Educational policy analysis archives

Educational policy analysis archives

Material Information

Educational policy analysis archives
Arizona State University
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tempe, Ariz
Tampa, Fla
Arizona State University
University of South Florida.
Publication Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Education -- Research -- Periodicals ( lcsh )
non-fiction ( marcgt )
serial ( sobekcm )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
E11-00357 ( USFLDC DOI )
e11.357 ( USFLDC Handle )

Postcard Information



This item has the following downloads:

Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam a22 u 4500
controlfield tag 008 c20049999azu 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E11-00357
0 245
Educational policy analysis archives.
n Vol. 12, no. 8 (February 29, 2004).
Tempe, Ariz. :
b Arizona State University ;
Tampa, Fla. :
University of South Florida.
c February 29, 2004
Calculation of the cost of an adequate education in Kentucky : a professional judgment approach / Deborah A. Verstegen.
x Research
v Periodicals.
2 710
Arizona State University.
University of South Florida.
1 773
t Education Policy Analysis Archives (EPAA)
4 856

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
mods:mods xmlns:mods http:www.loc.govmodsv3 xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govmodsv3mods-3-1.xsd
mods:relatedItem type host
mods:identifier issn 1068-2341mods:part
mods:detail volume mods:number 12issue 8series Year mods:caption 20042004Month February2Day 2929mods:originInfo mods:dateIssued iso8601 2004-02-29


1 of 45 A peer-reviewed scholarly journal Editor: Gene V Glass College of Education Arizona State University Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to the EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES EPAA is a project of the Education Policy Studies Laboratory. Articles appearing in EPAA are abstracted in the Current Index to Journals in Education by the ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation and are permanently archived in Resources in Education Volume 12 Number 8February 29, 2004ISSN 1068-2341Calculation of the Cost of an Adequate Education in Kentucky: A Professional Judgment Approach Deborah A. Verstegen University of VirginiaCitation: Verstegen, D. A., (2004, February 29). Ca lculation of the Cost of an Adequate Education in Kentucky: A Professional Judgment Approach. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12 (8). Retrieved [Date] from 8/.AbstractWhat is an adequate education and how much does it cost? In 1989, Kentucky’s State Supreme Court found the enti re system of education unconstitutional-“all of its parts and pa rcels”. The Court called for all children to have access to an adequa te education, one that is uniform and has as its goal the develop ment of seven capacities, including: (i) “sufficient oral and wri tten communication skills to enable students to function in a complex and rapidly changing civilization . .and (vii) sufficient l evels of academic or vocational skills to enable public school students to compete favorably with their counterparts in surrounding s tates, in academics or in the job market”. Now, over a decade later, key questions remain regarding whether these objectives have been fulfilled. This research is designed to calculate t he cost of an adequate education by aligning resources to State standards, laws and objectives, using a professional judgment approach. Seven focus groups were convened for this purpose a nd the


2 of 45 scholarly literature was reviewed to provide multip le inputs into study findings. The study produced a per pupil base cost for each of three prototype school districts and an total st atewide cost, with the funding gap between existing revenue and the re venue needed for current operations of $1.097 billion per year (2001-02). Additional key resource requirements ne eded to achieve an adequate education, identified by profes sional judgment panels, include: (1) extending the school year for students and teachers, (2) adding voluntary half-da y preschool for three and four year olds, and (3) raising teacher s alaries. This increases the funding gap to $1.23 billion and sugg ests that significant new funding is required over time if th e Commonwealth of Kentucky is to provide an adequate and equitable education of high quality for all children and youth as directed by the State Supreme Court.IntroductionWhat is the cost of an adequate education in Kentuc ky? Note 1 This research examines the cost of educational adequacy in the C ommonwealth of Kentucky. The study is designed to determine the funding leve ls necessary for different school districts to meet State standards and object ives that define an adequate education, using a professional judgment approach. Work began for the Council for Better Education, Inc., in July 2002 and seven focus groups were held in Louisville and Lexington in November and December 2 002. These meetings were convened for the purpose of conducting a “prof essional judgment” adequacy study. In total, 80 Kentucky citizens and educators with knowledge of education issues were invited to contribute to the information contained in this report; there was a 65 percent response rate. Infor mation gathered from professional judgment panels was cross-referenced t o the research literature to provide multiple inputs into study findings.Currently the State of Kentucky uses a three-tiered finance system, entitled SEEK (Support Education Excellence in Kentucky), to distribute State aid to school districts. SEEK was created by the Kentucky Education Reform Act of 1990 (KERA) in response to the Supreme Court ruling in Rose v. the Council for Better Education that found the entire education system unconstitut ional. The Court called for all children to have access to an adequate education, one that is uniform and has as its goal the development of t he seven capacities, including: (i) “sufficient oral and written communi cation skills to enable students to function in a complex and rapidly changing civil ization . .and (vii) sufficient levels of academic or vocational skills to enable p ublic school students to compete favorably with their counterparts in surrounding s tates, in academics or in the job market” (emphasis added). The Court dire cted the Kentucky General Assembly to create and enact into law a new system of education that was not only constitutional but also was based upon efficie ncy as defined by equity and adequacy. Note 2 The Kentucky Education Reform Act (KERA) has been r eferred to as the most comprehensive educational reform ever attempted in the United States; it called for systemic change in finance, governance, curricu lum and assessment. The


3 of 45 new finance system, created under KERA, is composed of three levels of funding: the minimum foundation program and two add itional funding tiers. Under the foundation program, each school district is guaranteed a minimum amount of funding per pupil. Districts contribute t o that amount through the proceeds of the equivalent of a uniform property ta x. Wealthy districts that have higher property values per pupil raise more funding and less affluent districts with lower property values raise fewer dollars. The State makes up the difference between what a district raises and the S tate guarantee. This is referred to as “equalization”. In 2001-02 the base SEEK State guarantee per pupil (i.e., the foundation guarantee) was $3,066. Note 3 However, it is difficult to say what the foundation guarantee represents. In most States it is determined more by available revenue than rational analysis. Note 4 Often it is a number that is set by the State to allocate as mu ch total support as the State legislature provides. Note 5 However, assuring that the system provides an adequate level of support requires the foundation l evel to be set at an appropriate level—a level that is aligned with Stat e laws, standards and objectives.It is common practice to adjust the foundation guar antee for cost pressures beyond the control of the school district. For exam ple, some districts have more students with disabilities, limited English Profici ency or economic disadvantages that require higher costs to educate to State stand ards and objectives. School systems can also have uncontrollably “high costs” d ue to e.g., size and location. The State of Kentucky provides funding to school di stricts in addition to the guaranteed base amount for transportation, children with disabilities (including home and hospital), and economic disadvantages. Und er Tier I, districts can also supplement funding through additional taxes th at are matched by the State to 15 percent above the SEEK base guarantee plus ad d-ons; and through Tier II, to 30 percent above base SEEK and Tier I fundin g, which is not matched by the State. Note 6 Although many aspects of KERA have been examined ov er time, still major questions remain almost thirteen years after Kentuc ky enacted a new school funding system and major education reforms into law Key among them are the following: What is the cost of an adequate educati on in Kentucky? How do costs vary for students and districts with special needs? Does the Commonwealth of Kentucky provide sufficient funding to support an adequate education? This study addresses these questions. It is designed to determine the funding levels necessary for different school d istricts to meet State standards and objectives that define an adequate ed ucation. Other States such as Alaska, Illinois, Ohio, Maryland, New Hampshire, Oregon, and Wisconsin have estimated funding school districts need to ful fill State laws, standards and objectives either as part of school finance litigat ion or at the request of State legislatures or education officials. These States are using calculation procedures based on one of two data-based approache s that have been refined over the past several years: (1) the professional j udgment model also called a resource cost model (RCM) or (2) the successful dis trict approach, also referred to as the empirical approach. These are two of four approaches used to rationally determine an average base cost of an ade quate education for a State. The other approaches include: costing comprehensiv e school reform models (CSR), and the econometric approach--a complex stat istical method. Of the


4 of 45 latter two approaches only CSR has been employed by a single State. Note 7 The research approach used in this study to determi ne the average base cost of an adequate education, the professional judgment ap proach, is a version of what has been called the “resource cost model” or t he “ingredients approach.” Note 8 In the past it asked professional educators to sp ecify the resource needs of quality schools using their professional j udgments. Currently the approach enlists professionals and service provider s to specify the resource and service needs of prototype schools in order for students to have an adequate education. Once resources have been specif ied, prices are added which, when summed, provide a cost estimate. Costs for elementary, middle and high schools can be combined with district leve l costs to produce an overall cost of education per pupil. The district level cos ts include additional expenditures beyond school site costs or costs that cannot be disaggregated to schools, such as district administration, central o ffice costs, transportation, plant maintenance and operations. To these costs, adjustm ents can be made to provide additional assistance to students with spec ial needs, such as exceptional children, children who are English lang uage learners, and economically disadvantaged children.The following sections will discuss alternative cos t methods and explain in greater detail the professional judgment approach t o studying adequacy as it was implemented in Kentucky.Alternative Methods for Determining an Adequate Bas e Cost of EducationScholars have identified a variety of methods for m easuring the cost of education. Note 9 The principal methods include: 1) resource cost m odels (RCM)—based on research and/or professional judgmen ts, 2) empirical approaches--deductive inference from exemplary dist ricts, 3) econometric modeling--a complex statistical technique and 4) co sting comprehensive school reform models. Each of these methods provides an a verage base cost of education for a presumed or hypothetical student th at is further adjusted for special student/district characteristics.Professional Judgment/Resource Cost ModelsUsing the professional judgment approach for determ ining costs, resources or ‘ingredients’ deemed necessary to meet State laws, objectives and standards are identified by service providers and/or research and then prices are attached and summed. The result is the estimation of an aver age, base cost of a defined set of resources in the average district needed to achieve particular State constitutional requirements and objectives that def ine adequacy. Resources that are priced include class sizes, personnel, mat erials, supplies, technology and equipment. As the approach has been implemented it aligns resources with State laws and standards but does not determin e how funding is distributed or how funds should be used in districts and school s. The advantages of the approach are that it is easy to understand and tran sparent. The disadvantages are that it tends to be based on current practice a nd it needs to be


5 of 45 supplemented (not supplanted) by research to assure resource configurations/strategies are able to produce desir ed results. Note 10 For example, the professional judgment approach bas ed on consultation with local experts has been used in Wyoming, South Carol ina, Montana, Maryland, Missouri, Illinois and Alaska. In Wyoming, Note 11 the method for determining costs relied heavily on consultation with professio nal expert groups including teachers, counselors, principals, business managers and superintendents from elementary, middle and high schools; from large and small districts; and from rural and urban areas of the State. Note 12 Practitioners views were used to "form the consultant's views" related to the resour ce elements necessary to produce an adequate educational system, as was reli ance on national research. Note 13 Complex statistical methods to calculate resource costs were avoided in Wyoming, and more transparent, prototypical mode l budgets for elementary, middle and high schools were constructed including adjustments for high cost students and districts. This included students with disabilities or economic disadvantages, and isolated rural school districts. For example, the prototypical model cost for elementary school assumed an average school size of 288 students, class size of 16 and average teacher comp ensation of $41,433 (1996); however, districts were permitted local con trol in the manner in which they deployed resources as the budget models were p rimarily used to determine costs. Required numbers of and/or costs f or additional factors included personnel, supplies and equipment, food se rvice, categorical aid, student activities, maintenance and operations, tra nsportation and administration. Capital expenditures were not inclu ded in the estimates. This model was adopted by the Wyoming legislature but re quired a special session to address the special high costs of small schools/ districts, which were omitted from the initial calculations.The Empirical Approach -Deductive Inference of Co sts from Exemplary DistrictsThis strategy for defining costs—referred to as the successful school district approach--identifies schools or school districts wh ere student performance meets desired targets, and determines the level of resources expended by such schools/school districts to estimate costs. It can include controls for non-school factors that may affect student achievement and adj ustments for high cost students.This approach has been used in Illinois, Mississipp i, Maryland and Ohio. In Ohio, Note 14 all school districts except outliers (defined by h igh and low property wealth and spending) meeting most of the S tate’s 18 outcome measures defined the foundation level of spending. In New Hampshire, a modified approach was used that included only the l ower spending of those districts that were within a narrow range of meetin g the State’s objectives; they were used to calculate base cost figures for instru ction, administration, and plant maintenance and operations, which were then c ombined to produce a single, base cost figure. Note 15 This approach of inferring costs from "exemplary" d istricts is intuitively appealing and understandable. However, the approach necessitates a


