DOCUMENT RESUME ED 477 192 AUTHOR TITLE PUB DATE NOTE AVAILABLE FROM PUB TYPE EDRS PRICE DESCRIPTORS IDENTIFIERS EA 032 528 Conley, David; Freund, William "What Will It Take" Project. Washington Quality Education Model. Final Report. 2003-03-00 94p.; Prepared by the Rainier Institute, Seattle, WA. The Ranier Institute, 615 Second Avenue, Suite 560, Seattle, WA 98104. Tel: 206-575-1964; Fax: 206-903-0860; Web site: http://www.rainierinstitute.com Information Analyses (070) Reports Descriptive (141) EDRS Price MF01/PC04 Plus Postage. Change Strategies; *Educational Change; *Educational Equity (Finance); Educational Finance; *Educational Practices; Elementary Secondary Education; Full State Funding; *School Support; Summative Evaluation *Washington ABSTRACT This report discusses what constitutes an adequate education in the state of Washington. It focuses on the Washington Quality Education Model (WQEM)--a new program created to define the vision of quality education--as well as the elements and indicators that constitute such an education. The goal of the program is to determine the kinds of staff, programs, and materials that must be provided if schools are going to offer a quality education that: (1) enables students to meet the standards set by the legislature in 1993; (2) allows schools in Washington to meet federal standards; and (3) is consistent with what Washingtonians want from their schools. The document explains how the combination of increasing demands on public education, brought on by enrollment surges, and higher standards made the project necessary. It explains the concept of adequacy and outlines the four basic models that were used to develop adequacy-funding models. The report then discusses adequacy as understood in the Washington context and what the state's responsibilities are in educating its children. It outlines the background for the project, describes the program itself, and presents some prototypical elementary, middle, and high schools of the WQEM. The document closes with suggestions on how to implement the program in Washington schools. (Contains approximately 280 references) (RJM) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. N C71 N LT.4 "What Will It Take" Project. Washington Quality Education Model. Final Report. David T,. Conley William Freund March 2003 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Educational Research and Improvement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) This document has been reproduced as received from the person or organization originating it. PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY D. Conley Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality Points of view or opinions.statedin this document do not necessarily represent official OERI position or policy. TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) .. 1 BEST COPY AVAILABLIP: 2 si t a e? . Defining a quality education in Washington and a new vision ofadequacy for school funding 4101"-`1::,_ ti ..alleil, 1W 3 ER IN March 2003 "What Will It Take" Project Final Report Washington Quality Education Model 4 Co den IFeawammfl 0.00.0.0...0....00.0.00..0..0.-0.000000000000007 EfilMelluttRAB55U110111111/37 000000000.0000.0000000000000000000000.09 racsTilnileiRanfactnecezzayst? 12 A. New demands on public education Enrollment increases, more challenging student body 13 Reduced purchasing power 14 14 Higher expectations comaripeekaikevnater razpasonned 15 A. What is meant by adequacy) B. What are the four basic models used to develop adequacy-funding models> 16 Generalizing from costs of schools that meet performance benchmarks 17 17 Effective school-wide programs or strategies model 18 Professional judgment approach 18 Economic cost function approach 19 C. Methodology of the Washington Quality Education Model kaileaTanow r1111111P12V781Zildiellgt1311 Corns e= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G 0 0 0 C C0 00 CC 0 0 00 A. Defining the state's responsibility and trying to achieve funding equity B. Challenges of education reform liBagEstpounrinall 21 fan Wanari1 MEI It Usarze IPtegee 0 ea. o a a .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 223 Participating organizations Mow 02® 20 24 Aageanunagg Motell W8100204531371111Stean e a G 0 0 0 G G 0 0 C 0 e 0 a 0 0 020 A. The four-step process for developing the Washington Quality Education Model Develop a vision of a Quality Education 25 25 Identify the Elements and Components of a quality education that create the structure and budget of the elementary, middle, and high Prototype Schools Specify the Indicators of School Quality 26 26 Designate the Performance Measures and Standards that will be used to identify the degree to which the Prototype Schools achieve the quality goals set for them in the vision 27 wasfinamseann einsetsr rzediumarcrom n:Dagen C 0 C G oe G G G 00 G C C ee C 0 020 A. Explanation of the Prototype School Approach 28 An allocation model, not a distribution model 29 30 30 Costs not accounted for by the model Special education assumptions B. Vision of the WQEM C. Characteristics of Quality Schools 30 32 34 D. Elements and Components 35 Calculating the Costs for Program Elements and Components 35 E. Underlying Assumptions about the Prototype Schools 36 Table A: Underlying Assumptions about Prototype Schools 37 F Performance measures 37 Performance measures for the WQEM 111he 1PrIntetsma Ocanoolls WgEbt oaa000000aaoaoo o oo 0 00000QII 41 A. Changes called for by the WQEM Table B: Major changes contained in the WQEM Elementary School Prototype 42 Table C: Major changes contained in the WQEM Middle School Prototype 44 Table D: Major changes contained in the WQEM High School Prototype 47 B. Overview of the costs of the WQEM Table E: Comparison of per -pupil costs under three models (Based on the 2000-01 school year) Table F. Comparison of statewide costs under three models 47 47 Table G: Comparison of average per-pupil spending adjusted for regional cost differences 48 (with WQEM and without) Elleganevats arat Conriniponnetratts eg trine E'reafttyge 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 ea 49 A. Elementry School of 498 Students Table H: Detailed Comparison of Current Service Level and Washington Quality Education 49 Model Elementary School Prototype 54 B. Middle School of 848 Students Table I: Detailed Comparison of Current Service Level and Washington Quality Education 54 Model Middle School Prototype 58 C. High School of 1421 Students Table J: Detailed Comparison of Current Service Level and Washington Quality Education 58 Model High School Prototype Neztectelps 62 A. Implementation strategies 62 Step 1: Assign responsibilities to a commission to manage the WQEM Step 2: Develop the data sources necessary to determine the effects of adequate funding on school operations 63 Step 3: Constitute a blue-ribbon task force to examine school funding sources and distribution 63 63 B. Full implementation versus several types of phased implementation Successive grade level implementation 64 Element and component implementation 64 64 Pilot schools implementation Covitras tale Mellifierrage 00000e 000000000000. 0.00 00 krill:Pa:rid:11CW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 oaz Oaa Appendix A: Chronology of Meetings and Listing of Participants Appendix B: Reasearch Underlying Elements and Components and Characteristics 66 of Quality Schools Appendix C: Funding adequacy rating for Washington compared to other states 77 6 91 I I I I I I I Mated of 111Eree4oss March 2003 President Emeritus Hon. Booth Gardner President Dr. Robert Crittenden Vice President Hon. Sid Morrison Treasurer Philip E. Lloyd Secretary Dr. Maggie Baker Executive Director Cindi Azevedo Laws Hon. Bruce Agnew Ken Alhadeff Hon. Ida Ballasiotes Hon. Cliff Bailey Peter Berliner Hon. Judith Billings Jan Bower, RN Kent Caputo Frank Chmelik Donna Christensen Chuck Coach Hon. Dow Constantine Julie Davidson Hon. Mike De Cesare Hon. Randy Dorn Hi lke Faber, MN,RN, FAAN Hon. Tom Fitzpatrick Bernie Friedman William Freund Hon. Pete Francis Roger Goodman Leslie Harris Hon. Jerry Hughes Hon. Chris Hurst Hon. Phyllis Kenney Hon. Jeanne Kohl-Welles Hon. John Ladenburg Hubert Locke, PhD Bill Mar ler Peter Mc Gough, MD Dan Mc Grady Nate Miles Hon. John Moyer, MD Tom Parker Lyle Quasim Bernie Ryan Hon. Deborah Senn Hon. Mark Sidran Don Sloma Jean Soliz Hon. Helen Sommers Hon. Brian Sonntag Scott Sotebeer Paul Stern Robert Stern Hon. Phil Talmadge Eric Trupin, MD Vickie Wallen John Arthur Wilson Judy Yu Arthur Zoloth, PharmD Pragmatic Solutions to public policy concerns As founding board members of the Rainier Institute, a non-partisan think tank that seeks pragmatic solutions to public policy concerns, we believed our organization was well suited to convene a study that examined current and adequate funding levels for our public schools. Over the past year, the Rainier Institute gathered a diverse steering committee representing a multitude of educational stakeholders to develop a vision and prototype for a model of quality education. Education has always been and remains the top priority of state government, dictated by Washington's State Constitution. In the past decade, major legislative and initiative measures have directed significant changes to our public schools. However, the current basic education allocation formula has not been substantially changed since 1977. House Bill 1209 created education reform in Washington. The state devised student learning goals with performance expectations for all students set at internationally competitive, world-class levels. While the legislation captured the educational intent and higher expectations of the Governor's Council on Education Reform and Funding, it did not address In 1993, the resources and funding that would be necessary for successful implementation of these reforms. Washington's schools have made tremendous changes in the past ten years and progressed substantially with student achievement as indicated by improved Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) scores. We believe developing a link between adequate funding and student achievement is critical to continued improvement and accountability in Washington's public schools. We strongly believe providing a true quality education for our students essential for Washington's robust future. that a financial model Our study creates a model for quality education can be used by policy makers, parents, teachers, school board members, and taxpayers to make effective decisions at the state and local level. We are pleased with this report and hope that it will spur debate and help create adequate and lasting funding for all public schools in Washington. Sincerely, 9-40(4-04. Judith Billings Chair, K-12 Education Committee Booth Gardner President Emeritus a BEST COPY MINABLE 4 Ad ExecuCcnvm This project was undertaken in order to determine the resources required to guarantee all Washington students a quality education. The project began in December 2001 with representatives from 18 Washington organizations, agencies and universities. The recommendations presented in this report are intended to initiate a dialog about what constitutes an adequate education in the state of Washington. The costs are determined by means of three Prototype Schools that enumerate the programs and services that constitute an adequate education and the student learning that would result. Washington's schools face increasing challenges. Enrollment has increased by more than 100,000 since 1993, and many more students bring special challenges with them. Although the state budget for K-12 schools has increased due to enrollment gains, these dollars have not kept up with inflation. By one measure, state funding lagged behind inflation by $535 per student from 1993-94 to 2000-01. In 1993, House Bill 1209 created high performance expectations for all students. The stakes are rising for students in the class of 2008, who must now pass required state tests. New federal rules contained in the No Child Left Behind legislation establish additional consequences for schools that do not improve student performance at an acceptable rate. The goal of the "What Will It Take" project is to determine the staff, programs, and materials that must be provided if schools are going to offer a quality education that (1) enables students to meet the standards set in HB 1209, (2) enables schools in the state of Washington to meet federal standards, and (3) is consistent with what Washingtonians want from their schools. Adequacy is defined as providing an amount of funds sufficient for schools to enable to meet federal, state, or at least all but the most profoundly challenged all students and district proficiency standards within the context of a high-quality overall education. The work groups and Steering Committee engaged in the following four-step process to create the Washington Quality Education Model (WQEM). They: 1. Developed a vision of a quality education 2. Identified the elements and components of a quality education 3. Specified the indicators of school quality 4. Designated performance measures and standards that could be used to determine if schools met quality expectations The WQEM is an allocation model; it seeks to identify the funds that need to be allocated to public education from all state and local sources. The WQEM does not address the issue of distribution nor the apportionment of responsibility for funding between the state and local levels. The WQEM does not distinguish between local and state funds. It simply identifies the amount of money needed for a quality education. The WQEM describes a hypothetical program of instruction in three "Prototype Schools." The Prototype Schools are a reflection of best educational practice and what is known about how to improve schooling. 