
~E
"O-"roo>
'--c~
cU)
o-a>--c
E"0
U)
a>
a>
U)"O
a.>a>
--0 0
-'--'-ooa>
a.,-->
Ea. "0
a> --
,-c"Oo
,gro=::-
C)a.ro"O
c.Qw
ro--a>
a>
"0>
,--c
a>
0
"a>.c-ai
-Q
(.) C
(.)
a>
roa>c
U)~
2?>ro
mo"O
eEt;~
a>a.o
E.~
~~
~.aroa.
C-
o ~('II,...(0-.q0~~ NN1 C
D
~O.
N~ CI:
>-
zCD
"EQ)
EC-
o~Q
)
0roI::0'wIn
~tt
(/)
~~uco:::<
I00WW
I~~0
(I)-cQ
)
EE0()--c.Qa.;::u(I)Q
)(::I
-InQ)
:J0'Q)
~
O"O
..;u;C
m-
E.cO
tUa>
gtU
.21 ~
-q-
:J .c
'-.cNO
O"U
C
I0
-CD
, ~
m
tU-q-M
a.Cu)O
CLO
0 0
0 C
N
C~
m
mm
'-"O"E
>-C
a>ca"O
-u.tU-
WtU
~
c.tUC
X
'-
"0 0
CI.-
W
a>
C~
CIC
I c.
ca .c
C
C
.!Q
0C
~
.0;
'5 .c
>-
"~C
C-~
camtU
.a.5ca>
-"B.
~
a>t:-Jo
CI~
-°ClC
a>:J
a>
.c C
'C
"0
U.c
U
'S:
..2.E
-(/)
.-:JU
-.-a>U
CtU
0 .c
U
a>
.-'-
Cla>
,- C
IC
.-'-
0 C
00
:I: C
a>
.-m
0 a>
a.
~LO
OC
.ctU
~om
m.!Q
c.O£tU
tU~
~:S
m~
.c
~oc
00O-
M..-"""-a:>
>-
z~ ~0>0>
"-.-.t-.t"--T
""
a-U)
:I:
~~wE(;"Q)
~-00.cu
cn.cOJ
I"'"
!9. "iij
~)
..-:..0
::I -':
Q)
-0
"0 ..>
'" ~
-_.c:
().-"iij-:>
.c: >
"="
~c.
0Q
)I.)
--~"t,
~'"
"0 ~
Q
) .-O
z .c:c:
1::-1.).c
.c 0>
.- :::;.
", 0
c:U
Q
) 0>
:2 .c:
-u 1.)":
.II)
.c .-I.)
c: .--c.
'"-.c
'- tU
Q
) OJ tU
'-
.c'-Q).9?w
"O_-",tU
o..Q
o>
"iij c:
;; tU
Q
) ""Qi
.-'-E
.Q)",
>",
~o>
tU
",c.~~
~tU
c:.5
-'" ::I
Q)
., tU
.c
::I
"O-q-Q
)c."O..,--o
C
c: ~
-
Ec: 1:: Q
) =
".-:>
c.
.-0) c.
~
~5~
o~~
Q)"t'o
Q)
-",="5
m:'-ol.)
U
Q)
tUE
Q)
'-.;~
0 c:
::1-=E
Q)
:>.ctU
'- tU
.- c.
C,
"0
';)~~
Bm
olt""E
~.3
Gl
Q)
u"O
='"
-0>...Q
) Q
) .--tU
tUc:
Q)-.c
~'::~
'-::IN--.0"--
0)0>"0
'-- '-
Q)c:
o" o.-"'ih
..Qo(L>
oo'~
'-.~tU
~
c: E
: c."O
Q
)
o>tU
"'8
",.c: c:-
.5c.0 o~
)<~
._-"0
0 Q
) ~
~
Q) .c
tUc: .~
.c .c ~
.cO>
,1. c:
I.) "0
::I .c
I.) 0
I.) .-,1.
Q)
tU
c:u.1-1I)-",.c:,~
o>W
tU
>-
z~00o.00C'-!.
(t)
~.I:: "C
a.