6 of 45 well-developed State accountability system and data base. Also, as implemented, it usually eliminates ‘outlier’ school districts leading to the possibility of recommendations that underfund educa tion and calling into question whether adequate costs have been defined f or the entire State. “Exemplary” districts are generally affluent distri cts with few high need students raising questions about whether findings can be gen eralized to districts with a more diverse student population. Finally, and perha ps most importantly for the purposes of this study, if the funding system is in adequate for all districts in the State, as was the case in Kentucky under Rose, then correlating current spending in select districts to student outcomes wi ll fail to capture the cost of an adequate education.Econometric ModelingUsing econometric modeling, costs are derived by as sociating total district spending with predetermined pupil performance level s or proficiencies, such as student achievement test scores. The statistical te chnique is least squares analysis. In essence, this approach statistically i solates factors contributing to school costs independent of other related factors a nd adjusts them by the cost factors to achieve an overall cost figure; controls may be used for non-school factors contributing to these costs. Thus, the calc ulation summarizes all the information about costs into a single number, which indicates how much each school district must spend to achieve a given level of educational output, such as the average level of current student performance in a State. For example, an econometric study of the cost of ed ucation in New York Note 16 related student achievement to multiple schooling and non-schooling factors, including per pupil spending, for 631 school distri cts. The study resulted in six cost indices for New York school districts; however they provided widely divergent results for the same districts depending on the assumptions embedded in the model. The cost of education in New York City was found to be 30 percent higher than the average cost of educa tion in the State, using the alternative measure for school district performance Conversely, using pupil performance indicators directly for the outcome mea sure, the cost of education in New York city was found to be almost 300 percent higher than average when efficiency was not included in controls; it was 126 percent higher when efficiency was included but considered exogenous; i t was 287 percent higher when efficiency was included but considered endogen ous. Note 17 These widely varying costs of education produced th rough econometric modeling can weaken the confidence in the findings particularly because the assumptions undergirding the models are obtuse. Th ese and other problems raise questions about the defensibility of the find ings emerging from the studies. While these models contribute to theory and academi c interest, at a practical level they are difficult to understand or explain t o policymakers and may be counterintuitive. No State has employed the resulti ng cost figures into law; those that have include them to adjust the final re venue allocation figure, in an effort to recognize the variations in the purchasin g price of the dollar across the State--not as a determinant of the average base cos t of education necessary to achieve an adequate education.


7 of 45 Comprehensive Schoolwide Reform ModelsAnother approach for developing an adequacy target is based on costing-out comprehensive schoolwide reform (CSR) models, in an effort to link educational strategies to resources. Note 18 The approach is a variant of the original RCM: resources needed to implement a CSR model are ident ified, priced and summed. These model costs are then added to a base cost of education and/or substituted for resources currently deployed and us ed in schools to arrive at a cost estimate that can be adjusted for special need s students and districts. To be meaningful, the models used for developing cost estimates should be based on proven, effective programs with a long research track record demonstrating effectiveness in teaching all children to high leve ls and achieving State standards. A difficulty is that most CSR models, p articularly New American Schools (NAS), have not had the time to prove their effectiveness. According to a recent study: “Many of the newer approaches, incl uding New American Schools approaches, showed promise, but had not bee n in schools long enough to build a substantial research base on stud ent outcomes.” Note 19 In addition, CSR costs include design elements, consul tant costs and training estimates—base costs must also be specified and pri ced apparently by employing one of the previously mentioned approache s. While several models of comprehensive reform are currently available and have been priced, at this time, few have been field tested or used for policy purposes.SummaryIn summary, there are several approaches for determ ining an average, adequate base cost of education that have been refi ned over the past decade and used in several States. However, as one researc her has noted, “none of these approaches are immune to manipulation; that i s, each is subject to tinkering on the part of users that might change re sults.” Note 20 Moreover, it is not clear how results might compare using differing methods although the empirical approach and professional judgment method apparently have been successfully blended in at least one State. Nonethe less, each approach represents an attempt to rationally determine the c ost of an adequate base education and other parameters that drive State aid levels, and therefore, the use of almost any rational approach improves curren t practice and raises the level of discussion, much of which is based on the availability of State aid rather than the costs necessary to provide an adequate edu cation.Implementing the Professional Judgment ApproachThe professional judgment approach used in this stu dy focuses on identifying resources needed to meet State laws, objectives and standards. Once resources are specified, prices are affixed, which, when applied across all resource components, and summed, produce a cost est imate. Costs for elementary, middle and high schools are combined wi th district level costs to produce an overall average base-cost of education. District costs are those in addition to school site expenditures, such as plant maintenance and operations, transportation, central office personnel and other costs that cannot be


8 of 45 disaggregated to school sites. The average cost of education produced is then adjusted to include the excess costs necessary to e ducate students with special needs, and districts with exceptional circumstances or uncontrollably high costs. Special needs students can include students in spec ial education, with economic disadvantages, and English language learne rs. Size and location can create cost pressures for school districts.In Kentucky, using panels of highly qualified educa tion professionals and the professional judgment method for determining costs resulted in the identification of the resource needs of prototype elementary, midd le and high schools with a particular set of characteristics based on current Kentucky school districts and student demographics. Because the State’s schools c ould not reasonably be represented by one set of characteristics, multiple panels were constructed to represent the diversity that exists across the Stat e, and focused on districts of different sizes. Multiple panels were used for each set of districts and each cost level—school, district and State. Three school leve l panels worked exclusively on estimating the resource needs of school sites. T hree district level panels reviewed the work of the school level panels and es timated district-level resource needs. An expert panel brought consistency across divergent State resource elements identified by the previous panels and made decisions about prices.Defining AdequacyThe first step in estimating the cost of an adequat e education is to identify the State’s definition of adequacy. States utilize a va riety of measures to which districts are held accountable, including input and output measures. For example, there are input measures defining State re quirements for specific resource inputs, such as the minimum number of days and/or hours school must be in session, graduation requirements, maximu m class sizes, curriculum standards and personnel requirements. The second ty pe of measure is based on outputs that include indicators of student perfo rmance levels, dropout and attendance rates, average yearly progress on tests, and gaps between disaggregated demographic student groups. This stud y began with a review of input and output measures that currently exist in t he State. In Kentucky, six student-learning goals were establ ished in 1990 and the Core Content Standards Note 21 provide lists of curriculum content that will be assessed for accountability and therefore should be taught and learned by all students in all schools. Kentucky’s key output indi cator--CATS, the Commonwealth Accountability Testing System--is perh aps one of the most clearly articulated accountability systems in the n ation. CATS consists of academic and nonacademic indictors for all students As part of the academic indicators, students are assessed in writing, readi ng, science, mathematics, social studies, arts and humanities, and practical living/vocational skills. Student outcomes are then classified as novice, apprentice, proficient or distinguished. A level of proficient is required of all students b y 2014. Both academic and non-academic indicators are assessed and represente d by a separate Index; they are also combined in the Accountability Index score by student, school and district. The goal is an Accountability Index of 10 0 (proficient) by 2014. Indicators included in the Index are aligned to stu dent achievement on content


9 of 45 standards as well as other nonacademic State standa rds included in regulations such as dropout rates and attendance. Other importa nt output measures are contained in the high Court decision in Rose v. the Council for Better Education which called for efficiency in education defined, b y a system that is “uniform, adequate, and unitary”, with seven essential compet encies listed to define adequacy. Note 22 After reviewing both input and output measures, it was decided in concert with school officials and professional judgment panels, both were needed. Appendix A shows how these measures were summarized with equ al emphasis on inputs and outputs, including CATS, Rose definitions and post -Rose learner goals. Also utilized were State trajectories for improveme nt on student assessments that delineate average yearly progress if proficien cy is to be reached by 2014; and disaggregated data between population groups-by race, gender, disability, and English proficiency--with a goal of closing the gaps. Note 23 Thus, for the purpose of this study, these input and output measu res define an adequate education in Kentucky.Determining the Characteristics of Prototype School s and School DistrictsThere are over half a million public school student s in Kentucky’s 176 school districts, which are organized as 120 county and 56 independent districts. The typical county district has about 2,500 students wh ile an independent district has approximately 900 students. Note 24 School size is an important characteristic because it bears some relationship t o school spending. To better understand the variations in size and demographics of districts across the State, three equal groups (thirds) were formed based on: ( 1) districts, and (2) students (Table 1 & 2). The first set of groups, based on eq ual numbers of school districts showed that one-third of all school districts in the State with the lowest enrollments number 59 and have only 8 percent of th e total number of students, with an average enrollment (ADA) of 797. The middle one-third of school districts includes 59 districts with an average ADA of 2,059. The one-third of school districts with the largest number of enrollm ents have over 70 percent of all students, with an average ADA of 6,822, and inc lude 59 districts. Percentages of special needs students (based on tot al ADA) are also shown by thirds of school districts. Table 1. Characteristics of Kentucky School Distric ts Based on Thirds of School DistrictsDistrict SizeSmall-MediumMedium-LargeLarge-Very Lar geState Total Range in Enrollment (ADA)125-1,3631,404-2,7072,72380,378125-80,378 Number of Districts595958176Total Number of Students47,074121,475395,649564,197Average Number of Students per District7982,0596,82 23,206 # Special Education7,670.019,359.060,364.087,393% Special Education16.3%15.9%15.3%15.5%# Free & Reduced Lunch28,33870,908208,793308,039% Free & Reduced Lunch60.2%58.4%52.8%54.6%# Limited English Proficient32142352265,970.0


10 of 45 % Limited English Proficient0.68%0.35%1.32%1.06%# Migrant 2272774,2084,712 % Migrant 0.48%0.23%1.06%0.84% # Gifted & Talented6,89817,30951,07675,283% Gifted & Talented14.65%14.25%12.91%13.34%Note: n=176; 2001-02 Table 2. Characteristics of Kentucky School Distric ts Based on Thirds of Enrollment (ADA)District SizeSmall-MediumMedium-LargeLarge-Very Lar geState Total Range in Enrollment (ADA)125-2,8852,935-8,0748,15580,378125-80,378 Number of Districts1254110176Total Number of Students188,257185,413190,527564,19 7 Average Size of District1,5064,52219,0533,206# Special Education30,29929,68227,41287,393% Special Education16.1%16.0%14.4%15.5%# Free & Reduced Lunch111,626102,38094,033308,039%Free & Reduced Lunch59.29%55.22%49.35%54.60%# Limited English Proficient79199841815,970% Limited English Proficient0.42%0.54%2.19%1.06%# Migrant54361335564,712% Migrant0.29%0.33%1.87%0.84%# Gifted & Talented26,51326,54822,22275,283% Gifted & Talented14.08%14.32%11.66%13.34%Note: N=564,197, 2001-02.The second group of districts shown in the table is based on equal numbers of students (ADA) in the State divided by thirds. There are ab out 188,500 students in average daily attendance (ADA) in each third. T he first third was made up of 125 of the 176 school districts in the State with a n average size of 1,500 students in ADA. The middle third, with 41 district s, averaged 4,522 ADA. Only ten districts made up the largest one-third of dist ricts, with an average size of 19,052. Based on this information, it was decided t o divide the State into three groups of school districts based on enrollments (AD A), not only because schools are largely funded based on the number of s tudents (ADA), but also because this breakout captured important variations among the 176 districts across the State. For example, the small to moderat e cluster contained most of the districts in the State (125), and the large to very large cluster contained the 10-12 very large districts of about 8,000 ADA or ab ove, including Jefferson County. There was also a medium to large size clust er of 39 districts that contained between 3,000-8,000 students. The table a bove shows the characteristics of students in each size grouping a s well as the averages for the State.It shows the enrollment, number of districts, avera ge number of students per district, and the characteristics of the student po pulation based on thirds of enrollment (ADA). The percentage of students with d isabilities, economic disadvantages (free and reduced price lunch) and li mited English proficiency (LEP), as well as migrant and gifted and talented s tudents are provided. These demographic features, based on actual numbers of ch ildren and youth in each


