Analysis of Adequacy Studies Shows Trend Toward
Increased Weightings for Poverty and Minority Students
“The size of recommended weights for poor students
has increased dramatically and ELL recommendations have
increased [even] more” concludes William Mathis
in his latest synthesis of costing out studies which
he presented at the annual meeting of the American Education
Finance Association in April 2008. Mathis, Superintendent
of Schools for the Rutland Northeast Supervisory Union,
reports that virtually all of the 38 adequacy studies
covered by his analysis provide specific weightings
for English language learners (ELL) and low-income students.
The paper, entitled “Will We Keep the Promise?
Trends in Adequacy Studies and Funding Recommendations
for Poverty and English Language Learner Students: 1999-2008,”
isolates educational costs of ELLs and children in poverty,
using the 1999 Fiscal Year as a baseline. According
to the paper, in 1999 less than half of the states had
a weighting for poverty in their state aid formula.
For those states that did account for poverty, the most
common weighting was 0.25 (25 percent above base spending).
Meanwhile, ELL weights, in the rare case that they existed,
represented less than one percent of funding. According
to one study cited by Mathis, in four states ELL students
received less than one dollar per year as additional
weighting.
By 2008, the national recommended additional weighting
for low-income students ranged between 40 and 60 percent.
The authors of a 2001 Wisconsin study concluded that
a weighting of 3.4 times the base cost for education
was needed for poverty students to reach state standards.
In a 2003 New York Study, authors Duncombe and Yinger,
conclude that low-income students needed over 100% in
additional funds. According to Mathis, poverty weights
increased the most before 2004, but have continued to
rise between 2004 and 2008.
For ELL students the growth of recommended weights
has increased faster since 2004. Since then, 14 new
studies have addressed ELL weightings and recommended
levels of funding across different states have ranged
from 50 to 100 percent above base spending. These weightings
also continue to rise, parallel to the rates of disadvantaged
and minority students.
According to Mathis, the United States now has the
highest relative childhood poverty rate among developed
(OECD) countries. Also, from 2000 to 2004 the percentage
of English language learners in the United States increased
from 6 to 11 percent. Affected by these trends, the
achievement gap which narrowed in the 1990s has once
again started to grow. The enormous gap between white
and minority students in the United States is reflected
in international comparisons of test scores disaggregated
by race. According to Mathis, when the test scores of
white American students are reported separately and
compared to the test scores of students in developed
countries, the United States ranks third highest. In
contrast, if Hispanic and African American test scores
are compared to the same international scores, the United
States ranks last and next to last.
Cost studies have begun to recommend specific policies
that show the greatest promise of alleviating these
deficiencies, such as extended school years, school
size, parental involvement, and increasing teacher pay.
However, insufficient funding has continued to impede
progress toward equity and adequacy to which the United
States committed itself when the No Child Left Behind
Act (NCLB) was passed in 2002. According to Mathis,
from 2001 to 2008, the total federal NCLB appropriation
has increased by 40 percent from $17.4 billion to $24.2
billion. However, when the needs of low-income and ELL
student are considered, the total cost requirement to
meet NCLB standards would amount to an additional 30
percent or $150 billion.
Prepared by Marcela Briceno,May 8, 2008
|