~
m 8 "[:;;:
,.,-MU
I-c"C
~ro
EO)
O)c-~
-
uroro _c
c_coro~"-
--00.1:: 0
-ro,.,.--E
°0'-~U
I-"C
-ro
UI"C
"C"C
OoO
)roco~U
l;=cro.l::l/)
"C:ero~
fAN
O)O
)_ro .-
uu-_c~0)
0 .U
I .-0)
'0' -~
"C
!!!. .I::,-"C
NO
)C-
a..-
01;=
ro
..ro
.--~O
)a..-tUl.a
.
.I::.,~?!.0"C
~-~
UI~
UI-O
)I/)
.a .-0
ro ~
.I::
OO
Ul-,-O
,--"CO
)~"C
"I"UlC
'-.l::-O)
O"C
~rouU
l0O
'-Ula.roO
O)
N
ro .-U
I 0)
U~
Ulro-
~C
_Ul~
OO
)CT
-.u ro
~
.I:: 0)
--'-
IrN-q-<
.0--q-<
.0-q--10N~ a:z000.000.C
X)
0~ >-
zco C-
ooI I/)"CC
o
~Q
).?;c~E
-om~
0) C
.c '-"0
"00) -
'"..-"0-
'---r--ro"'"ro~c
orocC')c.roc.O
o()£O
)NO
)~
~=
c"'"O"'-N
2 =
00)3.-ro.-roNE
E-"""
-'-'-ro
'-U)m
U)
, N
Eu-o-
m.
.-0 -0
'" "6
'" C
O
0"000) 0)
O)~
()c._"'o"O
~~
-.--c.-
~'"
"""~~
~~
O)~
o-c.2
0) 0
'- O
J£ O
JU0-
uO)c
'-~._"'O
J O
J.-co~~
:.-roO)ro-'-_c
uro'-u,-~O
) ro
~C
i5~50)e:",~
","0
~
'" >
C
') ro
0 '-
WC
'":QrooO
)-..Qo-~
0,-0)0)
-"-ro~"'
NU
"'",
O-C
~'-ro
cc_roO
oCC
._~C
c.U:'-_=
'-~o~
O)~
roNO
"'o uO
"OC
,-,-0
U'-'W
C')';-ro..Q
'-fjmU
)"6°m()O
)<{C
'-=
>
'O).c'"
ro.-roN
"OtC
""0
O)-O
ro ~
r "O
.croO,-°O
a>~
"Ot-O
NO
JZU
C')O
Jro0:
--""rottV
) I::
0
CX
)°o.-.-0.
f'-U:J
CX
):J1nIi)
'---
~
Inco
I::tV
) .-mg0:
~~~CX
)0~C
O
>-
zN"-;-0">cnQ
)"0ro'-C
>
.S!!?0""Q)
cnC::I0UQ
)ucro"0"5(!)
0) D-
C/)
:I:
LO
In~~()ro=«I00WW
I.-.-"I"0
(/)-c:Q
)
EE0t)""-c:
.QC.t:u(/)Q
)0-InQ
)::J0-Q
)~
-'" c
a. .~
M'-
W-
~Q
a>
-15"~
, '"
C
L-a>
'. tu .-
0a>
0
-0 "'
Uoo~
a>-a.-o
r--NU
"'L-~tU
ctUa>
a>
'" c
.-a>
-0 ~
tUtU
-L-L-a>.c
~.ctU
UO
E-
-:JCc
tu"E
L-
C
tu :J
:Ja>C
~L-"'U
o.ctUotU
a>tU
UQ
) a>
.-a>
~
~.c
L--o.c
~-a>
tUo:S
tU.c>
.a.a>
ocujU"Q
j-.co
0- tu-
co.
-Ca>
tU:J
a.0-0
a>-oE
or--w
~a>
-oa>
'-E
-q-IL-"':J-oX
tU~
a>a»
~w
a>
e ",.2:-.c
~a>
a."'a>-0
~ca..c-
-q"'EW
",tUt-tU
OtU
:J-I.-c .E
(Y)~
o-Q)
x0
uoc.!9coo.c-o~
.- c
a>
L-~
, U
--0.-
-0 a.
,. :E
,.
a> c
tu :J
a.
