1. (c) 2008 The McGraw ‑ Hill Companies 1 Allocation and Use of the Education Dollar School Finance: A Policy Perspective, 4e Chapter 6

2. (c) 2008 The McGraw ‑ Hill Companies 2 Allocation and Use of the Education Dollar 1.Resource Use Patterns Over Time 2.Three Portions of the Education Dollar 3.Staffing Categories and Patterns 4.Expenditure Structure 5.Professional Development Cost Framework and Research 6.Will Just More Money Help? Austin, TX

3. (c) 2008 The McGraw ‑ Hill Companies 3 Resource Patterns Over Time Consistent increases in real dollars Similar proportion spent on instruction Changes in composition of spending on instruction

4. (c) 2008 The McGraw ‑ Hill Companies 4 Consistent Increases in Real Dollars Study by Hanushek and Rivkin (1997) found that dollars for education increased continuously during the last century, rising on an inflated, per pupil basis about 3.5% annually Exception was early 1990s when resources increased at a much lower rate while special education costs continued to rise, thus encroaching on the general education fund. Similar rises at beginning of 21 st century

5. (c) 2008 The McGraw ‑ Hill Companies 5 Current Spending Levels 2005-06 –National Average current operating expenditures per pupil ~$9,576 on an attendance basis and $9,022 on an enrollment basis, or about $9,300 as an average –National average adequacy number: $9,400 (Odden, Goetz and Picus, 2007) –Wisconsin ~$10,200

6. (c) 2008 The McGraw ‑ Hill Companies 6 Where Did the New Money Go? In the 1960’s - “planning and preparation” time was bought with art, music, PE, voc ed teachers In the 1970s and 80s, services for special needs students were expanded – desegregation, special, compensatory and bilingual education In the 1990s, services expanded largely outside the regular classroom

7. (c) 2008 The McGraw ‑ Hill Companies 7 Similar Proportion Spent on Instruction (at least over 50 years) Roughly — 60-61 %Instruction 10%Instructional/Student Support 10%Administration: 4-6 % district and site (no systemic “administrative blob”) 10%Operation and Maintenance 5%Transportation 5%Food and other These patterns hold across states, high and low spending & urban/rural districts– remarkable consistency

8. (c) 2008 The McGraw ‑ Hill Companies 8 Sixty percent of budget spent on instruction includes: Core subject teachers – math, science, reading/writing/communication, history, world language Specialist subject teachers – art, music, library, pe, voc ed, etc. – who also provide planning/preparation time for teachers Teachers providing services for students with disabilities, low income students, class size reduction, ESL students, GATE students, etc. Summer, after school, etc. Books, materials, instructional equipment

9. (c) 2008 The McGraw ‑ Hill Companies 9 Changes in Composition of Spending on Instruction Substantial expansion of programs for special needs students has resulted in additional services and additional staff outside the regular classroom –Special education, compensatory education, ELL/ESL services, GATE, vocational, desegregation, gender equity, etc. Percent spent on “regular teachers” has dropped from about 60% of budget to about 40% today

10. (c) 2008 The McGraw ‑ Hill Companies 10 What about Teacher Salary Levels? Only a small portion of increased revenues was used to increase teacher salaries, –Rises in the 60s, drops in the 70s, smaller rises in the 80s, falling more behind in the 90s Overall net teacher salary increases did not keep teacher salaries on par with wages in other occupations, so teaching is less competitive today than it was 30, 40, 50 years ago

11. (c) 2008 The McGraw ‑ Hill Companies 11 Conclusions Majority of new dollars provided to schools over the past 30 years was not spent on salaries nor staff for the core instructional program, but on specialist teachers and other resource people (guidance counselors, instructional aides) to provide services in special subjects or to special needs students outside the regular classroom. Unfortunately, many other studies have shown that these programs and services have produced modest, if any, long-lasting impacts on student achievement

12. (c) 2008 The McGraw ‑ Hill Companies 12 Another Way to Think About Resource Use Three portions of the education dollar: –Core instruction –Instructional support services –Overhead

13. (c) 2008 The McGraw ‑ Hill Companies 13 First Portion: Core Instructional Portion 1 for core instructional services –grade-level teachers in elementary schools –core subject teachers in secondary schools – mathematics, science, language arts/reading/writing, social studies and foreign language –professional development –site administration These would be considered the “line” resources in education.

14. (c) 2008 The McGraw ‑ Hill Companies 14 Second Portion: Instructional Support Portion 2 for additional instruction –Specialist subjects such as art, music, career/technical and physical education –Extra help instruction such as compensatory, special and ESL/ELL education services –Pupil support services: guidance counselors, social workers, psychologists, family outreach personnel –Instructional support personnel such as librarians. These resources have experienced the largest growth in past 40 years.