11 of 45 category, suggest the extent to which districts fac e cost pressures associated with special need students. Additional or excess co sts are usually associated with educating children with these characteristics. Students with disabilities are generally an accepted added cost factor. Low-income children are used as a proxy for children in danger of failing or dropping out of school. Limited English Proficient students cannot perform ordinary class w ork in English. Migrant students often need extra assistance to catch up or become acquainted with school procedures. These factors translate into ext ra costs. These students groups are also highlighted in State and district r eports by the Kentucky Department of Education and compared to their more advantaged counterparts on Kentucky’s academic and nonacademic indicators w ith a goal of closing the gap between them.Thus, with districts divided into groups based on s ize for the purposes of the study, it was necessary to establish the grade leve l organization of the prototype schools within districts. Analysis was performed on information provided by the Kentucky Department of Education to determine the m ajor organizational patterns across the State. The data showed that of the 1,745 regular academic schools, Note 25 the largest cluster of elementary schools were org anized as either primary and upper elementary or entry throug h 5th, and contained grades K-5 (47.5%), with most middle schools containing gr ades 6-8 (74%), and 98 percent of high schools, consisting of grades 9th-1 2th. These grade configurations were used in designing the prototype schools by the professional judgment panels.Professional Judgment PanelsThe next step was to identify the prototype school panels. Three school site panels were created to identify the resource “ingre dients” that were needed to deliver an adequate education to students. They we re assembled from experienced, well-qualified professional educators, including teachers, curriculum personnel and administrators employed in Kentucky’s schools. The CBE with assistance from the Kentucky Education Ass ociation took the characteristics of the type of professionals that w ere needed for the school site meetings and secured the people that would be worki ng on the panels. Twenty-three individuals participated in the school site panels that met in Lexington on November 15th (Appendix B). School sit e panel members were asked, “What, in your experience and judgment, are key resource requirements of schools needed to provide an adequate education to children and youth in Kentucky?” Each panel was given a set of material s to guide their work and designated a reporter for the group. This person ke pt a record of the decisions made by the panel and consulted with the facilitato r to compare, record and verify information that would be entered into a com puter summary after the meeting. Each panel also worked with a facilitator (Professors’ Verstegen, Gurley and Knoeppel) who, for example, answered que stions, moved the discussion from topic to topic, recorded decisions, and maintained a focus on the alignment of resources to an adequate education The school site panels worked together to create pr ototype elementary, middle, and high schools based Kentucky’s student demograph ics, for districts of different sizes: 1) a small to moderate size distri ct, 2) a moderate to large


12 of 45 district, and 3) a large to very large district. T his included defining prototypical school sizes, the number and size of classes, and t he required numbers and types of personnel, supplies, equipment, technology categorical aid, student activities and any opportunities that would be avai lable outside of the school day--such as extended school services for Saturday school, summer school, and before and after school programs. Panels provid ed adjustments to general “ingredients” and resource items as needed for stud ents with disabilities, Limited English Proficiency, economic disadvantages and gifted and talented students, based on actual demographics (Table 3). T he work of each of the panels was subsequently entered into computer recor ds and summarized for review by the prototype school district panels. Table 3. Characteristics Of K-12 Prototype Schools by Size of School District Level of School ElementaryMiddleHigh School Schools in Small School DistrictsEnrollment (ADA) 348315480 Grade Span K-56-89-12 % Special Education 16.1%16.1%16.1% % Limited English Proficient0.42%0.42%0.42%% Low Income Students 59.29%59.29%59.29% % Gifted and Talented 14.65%14.65%14.65% % Migrant 0.29%0.29%0.29% Schools in Moderate School DistrictsEnrollment (ADA) 384567768 Grade Span K-56-89-12 % Special Education 16.0%16.0%16.0% % Limited English Proficient0.54%0.54%0.54%% Low Income Students 55.22%55.22%55.22% % Gifted and Talented 14.32%14.32%14.32% % Migrant 0.33%0.33%0.33% Schools in Large & Very Large DistrictsEnrollment (ADA) 288504672 Grade Span K-56-89-12 % Special Education 14.4%14.4%14.4% % Limited English Proficient2.19%2.19%2.19%% Low Income Students 49.35%49.35%49.35% % Gifted and Talented 11.66%11.66%11.66% % Migrant 1.87%1.87%1.87% Note: 2001-02.For the district level, three additional panels, co mposed of twenty-three, well-qualified school and district level profession al educators and other personnel, met in Louisville, December 10th. At lea st one individual (or like position) served in both school and district level sessions to aid the facilitiator, and provide overlap and continuity between sessions CBE invited individuals to serve on the panels with assistance from the Ken tucky School Board Association. Professors Verstegen, Gurley and Knoep pel oversaw the groups’ work. Like the school site panels, the members of t he district level panel were given a set of materials to guide their work and on e participant acted as the


13 of 45 recorder for each group. The district panel reviewe d the work of the school site panels, changed the resource configurations as need ed, reviewed approaches for determining district level costs and made judgm ents. District budgets were used for reference. The panels adopted current figu res for districtwide costs except for transportation expenditures that were co nsidered “inadequate.” Recommendations were made for a State study to dete rmine the full and adequate cost of student transportation, including transportation to and from summer school, Family and Youth Service Centers, an d Extended Day programs. After the work of the panels was complete d, the decision choices were entered into computer records and comparisons were made for review by the expert panel.The expert panel met on December 20th in Lexington. Panel members responded to an invitation issued by CBE. A set of materials guided their work. The panel reviewed variations in resource configura tions across all panels as related to State level issues, such as the length o f the school year, and made decisions. Refinements were also made, in part, to resource lists for the school prototypes that were developed by previous panels. Finally, the panel discussed prices and made recommendations for different resou rce elements that would be used to cost out the prototypes.Resource Needs of Schools and DistrictsBased on the work of the professional judgment pane ls, the resource needs of elementary, middle and high schools are shown in Ta bles 4A, 4B, and 4C for staffing. When reviewing these tables it is importa nt to keep in mind that the figures indicate the resource needs of schools, not the manner that resources should be deployed and used in schools and in class rooms. The resource configurations that are shown were developed based on demographic specifications from actual school districts in Kent ucky, which are shown in the top half of each table. As shown in the balance of the table, when determining personnel units, panels distinguished between gener al education students and special needs students while treating each group of special needs students as separate. In practice it is possible that there is some overlap between special student populations, however, leading to some extra resources due to double counting, but this may be warranted to some extent. For example, a student receiving special education services may also be an English language learner. Table 4a. Personnel Requirements of K-12 Prototype Schools to Achieve State Standards & Objectives Given Specified School CharacteristicsSmall to Medium School District K-5 SchoolMiddle SchoolHigh School Specified Characteristic Enrollment (ADA) 348315480 Number of Students with Disabilities5650.777 Number of Limited English14.613.220.2 Number of Students At-Risk Students206186.8284.6 Number of G&T Students 4944.467.6 Number of Migrant Students10913.9(1) Personnel: Teaching Staff


14 of 45 Regular Student Classroom Teacher 222124 Other Teacher 55.27.8 Instructional Aides (Kindergarten)400Special Education* Teacher (10:1) 658 Other Teacher: 000 Clerk/SecÂ’y 111 Instructional Aide 444 Low Income* Classroom Teacher Other Teacher 122 AideLimited English Proficient* Classroom Teacher 111 Other Teacher Aide Gifted and Talented* Classroom Teacher 133 Other Teacher Aide(2) Pupil Support StaffRegular Student Guidance Counselor 122 Nurse 1/school1/school1/school Special Education* Psychologist 1 districtwide Occupational Therapy-district time districtwide Physical Therapy-district time districtwide Speech Pathologist 1 FTE1 FTE1 FTE (3) Other StaffAll Students Library Media Specialist 111 Technology/Technician 111 Substitutes** 111 (4) AdministrationAll Students Principal 111 Assistant Principal 011 Clerk/Bookkeeper 233 Other: Instructional Facilitator0.50.51Note: *Weighted. Additional staff not shown in this table may be available although they are counted a t the district level.Table 4b. Personnel Requirements of K-12 Prototype Schools to Achieve State Standards & Objectives Given Specified School CharacteristicsModerate to Large School District K-5 SchoolMiddle SchoolHigh School Specified Characteristics Enrollment (ADA) 384567768


15 of 45 Number of Students in Special Education6191123 Number of Limited English Proficient213141 Number of Students At-Risk Students212313424 Number of G&T Students 5582110 Number of Migrant Students 131925 (1) Personnel: Teaching StaffRegular Student Classroom Teacher 242744.8 Other Teacher 5.86.414 Aide 400 Special Education* Classroom Teacher 121016 Other Teacher Aide 121016 Low Income* Classroom Teacher 4910 Other Teacher AideLimited English Proficient* Classroom Teacher .5.51 Other Teacher AideGifted and Talented* Classroom Teacher 111 Other Teacher 000 Aide 000 (2) Pupil Support StaffRegular Student Guidance Counselor 235 Clerk/Guidance 000 Nurse 111 Social Worker 111 Special Education Psychologist 111 Speech Pathologist 1.25.25 (3) Other StaffAll Students Librarian/Media Specialist 111 Media Aide 111 Technology Specialist** 111 Substitutes(4) AdministrationAll Students Principal 111 Assistant Principal 112 Clerical/Data 347.5** Other: Instructional Facilitator.5.51 Safety Officer 112 Note: *Weighted. Additional staff not shown in this table may be available although they are counted a t the district level.


16 of 45 Table 4c. Personnel Requirements of K-12 Prototype Schools to Achieve State Standards Given Specified School Characterist icsLarge to Very Large School District K-5 SchoolMiddle SchoolHigh School Specified Characteristics Enrollment 288504672 Number of Students in Special Education41.572.696 .8 Number of Limited English Proficient6.31114.7 Number of Students At-Risk Students142.1248.7331. 6 Number of G&T Students33.657.878.4 Number of Migrant Students5.49.412.6(1) Personnel: Teaching StaffRegular Student Classroom Teacher 182439.2 Other Teacher 4.55.812.9 Aide (kindergarten) 3 Special Education Teacher (Ratio) 357 Other Teacher 000 Aide 333 Low Income* Teacher Needs addressed by small class size Other Teacher SFA, Elementary; Comer, Middle/HS AideLimited English Proficient* Teacher Other Teacher Aide 111 Gifted and Talented* Teacher 122 Other Teacher Aide(2) Pupil Support StaffRegular Student Guidance Counselor 11.54* Clerk/Guidance Counselor000 Nurse .5.51 Social Worker 000 Special Education Psychologist .2.5.5 Speech Pathologist .5.50 (3) Other StaffAll Students Librarian/Media Specialist112 Technology Specialist 111 Media Aide 000 Substitutes**(4) AdministrationAll Students Principal 111


17 of 45 Assistant Principal 02**2 Clerical/Data 334 Other: Instructional Facilitator.5.51 Safety Officer 011 Note: *Weighted. Additional staff not shown in this table may be available although they are counted a t the district level.Panels developed a philosophy that guided resource deployment, that was later cross referenced to research as follows: 1) Early l earning opportunities are cost effective and improve student outcomes Note 26 —half day preschool (voluntary) and full day kindergarten Note 27 were recommended. 2) Small classes Note 28 and small schools Note 29 support student success—class sizes for grades K-5 were recommended to be fifteen to eighteen students. Elementary, middle and high school size averaged 34 0, 462, and 640, respectively. 4) Time and learning are related Note 30 —summer school, Saturday school, and an extended school day and sch ool year were recommended. 5) Needs drive costs—excess funding wa s recommended for students with disabilities, Note 31 Limited English Proficiency, Note 32 economic disadvantages, Note 33 and gifted and talented students Note 34 6) Those closest to the students should have flexibili ty in making most instructional decisions—the “ingredients” included in prototype b udgets were provided only for pricing resource components not for controlling resource allocations or deployment in schools and in classrooms.To compare staffing among different school district s, figures were standardized to personnel per 1000 students, as shown in Tables 5A, 5B, and 5C. The schools consist of similar grade levels but are loc ated in different size school districts. Full time kindergarten for all students is reflected in K-5 staffing ratios for classroom teachers. In each district size categ ory, each kindergarten was allocated a full time teacher’s aide. Teacher aides are nearly absent from all other staffing arrangements, reflecting the thinkin g of panel members that additional funding for special needs students could provide additional aides for those populations; however, little evidence exists to show aides provide value added in terms of students outcomes. Note 35 The category “other teachers” was estimated based on 20 percent of school time, t o allow core teachers a planning period each day. Note 36 Table 5a. Personnel per 1,000 Students for Selected Types of Personnel by School District Size Based on the Work of Professio nal Judgment PanelsPrimary and Upper Elementary School SmallModerateLarge (1) Teaching StaffClassroom Teacher 63.262.562.5 Other Teacher 14.415.115.6 Aide 11.510.410.4 (2) Pupil Support Staff*Guidance Counselor Nurse (3) Other Staff*Librarian/Media Spec.