10 "What Will It Take" Project 9 acannges EIMOD Pantwaygse Efienntaintswg egNaarl Raise teacher, principal, assistant principal, administrative assistant, educational staff associates, and teacher salaries to the average of Far West states Create full-day kindergarten statewide at a pupil/teacher ratio of 18:1 Decrease pupil/teacher ratios in grades 1-4 from 24:1 to 21:1 Decrease pupil/teacher ratio in grade 5 from 27:1 to 24:1 Increase the certificated staff who provide additional time for students to reach standards Increase from 0.1 FTE to 0.5 FTE the building-based certificated staff whose duty it is to support instructional improvement Provide a computer for each teacher and classified staff, 1 computer per 6 students, and replace 25% of computers per year Increase the budget for texts Increase classroom equipment and materials budget Increase teacher professional development time to 10 days per certificated teacher Increase principal leadership training to 5 days per year &Kamp) lee Ereszan 1Pantevaripa heanalifie ZcIlacre The Prototype Middle School contains most of the elements included in the Prototype Elementary School plus others: Decrease overall pupil/teacher ratio from 25.6:1 to 24:1 Add 3 additional teachers in core disciplinary subjects Increase teacher leadership responsibilities and opportunities Create family resource coordinator position Create volunteer coordinator position Increase campus monitors atalklotgaz MCNIDIM 1Pantattma Men alana=11 The Prototype High School contains most of the elements included in the Prototype Elementary and Middle Schools plus others: Add teachers in core disciplinary subjects Increase ESL certificated staff Decrease special education pupil/teacher ratio from 30:1 to 18:1 Increase staffing for additional special student programs Increase number of counselors to reach a pupil/counselor ratio of 250:1 Increase extracurricular activities 11 1© Washington Quality Education Model The following chart illustrates per-pupil expenditures under four models and the percent increase of the WQEM over the "Current Service Level" (CSL) State Allocations Elementary Middle High School $5,112 $4,687 $4,663 CSL (State Allocations and Local Funds) WQEM (w/salary increases) $6,113 $5,615 $5,914 $8,393 $7,830 $7,753 WQEM (w/o salary increases) $7,950 $7,451 $7,379 % increase from CSL to % increase from CSL to WQEM WQEM w/o wlsalary increases 37% 39% 31% salary increases 30% 33% 25% The WQEM identifies the performance measures to determine the degree to which the Prototype Schools achieve the goals of the vision statement. These measures include WASL assessments, parent satisfaction surveys, dropout rates, college attendance rates, employer surveys, reports of harrassment or intimidation of students, measures of parent and community involvement and satisfaction. The performance measures establish accountability for schools to reach high levels of accomplishment when funded adequately. The next steps to take to begin implementation of the Washington Quality Education Model are as follows: Step 1: Assign responsibilities to a commission to manage the WQEM Step 2: Develop the data sources necessary to track the effects of adequate funding on school operations Step 3: Constitute a blue-ribbon task force to examine school funding sources and distribution BEST COPY AV 12 "What Will It Take" Project an This project was undertaken in order to determine the resources required to guarantee all Washington students a quality education. This needs to be known because education has become the gateway to full participation in the economic, social, and political systems for essentially all students. During the past decade, the state has adopted common standards and assessments for all students to help ensure they are ready for full participation in society. Adequate education funding is necessary if all students are to have an equitable opportunity to master the standards, perform well on state tests, and lead successful and fulfilling lives as productive citizens. The recommendations presented in this report are intended to initiate a dialog about what constitutes an adequate education in the state of Washington. This project will be successful if it stimulates debate and discussion regarding the concept of adequate funding and a definition of adequacy, and if it leads to action that sets the state on a course toward implementing an adequacy-based model. In that spirit, this report presents a detailed framework that can serve as the starting point for considering the notion of adequate educational funding that leads to a quality education for all students. A. New aileilftil=d0 c nn guallile eallnacsaleaan Ten years ago, the passage of the Education Reform Act (ESHB 1209) created the promise that all children would achieve at high levels. The Education Reform Act redefines what it means to be a successful learner and has effectively moved the education system from an input model, where a diploma might have been little more than proof of attendance, to an output model, where student performance is measured against rigorous statewide standards. The purpose of an adequacy-funding model is to support an output model in which students, teachers and schools are held to high standards of student achievement and provided the resources necessary to reach these standards. 1 Elements of this section have been adapted from Pascall, G. (2002). Realities of Education Funding in Washington State. Seattle, Washington: The League of Education Voters. fl Washington Quality Education Model 1.3 Implicit in the 1993 Education Reform Act was a call to restructure the way schools are funded. Unfortunately, that restructuring has not yet occurred, and many within education claim this omission creates a cloudy future for the state's reform efforts: if funding is not aligned with the identified needs of education reform, it will be very difficult for schools to achieve these higher expectations. Many thoughtful observers and staunch school supporters believe that schools have plenty of money. In fact, the total dollar amount for K-12 education has increased over the past decade, particularly with passage of two recent education initiatives, which provide funding for classroom enhancements and educator cost-of-living-adjustments. However, school officials around the state continue to make cuts to budgets and programs. However, school officials around the state continually publicize cuts to budgets and programs. Somehow, there appears to be a disconnect between the perceptions of school funding and the realities of school funding. Headcount Enrollment: K-12 1040000 1000000 994428 960000 0 . K-12 Enrollment 8 920000 to a) 880000 840000 800000 199293 199394 199495 1995- 1996- 199798 97 96 School Year 199899 1999- 200001 00 There is no simple answer to the complex issue of school finance, but the most basic answer to the question contains these elements: more students, higher costs with less buying power, and greater expectations. Wiranstalkmnernat iintenseszes9 mare canellesterag etuflennt iiyocar K-12 enrollment has increased since 1993, adding 100,000 students to the system. In addition, the student body has grown more diverse: there have been increases in the proportion and number of children living in poverty, children with special education needs, children learning English, and children of single parents. Although overall funding has increased, so have the challenges schools face as they strive to help an increasingly diverse student population meet state standards. 14 "What Will It Take" Project 11.33 mailvicua gamnaustniz liDlowae Although the state budget for K-12 schools has increased due to enrollment gains, these dollars have not kept up with inflation. In fact, by one measure state funding lagged behind inflation by $535 per student from 1993-94 to 2000-01. This loss against inflation has meant that spending power has gone down, even though there appears to be more money available to schools. As inflation reduces the effective per-student funding, schools must either cut programs, find needed money locally or cause reductions in K-12 employee pay in real terms. The challenge of finding and keeping quality teachers has forced many school districts to reprioritize and trim program spending. The loss of teachers to other higher paying states or reduced teacher supply is a very real problem districts must address without quality teachers, even the best programs and curricula are useless. It is important to remember that at the same time that new enrollment, inflation, and teacher quality squeezes school budgets, expectations for students and schools are increasing. Schools have responded to the challenge admirably with the resources they have available. For example, the graphic above shows that in reading, 65.6% of 4th graders have met or exceeded the standard and over a quarter are just one step below passing. Reading WASL: Percentage of Students at Each Performance Level 100% 90% 80% 44.0% 70% 0 Level 4 (above standard) 60% O Level 3 (meeting standard) 50% 15.2% 40% CI Level 2 (nearly at standard) !navel 1 (below standard) Percent Not Tested 30% 20.0% 20% 10% 0% 4th Grade 7th Grade 10th Grade Hem exuastacanageas The stakes are rising for students in the class of 2008, who must pass the required state learning and performance standards or risk not graduating. Schools that do not improve student performance at an acceptable rate face possible consequences from federal rules contained in the No Child Left Behind legislation and state accountability regulations. The goal of having quality schools for all students cannot be done cheaply. This goal has real costs associated with it. The state has committed to the ideal that all children can and will learn at higher levels. The state's economy is now grounded in the assumption that children will learn at higher levels. The policy discussion must move from the annual battle over how much or how little to provide schools in the state budget to a broader conversation about how much money is really needed to achieve state goals and to create schools that make all Washingtonians proud. BEST COPY AVARILABILIE LIS Washington Quality Education Model 5 (w) ua What is meant by adequacy? Where did the concept come from? How is adequacy different from equity? What other states are attempting to make their education funding adequate? What are the basic models for establishing adequacy funding? The following section answers these important questions. Whasit 'Ls gamma salteapnalae, For most of the 20th century, the focus of school finance research and policy was on equitable school funding. The primary outcome of this focus has been the redesign of state finance systems so that they reduce disparities in per-pupil property wealth and provide additional resources for students with special needs. In the last decade, a new focal point for school finance reform has emerged. Created in tandem with the growing demand for greater school accountability, adequacy of funding has become the dominant theme of both school finance research and state education finance policy. Adequacy has been defined in several different ways. One conception is that adequacy is achieved when a "high minimum quality education" is provided for all. Adequacy can also be thought of in terms of access to opportunities and resources necessary for students to achieve particular aims and outcomes. Equity and adequacy can be distinguished in the following fashion: equity is achieved when all receive roughly the same treatment in the educational system; adequacy is achieved when each one receives appropriate treatment in the educational system in relation to need and a set of common standards of quality. In the context of this report, adequacy is defined as providing a sufficient amount of funds so that schools can to meet state, or at least all but the most profoundly challenged enable all students federal, and district proficiency standards within the context of a high-quality overall education. In other words, adequacy is not achieved by simply redirecting all existing BEST COPY AVAILABLE 16 "What Will It Take" Project ILO resources to achieving proficiency standards. Such a narrow focus would eliminate much of what has been defined as a quality education program. This conception of adequacy leads toward specific identification of the programs and services that comprise a quality education. Adequacy and quality are related, not separate, phenomena. This approach can be appealing to parents and citizens, educators, policymakers and the courts. Parents and citizens tend to have more inclusive definitions of what constitutes a quality education, and a more comprehensive approach to adequacy builds political support among these key constituent groups. Educators can support adequacy linked- to quality, comprehensive educational programs and can feel more empowered to deliver such an education. Policymakers can identify with some certainty the resources schools really need to enable students to meet standards; courts can find that states have met basic responsibilities to provide citizens equal protection under the law and to abide by state constitutions that require adequate education systems. Adequacy finance models set the stage for creating a link between funding and system performance, an elusive, long-sought goal. One recent example of a state that adopted and funded an adequacy model is Maryland, which implemented an adequacy based school funding system that promises to put $1.3 billion in new funds into schools over the next six years. The basis for determining how much money was needed was an assessment of the adequacy needs of that state's schools. In addition to Maryland, Oregon and Wyoming are at the forefront of the movement to include measures of adequacy in their school funding formulas. Wyoming's efforts were initiated in response to a court ruling, whereas Oregon was motivated by a governor who sought to apply lessons from health care policy to education reform. Despite these different paths, the models that have emerged from this process have remarkable similarities but are adapted to their specific state context. The Wyoming and Oregon models, for example, share central characteristics while also having unique elements. Both rely on the use of what are called prototype schools as the basis for ascertaining the level of resources needed, and both use these prototypes to estimate the costs (or expenditures) necessary to provide schools with those characteristics. The prototypes are not meant to standardize educational practice statewide. Rather, the prototypes determine an appropriate level of resources that the state must allocate and distribute to local, school districts to use as they see fit. Districts are, then accountable for ensuring that all students receive an education that enables them to meet specified state learning standards. Oregon's model also links the expected impact of additional funding with resulting student performance. Wyoming's model is a professional judgment approach, whereas Oregon combines both professional judgment and effective school-wide strategies models. %Vast ann tam Evaaa. 