15. (c) 2008 The McGraw ‑ Hill Companies 15 Portions 1 and 2 Except for site administration in portion 1 and pupil support in portion 2, all aspects of portions 1 and 2 are coded under the instructional function Since there has been huge growth in instructional resources, with simultaneous flat or modestly rising student performance, more spending on instruction will not necessarily translate into more learning This is why we are not boosters of the “65” percent solution – just increase the portion of the budget spent on instruction

16. (c) 2008 The McGraw ‑ Hill Companies 16 Third Portion: Necessary Overhead Portion 3 for necessary overhead: –Central office administration – superintendent’s office, the business and personnel offices, and school board services –Operation and maintenance of schools (heating, cooling, cleaning, fixing, etc. –Transportation –Food services –Miscellaneous

17. (c) 2008 The McGraw ‑ Hill Companies 17 What Do We Know About Resource Use Within These Categories? Typical fiscal reporting systems provide relatively little information Most data is available in broad categories – instruction, instructional support, etc. Not much information at the site Schools and Staffing Surveys data help

18. (c) 2008 The McGraw ‑ Hill Companies 18 Staffing Categories Regular classroom teachers – elementary classrooms, math, science, language arts, history in secondary schools Special subject teachers – art, music, pe, voc ed, etc. who also provide planning and prep time Categorical specialist teachers – students with disabilities, ELL, compensatory education, GATE, etc. Pupil support – guidance, psychologist, nurse, etc. Principals and assistant principals Instructional aides

19. (c) 2008 The McGraw ‑ Hill Companies 19 Current Staffing Patterns NCES - School and Staffing Survey (1999-2000) –Detailed information on how schools and classrooms are staffed across the country At the elementary level, the majority of teachers were generalists, with very few having content-specific assignments –9.6 percent of elementary teachers were in special education, and 19.5 percent in “other” areas. At the secondary level, only 46.8 percent of the teachers in the sample were assigned to the academic core areas.

20. (c) 2008 The McGraw ‑ Hill Companies 20 Current Staffing Patterns Though pupil/staff ratios have been close to 15 to 1, actual class sizes are often much larger Conclusion: large numbers of individuals called a “teacher” are not in classrooms teaching students

21. (c) 2008 The McGraw ‑ Hill Companies 21 School-Level Staffing Patterns Using the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) school-level data to determine the average staffing in elementary, middle, and high schools nationally, and in each major region of the country Using the figure of $50,000 for salaries and benefits for each professional staff slot and $15,000 for each instructional aide

22. (c) 2008 The McGraw ‑ Hill Companies 22 National Average Elementary School (442 children) Staffing 1 principal 0.5 assistant principals 30 teachers 2.0 librarians/media aides 1.75 pupil support (GC/psychologists) 5.75 instructional aides

23. (c) 2008 The McGraw ‑ Hill Companies 23 Elementary School Staffing Patterns The average elementary school would need ~18 teachers to provide class sizes of 25 students Since the school on average has 30 teachers, that means it has 12 additional teachers used for such purposes as music, art, and PE to provide regular teachers “planning and preparation” time, as well as specialist teachers for special needs programs Elementary schools also have a librarian and a media aide, and 1.75 counselors and other pupil support personnel

24. (c) 2008 The McGraw ‑ Hill Companies 24 National Average Middle School (628 children) Staffing 1 principal 1 assistant principal 43.5 teachers 2.0 librarians/media aides 2.75 pupil support 2.5 instructional aides

25. (c) 2008 The McGraw ‑ Hill Companies 25 Middle School Staffing Patterns The average middle school would need ~25 teachers to provide class sizes of 25 students. Since the school on average has 43.5 teachers, that means it has 18 additional teachers used for such purposes as music, art, and PE to provide regular teachers “planning and preparation” time, as well as specialist teachers for special needs programs Middle schools also have 2 librarians and media, and 2.75 counselors and other pupil support personnel The average middle school also has 2.5 instructional aides

26. (c) 2008 The McGraw ‑ Hill Companies 26 National Average High School (907 children) Staffing 1 principal 1.75 assistant principals 58.5 teachers 2.0 librarians 3.75 pupil support 2.5 instructional aides

27. (c) 2008 The McGraw ‑ Hill Companies 27 High School Staffing Patterns The average high school would need ~36 teachers to provide regular class sizes of 25 students. Since the school on average has 58.5 teachers, that means it has 22 additional teachers used for such purposes as music, art, and PE to provide regular teachers “planning and preparation” time, as well as specialist teachers for special needs programs. High schools also have 2 librarians/media, and 3.75 counselors and other pupil support personnel The average high school also has 2.5 instructional aides