E~
!:.:S~
Ew
tU
>-
zC-
U)
I >-
uc:Q)
.0I;::eD-
oC.~""61c:
W"C$"E::J
(%:
0T-
M.
.q-(0
00.C
")
C'>
0T-C'>
~CX
)C
'>
0:0
.c-U
00-
ro ~
>
-0C
E
'"
G>
.,
0 ~
.c-~--'"
~
-'" '"
,." '"
ro C
,.
G>
~
"C
~
..-~
"CG
>",oo-ro~
o~
UG
>-
O=
u'"
--ro :.::
l:)
~?:.§c~
rom°G
>-o.",c
0> '"
.-N
..--C
O),."
tJ 0
~C
N"C
G>
~:o=
~o
"C.c_ro
.::;0:0=
"C
ro -"-
a.
2roG>
.,"C~
~U
-~,-
Uro
ro"'rocu
E.:g.2G
>~
~0-,
.-G>
"C
.c
0 tJ
-0~
_cf-_="t:o
'- ro
.-.~
0 .c
a..- >
- -' 0
u a. u
a.g"Cc
Z'oa.",roa..aG
>
-~~
"""",a.CII>
-'" a.
"C
"'>--
CcroC
IIOa.ro"C
CII°.c.cE
@-5c
a. O
J O
J .-ro
"'c~:2"C
tJ»-':co~
33~"C
Oc:5°ooG
>.a
-~-.c~
~.c",
Zoo-ro",~Ir(V
)0)1'-.-~01'-.-C
D~ ~t--~L()-t--(D°-00-.tL()
>-
z~ c..(/)I InQ
)
~:cII)Inis:5.~c:~:!2:c()
-0> 0 ?:
~O
>
"co>~
:5~"5U
1>
- -.-0
0-.-C
OO
>~
~
(9«0
C)
'tJ U
I "Q
)~
-.0
UI
~
.-0>
0 .
.-°"C
t; 0
0 U
I
C)~
~.c--
~~
:"-OO
>a5
O'--~
U)1U
-o«
-o~o
-~~
.-O_U
lU)
-0>
2~~
50>-;;;
:5o>roro~
.cC)
->0>
-04;-.5O
'a;t;~>
-o~~
o~roo~
t:°
0>.-
UI
(9 ro
0
00- o
EU
I't:~
UI~
0>
«0>
:z:.«It)~:5W
a.O
>W
«C)o--I.c
--I 00
C)
ro .0-
-0>
.-
E":~
a.C):5.c
.-0>
0 -~
0>
XO
>«
O'-~
UI
0-0>
0-000>
a.~0>
-5§=.c
a.°.cUl_ro-
«.c-
a:
It)"'-c.(")~..-(")
NCD
"'-L()I'--0>
...-L()
>-
zN..-
Q.
CJ)
:I: "0Q)
=(:5;?:-m::Iu.9}."aJ:
E"0c:co;?:-mu°eQ
)"0coU« a:
--wo .-
c ro
~°
Q)
.->
.W
ro'--C
.c°Q)
ro -0)
a.>-w
"CX
=
Q
) ::J
Q)
~
~
.c .Q
C-::JW
1QroasC
in'-'->
Il):I:Q)
.,2Q)V
:I:.c"C
o~Q
-Q
)- Q
)~
'-Q
).!!i.,g~
ciW
C
0
ro"EQ
)~E
v-m
o"C"C
"C~
U>
c.3"C"5.:.:
.-W
ro °~
~
o Q
) ~-Q
»-
-Il) '-
v~,...Q
)c1Q0
::J ..~
.Q
E
tV>
c
~
W
==
.-
ooooE~
0°0°,...'-N
.c.-.c .a.
cu1QU
Il) a.
-W,-w
tI)ro
~
~""C
Ot
(V)
I:: C
CO
Co.
r-:~o.
CO
:J:JIt)
'- cn
"':00<
.0 I::
(V) .-""C
O-C~~a0>It)-co(V
)
"""-It) >
-
zC').- U
)U
) InQ)
~~z""60.!:UC/)
"'~~()(\I~«,'00WW
I.-~C
)
-InQ)
:J0Q)
rr cn-c:Q
)
EE0<->
--c:.Qa.;::ucnQ
)a
~
0)C
D
0 C
:>
-0 --C
D>
CD
.c
~'"
~
0) u
.2 .>
C"'C
D(/)
c.og'0
~
'" ~
.-.-
.c.-C
C
D >
. c.