1l && onnocfiells mail develku mdcw:gascy- guIIIIIIIMME prinadelle As attractive as the adequacy goal is in principle, it is much more difficult to define in practice. However, given the relative failure of funding equalization schemes to result in comparable educations and the increasing emphasis by states on all students reaching high standards, adequacy is being pursued by an increasing number of states. In response to this increased .interest in adequacy models, education policy analysts have created over the past ten years four distinct methodologies for determining, school finance adequacy. These are: 1) economic cost function methods; 2) generalizing from costs of schools BID Washington Quality Education Model 17 that meet performance benchmarks; 3) effective school-wide strategies or programs model; 4) professional judgment approaches. Each is explained in turn. IFzeirameatie coot guannetkum avg:Drpoml[In The most technical of the four models is an econometric technique known as a cost function. This method is conceptually similar to the production function approach used to estimate the impact of resources on student achievement. In production function models, regression techniques are used to estimate the effect of additional spending on student performance, which is usually measured as the change in a standardized test score. Cost functions are, in economic terms, the "dual" of a production function. In a cost function, the desired level of student performance is included as an independent variable in the regression, and the dependent variable is a measure of expenditures per pupil. The result of the computations leads to an estimate of the funding level needed to produce the desired level of student performance, from which can be computed an estimate of the expenditure per pupil needed in the average district. The estimate must then be adjusted to accommodate differences in pupil characteristics, district conditions and educational prices across all districts in a state. Adjustments for student characteristics include providing additional funds for children with disabilities, children from low-income families or children who are English Language Learners. Adjustments for district conditions include district size, population density, and number of schools and other factors outside of the control of a school district. Finally adjustments are made for educational price differences differences in the cost of the products and services needed to operate a school. Estimates of cost functions have been made in Wisconsin, Texas, New York and Illinois. To date, this research has suggested that large urban school districts require funding levels two to three times higher than the average expenditure level for the rest of the state. Due to the complex nature of the statistical analyses required to make these cost function estimates, state policy makers and educators often have difficulty understanding how the estimate of an adequate level of expenditures was derived. Cost function analyses also do little to suggest how schools should spend their money to achieve the greatest increases in student learning. As a result, cost functions have not been used to date in the development of any state's school finance system. scansalls tilmat =set Emegennamatien ltardhantwaz GeeneamIlitfts Colman costz The method, which is being used in part by Ohio, Illinois and Mississippi, identifies districts whose students have been successful meeting state proficiency standards, and sets the adequacy level at the weighted average of the expenditures of such districts. One frequent step in this type of analysis is to eliminate outlier districts from the analysis. This often includes large city school districts, small rural districts and districts at both extremes of the property wealth per-pupil distribution in the state. As a result, without careful consideration, the adequacy level is often determined on the basis of expenditure patterns in non-metropolitan areas that are of average size and have relatively homogeneous demographic characteristics. These districts often spend below the state average. While this model has been used to estimate adequacy levels in a number of states, some argue that it is subject to considerable manipulation by policymakers. The types of adjustments needed for varying pupil and district characteristics is one potential source of mischief that could result in under or over funding different types of districts. As conceived, the model calls 18 "What Will It Take" Project 117 for using the weighted average of all the expenditures of the districts meeting the performance benchmark to determine the adequacy level. Some policymakers, however, have suggested using the average of only the bottom half of that sample, using an unweighted average, or even using the value of just the lowest expenditure district in the sample strategies that drive down the costs of adequacy but may obscure the true costs of providing an adequate education statewide. Neither this approach nor the cost function approach indicates how funds distributed to school districts would be used at the school level. They theoretically identify an adequate revenue level, but are silent on the types of educational strategies and programs that would result. The next two approaches attempt to remedy that shortcoming. Eingecttfive wIlnamledwrrtaile gangnanans co otamiNselicas aanocileil The third approach takes research findings that describe a high performance school or a comprehensive school design, identifies all the ingredients needed to implement the design's educational strategies, determines a cost for each of those ingredients, and then uses that figure to determine an adequate spending base for each school. This model identifies a set of specific educational programs and strategies that represent state-of-the-art knowledge about education effectiveness and puts a dollar figure on their costs. It combines several of the advantages of some of the other methods by drawing upon research that links strategy to student performance. It also draws upon the strategies of several comprehensive school designs, relying on the knowledge and experience of some of the best educators in the country. These models combine research on individual school improvement programs into comprehensive school wide reform strategies. By determining the resources needed to carry out these school-wide improvement strategies, a funding level can be determined using the school as the unit of analysis. Scholars identified the costs of seven school wide designs that were created by New American Schools, and in subsequent analyses, showed how, via resource reallocation, they were affordable at schools spending at the average or median level of expenditure per pupil in the country. This approach, however, did not include adequate planning and preparation time for teachers and did not standardize costs across various designs, so its cost figures are probably somewhat underestimated. IPapoiTezeilegge Dunaggrenennt avgireaseln Under the professional judgment approach, the state constitutes teams of education experts who independently identify the educational resources needed to create schools where educators have confidence that most of the students in the school will be able to meet the state established performance goals. This typically results in the development of "prototype" schools. Descriptions of the prototype schools include enrollment, staffing, and all other resources needed at the school and district level. The cost of the ingredients to produce these prototype schools are then estimated and added together to determine the adequate fiscal base for a school. These figures are adjusted on the basis of student and district characteristics as well as educational price differences. Originally developed as the Resource Cost Model, the professional judgment model was one approach used in the development of Maryland's adequacy-based finance system in 2002, and is being used in Maine as well as in Wyoming and Oregon. A number of other states have 19 IL Washington Quality Education Model i i conducted, are currently conducting, or are planning similar professional judgment studies. These states include New York, Kentucky, Montana, Nebraska, Kansas, and California. Because this approach is based upon effective educational strategies, it offers the potential for a stronger linkage between funding and results. Its major limitation is that it depends on the judgments of educational professionals to identify strategies rather than research that demonstrates an actual linkage between educational strategy or program and student Further, it provides little differentiation between strategies for the average school and strategies for schools with higher concentrations of at-risk students, second performance. language learners, or other specialized populations. C. Metllmaildlogr Toff trim Wasslin'nelstan Gatelliity lEclumtlim Maxlell The method utilized in this study is a combination of the effective school-wide program and professional judgment models. The advantage of this approach is that the recommended changes meet the dual test of being consistent with what educators believe is necessary and what has been demonstrated to be effective through research and practice. This combination of methods increases the likelihood that the adequacy model will lead to improvements in student achievement and that it is consistent with the values, history, culture, and traditions of the state's school system. This combination was utilized most recently in the state of Oregon in 1999-2003 in the development of the Oregon Quality Education Model. 20 "What Will It Take" Project 119 kt) cy ftta 2hT Was "It is the paramount duty of the state to make ample provision for the education of all children residing within its borders, without distinction or preference on account of race, color, caste, or sex." Washington State Constitution, 1889 Making ample provision for the education of all children has proven to be elusive for the state. Indeed, achieving a "general and uniform system of public schools" has been equally challenging for the legislature, which is charged with this responsibility. From the state's first attempt to support schools through a Common School Fund that derived its revenue primarily from the proceeds of the sale of federal forest land to the present, the state has had a difficult time grappling with its responsibility for school funding. .66J. Deiriumha' Ds 'ate ssIzice's noessImmerirmialiitg mold Wuras qai) aelleve ihmanas =plate The 1977 decision by Judge Robert J. Doran in Seattle v. State of Washington held the legislature responsible for "defining and giving substantive content to basic education" and for providing the necessary funding from a dependable tax source. This was necessitated by the inequalities among school districts in particular that had come into place due to the 2 Portions of this section are derived from Plecki, M. (2000). Washington's school finance reform: Moderate success and the need for improvement. Journal of Educational Finance, 25(4), 565-581. 2,0 Washington Quality Education Model 21 reliance on local operating levies. The Basic Education Act of 1977 defined basic education goals and other educational conditions, and created a formula designed to equalize funding among districts by recognizing certain categories of expenditures. The same legislature imposed the Levy Lid Act, which limited the revenue that could be raised locally. The effect of these laws was to decrease fiscal inequality among Washington districts for a period of time in the early 1980s within a framework that identified what constituted a general and uniform public school system. A subsequent 1983 decision by Judge Doran (Doran II) left the legislature with additional responsibilities to define a basic education and to set the level of funding districts receive for basic education programs. The 1987 Legislature added levy equalization aid so that high property-tax-rate districts would be guaranteed a certain level of funds from a local property tax. This, combined with the Levy Lid Act, helped maintain relative fiscal equity within the state through most of the 1980s. Since 1993, however, the legislature has at various times increased the amount that districts could collect under the levy lid while making state budget reductions, resulting in greater dependence by school districts on local operating levies. The reasons for this are complex, but the effects are relatively clear. In an era when the state began implementing common standards and assessments, its fiscal policy sent things in the opposite direction, increasing the inequality among districts as they had to rely more on local levies to fund an array of educational functions. If all school districts are to achieve comparable educational results in defined areas, a definition of the resources necessary to accomplish this goal takes on greater importance as a tool to help the state define its proper role relative to school finance policy. In 1993, House Bill 1209 created education reform in Washington. The state devised student learning goals with performance expectations for all students set at internationally competitive, world-class levels. While the legislation captured the educational intent and higher expectations from the recommendations of the Governor's Council on Education Reform and Funding, it did not address the resources and funding that would be necessary for successful implementation of these reforms. The landmark court decisions on school funding have ruled that the funding formula for public schools is not "cast in concrete" and that it is the ongoing obligation of the Legislature to review the formula as the education system evolves and changes. However, little in the funding formula has changed since 1977, while significant changes have occurred in terms of what the state expects from the education system. 