18 of 45 Technology Spec. (4) AdministrationPrincipal* Asst. Principal --2.6-Clerical/Data 5.77.810.4 (5) OtherInstr. Facilitator Safety Officer --2.6-Social Worker --2.6-* Minimum staffing ratio. **: Other personnel may not be assigned at the scho ol level but counted at the district level.Table 5b. Personnel per 1,000 Students for Selected Types of Personnel by School District Size Based on the Work of Professional Judgment PanelsMiddle School SmallModerateLarge (1) Teaching StaffClassroom Teacher 66.747.647.6 Other Teacher 16.511.311.5 Aide -----(2) Pupil Support Staff*Guidance Counselor Nurse (3) Other StaffLibrarian/Media Spec. Spec. (4) AdministrationPrincipal Asst. Principal Clerical/Data (5) OtherInstr. Facilitator Social Worker --1.8-Safety Officer --1.82.0 Note: Other personnel may not be assigned at the school level but counted at the district level.Table 5c. Personnel Per 1,000 Students for Selected Types of Personnel by School District Size Based on the Work of Professional Judgment PanelsHigh School SmallModerateLarge (1) Teaching Staff


19 of 45 Classroom Teacher 50.058.358.3 Other Teacher 16.318.218.2 Aide -----(2) Pupil Support StaffGuidance Counselor Nurse (3) Other Staff Librarian/Media Spec. Spec. (4) AdministrationPrincipal Asst. Principal Clerical/Data (5) OtherInstr. Facilitator Social Worker --1.3-Safety Officer --2.6-* Note: Other personnel may not be assigned at the school level but counted at the district level.At the elementary level there is remarkable similar ity in staffing core classrooms, although support staff and other staff vary across school districts with the highest ratios in the moderate size school district. The moderate size district includes extra staff (social worker and sa fety officer) and the highest numbers of clerical personnel per 1,000 students in elementary schools. The small school district has the highest number of cla ssroom teachers in elementary and middle school and relatively more su pport and administrative staff per 1,000 students overall (the above notwith standing). This is likely because of the high fixed costs and minimum staffin g ratios that account for the high costs of very small schools/districts due to d iseconomies of scale. Staffing patterns reflect professional judgments of panel me mbers and research that indicates small class sizes in grades K-3, and smal l schools generally result in higher average outcomes for all students. Note 37 For the middle school, the small school district em ploys the most staff per 1,000 students. Staffing declines as the district size in creases, particularly for core teachers and support staff. At the high school leve l, however, the highest teaching staff ratios are at the moderate and large to very large school district. The small school district tends to have the highest ratio of non-teaching staff per 1,000 students at the high school level.Although the staffing arrangements shown in Table 5 A, 5B, and 5C could be compared to the work of professional judgment panel s in other States, participants did not feel that this would be approp riate due to different laws, goals, objectives, and standards across the States. The commonly expressed view was that Kentucky had high standards and goals that would render comparisons unsuitable and misleading.Non-personnel resources, including instructional su pplies, equipment, and technology are shown in Table 6A, 6B, and 6C. Instr uctional supplies were funded the highest overall in high schools. For equ ipment, assessment, co-curricular, athletics and textbooks, when variat ions occurred between


20 of 45 schools (elementary, middle and high school) higher allocations are found in the higher grade levels. Textbooks are shown as a separ ate category and are considered a special area of need. Technology was t reated separately (see Table 7A, 7B, and 7C) with detailed specifications provided for an entire district, summed and reported based on a five-year replacemen t cycle (except in the small school district where costs were based on res earch estimates). Costs that are affixed to technology specifications were taken from current computer websites and dealer prices, as displayed in Table 7 D. Technology costs listed do not include infrastructure; it is included in di strictwide costs (under KETS). Panel members also added assessment costs to pay fo r non-State supported tests, including tests every other year for CATS in addition to annual assessments using NAEP, ACT and SAT. Panel members treated athletics differently. The moderate school district did not i nclude funding, considering this to be a revolving account paid for by e.g., gate re ceipts. Both the small and the large district estimated partial costs for such are as as bus drivers and gas, field watering, coaching supplements, utilities, etc. Pro fessional development is also listed on this table. Panel members indicated that five days of professional development are needed for all certified staff (exc luding guidance and administration); four days of professional developm ent are included for certified staff. There was no discussion of library media cen ter materials. Table 6a. Other Non-Personnel Costs to Operate Prot otype Schools in K-12 Districts of Different Size Based on the Work of the Professional Judgment PanelsSmall to Medium School District Grade Levels ElementaryMiddleHigh School (1) Professional Development5 days cert. 4 days class. 5 days cert. 4 days class. 5 days cert. 4 days class. (2) Instructional Supplies/Materials$200/pup.$225/p up.$250/pup. (3) Equipment $100/pup.$100/pup.$125/pup. (4) Technology* $300/pup.$300/pup.$300/pup. (5) Assessment $20/pup.$20/pup.$20/pup. (6) Co-curricular/Student Activities$/pup.$/pup.$/p up. (7) Athletics $25/pup.$100/pup.$200/pup. (8) Textbooks $100/pup.$140/pup.$140/pup. Note: Cert. = Certified staff; Class. = Classified staff. 5-year replacement cycle.Table 6b. Other Non-Personnel Costs to Operate Prot otype Schools in K-12 Districts of Different Size Based on the Work of the Professional Judgment PanelsMedium to Large District Grade Levels ElementaryMiddleHigh School (1) Professional Development5 days cert. 4 days class. 5 days cert. 4 days class. 5 days cert. 4 days class. (2) Instructional Supplies/Materials$200/pup.$200/p up.$200/pup. (3) Equipment $25/pup.$25/pup.$25/pup.* (4) Technology* $267/pup.$267/pup.$267/pup.


21 of 45 (5) Assessment $15/pup.$15/pup.$15/pup. (6) Co-curricular/Student Activities$8/pup.$25/pup. $35/pup. (7) Athletics $5/pup.$33/pup.$83/pup. (8)Textbooks $75/pup.$75/pup.$100/pup. Note: Cert. = Certified staff; Class. = Classified staff. *5-year replacement.Table 6c. Other Non-Personnel Costs to Operate Prot otype Schools in K-12 Districts of Different Size Based on the Work of the Professional Judgment PanelsLarge to Very Large District Grade Levels ElementaryMiddleHigh School (1) Professional Development5 days cert. 4 days class. 5 days cert. 4 days class. 5 days cert. 4 days class. (2) Instructional Supplies/Materials$128 /pup.$ 133 /pup.$142 /pup. (3) Equipment* aboveaboveabove (4) Technology**$ 308/pup.$308/pup.$308/pup.(5) Assessment $10/pup.$10/pup.$10 /pup. (6) Co-curricular/Student Activities$ 5/pup.$ 5/pup .$ 20/pup. (7) Athletics** aboveaboveabove (8) Other: Textbooks***n/an/an/aNote: Cert. = Certified staff; Class. = Classified staff. *Equipment is included in instructional sup plies; athletics included with student activities. **5-ye ar replacement. ***Textbook funds needed; estimate not available (n/a).Table 7a. Technology Needs of Prototype Schools in Districts of Different Size Based on the Work of the Professional Judgment PanelsSmall Size District ElementaryMiddleHigh SchoolEst. Cost Total------$300/pup/yearReplacement Cycle------5 yearsTable 7b. Technology Needs of Prototype Schools in Districts of Different Size Based on the Work of the Professional Judgment Panels

22 of 45 Computer101020$28,760Printer10110$48,329Digital Video Camera 2110$9,087 Digital Camera2110$4,762Video Editing Complex 101$2,998 Projector31/classroom10$111,709DVD-ROM Tower311/server$370Server 131$17,300 (4) Admin./Support/Other StaffComputer581/person (20.5)$24,087Printer (Laser)581/person (20.5)$77,097(5) OtherFaculty Laptop101/teacher (24)1/every two teachers (27) $95,903 Server 222$20,759 (6) Total $2,293,418 *Note: See Table 7D for pricesTable 7c. Technology Needs of Prototype Schools in Districts of Different Sizes Based on the Work of the Professional Judgmen t PanelsLarge to Very Large Size District ElementaryMiddleHigh SchoolEst. Cost (1) ClassroomComputer5/class (90)10/class (336)5/class (196)$447 ,218 Printer (Laser)1/class (18)1/class(33.6)1/class(39. 2)$208,967 TV/VCR1/class (18)1/class(33.6)1/class(39.2)$65,285(2) Computer Lab 134 Computer*2075108$145,957Mobile LabScanner 234$735 Printer (Laser)134$18,411(3) Media CenterComputer203025$53,925Printer (Laser)111$6,904Digital Video Camera334$6,999Digital Camera334$3,663Video Editing ComplexXXX Projector 634$28,587 DVD-ROM TowerBuilt into computerBuilt into computer Built into computer Server 222$20,759 (4) Admin. /Support/Other StaffComputer 5812$17,975 Printer (Laser)3412$43,727(5) OtherFaculty Laptop 11$3,144(6) Total $2,256,061Table 7d. Estimated Costs Of Technology


23 of 45 Est. Cost (1) Technology Costs Computer $719 Printer (Inkjet)* $168 Printer (Laser Network Printer) $2,301 Printer (LaserJet-Color Network Printer) 3,591 TV* $549 VCR* $80 Scanner $82 Digital Video Camcorder $699 Digital Camera $366 Video Editing Complex $1,499 Projector $3,175 DVD-ROM Tower $5,000* Laptop $1,572 Server $3,460 Smart Board* $1,599 Mobile Lab $35,000 PDA (Palm) $320 CD-ROMRW/DVD External $274 CD-ROMRW/DVD Internal $84 *Estimates, See : Dell URL: n/k12/default.htm ; Apple URL: ; ation/dv Palm URL: ; Smart Technologies: www. *Education prices unless asterisk/Downloaded 1/15/03.Panels were asked to identify additional resources or programs that would be used outside the school day or had not traditionall y been offered in Kentucky. These are shown on Table 8. The expert panel brough t consistency to this work. Any program that would seem to be necessary i n one size district was reviewed and considered for other size districts as well. As shown on the table, universal preschool is available to all 3 and 4 yea r-olds for day on a voluntary basis. Full day kindergarten is provided for all el igible students. Funding is allocated for Limited English Proficient students a nd gifted and talented students, in addition to low income and exceptional children (as under current law). Extended School Services (ESS) are available for a larger number of students, based on the number of students scoring “ novice” on Statewide tests. All panels indicated the school year should be leng thened. It was concluded that: 1) the school year should be extended by an additional 10 days to total a minimum 185 days, with the equivalent of 6 hours of instruction each day; 2) the teacher contract year should be15 additional days b eyond the student year, to total 200 days per year. Currently, forty States ha ve a school year of at least 180 days in contrast to Kentucky’s school year of 1 75 days. Note 38 Table 8. Other Programs Included as Resource Needs of Prototype Schools Based on the Work of the Professional Judgm ent Panels District Size SmallMediumLarge (1) Pre-SchoolAll StudentsXXXAges: 3, 43&4 (Voluntary)3 & 4 (Voluntary)3 & 4 (Vo luntary)


24 of 45 Time: M-F*M-F*M-F* 3 year-olds day day day4 year-olds day day dayClass Size10:111:1/aide10:1Wrap around servicesAges 3 & 4----(2) Full-Day KindergartenAll StudentsXXXAt-Risk Students(3) Gifted & TalentedAll StudentsEligible StudentsXXX(4) Limited English ProficientAll StudentsEligible StudentsXXX(5) Extended School Services*All Students Optional for All At-Risk Students X (6) Summer ProgramsAll Students OptionalXSpecial Education -At-Risk StudentsX-Transportation ProvidedXOptional (All) (7) Family & Youth Service CentersAll Students Optional Special Education OptionalXAt-Risk Students* > 30% 1/district > 60% 1/school OptionalX (8) Alternative SchoolsAll Students Available Students-EligibleXX/Gr.4-12X /Gr 6-12(9) Comprehensive Reform ModelsAll Students (grades)SFA/K-5--SFA/K-5 Comer/9-12Students-Eligible(10) Drop Out PreventionAll StudentsXXX/Gr 6-12Students-Eligible(11) Full Service CentersAll StudentsSee FYSCX--Special Education StudentsSee FYSC--XAt Risk StudentsSee FYSC--X(12) Free Breakfast ProgramAll Students---Students-Eligible--Optional--(13) Summer InstitutesTeachers ----X Parent ----X (required tchr) (14) Differentiated Salary/High PovertyAll Teachers---X-up to 20%(15) Other: specifyFree breakfast programs--Optional-All--


