In 2001-02, Vermont's 359 public schools spent
$934 million for 101,179 pre-k-12th grade students.
Study Title:
"Vermont Education Finance Study"
Date Completed:
January 2004
Calculated Costs:
Successful Schools:
Grade
4 expenditures for schools meeting state English
and math standards:
Mean:
$8,345 per pupil (FY 2001-02) Median:
$8,102 per pupil (FY 2001-02)
Grade
8 expenditures for schools meeting state English
and math standards:
Mean:
$8,751 per pupil (FY 2001-02) Median:
$7,733 per pupil (FY 2001-02)
Grade
10 expenditures for schools meeting state English
and math standards:
Mean:
$7,663 per pupil (FY 2001-02) Median:
$8,035 per pupil (FY 2001-02)
School
expenditures for schools meeting AYP:
Mean:
$7,970 per pupil (FY 2001-02) Median:
$8009 per pupil (FY 2001-02)
Supervisory
Union expenditures for supervisory unions meeting
AYP:
Mean:
$8,071 per pupil (FY 2001-02 Median:
$8,287 per pupil (FY 2001-02)
Professional Judgment:
$9,300 per pupil for elementary schools (FY 2001-02);
$8,888 per pupil for middle schools (FY 2001-02),
and $9,736 per pupil for high schools (FY 2001-02)
- approximately a 19 percent increase.
Major Recommendations:
The only major recommendation the study makes
is for further study. That is, conducting an "intense"
survey of schools and supervisory unions to identify
effective programs for at-risk students, in order
to estimate additional costs associated with those
programs.
Special Features of the Study:
Successful Schools:
The
study did not provide a base figure, rather
mean and median per pupil costs based on actual
expenditures of schools that met specified performance
criteria. For
comparison, the study also provided the mean
and median costs for schools not meeting the
criteria and the average costs for all schools
in the state. The estimates showed that the
mean expenditures in grades 4 and 8 of schools
meeting the criteria were higher than those
not meeting the criteria. However, in grade
10, the mean expenditures for schools meeting
the criteria were actually lower than those
not meeting the criteria. The
study noted that the schools and supervisory
unions that met the criteria had a lower percentage
of at-risk students. However, the study did
not estimate the additional per-pupil cost for
at-risk students.
Professional Judgement:
The
expert panel did not create prototype elementary,
middle, and high schools because Vermont schools
are composed with a variety of grades being
served. The
study did not provide a base figure, rather
the mean per pupil projected cost. Elementary
grades included grades K-5. Pre-kindergarten
education costs were not considered. The
panel estimated the percentage of at-risk and
special education students, based on 2001-02
state averages. Therefore, the study did not
provide a base figure and then additional weights
for these additional factors.
Small Schools: The study reviewed and
analyzed current practices, spending patterns
and performance assessment of small schools in
the state to support the argument for consolidation
of these schools. Although the study acknowledges
that research shows greater gains for at-risk
students in smaller schools, and that small schools
"have been instrumental in implementing innovative
school reforms," it provided data supporting
consolidation based on a perceived reduction in
higher costs associated with small schools.
Geographic Cost of Education Index (GCEI):
The study attempted to compute the GCEI to account
for the differences in cost for providing similar
education services across different districts
in the state. However, due to the lack of data
on teacher education and experience and on cost
of living information, the study consultants found
that they could not accurately account for variations
within the state and therefore declined to release
their results.
The
study estimated the mean and median per pupil
costs based on "high-performing schools." Two
separate criteria were considered to identify
success: (i) schools that achieved a minimum
percentage level on state English and math assessments
and (ii) schools and supervisory unions meetings
that met the Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) standards
under the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
Act. The
criteria in selecting schools were that at least
two-thirds of 4th and 8th grade students and
at least 60 percent of 10th grade students had
to score in the top two quintiles. Only 47 of
232 schools met the 4th grade criteria, 16 of
127 schools met the 8th grade criteria, and
7 out of 62 schools met the 10th grade criteria.
268
out of 307 schools met the AYP standards and
19 out of 60 supervisory unions met the AYP
standards.
25
"expert educators" met in focus groups
to identify the inputs necessary for a successful
school. The
expert educator panel considered expenditures
for teachers, paraprofessionals, administrators,
and staff, as well as pupil services, such as
after-school programs and summer school. The
study did not consider outputs. The
National Conference of State Legislatures then
costed out these inputs to determine the mean
cost per pupil for elementary, middle, and high
school.
Cost Categories:
The study did not include consideration of preschool
education, transportation, special education reimbursement
costs, separate calculation of education for "at
risk" children, or facilities.