2 Illeases eathincsattilson MECO= Washington's schools have made tremendous changes in the past eight years and progressed substantially with student achievement as indicated by improved scores on the Washington Assessments of Student Learning (WASL). However, based on the experience of other states, schools will begin to stall in their advancement, a phenomenon already emerging in WASL scores. Without adequate resources to support quality changes, schools and students will be unable to meet the increased expectations, as demonstrated by the fact that only 30% of students at each tested grade level meet Washington's world class standards in all four content areas. In October 2002, the Partnership for Excellence in Teaching issued a report entitled "A Great Teacher for Every Child," which stated the following: "While high standards for student learning are an important start, they don't substitute for the subject-area knowledge, 22 "What Will It Take" Project aTI teaching skill, and dedication of a well-prepared teacher who is working in a school organized for student success." The report highlighted state policies that support or hinder creating this vision. However, the Partnership for Excellence in Teaching did not attempt to quantify the costs of succeeding at "Washington's push for higher standards and improved student performance." With the passage of the reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education Act (also known as No Child Left Behind Act or NCLB), the federal government has added an overlay of new expectations and requirements. All schools are expected to make "adequate yearly progress" on student test scores or they will become subject to increasingly stringent requirements and sanctions. NCLB sets expectations that by 2014 all students will meet the learning standards set by the state. While some additional federal dollars flow to Title I schools, the ESEA does not quantify the actual costs of meeting these expectations. Washington ranks tenth in the nation in per capita income and its growth rate through much of the 1990s was the nation's third fastest. However, its public schools rank 48th in class size, and total state per pupil spending has dropped from seventh best in 1969-70 to below the national average in recent years. Washington now ranks 45th in the nation in school spending per $1,000 of per capita income based on a recent report from the U.S. Census Bureau. Yet, the Washington State Constitution declares that education is the paramount duty of the state. The people of Washington have demonstrated their support for public schools through their overwhelming support of Initiatives 728 and 732. However, while new money came to schools as a result of these initiatives, simultaneous cuts were made to funds outside the definition of basic education. This "supplanting" diluted the educational effect of these initiatives. The goal of the "What Will It Take" project is to determine the staff, programs, and materials that must be provided if schools are going to offer a quality education that (1) enables students to meet the standards set in HB 1209, (2) enables the state of Washington to meet federal standards, and (3) is consistent with what Washingtonians want from their schools. The project quantifies the costs of the resources necessary to achieve those goals and then seeks to determine the performance that will result from schools funded to an adequate level. The intent is to provide a yardstick for the investments the state will need to make to ensure that schools can meet state and federal expectations. This project provides a policy tool for decision-makers to use as they develop education budgets. It also offers clear, concrete models for a quality education, and, in the process, provides a framework for a debate in which all Washingtonians can engage. What do Washington's citizens want for and from their schools? What is the education they wish to offer the children who will become the next generation of citizens? What results can they expect from their schools in return for adequate funding? How can the state fulfill its constitutional mandate to make provisions for education the "paramount duty" of state government? What will it take to fund an adequate education for all Washington students? 23 fa Washington Quality Education Model rs. 4 o3ag k ro UM.t) of 2.11m "Wilas WEE cEtflzm" Tsoctsg1 The project began in December 2001 when representatives from 18 organizations, agencies and universities were invited to discuss possible participation in a school funding study. Participants agreed they shared an interest in determining what constituted adequate funding for schools. They chose as a starting point the Oregon Quality Education Model (OQEM) as a possible design template. Representatives from the Oregon Department of Education and the Confederation of Oregon School Administrators were invited to meet with the group to explain the genesis of the OQEM. They recommended the group meet with David Conley, lead researcher for the OQEM, which the group did at a third meeting where Conley explained the model in greater detail and outlined the process that was followed to create it. At the conclusion of this meeting, participants agreed that they should develop a similar model for Washington. The Rainier Institute, a new public policy think-tank in Washington, was invited to serve as the convening organization. In April 2002, the Rainier Institute officially agreed to become the convener of what was named the "What Will It Take?" project. The organizational structure for the project included the following: 1. A steering committee representing a broad cross-section of education stakeholders; 2. Work groups charged with developing the vision of a quality education, characteristics of effective schools, elements and components of the quality education, an analysis of current school spending, cost assumptions for a quality education, and performance measures; 3. Education and fiscal consultants responsible for assisting with research design, identifying best practices and conducting cost modeling. 24 "What Will It Take" Project 223 From June 2002 through December 2002, the Steering Committee met monthly to provide overall guidance and direction, review the products from the work groups, and consult on the final report. Within that time frame, the consultants met with the steering committee and numerous work groups to complete the tasks necessary to create an adequacy model. Pearnilengetitang megaadastileans3 Academic, Achievement and Accountability Commission (AAA Commission) Association of Washington School Principals (AWSP) Latino/a Educational Achievement Project (LEAP) Office of Financial Management (OFM) Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) Parent Teacher Association (PTA) Public School Employees (PSE) University of Washington College of Education Washington Association for Colleges of Teacher Education (WACTE) Washington Association of School Administrators (WASA) Washington Education Association (WEA) Washington State School Directors Association (WSSDA) Washington School Personnel Association (WSPA) Mow tfine melleauunsacy frrneallell vials cogaztouncted The research method used to identify the elements and components of an adequate education and its costs is a modified version of the Delphi method. This methodology has a 50-year history of use in the social sciences as a tool for determining when consensus exists among experts on a topic. The model operates by soliciting the opinion of a range of experts on a particular question or issue. The results are compiled and reviewed by the original group and, in some cases, a reference group. Changes are made based on comments received during the reviews. The process continues until the suggested changes are inconsequential or idiosyncratic in nature. At this point, the method suggests that agreement has been reached. In this case the method was used to identify the vision for a quality education, the elements and components that would be present in schools to achieve these components, and the performance measures that could best be used to measure achievement of the model's goal of a quality education for all students, consistent with the vision statement. Work groups met to formulate recommendations and then to review them as revisions were made. The Steering Committee served as the reference group, providing an additional perspective on the recommendations being developed. 3 See Appendix A for a complete list of participants and meetings. 248 Washington Quality Education Model 25 77 .01zs CornoCanimL Ullne ammo-caw, gammas ges* allevevwfung ante WaolduriVegn hi 1 t Idunezatenz Monlelt The work groups and Steering Committee engaged in four steps to develop a quality education model for Washington. Work groups were charged to: 1. Develop a vision of a quality education 2. Identify the elements and components of a quality education 3. Specify the indicators of school quality 4. Designate performance measures and standards that could be used to determine if schools met quality expectations BD3Veilag Vikisauna ea al axamany Eafinageatilom What is the vision of a quality education for all of Washington's children? The vision includes statements that encompass what Washingtonians value in the education of their children, what the state considers important goals for the system, and what young people need to be happy, productive citizens. The vision statements are designed to be specific enough to lead to the generation of Elements and Components of a prototype school that can be costed out and measured in terms of the educational results that will occur if adequate funding is provided. 26 EST COPY AVAILEBILE "What Will It Take" Project 2 lidemaresi tam BDIeregains COIMEICSIMIDS1 eg 'aDas 4 sellnalgte trite UG:InEZNILTS =all aranolgst apttailliV mailmnesittleDm '11113 ellesinerm'agliers) arnlialld11139 utall MEN Reagettram Zell= Zs Prototype Schools are the mechanism by which the costs of a quality education are calculated. Elements and Components describe the ways money is spent within each prototype. The total per-pupil expenditures for the prototypes are multiplied by the number of students in the state to generate a total amount needed to fund a quality education. Three sets of prototype schools, each comprising an elementary, middle and high school prototype, were developed to identify different types of fiscal support. 1. Baseline 1: State funding only. These three prototype schools describe what can be purchased based on state funding only. 2. Baseline 2 (or Current Service Level): State funding and local levies. These three prototype schools represent the current service level in Washington schools. 3. Quality Education Model: These three prototype schools describe the education students would receive that is designed to achieve the vision of a quality education described in section 1 above. This report compares the Baseline 2 (Current Service Level) prototype schools with the Quality Education Model prototype schools. This comparison offers the best view of the differences between current schools and what education would look like with a quality education model. Prototype Schools have assumptions that define them in general terms. Examples of assumptions: Size of student population Geographic location of school Size of district in which school is located Condition of the school building Socioeconomic profile of community Proportion of student population that is designated special education Proportion of the student population that is designated English language learner. Ogsgreg The lignalemaatem crig Z;(gasaull annotIllity The indicators of school quality describe how effectively and efficiently the Prototype Schools are functioning to provide a quality education. They include many measures from research and best practice that, if followed by a school, are likely to lead to enhanced student learning and a positive learning environment. The Indicators of School Quality suggest the degree to which the funds allocated via the Elements and Components will result in the outcomes envisioned in the vision statement. In other words, schools that do these things are more likely to obtain positive results with the funds provided than schools that do not do these things. 27 24 Washington Quality Education Model tae frae nerercommince Mestainane mall Zaarackanis 'a= lfin taxa mead ft fiatleinagy ttllne Gila:gave VD wateTha T.D.ne 1PoaraargginD3 ZThaoyells mefizileve Va alluagalliV smile zet ke 'ateerfn lit tline VateDITa The Washington Quality Education Model must lead to measurable outcomes. Some of these will be student-learning outcomes; others may be measures of program participation; others may be behaviors subsequent to completion of public education; still others may be surveys or measures of attitudes. These are developed for each of the three Prototype Schools and change based on any changes made in the Elements and Components, Assumptions, and Indicators of School Quality. In other words, if change occurs in the programs offered in the school, the conditions of the school and school community, or the efficiency level at which the Prototype Schools are functioning, the results expected from the Prototype Schools also change. The scores achieved by the Prototype Schools on the Performance Measures and Standards are forecast out into the future to indicate the amount of time necessary for schools to go from their current level of functioning to the levels specified by the Performance Measures and Standards. These graphs indicate the effects of the Quality Education Model over time on the school system. Examples of possible Performance Measures and Standards include: 1. Scores on WASL assessments 2. Measures of student participation rates in programs designed to develop their creative and expressive abilities combined with an external quality review of these programs 3. Measures of student completion rates and of matriculation rates into postsecondary education and the workplace 4. Student performance on tasks designed to measure abstract reasoning; student performance in programs such as science fairs and Odyssey of the Mind 5. Survey of students to determine their attitudes toward their teachers and other adults in their school 6. Reports of harassment and intimidation and student surveys to determine incidents of discrimination and disrespect 7. Measures of parent and community engagement and satisfaction with, and knowledge of, public schools. 