25 of 45 ESS includes extended day (2 hours before /after school), summer school, and Saturday school. Preschool classes are M-T/Friday teachers would mak e home visits. At Risk based on eligibility for fre e & reduced price lunchResource PricesSalaries for school level personnel are displayed i n Table 9A (2001-02). It shows weighted (FTE) average salaries for all schoo l site classifications based on 185 days, except for principals and assistant pr incipals where salaries are calculated based on 220 days. Attaching prices to the resource elements focused on personnel costs, including salary and be nefits, and how costs and expenditures might differ. The Commonwealth of Kent ucky collects certified and classified personnel expenditure data and FTEs (ful l time equivalents) for many types of school personnel, based on 185 days employ ment. This permits daily rate computations for personnel whose contract exce eds 185 days, such as principals and assistant principals (220 days) as w ell as weighted averages to be computed when one position includes multiple pay classifications (e.g., secretary I, secretary II). Weighted (FTE) average salary figures for 2001-02 are used in the study based on 185 days for all sch ool site personnel except principals and assistant principals (220 days). Table 9a. Prototype Salary Resource Elements Across School DistrictsCertified & Classified PersonnelJob Title Average Salary Guidance Counselor $47,845 Media Librarian $44,842 Classroom Instructor $37,959 Preschool Instruction Supervisor $47,278 Nurse $19,999 Media Technician $18,536 Secretary $18,210 Clerk $16,108 Law Enforcement Officer $21,414 Social Worker $25,773 School Principal $68,154* School Vice Principal $61,992* Source: KDE (2002). Funding types 1 (general fund) and 2 (grants) included. Weighted average, based on 185 contract days except for principals and assi stant principals (220 days). Benefits Rate : 23.85% (U.S. Census, 2002). Substitutes : For substitutes, 5% days for all certified (exclu des administration and guidance), converted to FTE and adjusted by average teacherÂ’s salary & b enefits.Table 9b. Comparison of 2001-02 Statewide Average T eacher Salary in Kentucky to Seven Neighboring, Competing States (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9) 2000-2001 Average TeacherSalary Relative Cost of Living(COL)* Salary Adjusted for COL 1999-00 % Teachers with MoreThan BA Education Adjustment Factor(EAF)** Salary Adjusted for COL and EAF 1999-00 Teacher Average Yrs Exp Exper. Adjust. Factor(XAF)*** Salary Adjusted COL,EAF and XAF State


26 of 45 Kentucky$37,95991.0$37,9590.7661.0766$37,95913.71.0 137$37,959 Ohio44,02996.446,6430.4451.044548,07515.31.015347,9 99 Indiana44,19592.444,8750.6801.068045,23616.71.01674 5,103 Illinois50,00099.254,5050.5271.052755,74315.71.0157 55,633 Missouri37,90493.038,7370.5101.051039,68113.61.0136 39,685 Tennessee38,55491.538,7660.4911.049139,78214.01.014 039,770 Virginia41,26295.443,2570.4451.044544,58614.31.0143 44,560 West Virginia 36,75190.736,6300.6241.062437,11919.41.019436,912 *Salary Adjusted for COL (col. 3) is calculated by multiplying the unadjusted salary (col. 1) by the r atio of Kentucky's COL (0.91) to each comparison State's CO L **The education adjustment factor (EAF) is calculat ed by expressing the proportion of teachers with mo re than a B.A. (column 4) as a decimal, dividing by 10 and adding the product to 1.00. Each state's adjusted salary (column 6) is the salary in column 3 multiplied by the ratio of Kentucky's EAF (1.0766 ) divided by each comparison State's EAF. ***The experience adjustment factor (XAF) is calcul ated like the EAF. Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics 2002. Washington D.C., Table 78. National Education Association, Rankings & Estimates-Update, Fall 2002. [URL: ]. Cost of Living Index 2000-AFT. Survey Analysis and Salary Trends 2001, Washington D.C. Table I-7. School & Staffing Survey U.S. Department of Education. Unpublished Data, 1 999-00. Kentucky Salary Data-KDE, 2002. Method adopted from Myers et al., 2 002.Current benefits rates used in the study are shown at the bottom of Table 9A. Benefits are drawn from Kentucky data submitted to the Census Bureau for certified and classified personnel Note 39 and compared for consistency to SREB documents, Note 40 and State reports. Note 41 The benefit rate used in the study is 23.85 percent. It includes, on average (as an estimated percent of salary), retirement (13.105%), Medicare (1.45%-excl udes social security), major medical benefits (9%), other (0.85%)--but not the r ecent or future increases in these costs. Note 42 Also shown at the bottom of the table, substitute costs calculations are based on 5 percent of contract day s, computed as an FTE, and adjusted by teacher salary and benefits. Again, alt hough these figures were used to determine costs for the study they do not d ictate how funds would be used. For example, some school districts might esti mate fewer (or more) than 5 percent of contract days for substitutes. A constan t theme of all professional judgment panels was that resource configurations wo uld drive costs but would not dictate how funds would be distributed or used in schools and in classrooms.To compare salary costs to expenditures, the price of teachers in the same labor market for personnel is considered for the se ven surrounding States. With adjustments to assure comparability, Kentucky teach er salaries are currently 81 percent of the average salary for the seven surrounding States (Table 9B) They are 85 percent of the national average teacher salary. Compared to Southern Regional Educational Board (SREB) States, Kentucky teacher salaries are 95.8 percent of the average teacher salary. Given the gap that Kentucky must f ill to provide competitive salaries for teachers, a two-st ep strategy was considered by the professional judgment panel: First achieve bett er than the SREB average teacher salary. Second, move to the surrounding Sta tesÂ’ average teacher salary. For other positions, the current percentage difference between the average teacher salary and other personnel, such as guidance counselors, is then incorporated into salary calculations using ne w salary figures for teachers. An option to this approach would be to extend the s chool year, as


27 of 45 recommended by professional judgment panels, with a dditional pay for additional work computed on average daily rates and adjusted by additional contract days. The resulting average teacher salary in Kentucky would then be compared to the SREB State’s average salary. This l atter approach is employed in the final analysis of the study.District level costs are shown in Table 10. The top portion of the table shows expenditures for district administration, including business services and central office. Also shown are plant maintenance and operat ions, transportation and other (i.e., school support services). It can be ob served that central costs rise as district size increases. Professional judgment pane ls adopted current expenditures statewide for these costs with the exc eption of transportation. Note 43 Professional panels found current transportation f unding to be inadequate. A State study of adequate student trans portation costs is recommended. Table 10. District Level Costs per Pupil for K-12 S chool Districts of Varying Size Based on the Work of the Prototype Pan elsDistrict Level Spending* Small to ModerateModerate to LargeLarge to Very Lar geCombined (1) AdministrationPer pupil cost $433$355$521$437 (2) Plant M & OPer pupil cost $588$607$664$620 (3) TransportationPer pupil cost $398$421$439$419 (4) OtherPer pupil cost $233$249$261$248 Total: Current Operations $1,724 (1) Facilities and Debt ServicePer pupil cost $484 (2) Facilities: Unmet NeedPer pupil cost $3,472** Total: Facilities $3,956 *Note: End of Year ADA, 2002. Data Source: KDE-AFR0 2 by function; sub-function data unavailable. **Unmet needs list certified by the School Facility Construction Commission.Finally, determining adequacy for facilities is con sidered to be outside the scope of the current study. Current expenditures for faci lities and debt service, as well as “unmet need” figures, certified by the School Co nstruction and Facilities Commission, are reported in lower portion of Table 10 and summed.Prototype Cost EstimatesSchool level costs that resulted from applying the prices discussed above to the resources specified in the study are summarized in Tables 11A, 11B, and 11 C. Per pupil figures are computed for general educatio n students and special needs students by combining all resources and divid ing by the number of students, respectively.The information on the tables is divided into three categories. The first category,


28 of 45 basic spending, includes personnel salaries and ben efits, substitute costs, materials, supplies, technology, equipment and othe r costs. Professional development, based on five days for certified perso nnel, is listed separately, as are technology costs (excluding infrastructure cost s). Other programs, such as full-day kindergarten add-on costs and ESS (Extende d School Services) are shown next in part two of the table. For special ne eds students, shown in the bottom portion of the table, prices are based on fu nding averages. Note 44 Current State funding weights for special education and low-income students are adopted by the panels. However, both free and r educed price lunch students are included in the “low income” student c ount. Currently low-income students are targeted through Federal free lunch el igibility. The inclusion of reduced price lunch students adds, on average, 10.8 3 percent in additional students (ADA) ranging from none to 22 percent amon g school districts. Limited English Proficient student funding, weighted at 15 percent, is based on current practice in other States. Note 45 Given the lack of research on costs for gifted and talented students, an additional $15 per studen t is included, mainly for special supplies and materials.As shown in Tables 11A, 11B, and 11C, for schools i n small districts, basic costs are highest for grades 6-8 ($6,002), and lowe st for high school ($4,867). In the moderate to large size district, basic costs are lowest for middle school ($4,174) and highest for elementary schools ($5,726 ), with high school costs between the two. For large to very large school dis tricts, basic costs are highest for elementary school ($5,227), and lowest for midd le school ($4,248), with high school costs between the two. Elementary schools, w ith full day kindergarten, are relatively more costly. Middle school costs, ba sed on staffing in the moderate to large district based on teacher “teams” appears relatively less costly. High school costs vary. The cost of full da y kindergarten, distributed among all students in the school, adds $207 on aver age to these figures, professional development adds $105 per pupil and te chnology adds $300 per pupil. The cost of special education adds between $ 6,937 and $9,687 per student, with similar variations for at-risk and Li mited English Proficient pupils, but with smaller diversity among schools in differe nt size districts. Table 11a. School Level Costs for K-12 School Distr icts of Different Sizes Based on the Work of the Prototype Panels Small to Moderate District Primary & Grades 4, 5Middle SchoolHigh SchoolCombin ed (1) Base Spending Basic**$5,274$6002$4,867$5,320Prof. Devel.10911492105Technology300300300300(2) Other Programs*Full-Day Kindergarten443----207ESS***187187187187(3) Additional Spending***Special Educ. (16.1%)Base8,5629,6877,9418,635At-Risk (59.29%)


29 of 45 Base851962789858Limited English Proficient (0.42%)Base851962789858Gifted & Talented (14.65%)Base15151515Note: Combined figures are based on Statewide propo rtions of students: grades K-5, 47%; grades 6-8, 23.5%; and grades 9-12, 29.4%* Costs are shown per all pupils in school. **Basic spending includes school level personnel sa laries and benefits, supplies and materials, equipment, assessment, technology, professional dev elopment and other expenditures. ***Costs are shown per pupil with the indicated nee d (special education or at-risk). ESS=Extended Scho ol Services. ****Rounding results in no cost appearing although the service is provided.Table 11b. School Level Costs for K-12 School Distr icts of Different Sizes Based on the Work of the Prototype Panels Moderate to Large District Primary & Grades 4,5Middle SchoolHigh SchoolCombin ed (1) Base Spending Basic**$5,7264,2485,185$5,213Prof. Devel.107799998Technology267267267267(2) Other Programs*Full-Day Kindergarten505----207ESS***187187187187(3) Additional Spending***Special Educ. (16.0%)Base9,1366,9378,3818,388At-Risk (55.22%)Base908689833834Limited English Proficient (0.54%)Base908847689832Gifted & Talented (14.32%)Base15151515Note: Combined figures are based on Statewide propo rtions of students: grades K-5, 47%; grades 6-8, 23.5%; and grades 9-12, 29.4%. ESS=Extended School Services. *Costs are shown per all pupils in school. **Basic base spending includes school level personn el salaries and benefits, supplies and materials, assessment, technology, professional development an d other expenditures. ***Costs are shown per pupil with the indicated nee d (special education or at-risk), ESS=Extended Scho ol Services. ****Rounding results in no cost appearing although the service is provided.Table 11c. School Level Costs for K-12 School Distr icts of Different Size Based on the Work of the Prototype Panels Large to Very Large DistrictSchool District SizePrimary & Grades 4, 5Middle Sch oolHigh SchoolCombined (1) Base Spending Basic**$5,2274,1744,302$4,702Prof. Devel.988010295Technology308308308308