C->
.-.c
=0
C
~~
EO
) (/).-.'~
ro
c~~
'-cCD
In 'c
c..8 C
10
ro -f/)~
"'roo-(/)CD
~"3""C
Dcn-U
.!!! ~
0
=
.c C
D 0
C~
:>u-.c°ro
0), >
~C
D-.c"'ii)
C
C
0) (/)
>.
u .-
:C°c~
ro.ccn",C
C
.-C
D
C
-~
C
'"
..Q
~
'" .-ro
-OcO
UC
Dcnc
.~
.-~
C
C '"
«0
~,
C
.-0
=
(/).c -
cn.~
..l E
.-U
(/).2
'"~
.cC
DC
D
-'"O
lnl--",(/)oroO
f/) roroc
o-~
N
.~
(/)
0ro~
c ~
.-0
>-
C
0 ~
,- _.
u. '"
0 ~
.c
.9- U
0)
(/)
CD
~u-~
CD
CC
D
...~u~
co~.c--~
CD
CD
~~
.c.c-"'~O
u","'ii)""~c.§~
z~~
.~~
(/)~-~
oc
(Y)
(Y)
1'---It)T
-
<D
-N(Y
)
000-000-0T
-
n: >-
z~~ c..U
):I: >
-O
J0ac:
.c:uQ)
I-a0.c:uU)
:5roQ)
:s:5:0-l.E.2;-.>:gQ
)t:t:00WU)
-In
:s:~O
wZ
-l >-
zIt)~ 0ww
>-
"iij-0)
.c "S
; ~
-.-co-C
Oo
0)0)0)
~
~
c: '0
.!!1 0)
>c:
.cU>
O-
I-C
:0
U
0) .-
->.
OJ
0;'~
O)
0)-~
.0;
-~
-(t;,"
(Y) C
O -
"C:5
E~
-C/J'
0) 0)
~
C/)
0;''-=
"C
E
.!!1
0) .c
:.-co:.-w
.c-C
:~o.
-'"0)
OJ
0 C
/) --C
'
"Co.
>0.,
._~O
»_tJ'O
J .c"O
J=;
«o-'-'o"t:;W
=
~
Z
U
c,O
J '" ~
..
-J 0
0) 0
CO
c.0
U
.c --"C
(t;
coO)=
.i:'~o:,
0) .c
.-'S;
0) .-
~
I- ~
.-"C
11.1
CO
>
- 0 'w
u:'
0) .0)0)c:-
Q;~
:5C:oS
.c w
c:
U
c.;,I-
-J ~
8
.!!1 :z
0~
o~
0~
-IV
0Q
) --C
)1l.Q)
0U
/2oromo
IV~
_~_C
')-"C
IVIV
.-~E
R-
~Q
»I"E
!I'IV
Q)1;=
"C-
-'-'-IV
~O
IV'-
IVC
"'OO
o..e0.
Q)
U
'-"C
"C~
OO
'"IV
U
/ Q
)
Q)",O
O"C
~:!2
"C«Q
) ~
O>
'>W
C)N
IV~
eo-l2Q
»--"'0.5.. LC
> ~
"C
.~
Q
) o
N
Q) ._>
.~
~
'""C
U
---
-Q)'-O
U,-IV
-:::I-C
Q)'-IV
O_",
0_0.0.",0._>-
~
-.-0. m
IV-C
"C-C
::I-:-0'-C
)~-",~
IVQ
)O:C
IVC
UQ
)E
U
::I -.-C
"~IV
2!.Q)E
Q).,g
Q) .-C
) ~Q
)EQ
)Q
) > -'-"C
~
"C-~
'" "-
.-"C
"Co IV
o
IV"-
o >
::I
EU
>
'-
-Co
IV-
~C
)
I-U-C
"'.-IV.-
[k:
L()NN
.-.tL()
CO
...- >
-
z<0
~ [l)<->
u. I/)
«w..J10010c:
'E00uCa>"-<0
a.