28. (c) 2008 The McGraw ‑ Hill Companies 28 School-Level Staffing Patterns In sum, the average elementary, middle and high school have substantial teaching resources above and beyond the teachers needed for core classes of 25 students As we’ll discuss in Chapter 7, these additional positions have the most potential to be reallocated to use more productively

29. (c) 2008 The McGraw ‑ Hill Companies 29 School-Level Staffing Patterns These same analyses were done for several regions in the country The results showed that school-level resources are quite different in the various regions of the country, and that just using national averages to assess resource reallocation possibilities for different schools across the country could lead to inaccurate conclusions Example from the Midwest

30. (c) 2008 The McGraw ‑ Hill Companies 30 School Resources in the Midwest IngredientElementary MiddleHigh School Grades K–5Grades 6–8Grades 9–12 Average enrollment 354 500706 Principal 1.0 1.01.0 Assistant Principals 0.25 0.751.0 Teachers 25.75 38.25 47.5 Librarians/Media aides 2.0 2.02.0 Counselors, etc. 1.75 3.0 3.0 Teacher aides 4.5 2.0 2.25 Total staff $$1,570,000$2,245,000 $2,723,750 (W ith teachers at $50,000 and aides at $15,000)

31. (c) 2008 The McGraw ‑ Hill Companies 31 School Level Resources by Educational Strategy 2003 reporting framework by Odden, Archibald, Fermanich & Gross Resource indicators –Minutes in elementary reading and math classes, number of minutes in reading/math classes or core classes in secondary schools, length of school day, percent core teachers, etc. Resource use –Core teachers, specialist teachers, instructional coaches, different extra help strategies, professional development (see next slides), pupil support, etc.

32. (c) 2008 The McGraw ‑ Hill Companies 32 School Resource Indicators School Building Size School Unit Size Percent Low Income Percent Special Education Percent ESL/LEP Expenditures Per Pupil Professional Development Expenditures Per Teacher Special Academic Focus of School/Unit Length of Instructional Day Length of Class Periods Length of Reading Class (Elementary) Length of Mathematics Class (Elementary) Reading Class Size (Elementary) Mathematics Class Size (Elementary) Regular Class Size (Elementary) Length of Core Class Periods (Secondary) Core Class Size (Secondary) Non-Core Class Size (Secondary) Percent Core Teachers

33. (c) 2008 The McGraw ‑ Hill Companies 33 School Expenditure Structure Instructional1. Core Academic Teachers 2. Specialist and Elective Teachers/ Planning and Preparation 3. Extra Help 4. Professional Development 5. Other Non-Classroom Instructional Staff 6. Instructional Materials and Equipment 7. Student Support Non-Instructional 8. Administration 9. Operations and Maintenance

34. (c) 2008 The McGraw ‑ Hill Companies 34 Professional Development Cost Framework Six major cost categories –Teacher time – extra days for training –Training and coaching costs –Administration –Materials and equipment –Travel –Tuition and conference fees First three constitute largest costs

35. (c) 2008 The McGraw ‑ Hill Companies 35 Findings From Study of Six Large Urban Districts Dramatically more spent than indicated in any budget Professional development expenditures –$2,740 to $5,000 per teacher which was about $170 to $330 per student –Little expenditure on professional development in core subjects; most on collaborative decision making, cooperative learning, etc. Professional development a mile wide and an inch thick with little impact on classroom practice and student learning Much less investment in professional development in one study of a rural district (Thayer)

36. (c) 2008 The McGraw ‑ Hill Companies 36 PD Expenditures when School-Level Investments Added In one large urban district Adding the school-level expenditures for professional development nearly doubled the total investment –Increased professional development expenditures per teacher from $4,232 with just district funds to $7,738 with school funds

37. (c) 2008 The McGraw ‑ Hill Companies 37 Will Just More Money Help? The Case of Austin, Texas Doing more of what we now do unlikely to improve student performance, so NO More money will help mainly if there are strategic visions of how to spend new and old money effectively Only 2 of 16 schools used an extra $300,000 to improve achievement! What did the effective schools do: –Engaged teachers and parents in analyzing low test score results –Established high expectations for learning – the “gifted” curriculum for all students

38. (c) 2008 The McGraw ‑ Hill Companies 38 Will More Money Help? The Case of Austin, Texas (continued) –Implemented a school-wide instructional program for all students –Traded pull-out specialists for regular teachers to reduce class size –Invested more in professional development –Created school-wide incentives to improve performance –Similar to schools that reallocate resources for more effective performance – next chapter