28 "What Will It Take" Project 27 crfilm Was ticaacb.'ogu ®1,1a The WQEM describes a hypothetical program of instruction in a set of "Prototype Schools." The structure and program of Prototype Schools are designed in ways that enable the schools to achieve the goals included in the vision statement. The components of the model are specifically selected so that they support the goals of a quality education for all students, as defined in the WQEM vision statement. The purpose of the prototype schools is to determine how much money is needed in the state for local school districts to provide an adequate education to all students and to achieve the goals contained in the vision of an adequate education. While the Prototype Schools clearly suggest one way to deliver instruction consistent with the vision, districts and schools retain the right to organize their programs in any fashion they see fit. However, the local school is still expected to function as least as well as the prototype is assumed to function. In other words, a school receiving the level of funding identified by the Prototype Schools as adequate could organize and deliver instruction in the manner thought was best for its students, but the school would still be expected to meet performance levels consistent with those anticipated by the model. The model is therefore an attempt to bridge the gap between centralized decisions about funding and decentralized decisions about programs while still retaining some level of accountability for funds allocated and some level of local control over educational program decisions. R.. alrigumatillean tam IRTerisaVipa 0;g1hissll R.gpipanexat The WQEM is organized around the school as the unit of analysis. Because a quality education is really the sum total of all of the school's programs, it makes sense to consider quality at the school level. Furthermore, state assessment scores are reported by school, providing at least one externally comparable measure of quality. The effects of changes in funding can be demonstrated at a school level very clearly. Such effects are often lost when 29 2CD Washington Quality Education Model district-level budgets are analyzed. Looking at schools rather than districts allows policy makers, educators, and parents to understand more clearly and precisely the real effects of changes in funding on the day-to-day operation of schools. Research on educational improvement indicates that schools are the proper unit of study. While individual teachers often perform heroically, their gains can be wiped out if other teachers within the building are not aligning their efforts in a similar fashion. Schools are cultures where people shape their behavior to norms and expectations. Extensive evidence exists that schools that are able to create coherent cultures and aligned programs see more significant and systematic gains in student learning. For these reasons, a quality education model focuses on prototype schools. The Prototype Schools do not necessarily reflect precisely any individual school because the prototypes are an amalgam of characteristics, programs, and assumptions. The Prototype School Approach is successful if, on balance, the Prototype Schools are broadly representative of the challenges Washington schools face. In this fashion, the Prototype Schools can be used for the purpose of estimating overall education funding needs. The Prototype Schools are a reflection of current educational practice and what is known about how best to improve schooling and offer a quality education based on that knowledge base. It may be possible to develop prototypes that are radical alternatives for redesigning public education. Such prototypes would have different cost levels associated with them. They will also contain many more assumptions about the changes necessary for them to be incorporated into the system. The approach used here of building off current practice and knowledge is somewhat more conservative but requires fewer assumed changes in order to generalize findings to the entire education system. It may be necessary to add some case-specific prototypes eventually to account for two types of outlier schools. One is rural schools; the other is high-poverty schools, particularly those in urban contexts. Extensive work has been done in the state of Oregon to define both of these specialized prototypes, and the two Oregon prototypes could be incorporated at a later date into the Washington model to estimate better the costs of these two types of schools. While addition of these two prototypes will result in an increase in the estimated costs, the increase is likely to be of a modest nature, if the Oregon prototypes are any indication. Ann anktmesdevira ireocile119 wit al astalbaretara made]] The Prototype Schools help identify the amount of money needed statewide to fund education adequately. In this sense, the WQEM is an allocation model; it seeks to identify the funds that need to be allocated to public education from all sources, state and local. But the WQEM does not address the issue of distribution nor the issue of the apportionment of responsibility for funding between the state and local levels. This aspect of the model can be confusing to veteran educators and policymakers who are accustomed to thinking in terms of state general funding and local operating levies. The WQEM does not distinguish between local and state funds. It simply identifies the amount of money needed for a quality education. This does not mean that distribution issues are unimportant. In fact, a model such as this indirectly brings to the fore the system used to distribute educational funds. If the state moves in the direction of an adequacy model of funding, it will most likely have to reconsider its distribution methods and the entire issue of state versus local responsibility for school funding. This larger debate is kept separate from this report. However, it would be 30 "What Will It Take" Project 211;9 disingenuous not to acknowledge that an adequacy approach to funding will bring these issues to the forefront for serious consideration. COSIO:S3 Melt emannarnftiel §®m 'Onr .nne rensilell The Prototype Schools do not take into account capital costs. These are considered to remain a local issue. Educators will rightly point out that the Prototype Schools have many assumptions that would require capital expenditures, and that the WQEM does not address the issue of how local districts would find the resources to address capital needs. This is a valid criticism. Once again, the rationale is that the scope of the capital costs issue is broad enough to justify a separate report to address it. The model does not yet take into account federal funds or ESD support to local districts. The Prototype Schools do not reflect the range of diversity or special situations that exist in reality within the state. There is no compensating factor for poverty in particular. Models have been developed that take such differences into account, but, for simplicity's sake, they are not included in this report, which is intended to demonstrate and illustrate the concept of an adequacy model. Finally, the model does not include costs of other related factors that affect quality education. Most important among these are the costs for programs such as universal pre-school and high-quality teacher and administrator preparation programs. eipadisall ealluncederra asseamiglaras The model assumes a new method for coping with high-cost special education students. In this method, students who cost more than four times the average per-pupil cost are identified as being beyond the ability of local districts to fund, and the state pays their actual expenses out of a centralized fund beyond the 4X factor, which the local district pays. In essence, the state provides a stop-loss insurance policy for local districts. This is necessary to do when constructing the Prototype Schools because the presence of one high-cost special education student in a prototype school would skew the costs. The stop-loss notion is also an important one in an adequacy-based system because it helps ensure that no school or district is at a significant disadvantage simply because it happens to enroll one or more high-cost special education student. IB. Wnstenz epg ne WralEN It is important to emphasize that the vision of a quality education is not necessarily the same as the vision of an ideal education. The definition of adequate is not automatically the same as the definition of excellent. An adequate education in the current context of schooling, however, does have many facets associated with it that go beyond a level of minimal competency or "the basics." What is emphasized in an adequate education is the ability of students to make a successful transition to a postsecondary or work environment at the conclusion of their education and to have the tools to do well in that environment. An adequate education is also one in which students are allowed to grow and mature in positive ways and in which they have the opportunity to develop their full potential. The vision that describes a quality education is extrapolated from what is currently expected from schools and therefore does not necessarily represent an ideal education. 31 BO Washington Quality Education Model The two documents that best define the dimensions of a quality education as specified by the Washington Legislature are the Basic Education Act and ESHB 1209. Language from relevant sections of each follows and creates the context for the Washington Quality Education Model: RCW 28A. 150.210 The goal of the Basic Education Act for the schools of the state of Washington set forth in this chapter shall be to provide students with the opportunity to become responsible citizens, to contribute to their own economic well-being and to that of their families and communities, and to enjoy productive and satisfying lives. To these ends, the goals of each school district, with the involvement of parents and community members, shall be to provide opportunities for all students to develop the knowledge and skills essential to: Read with comprehension, write with skill, and communicate effectively and responsibly in a variety of ways and settings. Know and apply the core concepts and principles of mathematics; social, physical and life sciences; civics and history; arts; and health and fitness. Think analytically, logically, and creatively, and to integrate experience and knowledge to form reasoned judgments and solve problems. Understand the importance of work and how performance, effort, and decisions directly affect future career and educational opportunities. RCW 28A.150.211 (1994) Values and traits recognized. The legislature also recognizes that certain basic values and character traits are essential to individual liberty, fulfillment, and happiness. However, these values and traits are not intended to be assessed or be standards for graduation. The legislature intends that local communities have the responsibility for determining how these values and character traits are learned as determined by consensus at the local level. These values and traits include the importance of: Honesty, integrity, and trust; Respect for self and others; Responsibility for personal actions and commitments; Self-discipline and moderation; Diligence and a positive work ethic; Respect for law and order; Healthy and positive behavior; and Family as the basis of society. ESHB 1209, Sec. 1. The legislature finds that student achievement in Washington must be improved to keep pace with societal changes, changes in the workplace, and an increasingly competitive international economy. To increase student achievement, the legislature finds that the state of Washington needs to develop a public school system that focuses more on the educational 32 "What Will It Take" Project VI performance of students, that includes high expectations for all students, and that provides more flexibility for school boards and educators in how instruction is provided. The legislature further finds that improving student achievement will require: Establishing what is expected of students, with standards set at internationally competitive levels; Parents to be primary partners in the education of their children, and to play a significantly greater role in local school decision making; Students taking more responsibility for their education; Time and resources for educators to collaboratively develop and implement strategies for improved student learning; Making instructional programs more relevant to students' future plans; All parties responsible for education to focus more on what is best for all students; and An educational environment that fosters mutually respectful interactions in an atmosphere of collaboration and cooperation. Using these legislative documents as framing concepts, the Steering Committee adopted the following language to define the vision of a quality education in the State of Washington: The vision of a quality education begins with schools that work in partnership with parents and community members to ensure that all children thrive and have an opportunity to develop their full potential. These schools address students' different ways of learning so that students consistently achieve the state learning goals and Essential Academic Learning Requirements. Each child is able to develop the healthy, positive self-image necessary for academic success and productive citizenship in an atmosphere that is free from fear and intimidation. These schools are places that create a sense of belonging and an appreciation of diversity while reducing inequality among students. Competent and qualified adults who are genuinely concerned about children model positive behaviors that foster a pervasive culture of learning, respect, and caring between and among adults and children alike. The ultimate result of the education children receive in these schools is that all students are able to make successful transitions to the next stage of their lives. Co Unsariesactteciletficis annaley Sekoolls The Characteristics of Quality Schools create a framework for judging how effectively and efficiently the Prototype Schools are functioning. This is important to do because it is not enough simply to specify the resources needed to offer a quality education program. If a school is functioning poorly, increases in resources alone are not likely to lead to improvement. Conversely, schools that are highly effective on the Characteristics of Quality Schools can achieve remarkable results when increased resources are provided to them. The Characteristics of Quality Schools serve to define a series of organizational conditions that interact with resources as specified in the elements and components of the Prototype Schools. 