"State of Rhode Island Education Adequacy Study"

March 2007

Successful Schools Approach:
Three different, but unexplained measures of successful, entitled “high-performing,” “proficiency,” and “three-year index.”

Cost Function Approach:
Meeting 2008 test-score proficiency targets. No further explanation is given.

Professional Judgment Approach:
No definition of adequacy provided

Evidence-based Approach:
No definition of adequacy provided

Professional Judgment:
A range from $11,380 to $13,931, based on level of school and school size. See pp. 63-71 for a full breakdown of results.

Successful Schools:
A range from $9,807 to $13,066, based on level of school and concentration of poverty. A full table is on p. 44 of the study. The consultants note that this will vary based on which set of special-needs weightings is used (see “Calculated Additional Costs” section).

Other methodologies did not include per pupil cost calculations.

Successful Schools:
Two levels of funding are presented, each based on a different set of special-needs weightings.

• $56.7 - $68.4 million
(3-4% of overall current spending) using a an adjustment of 0.25 for ELL students, 0.25 for “at-risk” (eligible for free/reduced-price lunch) students, and 1.0 for special education students.

• $113.8 – 128.3 million (6-7%) using an adjustment of 0.4 for ELL students, 0.4 for at-risk students, and 1.1 for special education students.

Cost Function*: $42.4 million (2%)
*Note: The study notes that one would expect a lower number for the cost function approach because it assumes (1) exactly meeting proficiency and (2) highly efficient schools. The Successful Schools method uses many schools that are performing well above proficiency and not necessarily perfectly efficient.

Professional Judgment: $204.8 million (11%)

• Basic increase: $153.5 million
• Additional programs for “insufficient progress” students: $51.3 million

Evidence-based**: $53.4 million (3%)

• Full-day kindergarten: $23.4 million
• Pilot programs: $25 million
• Program evaluation infrastructure: $10 million

**Note: The study calls the evidence-based approach “inappropriate and invalid” to estimate the cost of adequacy; the numbers should only be used as an estimate of what it would take to implement programs that research shows would be effective and necessary to improve student achievement.

The study makes no specific recommendations regarding the amount or use of school expenditure increases.

Cost function analysis demonstrated that the costs of achieving a given level of proficiency were greater for ELL students, economically disadvantaged students, and special education students. The coefficients were as follows:

• ELL: 0.24
• At-risk: 0.19
• Special Education: 0.73

• The study used data from schools accounting for 91% of students and 93% of schools in Rhode Island.
• “Discount rates” were applied to adjust school enrollment to created “weighted enrollments.” Weighting 1 was 0.25 for ELL students, 0.25 for “at-risk” (eligible for free/reduced-price lunch) students, and 1.0 for special education students. Weighting 2 was 0.4 for ELL students, 0.4 for at-risk students, and 1.1 for special education students.
• Spending in successful schools was then calculated using three different measures of success: “Proficiency” (being at or above 2007-2008 outcome standards, which are not explained in the study), “High-performing” (not explained), and “3-Year Index” (not explained).
• Calculations were made separately for elementary, middle, and high-school.
• In each calculation the schools with the top and bottom 5% in expenditures were removed from averaging.

• The cost function approach, like the successful schools approach, was done using school level data rather than district level data.
• The cost function approach attempted to determine a function that calculates per pupil expenditure based on outcomes, student demographic characteristics, school size, and grade level (elementary, middle, and high).
• The function was made using an Ordinary Least Squares regression model. Coefficients were found for each item in the function, and the cost of meeting 2008 proficiency targets,
  Professional Judgment approach

• The study used a survey given to all principals in Rhode Island. 46% of principals responded, including enough for data at each level of school (elementary, middle, and high) and each size of school (small, medium, large).
• The consultants also consulted two school expert panels and a district expert panel. The first school expert panel included various school and district staff, and the second included only principals from “high performing” schools.
• The surveyed principals and panelists were asked to determine various resources necessary for the nine categories of schools listed above, including teachers, administrators, aides, substitutes, other staff, and supplies, among other resources.
• In addition, panelists suggested extra resources be provided for students not meeting standards. These resources took the form of the extra wages required for 200 additional hours of instruction, in the form of before-, after-, and summer school programs, for students making “insufficient progress” on state assessments. These numbers comprise the “additional programs” section.

Evidence-based Approach:

• Due to the variety of the research on effective educational programs, the consultants say the evidence-based approach is “inappropriate and invalid” to estimate the cost of adequacy.
• Consultants looked at various educational programs and chose five that showed proven strong effect sizes. These included: small group tutoring; enhanced technology usage; drop out prevent and career prep; early grade literacy and math; and extra ELL programs. For each program, the consultants determined the cost of a pilot program. In addition, the consultants added the cost of full-day kindergarten and program evaluation.
• Consultants note that this section is not an adequacy study, only a list of recommendations.

• This study did not consider capital funding for facilities, transportation, food service, adult education, or community service costs, which are ordinarily excluded from adequacy studies.
  
• This study does not include the cost of preschool.
  
• No cost-of-living or geographic adjustments were made, as the consultants said that Rhode Island’s small size made these unnecessary.
  
  

None.

None yet

Joint Committee to Establish a Permanent Education Foundation Aid Formula for Rhode Island