"Ero 0)
-c-":3.-
0W
""Q5o
CW
.c0
C
(.)(.)~
U)
ro°"CW
()Cro"C
roU
C
E
roro~oQ
)":3-(.)
(.)C
"C
"Cro,-
.G
I"C~
ro-.-
()Q
)w
~
'-G
I~"C
<~
-Q)w
0 N
GI
0 ""
23'-
.c ro .-
W(.)O
)~.-U
) '-
Q)
CQ
)OU
)O
-Q)
.-"C
'- $:
~"C
Q)t:
W
.-.c 0
O~
--'-'-G
IO
..Q[%
:T
"-.-
I!:
000-0CO
>-
zI'-T-
Coo
(/):I: "ES"3Inc:0UQ
)uc:C
O"C.5(9"60.cuf/)Q
)
'5"C~
.E"C
BQ
)cQ)
-a;~~
Q)
.:swO
J:JID
"CO
>"C
:J"'~,-U
>.Q
OJ-C
OQ
)C
'-°.c.'"
0- .,Q
.Q
-a)
~-g"C
f:.B?:
U>
:JQ)-",Q
)-",-,-",
Q)=
:J00~.c
CO
'"
-E
Q)U
!.--.Q
Q»co
cU!oU
!"C.cC
CO
-
"C '.
Q)
Q)
Q)
E"C
a.~-
"C
coxoco.-Q
) .c
Q)
-~
£U!
E~
'- -O
J -.-
a."CucoQ
)Q
)Q),.,
'-Q
) ~
.~o
CO
C
"C
~~
'-0-
"-0'-Q)"':J
Q)
=
a. a..-
0
"'co-o"C~
Q)
CO
"C
~'-
.c .0
'- C
O
U!
Q)
uQ
)Q
) -
.-.c Q
) :c.c.ca.-.c
t-t-5:U
!0-
a:000.l!)N IX)
0co.IX
)t--t--
>-
zco~ 0ww c:.2"'§::I"0W"5"EIII0mQ
)10C
i5
a:
(/)
~.-.cuS~I
.-00WWI
.-~0
To: Phil PriceFrom: Allan OddenRe: Ideas for Structuring Randomized Experiments on the Effectiveness of Interventions in
At Risk Schools in North Carolina
In our view, understanding the cost of reform is a critical policy issue for accomplishing thegoals of state standards based education refonn, and ofNCLB. It is critical for two reasons: first,because the way we will detennine costs is by identifying and then costing only programs thatwork and need to be part of school strategies to boost student perfonnance; and second, becauseif such programs are not fully funded then it is unlikely that student achievement goals will beattained. These assertions are particularly s,alient and important for at-risk students, and forschools with high percentages of at-risk, 101"er perfonning students. In this memo, we layoutthe key research questions pertaining to the costs and effectiveness of refonns, and we proposean approach to answering these questions that will help North Carolina meet its goals forachieving high standards for all students.
I. Assessing the costs of reform
The major cost or school finance question/issue/problem around the country is: What is theamount of money needed per pupil to accomplish the student achievement goals of a state'sstandards based education reform? In scholol finance terms, this is the adequacy question: Whatis an adequate amount of money? In North Carolina,the cost or adequacy issue is focused on thehigh poverty, low performing schools with high concentrations of low performing, at riskstudents. The key goal is to use the dollars that are provided -and any new dollars that may beprovided -in the most efficient, or most cost effective ways.
Fully answering the general school fmance adequacy question -How much does it cost? -means not only identifying a gross dollar amount (albeit with adjustments for pupil needs, scaleeconomies and geographic price difference!)), but also identifying school and district educationalstrategies/uses of dollars that produce improvements in student learning, because at the districtand school level, the gross dollars need to be translated into programs, services and educationalstrategies, which in turn need to be transformed into instructional strategies that educate studentsto proficiency performance levels. These general statements are very true for North Carolina.The issue is not just how much money, or how much more money is needed for the at-risk, highpoverty districts/schools/students that are the focus of the court decision, but which programsand services work, i.e., help to enhance the achievement of students from lower incomebackgrounds, and how much do those programs cost.