30 of 45 (2) Other Programs*Full-Day Kindergarten764----359ESS***187187187187(3) Additional Spending***Special Educ. (14.4%)Base9,6786,7677,1148,230At-Risk (49.35%)Base961672707817Limited English Proficient (2.19%)Base961672707817Gifted & Talented (11.66%)Base15151515Note: Combined figures are based on Statewide propo rtions of students: grades K-5, 47%; grades 6-8, 23.5%; and grades 9-12, 29.4%. ESS=Extended School Services. *Costs are shown per all pupils in school. **Basic base spending includes school level personn el salaries and benefits, supplies and materials, assessment, technology, professional development an d other expenditures. ***Costs are shown per pupil with the indicated nee d (special education or at-risk). ****Rounding results in cost appearing although the service is provided.For each category of school district shown in Table s 11A, 11B, and 11C, costs have been combined based on the average percentage of students in Kentucky attending schools in these grade levels (see note o n table). When costs are combined across grade levels for different size dis tricts, clear patterns emerge. Basic costs per pupil are highest in the small dist rict, as would be expected due to diseconomies of scale and other considerations ( $5,320). The moderate size district has slightly lower costs ($5,213), and the large district has the lowest per pupil cost ($4,702). The small district also has hi gher professional development costs. Technology costs and the cost of special nee ds students vary little across different size districts.Districtwide costs and total costs are shown in Tab le 12 by district size. The table is divided into three sections: (1) district level costs, (2) total costs for school site and district level items, and (3) added costs for special needs students and transportation. District level costs a re displayed in the top portion of the table and show that, for administration, fun ding is lowest for moderate size districts; plant maintenance and operations is lowest for small districts; and other programs (e.g. student support, hospital and homebound programs and KETS technology transfer funding) is lowest in larg e districts--although funding varies only slightly among different size categorie s. These costs are summed and shown in section 2 of the table under district level costs. Combined school level base costs (discussed earlier) are also liste d and both figures are totaled. Table 12. District Level Costs and Total Costs for K-12 School Districts Based on the Work of Prototype Panels Size of School District SmallModerateLarge (1) District Level SpendingAdministration* $432$355$521 Plant M&O* 588607664 Other* 233249261


31 of 45 (2) Total SpendingBase Spending ** School Level $5,932$5,578$5,105 District Level 1,2541,2101,445 Total Base Cost $7,186$6,788$6,551 (3) Added CostsTransportation** $398$420$438 ESS*** 187187187 Special Needs Students *** Special Education $8,635$8,388$8,230 At-Risk 858834817 Limited English Proficient858834817Gifted and Talented151515Average Total Expenditures$9,582$9,112$8,438*Costs are shown per all pupils in school. **Basic spending includes school level personnel sa laries and benefits, supplies and materials, assessment, technology, professional development an d other expenditures. ***Costs are shown per pupil with the indicated nee d (special education or at-risk). Debt and Faciliti es not included.The base cost figures show the highest cost for the small school district ($7,186) followed by the moderate size district ($6 ,788) with lowest costs for the large to very large district ($6,551). Excluding fe deral aid, base costs are $6,460 for the small district, $6,102 for the medium distr ict, and $5,889 for the large district. Note 46 These figures compare to KentuckyÂ’s SEEK base guar antee of $3,066 per pupil (2001-02). The differences among d istricts might be expected based on economies of scale considerations and clea rly are captured through the professional judgment approach to cost calculat ions. As shown in Part II of Table 12, added to the total base cost of education in each of the district categories (small, moderate an d large), are costs for transportation, extended school services (ESS) and special need students. In addition to base costs, districts would need to spe nd on average: over $419 per pupil for transportation costs, $187 per pupil rece iving extended school services, Note 47 between $8,230 and $8,635 per special education st udent, between $817 and $858 per Limited English Proficien t student or student at-risk, and $15 per gifted and talented student. U nmet facility needs, certified by the School Construction and Facility Commission, add $3,472 per pupil to these figures. With these additions (excluding faci lities), average total costs per pupil are highest for the small district ($9,582), followed by the moderate district ($9,112) and lowest for large to very large distric t ($8,438). These figures can be compared to KentuckyÂ’s current expenditure per p upil of $7,271 in 2001-02 (Federal, State and local sources). Note 48 Overall, a total of about $5.199 billion would be n eeded to address State standards and objectives. Note 49 In fact, in 2001-02, about $4.102 billion was available to pay for current operating expenses fro m Federal, State and local revenue. Therefore, the funding gap between existin g revenue and the revenue needed for current operations is $1.097 billion per year (2001-02). Additional key resource requirements, identified by professional judgment panels, include: (1) extending the school year for students and teachers, Note


32 of 45 50 (2) adding voluntary half-day preschool for three and four year olds, and (3) raising teacher salaries. The cost of extending the school year ten days for students (185 days total) and teachers (195 total) would raise teacher salaries above the SREB State average Note 51 and substantially increase instructional time for students, while increasing the annual fund ing gap to $1.230 billion (2001-02). Note 52 This suggests that significant new funding is requ ired over time if the Commonwealth of Kentucky is to provide an adequate and equitable education of high quality for all children and yout h.About the AuthorDeborah A. VerstegenUniversity of VirginiaCurry School of EducationCharlottesville, VAEmail: dav3e@cms.mail.virginia.eduDeborah Verstegen is Professor of Education Policy and Finance at the University of Virginia's Curry School of Education. She earned her Ph.D. at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where she received a Alumni Achievement Award in 1997. Dr. Verstegen has served as a consu ltant to local, state and national organizations/governments, has twice been a member of the Board of Directors of the American Educational Finance Asso ciation and has served as editor of the Journal of Education Finance. She h as published extensively in the areas of equal educational opportunity and edu cation finance policy--including adequacy and equity--and is co-e ditor (with James Ward) of Spheres of Justice in Education and (with Julie Underwood) of The Impacts of Litigation and Legislation on Public School Finance She is currently on numerous editorial boards, policy editor of the Journal of Education Finance President of the AAUP-VA, Chair of the AERA SIG on Fiscal Issues, Policy and Education Finance, and Founder of Women Education L eaders in Virginia.Appendix ATable A-1. The Commonwealth of Kentucky Standards & Objectives for Public Schools Kentucky Constitution Â…to provide an efficient system of common schools t hroughout the stateÂ…(Ky. Const. Sec. 183). Capacities required of students in public education system Communication skills necessary to function in a com plex and changing civilization; 1. Knowledge to make economic, social and political ch oices; 2. Core values and qualities of good character to make moral and ethical decisions throughout his or her life; 3. Understanding of governmental processes as they aff ect the community; 4.


33 of 45 the state, and the nation;Sufficient self-knowledge and knowledge of his ment al and physical wellness, 5. Sufficient grounding in the arts to enable each stu dent to appreciate his or her cultural and historical heritage; 6. Sufficient preparation to choose and pursue his lif e’s work intelligently; and 7. Skills to enable him to compete favorably with stud ents in other states. (Kentucky School Laws, Sec. 158.645). 8. Legislative declaration on goals for Commonwealth’s schools—[KERA Goals]. The General Assembly finds, declares, and establish es that: Schools shall expect a high level of achievement of all students. a. Schools shall develop their students’ ability to: Use basic communication and mathematics skills for purposes and situations they will encounter throughout their lives; 1. Apply core concepts and principles from mathematics the sciences, the arts, the humanities, social studies, and practical living studies to situations they will encounter th roughout their lives; 2. Become self-sufficient individuals of good characte r exhibiting the qualities of altruism, citizenship, courtesy, h onesty, human worth, justice, knowledge, respect, responsibility, and self-discipline; 3. Become responsible members of a family, work group, or community, including demonstrating effectiveness in community service; 4. Think and solve problems in school situations and i n a variety of situations they will encounter in life; and 5. Connect and integrate experiences and new knowledge from all subject matter fields with what they have previ ously learned and build on past learning experiences to acquire n ew information through various media sources 6. b. Schools shall increase their student’s rate of scho ol attendance. c. Schools shall reduce their students’ dropout and re tention rates. d. Schools shall reduce physical and mental health bar riers to learning. e. Schools shall be measured on the proportion of stud ents who make a successful transition to work, post-secondary edu cation, and the military. (Kentucky School Laws, Sec. 158.6451). f. 1. Maximum Number of Pupils Enrolled in a Class: 157.360 (4) a. Except for those schools which have implemented sc hool-based decision-making, the chief state school officer sha ll enforce maximum class sizes for every academic course requirement in all grades except in vocal and instrumental music, and physical education classes. Except as provided in subsection (5) of this section [relating to combine d grades 4-6], the maximum number of pupils enrolled in a class shall be as fo llows:


34 of 45 Twenty-four (24) in primary grades (kindergarten th rough third grade); 1. Twenty-eight (28) in grade four (4); 2. Twenty-nine (29) in grades five (5) and six (6); 3. Thirty-one (31) in grades seven (7) to twelve (12); 4. (4)b. …class size loads for middle and secondary school classroom teachers shall not exceed the equivalent of one hundred fift y (150) pupil hours a day. 158.070 School Term, Professional Development, Cont inuing Education (1)The minimum school term shall be one hundred eig hty-five (185) days, including no less than the equivalent of one hundre d seventy-five (175) six (6) hour instructional days...(4)Each local board of education shall use four (4) days of the minimum school term for professional development and collegial pla nning activities for the professional staff without the presence of pupils…. up to a maximum of four (4) days of the minimum school term for holidays and tw o (2) days for planning activities without the presence of pupils….(9)>Schools shall provide continuing education for those students who are determined to need additional time to achieve the o utcomes defined in KRS 158.6451, and school shall not be limited to the mi nimum school term in providing this education. Continuing education time may include extended days, extended weeks, or extended years….Requirement for library media center—Employment of Librarian (1) The board of education for each local school di vision shall establish and maintain a library media center in every elementary and secondary school…. (2)(a) Schools shall employ a school media libraria n to organize, equip, and manage the operations of the school media library…[ who] may be employed to serve two (2) or more schools in a school district with the consent of the school councils.Establishment of a strategy to address school dropo ut problem The Kentucky Department of Education shall establis h and implement a comprehensive statewide strategy to provide assista nce to local districts and schools to address the student dropout problem in K entucky public schools…. [Using] State and federal resources and programs, i ncluding but not limited to, extended school services; early learning centers; f amily resource and youth service centers; alternative education services, pr eschool; service learning; drug and alcohol prevention programs; School-to-Careers; High Schools That Work; school safety grants; and other relevant programs a nd services that could be used in a multidimensional strategy…. [Comprising] student programs and services that include, but are not limited to, iden tification, counseling, mentoring, and other educational strategies for elementary, mi ddle, and high school students who are demonstrating little or success in school, who have poor school attendance, or who possess other risk factor s that contribute to the


35 of 45 likelihood of their dropping out of school. (Kentuc ky School Laws, Section 158.146) Minimum High School Graduation Requirements for the Class of 2002 [Program of Studies]SubjectCreditsCoursesLanguage Arts4English I, II, III, IVSocial Studies3Credits to incorporate U.S. History, Economics, Government, World Geography and World Civilization Mathematics3Algebra I, Geometry, and one electiveScience3Credits to include life science, physical s cience, and earth Health1/2 Physical Education1/2 History and Appreciation of Visualand Performing Arts 1History and appreciation of visual and performing arts or another arts course which incorporates such content TOTAL: 15 required credits plus 7 electives (22 cre dits) (704 KAR 3:305)Requirements for the Commonwealth DiplomaMeet the State’s (or district’s) minimum graduation requirements, complete the State’s pre-college preparatory curriculum (specifi c courses in Language Arts 4 units, Mathematics 3 units, science 2 units, social studies two units), earn a grade of “C” or better in four Advanced Placement o r International Baccalaureate courses in the subjects of English, M athematics or Science, Foreign Language, Elective, and complete advanced p lacement exams in three subjects. (704 KAR 3:340) Table A-2. Academic Index by Area Kentucky Statewide Results 2000-20012001-2002Goal* ElementaryReading 80.6981.90100 Math 63.9166.07100 Science 77.0377.32100 Social Studies 68.4871.04100 Arts & Humanities44.5649.25100Practical Living/Voc. Std.72.0873.77100Writing Total 58.6762.05100 Total 68.8070.80100 Middle SchoolReading 80.4881.34100 Math 62.2661.26100 Science 64.4567.41100 Social Studies 67.2867.72100 Arts & Humanities64.1564.24100Practical Living / Voc. Std.67.8167.62100Writing Total 43.5146.33100 Total 64.0065.00100


