| Study Title: |
"Determining
an Adequate Per Pupil Funding Level for Public K-12
Education in South Carolina in Relationship to Pupil
Performance Objectives: Creating the Basis for an
Agreement Between the State and Local School Districts
with Appropriate Accountability at Both Levels" |
| |
|
| Date Completed: |
July
2000 |
| |
|
| Calculated Base Costs: |
$9,182
(1998-1999 dollars) for 85% of elementary school
students and 75% of middle school students to
meet the 2005-2006 South Carolina state objectives
(scoring "basic" on state proficiency
tests; high-school students would have to meet
"school-wide" criteria - established
by the Education
Accountability Act of 1998)
|
| |
$9,885
for 75% of elementary school students, 65% of middle
school students, and almost all high-school students
to meet the 2010-2011 South Carolina state Standards
(scoring "proficient" on state proficiency
tests or passing the graduation test - established
by
the Education Accountability Act of 1998) |
| |
These
costs are for "average" schools, where
50 percent of students are eligible for reduced-price
lunches and 13 percent are in special education
programs |
| |
$6,189
to meet 2005-2006 objectives and $6,680 to meet
2010-2011 objectives in schools with no students
who qualify for reduced-priced lunches and no special-ed
students; calculated by reducing $9,182 and $9,885,
above, based on national average factors for "at-risk"
and special-ed students |
| |
|
| Major Recommendations: |
Increase
total money for schools from $3.1 billion to approximately
$6.0 billion |
| |
|
| Special Features of the Study: |
Took
state standards into account |
| |
Determines
the cost of education for a district with "average"
demographics |
| |
Resources
for upper grades were lowered over the long term
on the assumption that putting in resources into
the early grades would increase student achievement
in the upper grades |
| |
Includes
a separate study of South Carolina's funding system
and comparison data from other states and groups
of states (at Appendix D) |
| |
|
| Implementation: |
Not
yet implemented |
| |
|
| Methodology:
|
Professional Judgement |
| |
3
working groups (elementary, middle, and high school)
and 1 "expert panel" |
| |
By
2010-2011, high schools should make progress not
just on test scores, but also on attendance, drop-out
rate, and participation of students in AP courses
|
| |
|
| Additional Factors: |
The
study considered state standards, class size, technology,
equipment, preschool, extra-curricular activities,
professional development, and effect of infusion
of resources into early grades on later performance.
The study did not consider facilities, non-typical
districts, change in district composition over time,
teacher salaries, and the cost to educate English
Language Learners (ELL). |
| |
|
| Public Input: |
None |
| |
|
| Prepared for: |
South
Carolina School Boards Association |
| |
|
| Prepared by: |
Augenblick
& Myers, Inc. |