To date, four major methods have been developed to answer just the first part of the schoolfinance adequacy question -How much money is needed?: I) cost function, 2) successfuldistrict, 3) professional judgment, and 4) evidence-based. Odden (2003) provides a full adescription of these approaches. Although no approach is perfect, they are the approaches beingused by states addressing the school financt~ adequacy agenda.
The cost function and successful district approaches to detennining adequacy provide a grossdollar per pupil figure, actually a high and low figure respectively, and adjustments for pupil
9
needs (struggling students from lower income backgrounds, ELL students and disabled students),scale economies and geographic price differences, but provide no information on how to use thedollars. If these approaches are used to determine the adequate spending level, schools anddistricts still need to determine how most effectively -on what programs and educationalstrategies -to use the dollars.
The professional judgment and evidence-based approaches also provide an adequacy per pupilnumber (with similar adjustments for pupil ][}eeds, scale economies and geographic pricedifferences) but build to this per pupil amount by identifying educational. strategies/uses ofresources at the school level that wouldpro~/ide all students an opportunity to achieve toproficiency levels. The former uses the "professional judgment" of educators to identify a levelof resources by educational strategy and usulally identifies a higher level of resources for eachstrategy than the evidence-based approach, 'which relies mainly on research and best practices,but both cover essentially the same within si;:hool educational strategies.
Thus, all four methods produce an overall per pupil dollar number, but only two methodsidentify how those dollars would be used on educational programs and strategies at the schoollevel. And only one of those methods -the evidence-based method -attempts to take ascientific approach to the issue by premisin!~ its key recommendations on research-basedevidence where evidence exists. But even £or the evidence-based approach, the problem is boththat there is an insufficient evidentiary base and little evidence is gathered to confinn impactwhen a new program is funded and put into place. Our Center would remedy both of thesedeficiencies using what we consider the best approach to answering the school finance cost andadequacy question.
As stated above, all methods to determine s,~hool finance adequacy at some point in the processmust address both aspects of the major school finance question: How much money is neededand what are the best uses of those dollars? So the urgent need in North Carolina is fullyconsistent with the national issue. We would argue, moreover, that answering these questions isbest done through evidence-based or scientific methods, i.e., methods that seek to provideevidence on what educational strategy and their resource needs, and what combinations ofstrategies and their resource needs, work -make an impact on student learning, the magnitudesof those impacts, and the total costs of what it would take for all or nearly all students -in NorthCarolina, the students most at risk -to meet state and/or NCLB performance levels.
Weare conceptualizing our proposed Finance Center around making advances in the evidence-based approach to school finance adequacy. We seek to amass more evidence for identifyingwhat level of resources are needed, supporting what combinations of educational strategies, toprovide all students, and particularly at risk students, with opportunities to achieve to stateperformance standards, or in North Carolin~l terms, to receive a sound, basic education. Morespecifically, the following resource use questions are those that both account for the bulk ofproposed education costs (aside from operations and maintenance, transportation, food anddistrict administration) and need more evid{:nce to be answered more definitively(interestingly,these educational strategies are those addressed by both the professional judgment andevidenced-based approaches):
10
1. What is the impact of pre-school, particularly for children from lower income families,on accomplishing student performance goals? And are half or full day programs equallyor differentially effective?
2. Should kindergarten be full- or half day? What is the impact of half- versus full-day
kindergarten?3. Is there an optimum school size, or ranges of school size? What scale adjustments should
be made for small (or very large) schools?4. What should class sizes be: K-3, 4-5, 6-8, 9-12.5. In addition to core teachers staffing core classes (mathematics, science, history/social
studies, English/reading/language arts, and perhaps foreign language), how manyspecialist/planning and prep teacher:; (art, music, physical education, vocationaleducation, etc.) should there be?
6. What are the resource-needs of effe<:tive professional development strategies re: numbersof onsite instructional facilitators/coaches, teacher time for summer institutes and duringthe regular school year, dollars for tJ..ainers whether central office or external consultants?
7. What are the most effective strategit:s for struggling students -individual tutoring (andwhat is the load per FTE teacher ancl how many students need tutoring?), pull outremedial classes, mainstreaming, etc:?
8. What additional extra help is neededl for ELL students, what are the most effectiveeducational strategies, and what are the resource needs of those strategies?