36 of 45 High SchoolReading 68.8567.75100 Math 60.6862.29100 Science 62.0764.49100 Social Studies 64.8068.12100 Arts & Humanities56.8362.55100Practical Living/Voc. Std.73.6072.72100Writing Total 59.0360.12100 Total 63.4065.10100 Represents for schools where student achievement needs to be to achieve proficiency.Table A-3. Non-Academic Index by Area Kentucky Statewide Results 2000-20012001-2002Goal* ElementaryAttendance Rate 95.08 Dropout Raten/an/a 5.3 < 6.0* Retention Rate1.110.93 Successful Trans-Adult Lifen/an/a Total 95.8795.88 Middle SchoolAttendance Rate94.4794.34 Dropout Rate0.320.27 5.3 < 6.0* Retention Rate2.041.91 Successful Trans-Adult Lifen/an/a Total 96.9196.92 High SchoolAttendance Rate92.5192.51 Dropout Rate5.104.79 5.3 < 6.0* Retention Rate7.146.73 Successful Trans-Adult Life95.3295.08 Total 94.4894.52 *Note: Non-academic indicators are lagged one year. By 2006 the statewide annual average school dropout rate will be cut by fifty percent (50%) of what it was in the year 2000; no school will have a drop out rate that exceeds five percent (5%); and each c ounty will have thirty percent (30%) fewer adults between the ages of sixteen (16) and twenty-four (2 4) without a high school diploma or GED than the county had in the year 2000. (Kentucky School Laws, Section 158.145). To be eligible for rewards, novi ce reduction and drop out criteria apply. For the drop out rate, high schools must have a dropout rate le ss than or equal to 5.3 percent or reduce their percen t of dropouts by 0.5 percent, but still have a drop out rate less than or equal to 6 percent. School must r educe their percent of novices on a schedule so tha t by 2014, the school has 5 percent or less of its stude nts scoring novice. See “Kentucky Performance Repor t” for more information on these indicators.Table A-4. Accountability Index, Combined Academic and Non-Academic Index by School Level Kentucky Statewide Results 2000-20012001-2002Goal ACCOUNTABILITY INDEX Elementary 70.972.8100 Middle School67.868.7100


37 of 45 High School 66.968.4100 NON-ACADEMIC INDEX Elementary 95.8795.88* Middle School96.9196.92*High School 94.4894.52* ACADEMIC INDEX Elementary School68.870.8100*Middle School 64.065.0100*High School 63.465.1100* Note: = Proficiency. The Accountability Index tar get is 100 by the year 2013-2014. Academic index: target represents for school districts where studen t achievement needs to be to achieve proficiency (100). Non-academic Index: Targets vary--see Kent ucky Performance Report for more information.Appendix B Prototype School Site Panel Members November 15, 2002 Lexington, KYName ofIndividual Position School District LuAnn AsburyElementary TeacherMason CountyEllen BlevinsHigh School TeacherBarren CountyJohn BeiselExecutive Director ASBODavies CountyNancy ToombsCustodial SupervisorHenderson CountyEleanor MillsElementary PrincipalMurray Ind.Carol DanielsElementary PrincipalMercer CountyPam StephensSpecial Ed. DirectorWest Point Ind.Bill WoolridgeElementary TeacherHardin CountyArletta KennedyMiddle School TeacherMcCracken Count y Sharron OxendineHigh School TeacherClark CountyDarrell WilsonElementary PrincipalHenderson CountyRetha WilcoxinMiddle School PrincipalNelson CountyRay ReadCurriculum SupervisorMadison CountyDottie MillerMiddle School TeacherKenton CountyMattie KatzElementary TeacherFayette CountyAnn WallsElementary TeacherJefferson (Louisville) C ounty Teddy TaylorHigh School TeacherMadison (Alternative High) Mariann StopherClerk/Business ManagerScott CountyMike ByersElementary/HS PrincipalHardin CountyDenise WoodardElementary Teacher-AlternativeJeffers on County Debbie WootonMiddle School TeacherBoone CountyLeslie DunnElementary CounselorJefferson CountyWilliam DayDirector of FinanceHardin CountyTim HitzfieldTeacher Boone County (Owen County) Ed McNeelSuperintendentCorbin IndependentBill LovellBoard of EducationMcLean CountyBob RogersSuperintendentCaldwell CountyMark ClevelandSuperintendentOwen CountyChuck HolidaySuperintendentFulton CountyGary JacksonSuperintendentTrimble CountyTerry BrooksPrincipal Anchorage Independent


38 of 45 Sabrina OldsBusiness ManagerOwen CountyJames FrancisSuperintendentHazard IndependentFred BassettSuperintendentBeechwood IndependentJan VanceSuperintendentNelson CountyLarry HollowayBoard of EducationFt. ThomasJack MorelandSuperintendentCovington CountyJoe Dan GoldSuperintendentWilliamstown/Mason Co/Mor gan Co Brenda JacksonBoard of EducationShelby CountyTim HockensmithChief Financial OfficerNelson CountyAustin MossBoard of EducationChristian County Walter HulettSuperintendentLaurel CountyFrank WelchSuperintendentPike CountyDale BrownSuperintendentWarren CountyChuck LittrellBusiness ManagerOldham CountyCheryl ChedesterProgram CoordinatorLaurel CountyFaurest CoogleKentucky School Boards Association.St ate of Kentucky Blake HaseltonFacilitator, Supt Training & Testing/ School Finance Kentucky Department of Education Jack HerlihyAssociate ProfessorEastern Kentucky Uni versity Kyna KochAssociate CommissionerKentucky Department of Education Tom WillisOffice of State Budget DirectorKentucky S tate GovernmentNotesThis article is based on the report: Verstegen, D. A. (February 2003). The Calculation of the Cost of An Adequate Education in Kentucky.” Oldham, KY: Council for Better Education, Inc. The author g ratefully acknowledges the Kentucky Department of Education for informatio n, data, and other assistance throughout the study; the dedicated and knowledgeable individuals who participated in the prototype panel s; and the scholars who have contributed to thinking and research in this a rea, and upon whose prior work this study draws: Myers, J. & Silverstei n, J. “Calculation of the Cost of A Suitable Education in Montana in 2001-200 2 Using the Professional Judgment Approach”. Mimeo. (August 200 2).; Verstegen, D.A., “Financing the New Adequacy: Towards New Mode ls of State Education Finance Systems That Support Standards-Ba sed Reform.” Journal of Education Finance (Winter 2002)749-782). Guthrie, J. W. & Rothstein, R. “Enabling "Adequacy" to Achieve Reali ty: Translating Adequacy into State School Finance Distribution Arr angements.” (pp. 209-259). In Ladd, H. F., Chalk, R. & Hansen, J. S. Eds. Equity and Adequacy in Education Finance: Issues and Perspecti ves Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press (1999). Management Analy sis & Planning, Inc. “Wyoming Education Funding Adequacy Study.” S acramento, CA: Author, (May 18, 1998). Ohio Coalition for Equity & Adequacy of School Funding. “Basket of Essential Learning Resources fo r the 21st Century.” Columbus, OH: Author (n.d.). Note: All data are for 2001-02; End of year ADA is used throughout (564,198) 1. The high court called for an education system that is “uniform, adequate, and unitary”. Rose v. Council for Better Educ. Inc 790 S.W.2d 186 (Ky. 1989), at 212 2.


39 of 45 The Kentucky Department of Education URL: According to Jacovitch, D. et al. the agency reques t was $3,041. See: Jacovitch, D., Otto, S., Upton, C. & Hager, G. “The SEEK Formula for Funding Kentucky’s School Districts: An Evaluation of Data, Procedures and Budgets (DRAFT).” Frankfurt, Kentucky: Legisla tive Research Commission. (2003), p. 84. 3. Verstegen, D. A. “The New Finance.” American School Board Journal (October 2002), 24-26. 4. Myers et al. “Calculation of the Cost of a Suitable Education.” Ibid 5. See: Jacovitch et al. “The SEEK Formula.” Ibid 6. See: Verstegen, D.A., “Financing the New Adequacy.” Ibid R. Rothstein, “What Does Education Cost?” The American School Board Journal (September 1998). J. W. Guthrie & R. Rothstein “Ena bling ‘Adequacy’ to Achieve Reality” Ibid Reschovsky, A & Imazeki, J. Reforming State Aid to Achieve Educational Adequacy: Lessons from Texas an d Wisconsin Paper presented at the Symposium on Education Fundi ng Adequacy & Equity in the Next Millennium. Nashville, TN: Cente r of Excellence for Research and Policy on Basic Skills, (1999). Verste gen, D. A. “What is Adequacy? How is It Defined? What Does it Cost?” Pa per presented at the Symposium on Education Funding Adequacy & Equit y in the Next Millennium. Nashville, TN: Center of Excellence for Research and Policy on Basic Skills (1999) 7. See, for example, Levin, H. M. Cost-Effectiveness: A Primer (Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1983). 8. This review relies on published research studies an d manuscripts available in the field and on-line, c.f Verstegen, D. A. “Financing the New Adequacy.” Ibid Guthrie, J. W. & Rothstein, R. (1999). “Enabling Adequacy” Ibid Myers et al. “Calculation of the Cost.” Ibid 9. Verstegen, D. A. “Financing the New Adequacy.” Ibid 10. Management Analysis & Planning, Inc. “Wyoming Educa tion Funding,” Ibid Guthrie & Rothstein. “Enabling Adequacy,” Ibid 11. Day long meetings over a one week period of time we re convened; experts were asked "What in your judgment are key c omponents required to provide effective instruction, to enable student s to acquire the prerequisites to enter the University of Wyoming, o r to have access to other attractive post-secondary endeavors"? Respons es varied and no effort was made to reach consensus nor were systema tic procedures used to identify and utilize professional viewpoint s. See, Management Planning and Analysis Associates, “Wyoming Educatio nal Adequacy.” Ibid 12. Guthrie & Rothstein, “Enabling Adequacy”, Ibid pp. 231. 13. Augenblick, J., Alexander, K. &. Guthrie, J.W. “Rep ort of the Panel of Experts: Proposals for the Elimination of Wealth Ba sed Disparities in Education.” Report submitted by Ohio Chief State Sc hool Officer T. Sanders to the Ohio State Legislature.” Mimeo (1995 ). 14. Augenblick, J. J. Silverstein, J. “Alternative Ap proaches for Determining a Base Figure and Pupil-Weighted Adjustments for Use in a School Finance System in New Hampshire.” Mimeo. (November 30, 1998 ). See also: Augenblick, J., & Silverstein, J. “Determining An A dequate Per Pupil Funding Level for Public Education in South Carolin a in Relation to Pupil Performance Objectives.” Mimeo (July 2000). 15.