33 332 Washington Quality Education Model 1 Therefore, they determine the educational results the Prototype Schools will produce. The Characteristics of Quality Schools are not a vision statement, but a set of propositions stated in terms that can be measured. They specify organizational processes and functioning that are derived from research and are associated with improved academic results. The way the Characteristics of Quality Schools work in relation to the Prototype Schools is that assumptions are made regarding the degree to which the Prototype Schools meet the criteria stated in the Characteristics of Quality Schools. Based on these assumptions and in combination with the elements and components specified for the Prototype Schools, one can establish the performance to be expected from the Prototype Schools at various funding levels. All factors affecting student achievement and school functioning are not under the control of schools or of the WQEM. State directives and district policies, for example, have an effect on program delivery at the school level. Within this limitation, the Characteristics of Quality Schools serve as a reliable set of practices and policies that allow schools to have the greatest effect on student learning in the areas where they do have control. The Characteristics of Quality Schools are derived from two primary sources; 1) a wide range of educational research conducted over the past 35 years commonly referred to as the "effective schools research," 2) recent studies of organizational effectiveness in areas such as teaching quality, parent involvement, and the interaction between state policy and school practices. Specific citations supporting the research base underlying each statement are contained in Appendix B. 1. Clear and shared focus: Everyone in the school community has a clear, shared focus on student achievement in a positive learning environment. This focus, or vision, is used to guide decision-making and allocation of resources in the building. 2. High standards and expectations: Teachers and staff believe that all students can learn. Teachers operate under the assumption that they can teach all students. The school enacts high expectations for all students as reflected in the structure and content of the instructional program. 3. Effective school leadership: High-performing schools require principals who have a deep craft knowledge of effective instruction and are able to coach teachers accordingly. In this context, principals advocate, nurture, and sustain a school culture in which all adults are involved in decision-making and share responsibility for student learning. Leadership is broadly developed in these schools. 4. Safe, supportive learning environment: Students feel secure at school and in the classroom. Students know adults in the school care about them. Instruction is designed to promote student self-confidence, their respect for self and others, and connection with other learners. 5. High levels of parent and community involvement: Schools create opportunities for parents to be involved as partners in their children's education. Members of the business community and public agencies are actively engaged in activities to support student learning. An active effort is made to share information on the school's programs and performance on a variety of measures. Parents are involved in decisions about school programs. 34 "What Will It Take" Project BB 6. High levels of collaboration and communication among adults who work and volunteer in the school: The school has well-established channels, activities, and norms that maximize interaction among adults. This interaction leads to regular exchanges of information regarding individual students, improvements in the instructional program and the climate of the school. 7. Continuous adjustment and adaptation of teaching and learning: Teachers use formal and informal information on student learning to make changes and improvements in the instructional program and classroom teaching. 8. Curriculum, instruction, and assessment aligned with standards: Curriculum, instruction, and classroom-based assessments are aligned with the Essential Academic Learning Requirements. Communication and planning systems operate to align the school's instructional program within the school across grade levels and between schools from elementary to middle and middle to high school. 9. Focused, effective professional development: The school sponsors and facilitates an ongoing program of adult learning connected to the school's goals. The program is designed to improve the individual and collective skills of all staff in ways that enhance their ability to improve student learning. 10. High teacher and teaching quality: Teachers have content knowledge and instructional skills that enable them to teach to the state standards effectively. Teachers are able to adapt their instruction to the students in their classes and know when and how to access appropriate resources and specialists when necessary. When teachers make decisions about the instructional materials and methods, they utilize research whenever possible as a key reference point. 11. Data systems that enable staff to make decisions to improve student learning and success: The school has a user-friendly, convenient system for making a wide range of data on student performance, curriculum, and instruction available directly to staff and, where appropriate, to parents and the community. This information includes cumulative student-level data as well as system-level information that can be disaggregated by student subgroup and is used regularly to set goals, to assess school progress, and to allocate resources. 12. Policies that support school quality and allow flexibility, innovation, and adaptability of educational practice: School boards, superintendents, and central offices develop coherent policies that help schools as .they seek to achieve state and local goals. Decision making authority is decentralized appropriately to allow schools to have effects on student learning in areas where schools do have control. Everyone in the school system is accountable for the achievement of school goals. lIDo Ellensnania:s ComegcDrinerr= The elements and components define the programs, materials, and staffing present in the prototype schools. They serve to operationalize the vision. An element is defined as a set of functions or activities that are important to the school's ability to offer an instructional program. Components are subsets of elements. Components allow elements to be broken into smaller, more understandable parts and to understand better how funds are distributed. 35 Ds Washington Quality Education Model and its components of staffing core staffing Below is an example of a program element in levels for Kindergarten, grades 1-3, and grades 4-5. Other certified staffing positions would be areas such as art and music, special education, and instructional improvement contained in another element. This example shows how the model makes explicit the allocation of each level of core staff. For each Element: Core staffing component, the number of staff is specified in an additional column. This level of detail helps define clearly what a quality education entails in terms of staff and programs. Component: Kindergarten Grades 1-3 Grades 4-5 IPangresaren ItEllanerraz mane CADMIEDIZAWAS ag *an CaeiGaz The costs for each component and element were calculated from the following five sources: 1) a survey of Washington school districts representing approximately 11 percent of the students in the state; 2) research on effective educational practices; 3) data from publications of the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction; 4) data from Washington education professional associations; 5) experts from Washington school districts and schools. These sources were also used in developing certain assumptions about Prototype Schools and how they would best be organized and funded. Research on effective educational practices helped inform assumptions about optimum class size and about additional time needed to bring students to standard. OSPI data were used in calculating enrollment figures, in developing Prototype School assumptions, and in determining average salaries. The Washington Association of School Administrators and the Washington School Personnel Association provided data on average salaries for administrators and support staff, respectively. The Washington Education Association provided data on average teacher salaries and teacher experience. Experts from Washington schools, including members of the Steering Committee and the working groups, provided information on specific school functions and costs in areas for which data were not well enough developed. In addition, these experts reviewed the model at various points to ensure that the prototype schools represented the manner in which actual schools function. Ilinnelleatfts kamagnsygnenno sailvacue .4ne Tostagripa flit In order to design prototype schools, it is necessary to establish underlying assumptions about the nature of these schools, the challenges they face, and the context in which they are located. An example is teacher experience. As the assumption about the experience level of teachers used in the school changes, so do the costs. Underlying assumptions describe how efficiently and effectively the school is functioning. For example, principal leadership has been shown to be critically important, so it is necessary to assume that the principals at Prototype Schools are capable and competent to lead a comprehensive improvement effort designed to enable more students to meet standards. If principals are not able to do this, the likelihood of improvement diminishes dramatically regardless of funding increases. 36 "What Will It Take" Project 336 The WQEM also makes assumptions about how efficient the Prototype Schools are in their use of resources. If schools are inefficient, they will require much larger amounts of resources. The assumptions identified in Table A provide a context for understanding what the Prototype Schools look like. nable 6YM UratUarlyErag A.ssiman Assumption: war :DA ?rota:6w egkoollz Elementary Prototype K-5 School size (state average) Source: Figure 3, Organization and Financing of Public Schools, 2002, OSPI Centralized services available to school Age of building Source: State Board of Education, 1/22/2002 Average teacher experience in district Source: LEAP (Legislative Evaluation and 429 11.9 years 11.9 years 11.6 years (Bi-modal (Bi-modal distribution) distribution) BA +135 Fully certificated and properly assigned Fully certificated and properly assigned (Bi-modal distribution) Source: Expert panel recommendation Classified staff qualifications Source: Expert panel recommendation Fully qualified and properly assigned 6:1 6:1 6:1 13.8% 12.6% 11.6% 9.3% 4.3% 3.7% Percent ofstudents eligible for free/reduced lunch Source: OSPI School Apportionment Services Alignment of curriculum, instruction, assessment within school Source: Expert panel assumptions Parent involvement Source: Expert panel assumptions Training to implement state reforms Source: Expert panel assumptions 31% Teachers work together across grade level, share strategies and resources. Vertical alignment (from grade to grade and level to level) adequate to allow smooth student transition. Involvement in Support for students Support for students classrooms, support at to attend, do to attend, do home; attendance at homework; homework; school events, attendance at school attendance at school conferences events, conferences events, conferences Teachers and administrators have the knowledge and expertise necessary to implement state reform. Training is integrated into ongoing, required professional development NOT COPY AVM I 37 24) Washington Quality Education Model High School Prototype 9-12 954 School receives services and support from central office and/or ESD Approximately 35 years Accountability Program Committee) Teacher qualifications Source: Estimate based on LEAP data Administrator qualifications Students per computer Source: Expert panel recommendation Percent special education students Source: SPI December 2000 federal childcount report Percent English language learners Source: Total Enrollment From State Caseload Forecast Council, spread across grades per Table 3-4 of SPI January 2002 Annual Bilingual Instruction Program Report. Middle School Prototype 6-8 639 A IV Disposition toward reforms Source: Expert panel assumptions School culture Source: Expert panel assumptions Principal leadership skills Source: Expert panel assumptions Principal management skills Source: Expert panel assumptions Uses of data to improve student learning Source: Expert panel assumptions District capacity to support schools Source: Expert panel assumptions District policies as a tool to help reform & improvement Source: Expert panel assumptions Teachers and administrators agree with reform goals and their focus on student learning. Both groups are experiencing challenges as they implement reforms. Secondary, school support is somewhat more uneven. Professional collegial relationships focus on creating an environment that supports academic achievement. Students feel safe and supported and are able to focus on academic achievement Capable of creating an effective learning/teaching environment. Strong. Able to lead and direct the activities and programs necessary to ensure student/teacher success. Frequently used, appropriately disaggregated and directed at instructional improvement. Capable central office support and leadership. District allocates resources equitably to support student needs. Policies support flexibility at the school site to create programs that enable the vision of a quality education to be achieved. erfor ranee ime sures A quality education model is about results, not just programs. For schools to be judged under such a model, the state must identify measures that can determine the degree to which schools are fulfilling their responsibility to achieve the vision of a quality education if provided adequate resources. Many possible measures can be used to determine success and establish accountability. The following chart contains examples of how performance could be gauged once adequate resources were provided. The chart considers how each aspect of the vision statement might be judged. The results presented here are based on responses of members of the work groups and Steering Committees. Finalizing the performance measures and standards will require extensive additional involvement to select the correct measures and the all-important performance standard for each measure. What a quality education model makes clear is that new data systems are necessary for gauging how well schools are performing relative to clearly established expectations and standards. IPerformanee measures for tine WOIERf The following chart contains the various dimensions of the visions statement. Under each dimension a number of possible measures are presented for assessing the performance of schools in achieving the vision. Each possible measure is accompanied by an average rating of its potential use. The ratings presented are those that received the highest scores from members of the working groups and Steering Committee. 