9. What are the most effective strategit:s for serving high incidence/lower cost disabledstudents and what are the resource needs? What are the costs of serving lowincidence/high cost disabled students?
10. What are the most effective service :;trategies for gifted and talented students and whatare their resource needs, if any?
11. What are effective pupil support/family outreach strategies and what are their resourceneeds?
12. How many students need extended clay programs, and what are the structures ,resourceneeds and impacts of those program:s?
13. How many students need summer sc:hool programs, and what are the structures, resourceneeds and impacts of those program:s?
[Question 6 above could be made to be more general, as a question of what are the strategies,including incentives, to recruit, develop and retain a high quality teacher workforce, especiallyfor low performing schools as well as in the technical- math, science, computer technology -areas in secondary schools?]
II. Proposed studies in North Carolina
When we reviewed the programs that are on the North Carolina "Menu of RecommendedStrategies," we saw a strong overlap with tble above questions. So we are offering the followingas a set of suggestions for how a series of ralndomized experiments could be conducted as NorthCarolina phased in the $225 million extra that seems to be needed for the at-risk schools/studentsthat are the focus of the Leandro decisions.
11
As I noted in my last email message, the randomization needs to be made on a school basis. Inorder to have sufficient "power" in the statistical analysis to detect a program impact of about aquarter of a standard deviation, we need about 50 or so schools, 25 with the program and 25 ascontrols. So here are some ideas.
We'd try and get a universe of75-l00 elementary schools (as we wil~ be assessing more thantwo programs). Each school would be provided with an equal sum of dollars per pupil, so thereis incentive for all to participate. But, the State would specify that the dollars would need to beused on a random assignment basis for a fix.ed set of programs, which would vary by grade level.Unfortunately, this kind of strategy eliminates doing some experiments with professionaldevelopment, because professional development of teachers from just some grades would toolikely "leak" to other teachers thereby conulminating the treatment. But this strategy wouldallow us to use students at the non-program grades to be the controls for students in the schoolthat received the funds for a programmatic Jgrade level intervention. Further, this strategy and'this number of schools would allow us also to study the impact of a couple of combination ofprograms as well.
So the following chart is an example of what could be studied, via controlled experiments, at theelementary level. We assume elementary sc::hools are K-6; if not, we could make modifications.We had to pick some programs for grades I<~-2, 3-4, and 4-6. So we picked the following(obviously, these could change, but they se~~med relevant to your situation and to the menu ofprograms):
....
Class size reduction (CSR) to 15 in grades K-2. The current allotment now is 1:18, butthe average class size is 21, so this vvould be to reduce the actual class size to 15.A within school 1-1 tutoring (Tutor) program for students not learning to standards ingrades 3-4.An extended day program (EDP) wiith focused academic services for struggling studentsin grades 5-6.And in the subsequent years, as money was increased, a summer (Summer) schoolprogram for struggling students in grades 5-6.
We also assumed that in some subsequent )i'ear, I have it in year 3 in the attached chart, but itcould be any subsequent year, the money would increase, and each school could have twoprograms.
Following is the chart:
I Year! I Year!
!
Year! I Year 2 Year 2 I Year2-' Year 3 I Year 3 Year 3
-,_~SR
m-2 3-4
5-65-6
CSR I CSR+I Tutor-I Tutor I Tutor I Tutor +
IEDPI EDP 'EDP IEDP+I Summer
So, in Year 1 (which could be the second yc~ar of the Center), each school would get $X/child.That would be sufficient to fund all four programs. Schools would be randomly assigned to a
12
particular use of the dollars -class size reduction, 1-1 tutoring, extended day program. Classsize reduction would be just for grades K-2" 1-1 tutoring just for grades 3-4, and extended dayprograms just for grades 5-6. Let's say we had 75 total schools. 25 would get CSR, 25 Tutoring,and 25 Extended Day. Students in grades I<~-2 in the non-CSR schools would serve as thecontrols for the students in the CSR schools:; students in grades 3-4 in the non-Tutoring schoolswould serve as the controls for the students getting tutored in the Tutor schools; and students ingrades 5-6 would serve as the controls for students getting extended day services in the EDPschools. The treatment -SCR, Tutor, and EDP -could be for one year or even two years. Theabove chart shows it going for two years: For each year, we could determine the programmaticimpacts of these treatments.