40 of 45 Duncombe, W. D. & Yinger, J. M. “Performance Standa rds and Educational Cost Indexes: You Can't Have One Withou t the Other.” (pp. 260-297). In Ladd, H. F., Chalk, R. & Hansen, J. S. Eds. “Equity and Adequacy,” Ibid (1999). See also, Duncombe, W. Lukemeyer, A. “Estimating the Cost of Educational Adequacy: A Com parison of Approaches.” Paper presented at the American Educat ion Finance Association Annual Conference. Albuquerque, New Mex ico (March 2002). 16. A district was found to be inefficient if it spent more on education than other districts with the same performance and the s ame educational costs. Duncombe & Yinger, “Performance Standards,” Ibid. 17. See, for example, A. Odden and Busch, C. Financing Schools for High Performance San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, (1998). 18. American Institutes for Research, URL: (12/8/00). See also, Borman, G. D., Hewes, G. M & O verman, L. T. and Brown, “Comprehensive School Reform and Achievement : A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, vol. 73, no. 2 (Summer 2003), 125-230. 19. Myers et al. “Calculation of the Cost of A Suitable Education,” Ibid p. 6. 20. 21. See: Rose v. Council for Better Educ. Inc 790 S.W.2d 186 (Ky. 1989), at 212. 22. 23. Jacovitch et al. Ibid. 24. This number includes alternative schools but not ea rly childhood schools, vocational schools or extension centers. 25. See, for example: Schweinhart, L.J., Barnes, H.V., & Weikart, D. P. Significant Benefits: The High/Scope Perry Preschoo l Study Through Age 27 Ypsilanti, Michigan: High/Scope Educational Resea rch Foundation (1993). Campbell, F. A., Helms, R. Sparling, J. J. & Ramsey. “Early-Childhood Programs and Success in School: Th e Abecedarian Study.” (pp. 145-166). In Barnet, W. S. & Boocock, S. S. (Eds.) Early Care and Education for Children in Poverty: Promises, Pr ograms and Long-Term Results Albany, N. Y.: State University Press (1998). 26. See: Alber-Kelsay, K. “Full-Day Kindergarten vs. Ha lf-Day Kindergarten: The Outcome of First Grade Reading Achievement.” ER IC: ED 417 380; McClinton, S. L. and C. Topping. “Extended Day Kind ergarten: Are the Effects Tangible?” Journal of Educational Research 75, 39-40. Fusaro, J. A.. “The Effect of Full-Day Kindergarten on Student Achievement: A Meta-Analysis.” Child Study Journal 27(4) (1997)269-277. 27. See, for example: Achilles, C. M. Let’s Put Kids First, Finally: Getting Class Size Right Thousand Oakes, CA: Corwin (1999). Word, E., Johnston, H., Baln, H. P., Fulton, B. E., Zaharias, J. B., Lintz, M. N., Achilles, C. M., Folger, J., Breda, C. (n.d.). “Stu dent/Teacher Ratio (STAR), Tennessee's K-3 Class Size Study, Final Sum mary Report (1985-1990)”, 32 pp.; Nye, B.A. et al. “The Lasting Benefits Study: A Continuing Analysis of the Effects of Small Class S ize in K-3 on Student Achievement Test Scores in Subsequent Grade Levels, Seventh Grade Technical Report, 1992-1993”, 23 pp (n.d.). 28. See, for example, Raywid, M. A. “Current Literature on Small Schools.” Eric Digest 1-2. http:// digests/edorc988.htm .(1999). Meier, D. W. “The Big Benefits of Smallness.” Educational Leadership 29.


41 of 45 12-15 (September 1996). Lee, V. E. and Smith, J. B. “High School Size: Which Works Best and For Whom?” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 205-227 (Fall 1997). See for example, National Education Commission on T ime and Learning. Prisoners of Time Washington, D.C. (September 1994). 30. Rossmiller, R. A., Hale, J. A., & Frohreich, L. E. Educational Programs for Exceptional Children: Resource Configurations and Costs (Special Study No. 2). Madison, Wisconsin: National Education Fi nance Project(1970). Walker, L. J., & Holland, R. P. Finetuning Special Education (1982) ; Kakalik, J. S., Furry, W. S., Thomas, M. A. & Carn ey, M. F. “The Cost of Special Education” (Rand Note). Santa Monica, CA: R and Corp.(1981). Moore, M. T., Finance: A Guide for State Policymakers N.J.: Educational Testing Service; Moore, M. T., Strang, E. W., Schwartz, M. & Braddock, M. Patterns in Special Education Service Delivery and Cost Contract No. 3000-84-0257. Washington, D.C.: Decisi on Resources Corporation (1988). Chaikind, S., Danielson, L.C. and Baven, M. L. (1993). “What Do We Know About the Costs of Special Education? A Selected Review.” Journal of Special Education 26 (4), 344-370; Parrish, T. B. & Verstegen, D. A. Fiscal Provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: Policy Issues and Alte rnatives (Policy Paper Number 3). Palo Alto, CA: Center for Special Educ ation Finance, American Institutes for Research (June 1994). 31. Parrish, T. B. & Matsumoto, C. S. “Disparities in P ublic School District Spending, 1989-90”. NCES 95-300. Washington, D. C.: U.S. Department of Education: National Center for Education Statist ics (1989 ) Parrish, T. B. “A Cost Analysis of Alternative Models for Limit ed English Students in California”. Journal of Education Finance 19(3), (1994)256-278. See also, The Costs of Educating Arizona’s English Learners Study Submitted in Response to Judge Alfredo Marquez’s October 12, 200 0 Order (January 2001). 32. See, for example: Parrish, T., Matsumoto, C. S. & F owler, W. Disparities in Public School District Spending, 1989-90. (NCES 95-300). Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, U. S. Department of Education (February 1989). Allgood, W. & Rothstein, R. Adequate Education for At-Risk Youths Washington, D. C.: Economic Policy Institute. Mimeo (2000). Rothstein, R. Equalizing E ducation Resources on Behalf of Disadvantaged Children. (p. 31-92). In, K ahlenberg, R. D. Ed., A Notion At Risk. N.Y.: Century Foundation Book (2000). Clune, W. H. “The Shift From Equity to Adequacy in School Finance.” Educational Policy 8 (4), (1994)376-394. Reschovsky, A. & Imazeki, J. “ The Development of School Finance Formulas to Guarantee the Provision of Adequate Education to Low Income Students.” In, U.S. Departm ent of Education, Developments in School Finance 1997 Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics (1998). 33. Figures were included to support specialized materi als and equipment, until research cost estimates become available. 34. See for example, Achilles, “Let’s Put Kids First Fi nally,” Ibid 35. Other teachers include, for example, art, music, ph ysical education, technology and foreign language. Teachers were allo tted a planning period each day and duty free lunch. 36. See ftnt. #27-28. 37.


42 of 45 National Center for Education Statistics. Digest of Education Statistics Washington, D.C.: Author (2002). Data year, 1999-20 00, Table 129. 38. U.S. Census Bureau. Public Education Finances Table 6, “Current Spending of Public Elementary-Secondary School Syst ems by State: 1999-00.” Washington, D.C.: Bureau of the Census, G overnment Division, Data Tabulations (2002). Employee benefits in the t abulations include amounts paid by the school system for fringe benefi ts and payments made on behalf of the local education agency by the state. These amounts are not included in salaries and wages paid directly to employees. They include contributions on behalf of employees for retirement coverage, social security, group health and life insurance, tuition reimbursements, workmen’s compensation and unemployment compensation. Mead, S. (Sept. 6, 2002). Personal co mmunication. URL: http://www.censu govs/www/school.html 39. Southern Regional Education Board. “Beyond Salaries : Employee Benefits for Teachers in the SREB States.” SREB: At lanta, GA (n.d.). 40. Legislative Research Commission. “Compensation and Benefits of Kentucky Public School Employees.” Research Report 306. Frankfurt, KY (June 2002). 41. Southern Regional Education Board. “Beyond Salaries .” Ibid Data are reported from State Education Departments for 200001. 42. Data Source: Kentucky Department of Education. Annu al Financial Report 2002 (AFR02). For subfunctions, district costs are rolled up to a higher level and not available. It is estimated that Home and Hospital expenditures add about $6-$8 per pupil; technology transfer funding (KETS) would add between $16-$22 per pupil. 43. Resource elements related to these funds are shown in Tables 4A, 4B, and 4C. 44. This is an average of weights used by Texas and Flo rida for LEP (2000). 45. NEA, Rankings and Estimates. 46. This calculation is based on 200,000 eligible stude nts; the number of students scoring novice on statewide tests is curre ntly unavailable. 47. Data source: Kentucky Department of Education. Pers onal communication (2002). 48. For comparability to current spending, this figure includes the FY 2002 preschool grant ($46,300,000) and the Family and Yo uth Center grant ($51,800,000). 49. Panels recommended increasing the school year ten d ays for students and fifteen days for teachers. 50. Extending the school year 10 days, and increasing t eacher salaries to account for the additional 10 days (at an average d aily rate), would raise teacher salaries: above the SREB State average (101 %), from 85% to 90% of the national average teacher salary and from 81% to 86% of the surrounding, competing seven-State average teacher salary. 51. The total funding gap includes preschool expenditur es under current law; current elementary school costs are 66.7% of the co st per preschool pupil based on FTE; total costs would vary depending on t he projected participation rate. 52.


43 of 45 The World Wide Web address for the Education Policy Analysis Archives is Editor: Gene V Glass, Arizona State UniversityProduction Assistant: Chris Murrell, Arizona State University General questions about appropriateness of topics o r particular articles may be addressed to the Editor, Gene V Glass, or reach him at College of Education, Arizona State Un iversity, Tempe, AZ 85287-2411. The Commentary Editor is Casey D. Cobb: .EPAA Editorial Board Michael W. Apple University of Wisconsin David C. Berliner Arizona State University Greg Camilli Rutgers University Linda Darling-Hammond Stanford University Sherman Dorn University of South Florida Mark E. Fetler California Commission on TeacherCredentialing Gustavo E. Fischman Arizona State Univeristy Richard Garlikov Birmingham, Alabama Thomas F. Green Syracuse University Aimee Howley Ohio University Craig B. Howley Appalachia Educational Laboratory William Hunter University of Ontario Institute ofTechnology Patricia Fey Jarvis Seattle, Washington Daniel Kalls Ume University Benjamin Levin University of Manitoba Thomas Mauhs-Pugh Green Mountain College Les McLean University of Toronto Heinrich Mintrop University of California, Los Angeles Michele Moses Arizona State University Gary Orfield Harvard University Anthony G. Rud Jr. Purdue University Jay Paredes Scribner University of Missouri Michael Scriven University of Auckland Lorrie A. Shepard University of Colorado, Boulder Robert E. Stake University of Illinois—UC Kevin Welner University of Colorado, Boulder Terrence G. Wiley Arizona State University John Willinsky University of British Columbia


44 of 45 EPAA Spanish and Portuguese Language Editorial BoardAssociate Editors for Spanish & Portuguese Gustavo E. Fischman Arizona State Universityfischman@asu.eduPablo Gentili Laboratrio de Polticas Pblicas Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro pablo@lpp-uerj.netFounding Associate Editor for Spanish Language (199 8-2003) Roberto Rodrguez Gmez Universidad Nacional Autnoma de MxicoAdrin Acosta (Mxico) Universidad de J. Flix Angulo Rasco (Spain) Universidad de Teresa Bracho (Mxico) Centro de Investigacin y DocenciaEconmica-CIDEbracho Alejandro Canales (Mxico) Universidad Nacional Autnoma Ursula Casanova (U.S.A.) Arizona State Jos Contreras Domingo Universitat de Barcelona Erwin Epstein (U.S.A.) Loyola University of Josu Gonzlez (U.S.A.) Arizona State Rollin Kent (Mxico) Universidad Autnoma de Puebla Mara Beatriz Luce (Brazil) Universidad Federal de Rio Grande do Javier Mendoza Rojas (Mxico)Universidad Nacional Autnoma Marcela Mollis (Argentina)Universidad de Buenos Humberto Muoz Garca (Mxico) Universidad Nacional Autnoma Angel Ignacio Prez Gmez (Spain)Universidad de DanielSchugurensky (Argentina-Canad) OISE/UT, Simon Schwartzman (Brazil) American Institutes forResesarch–Brazil (AIRBrasil)


45 of 45 Jurjo Torres Santom (Spain) Universidad de A Carlos Alberto Torres (U.S.A.) University of California, Los EPAA is published by the Education Policy Studies Laboratory, Arizona State University


Download Options

Choose Size
Choose file type
Cite this item close


Cras ut cursus ante, a fringilla nunc. Mauris lorem nunc, cursus sit amet enim ac, vehicula vestibulum mi. Mauris viverra nisl vel enim faucibus porta. Praesent sit amet ornare diam, non finibus nulla.


Cras efficitur magna et sapien varius, luctus ullamcorper dolor convallis. Orci varius natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Fusce sit amet justo ut erat laoreet congue sed a ante.


Phasellus ornare in augue eu imperdiet. Donec malesuada sapien ante, at vehicula orci tempor molestie. Proin vitae urna elit. Pellentesque vitae nisi et diam euismod malesuada aliquet non erat.


Nunc fringilla dolor ut dictum placerat. Proin ac neque rutrum, consectetur ligula id, laoreet ligula. Nulla lorem massa, consectetur vitae consequat in, lobortis at dolor. Nunc sed leo odio.