4= essential 3= desirable 2= useful 1= luxury or not terribly useful BEST COPY AVARLE3113. 38 "What Will It Take" Project B7 1. Partnerships with Parents and Community Members Mean: a. levy passage rate 3.5 b. satisfaction survey 2.9 c. school improvement plan development components 2.8 d. meaningful involvement of parents of SCDM 2.8 e. PTA involvement 2.8 f. knowledge of parents about the school and reform issues 2.8 g. time (hours) providing support with child's learning at home 2.8 2. All Children Have an Opportunity to Develop their Full Potential a. survey graduates, parents 3.0 b. truancy indicators, sick/absence 3.0 c. high school climate survey for students 2.9 d. standardized tests 2.8 e. involvement in school activities 2.7 3. Schools That Address Students' Different Ways of Learning observe teaching techniques and assessments compared to student learning styles 3.6 b. assess achievement of students in alternative settings 3.3 c. teacher evaluation process 3.3 d. performance samples, products, and progress reports that reference learning styles 3.2 number of instructional strategies used by teachers 3.2 a. e. 4. Students Consistently Achieve the State Learning Goals and EALRs a. classroom-based performance assessments, portfolios 3.5 b. WASL scores annually and over time 3.1 c. ITBS/ITED 3.0 d. student survey of perceptions of knowledge and skills 2.9 e. district-level tests 2.8 39 1 0 Washington Quality Education Model 5. Each Child Develops a Healthy, Positive Self-Image a. attendance/discipline 3.3 b. teacher observations of students 2.9 c. pre-post attitudinal survey of students each year 2.8 d. 9th grade students self-image survey 2.7 e. student participation in extra-curricular activities 2.7 E school counselor survey and counseling data on well-being of students 2.7 6. Learning Occurs in an Atmosphere that is Free from Fear and Intimidation a. reports of bullying/harassment 3.6 b. incident statistics 3.3 c. student attendance 3.0 d. staff climate survey 2.9 e. observations of students 2.8 7. Schools Create a Sense of Belonging and an Appreciation of Diversity curriculum review: curriculum is relevant to cultural diversity a. of school 3.2 b. disaggregated student discipline data 3.2 c. incidents of racial/ethnic/religious/sexual harassment 3.1 d. budget - delivery of resources (time and materials) where the need is 3.1 highest e. attitudinal studies, comparison of students to measure of equality among various groups, measure "gap" between groups 2.9 8. Reduce Inequality Among Students 3.6 a. achievement gap reduction evidence b. disaggregate data by student demographics regarding: GPA, drop-out, 3.5 graduation rates, WAS, other standardized tests c. equity of funding among schools, with acknowledgement of the special 3.4 needs of some schools to reduce inequality d. enrollment and participation in gifted, special education, discipline 3.3 numbers 40 "What Will It Take" Project 33' 9. Competent and Qualified Adults a. teacher training in pedagogy and curriculum 3.6 b. certification 3.5 c. teacher evaluation 3.4 d. number of teachers mis-assigned 3.3 e. teacher degrees, formal education 3.2 10. Adults Who are Genuinely Concerned about Children a. student surveys 3.1 b. observations 2.8 c. parental surveys 2.7 d. interviews with representative sample of faculty 2.7 11. Positive Behaviors that Foster a Culture of Learning, Respect, and Caring a. observations 3.2 b. student/teacher reflections 3.0 c. school climate measures 2.9 d. student attendance rates 2.9 e. climate survey data 2.8 12. All Students Make Successful Transitions to the Next Stage of their Lives a. mastery of basic skills 3.7 b. follow-up on elementary to middle school and middles school to high school 3.6 c. longitudinal "exit" studies of students 3.3 d. graduation rates 3.2 e. rates of post secondary application, enrollment, graduation 3.0 f. number of students who go into higher education 2, 3, 4 years after graduation 2.9 g. remediation rates in postsecondary education 2.8 h. employer surveys 2.7 41 to Washington Quality Education Model .k.. Cilturnsez =Met gen. tg ttlIte %YUEN The WQEM calls for changes in a number of elements and components of schools as the means by which an adequate education can be offered to all students. The following listing summarizes the key changes and the rationale for those changes by Prototype School. The first chart, for the elementary prototype, contains elements that are also repeated in the middle and high school prototype schools. Subsequent charts for middle and high school prototype schools contain only elements unique to those prototypes. 42 "What Will It Take" Project a Tame a wpm, mammas 02tratalintezu rm tam want lEatAillik,411t A r Mammal Pangesasue Element/Component Rationale Raise teacher, principal, assistant principal, administrative assistant, educational staff associates, and teacher salaries to the average of Far West states Washington is part of a regional labor pool. Educators move across state boundaries in the western states, and salary is one of the important variables taken into account when people choose to move to or from a state. This is particularly true for those earlier in their careers. Given the importance of quality teachers, attracting and retaining the best teachers in the western U.S. is an important priority to and prerequisite of a quality education model. Substitute teachers are being recognized as ever more important contributors to sustained student learning. As the demands of educational reform necessitate more teacher professional development in particular, a highly trained cadre of substitute teachers provides time for teachers to improve their skills without their classes falling behind. An ever-increasing body of research points toward early childhood education as the key to sustained student achievement in school. An increased investment in kindergarten ensures that those students least likely to attend preschool programs will have a better opportunity to be provided extra support at an early age within the public schools. Increase compensation of certified substitutes to market level to attract a sufficient pool of quality substitutes Create full-day kindergarten statewide at a pupil/teacher ratio of 18:1 Decrease pupil/teacher ratios in grades 1-4 from 24:1 to 21:1 Decrease pupil /teacher ratio in grade 5 from 27:1 to 24:1 Increase from 5.48 FTE to 8.31 FTE the certificated staff in the building who teach "specials" Increase from 0.27 FTE to 1.0 FTE the certificated staff in the English as a Second Language program Decrease the pupil/teacher ratio of Special Education certificated staff from 23:1 to 18:1 Increase special education classified staff from 2.7 FTE to 3.7 FTE Increase from 0.25 FTE to 2.50 FTE the certificated staff who provide additional time for students to reach standards Increase from 0.56 FTE to 2.50 FTE the classified staff who provide additional time for students to reach standards Increase from $1,762 to $5,000 the budget for supplies to support students needing extra time to reach standards Increase from 0.1 FTE to 0.5 FTE the buildingbased certificated staff whose duty it is to support instructional improvement Increase basic education support classified staff from 2.7 FTE to 4.0 FTE A modest decrease in class size of this nature will not, in and of itself, result in dramatic gains in student achievement. In combination with the other elements of the WQEM, however, this change can be expected to contribute to increased teacher ability to tailor lessons to student needs, to better communication with parents regarding student progress, and to give more attention to students as individuals in ways that help them develop their social and interpersonal skills. Fifth grade teachers would be more able to facilitate successful transitions for students from elementary to middle school. The smaller class size also helps retain quality teachers at this important grade level. Increasing staff in this category allows for a full program of elementary art, music, P.E., foreign language and other special classes that parents and students alike value highly. These classes offer students the opportunity to develop many facets of their intellect and explore a range of interests. Often, these classes serve to give students a reason to do well in academics. A full set of specials teachers also allows classroom teachers adequate time for lesson preparation in order to be able to adapt material to learner needs. Enabling second language learners to become fluent in English has taken on greater importance as the proportion of second language learners has increased. ESL programs must be capable of enabling students to make a rapid and successful transition into the regular classroom where their academic abilities can be more fully developed. As the true extent of the need to provide special education has become clearer during the past decade, so has the importance of effective special education programs for these students. Reduced pupil/teacher ratios here help achieve the state's goal that even students for whom learning is more challenging are able to reach high academic standards. Special education classrooms require a team approach to learning. Classified staff play an important role as members of the learning team that helps students remain on task and focused on increased learning. These additional resources are used in a variety of ways, including after-school and Saturday school in addition to summer programs. They provide services specifically designed to enable the lowest 20% of students to close the achievement gap that exists between them and their peers. High quality classroom assistants are a key element in the provision of services to low-achieving students. These staff members can work with small groups of students and offer the sustained contact and support necessary for many learners to sustain the desire and overcome the obstacles necessary to achieve at a higher level. This level of support allows for purchase of materials that supplement existing texts and resource materials in ways that help students below standard to make sustained progress. Each school would have an individual with responsibilities for peer coaching and mentoring, identifying new curriculum materials and instructional methods and introducing them into the school, helping teachers interpret assessment data, and other activities designed to improve student learning. While in practice schools make the decisions about how best to employ these additional staff, the prototype school foresees them helping teachers with a range of duties and responsibilities in ways that free up teachers to spend more time working with individual students. 43 432 Washington Quality Education Model RTM11` COPY AVAIBIA 11, Element/Component Increase main office classified support and services from 1.9 FTE to 2.5 FTE Increase the position of administrative assistant from 0.1 FTE to 0.5 FTE Increase budget for public communication from $1,009 to $4,986 Provide a computer for each teacher and classified staff, 1 computer per 6 students, and replace 25% of computers per year Purchase $300 of software per new computer Budget $100 per computer for network upkeep/upgrade Increase the budget for texts and classroom sets to $62 per student Increase classroom equipment and materials budget to $102 per student Rationale This modest increase simply ensures that the school's main office is available to be responsive to the needs of teachers and parents alike and that recordkeeping requirements and other related tasks are handled in an efficient fashion, and that funds intended for the classroom are not diverted to building administration. Most elementary schools have very little administrative support for the principal's position. This makes it very difficult for principals to serve as instructional leaders. Administrative assistants ensure that a range of management tasks are addressed efficiently so that the school leadership team can remain focused on improving student achievement. Communications with parents and community members are becoming increasingly important. A modest budget for this purpose helps parents and community members understand what is going on at school and enables them to support the school better. School budgets do not accommodate well the demands technology makes for regular updates, nor for the number of machines necessary to get to a "critical mass" in a school building where enough people have computers to allow them to be used effectively. Reducing ratios and replacing hardware on a fixed schedule helps schools make effective use of technology. Software costs are often not built into the overall expense of purchasing new computers. This allowance ensures schools always have reasonably current versions of software. As schools have added technology, they have not necessarily been able to budget for network management. Specific