Then in Year 3 in the above chart (it could be year 2 if the monies were phased-in more quickly),each school would get $2X/pupil. They the:n could add a program. In our example, the CSRschools would then add the tutoring, which is for the next group of students -fIrst you get CSR,and then if the students are still struggling to get up to proficiency, they get Tutoring services ingrades 3-4. The Tutoring schools would get extended day programs; tutoring in grades 3-4, andthen extended day services in grades 5-6 if "they still need extra help. The Extended DayProgram schools would then get summer school. Each of these additional programs are naturalextensions of the initial programs. And there would still be grades in 25 schools to serve as the"controls" for the grades that got both treabnents.
So we could test the impact ofCSR alone in grades K-2, Tutoring alone in grades 3-4, andExtended Day Programs alone in grades 5-() for the fIrst two years of the experiment, and thentest the impact of CSR and Tutoring, Tutoring and Extended Day, and Extended Day andSummer School, in the third year. Further, in the third year, we'd still have 25 control schools inall grades for students in the specified grad(~s still getting just the CSR, Tutoring and ExtendedDay services, so could extend that analysis.
The specific programmatic interventions could be different, but we have tried to pick some of themost popular and most expensive interventions, and to sequence them as they would be normallysequenced. All the schools would get the money, but their use of the money would beprogrammatically structured, in a random "ray, so that we could study the impacts of theintervention in an experimentally controlled way.
We didn't think we had the same differential grade level opportunity at the middle and highschool level, so we thought at that level, we: would be able to study just one intervention. Wepropose to study incentives for teachers to move to high poverty, low performing middle schools,and to study similar incentives for teachers in mathematics and science in high schools. And webelieve the incentives need to be larger thaI! most places have been trying.
One idea, which has been tried around the (:ountry, is the following. At $250/pupil, one couldfund an incentive of $5000 per teacher, assllllling just a class size of 20 kids. So the incentivewould b~ $5000 per teacher. For the middle schools, we would work with the state to analyzethe effectiveness of teachers in teaching ma.thematics and reading at the middle school level. Wewould conduct a Sanders-type value added analysis. We would identify a confidence interval foridentifying the most effective teachers -say a 10-15 percent confidence level (teachers get in the
13
category but there could be an error rate of 10-15 percent -a lower level would reduce thenumber of teachers identified). So, only tea.chers who were identified as effective would beeligible for the incentive. The idea is to provide the incentive not just for anyone willing to teachin a low performing school, but only to pro,ren effective teachers. [We suppose that theincentive could be for any subject to make it "fairer" across teachers, but we'd have theeffectiveness control just for the teachers wJl1o teach subj ects that the state tests.] For teachersalready in the school, those in the effective 'category would get the $5k to stay, those in themiddle category would only get half the incentive, and those in the bottom category (we'dsuggest a five percent confidence interval) would not get any incentive.
We'd have to randomly assign schools to the treatment, or a universe that would be interested.The other option would be to compare this Icind of focused intervention to schools that gotmoney but could use it for whatever PurpOSI~ they wanted, but that isn't as good a design.
We would do something similar at the high school level. We could do the same thing, but we'dsuggest focusing on just mathematics and s<:ience teachers, with the same effectiveness criterion.We'd also need to focus on those science areas that the state tests, so we could do theeffectiveness analysis and also determine the impact of the incentive re student achievement.
This study design would provide controlled experiments for several programmatic initiatives thatare on the North Carolina agenda:
.
.
.
.
.
Class size reduction in grades K-2Tutoring within schoolExtended day programsSummer school programsIncentives for effective reading/English or math teachers to move to or stay in lowperforming middle schoolsIncentives for effective mathematics and science teachers to move to or stay in highpoverty high schools.
.
In addition, we would also analyze the studentlteacherlschoollinked North Carolina data base foreffects 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 NorthCarolina, would also make a very, very attractive proposal to IES, and would have nationalimplications, as the issues studied are on th(~ agenda either directly or indirectly in nearly allstates.
14