funding for this purpose helps ensure that resources intended for the classroom are not diverted to maintenance tasks. Budgets for texts and classroom materials are chronically under-funded. This allocation is designed to ensure that students always have current materials in good condition available to them. Adequate equipment and materials are critical to offering effective instruction to a wide range of learners. These resources help engage reluctant learners and accelerate engaged learners. Create copying budget of $27 per student The copying budget can be constrained somewhat if the school has adequate texts and materials, which decrease teacher needs to copy from source Create media center materials budget of $15 per student materials. The increasing importance of research skills means schools need up-to-date media centers where students can use a variety of sources to investigate problems and create reports. Increase the budget for extracurricular expenditures (field trips, etc) to $8 per student Increase teacher professional development time to 10 days per certificated teacher Increase to $10 per student the budget for professional development travel and materials Extracurricular activities are an important component of a quality education. They allow teachers to create learning activities where the concepts and ideas students are taught can be put into practice and seen in operation. Lack of time for professional development is one of the greatest barriers to school improvement. This time can be used in a wide variety of ways, including extended contracts, release days, and compensation for working on specific projects, such as curriculum development, outside of contract time. These funds allow teachers to visit other schools that have effective programs in order to learn from them, to attend professional meetings, and to purchase materials such as video programs, that help teachers improve their teaching skills. Increase to $4.83 per student the budget for professional development consultants Increase to 10 days per year professional development for classified staff with classroom responsibilities Increase teacher preparation days to $134 per student Increase principal leadership training to 5 days per year Outside consultants, often university professors or teachers with knowledge of effective techniques, are a valuable resource to school staffs that seek to improve their skills through a comprehensive schoolwide staff development program. Classified staff who help directly in the classroom need to be able to develop their technical skills in ways that enable them to promote student learning more effectively and efficiently. Doing so would result in statewide equity in the number of professional days teachers had, eliminating a potential source of inequity among schools and districts. Research supports the importance of the principal as instructional leader. A set amount of leadership training helps ensure principals fulfill their roles effectively. Increase centralized special education costs to $490 per special education student provided centralized services (above current FTE funding) This adjustment helps ensure that adequate funds are available to cover the actual costs of services provided to special education students served centrally and not by the schools. BEST COPY AVAIILABILE 44 "What Will It Take" Project 4 Element/Component Increase centralized curriculum and assessment development to $200 per student Fund centralized public information office at $5.00 per student Rationale Given the importance of assessment knowledge and effective curriculum to improved student learning, central services in these areas need to be strong and readily available to schools. Parents and community expect to be kept informed regarding educational change and improvement. In an information age, a district's ability to communicate with these constituencies takes on even greater importance. Centralized public information services also help schools prepare reports, newsletters, websites, and other modes of public communication. Change in per pupil spending Current: $6,113 WQEM: $8,393 WQEM w/o salary increases: $7,950 Note: these figures are not equivalent to commonly-reported per-pupil expenditure figures and are specific to the WQEM due to differences in the method for calculating per-pupil expenditures Percent increase over Current Service Level model including salary increases Percent increase over Current Service Level without salary increases 37% 30% Tatiligle War ellnurages coagearmneall rum inne 7/(gIERg bEellalifie Scaapell 1Pwagetynm Rationale is provided only for elements and components that have not previously been explained in the Elementary School Prototype Element/Component Increase staffing for academic and elective program from 33.14 to 35.34 (Decrease overall pupil/teacher ratio from 25.6:1 to 24:1) Add 3 additional teachers in core disciplinary subjects Increase ESL certificated staff from 0.56 to 0.82 FTE (Decrease ESL pupil/teacher ratio from 65:1 to 44.5:1) Decrease Media/Librarian from 1.05 FTE to 1.0 FTE Increase School Nurse from 0.24 FTE to 0.50 FTE Basic health services are critical to keeping more students in school, particularly students who most need to be attending regularly Increase special education certificated staff from 4.14 FTE to 5.92 FTE (Decrease pupil/teacher ratio from 26:1 to 18:1) Increase certificated counselors from 2.54 to 3.39 FTE (Decrease pupil/counselor ratio from 334:1 to 250:1) Increase certificated FTE to provide additional time for students to reach standards from 0.27 FTE to 3.0 FTE Increase classified FTE to provide additional time for students to reach standards from 0.49 FTE to 3.00 FTE Increase supplies to support students needing extra time to reach standards from $833 to $8,500 Increase building-based certificated staff to support instructional improvement from 0.4 FTE to 1.0 Increase nurse/health assistant from 0.25 FTE to 1.0 FTE This position provides a full-time person to deal with health-related issues, monitor medications, and ensure students receive adequate medical attention when needed. Increase special education classified staff from 2.99 FTE to 5.92 FTE Increase classified staff for academic departments from 2.52 Support staff for academic departments enable teachers to FTE to 4.0 FTE be freed from routine tasks, such as preparing materials or entering data, so that they can focus on lesson design and student support. Increase classified staff for attendance from 0.50 FTE to Adequate staff to monitor attendance helps increase student 1.0 FTE attendance, communicate with parents, identify students with potential problems before they reach a crisis point, communicate more with parents. Increase community outreach classified staff from 0 FTE to Outreach staff help engage parents in school, particularly 1.0 FTE parents from groups historically less engaged with schools. Outreach staff deal with attendance and academic problems by making personal contacts with families. Increase family resource coordinator classified staff from 0 Family resource coordinator helps families that are in need FTE to 0.50 FTE or in crisis by connecting them with the appropriate services and agencies and by informing the school staff about the nature of the situation. Students benefit when they feel that their family lives are under control. II, 41 Washington Quality Education Model EsT COPY MAMA LE 45 Increase volunteer coordinator classified staff from 0 FTE to 1.0 FTE Increase receptionist from 0.50 FTE to 1.0 FTE Increase campus monitor classified staff from 0.50 FTE to 1.0 FTE Volunteers can server a range of important functions at the middle level. They can tutor students, assist counselors, help students with computers and technology, supervise student activities and clubs, and work in classrooms. Adequate support staff in main office ensures good communication with community and parents as well as resolution in a timely fashion of many minor and major student problems. This helps school function more smoothly and helps keep students focused on learning. Campus security monitors are non-uniformed individuals who help maintain order by being visible around campus and interacting informally with students before problems occur. Decrease principal from 1.04 FTE to 1.0 FTE Decrease assistant principal from 1.28 FTE to 1.0 FTE Increase teacher leadership from $14.57 per student to $100 per student Administrator costs can be kept relatively constant because teachers can assume more leadership positions. When teachers are in positions of leadership, greater improvement occurs in schools. Such positions include lead teacher, mentor teacher, department head, and facilitator. Computer for each teacher and classified staff, 1 computer per 6 students, replace 25% of computers per year Computer software $300 per new computer Network upkeep/upgrade $100/computer $59 per student for texts, classroom sets $108 per student for classroom equipment and materials $22 per student for copying $39 per student for media center materials Increase teacher professional development to 10 days per certificated teacher from $52.44 per student to $186 per student Increase professional development travel and materials from $.73 per student to $10 per student Increase professional development for classified staff with classroom responsibilities to 10 days per year Increase teacher preparation days from $118 per student to $131 per student Increase centralized special education based on assumption of number of students served Increase centralized curriculum and assessment development from $134 per student to $180 per student Increase centralized public information to $5 per student Change in per pupil spending Percent increase over Current Service Level model including salary increases Percent increase over Current Service Level without salary increases Current: $5,615 WQEM: $7,830 WQEM w/o salary increases: $7451 Note: these figures are not equivalent to commonly-reported per-pupil expenditure figures and are specific to the WQEM due to differences in the method for calculating per-pupil expenditures 39% 33% BEST COPY AVAILE03. 46 "What Will It Take" Project 6Z TakIle III Nalfpre etinerages COViaaltgiledi rill tfine Want Men Zmansall IiDearagesfrpa Rationale is provided only for elements and components that have not previously been explained in the Elementary or Middle School Prototypes Element/Component I Change: Add teachers in core disciplinary subjects from 0.18 FTE to 6.0 FTE (Decrease ratio from 1:7,802 students to 1:237) Increase ESL certificated staff from 0.74 FTE to 1.17 FTE (Decrease pupil/teacher ratio to 44:1) Increase certificated staff for Media/Librarian from 0.90 FTE to 1.0 FTE Increase School Nurse from 0.39 FTE to 1.0 FTE Increase special education certificated staff from 5.60 FTE to 9.19 FTE (Decrease pupil/teacher ratio from 30:1 to 18:1) Increase additional special student programs High schools require additional resources to help retain students and from 1.19 FTE to 2.0 FTE engage potential dropouts. Investments in these programs increase graduation rates and performance on state assessments. Counseling Decrease from 1:350 to 1:250 (Increase FTE from 4.06 to 5.68) Increase co-curricular/activities director from Co-curricular activities, including clubs and organizations, are 0.31 FTE to 1.0 FTE important dimensions of the high school experience. Evidence suggests that students who are involved in such activities do better than those who are not. Increase certificated FTE to provide additional time for students to reach standards from 0.21 FTE to 5.0 FTE Increase classified FTE to provide additional time for students to reach standards from 0.29 FTE to 5.00 FTE Increase supplies to support students needing extra time to reach standards from $0 to $14,200 Increase building-based certificated FTE to support instructional improvement from 0.4 FTE to 1.0 Increase nurse/health assistant from 0.5 FTE to 1.0 FTE Increase special education classified staff from 0.6 FTE to 3.06 FTE Increase support staff for alternative programs Alternative programs are an integral dimension of high school from 0.34 FTE to 1.0 FTE programs that seek to appeal to a wide range of students. Support staff help make connections with students and provide general logistical support to these programs. Increase support staff for counseling office from Counseling office support staff provide a range of services to students 0.48 FTE to 1.0 FTE and free counselors to focus on providing the services students need to plan and execute their academic programs successfully and cope with problems they may be facing. Increase school-to-work coordinator from 0.33 Many students need to connect their learning with the world beyond FTE to 1.0 FTE schools. A school-to-work coordinator organizes and supervises programs where youth can apply their learning to real-world settings and make successful transitions from school to work. Increase registrar from 0.96 FTE to 1.0 FTE As more information on student performance is generated from state testing, portfolios, and off-site learning activities, scheduling and transcript management become more complex. The registrar helps facilitate this wider range of information and learning experiences. Increase attendance office support staff from 0.72 FTE to 1.0 FTE Increase community outreach support staff from 0.16 FTE to 0.5 FTE Increase departmental support classified staff from 0.38 FTE to 6.0 FTE Decrease Media Center support staff from 1.07 Adequate staffing of the certificated position in the Media Center FTE to 1.0 FTE allows for a slight reduction in the support staff Increase receptionist from 0.74 FTE to 1.0 FTE Decrease miscellaneous basic ed staff from 4.13 These duties are assumed by departmental support staff FTE to 0 FTE Decrease principal from 1.21 FTE to 1.0 FTE Decrease assistant principal from 2.21 FTE to 2.0 FTE Increase teacher leadership from $32.19 per student to $100 per student Computer for each teacher and classified staff, 1 computer per 6 students, replace 25% ofcomputers per year Computer software: $300 per new computer Network upkeep/upgrade $100/computer Texts, classroom sets $82 per student Classroom equipment and materials $108 per student Copying $23 per student Media center materials $56 per student BEST COPY AVATIAELIE 47 es, Washington Quality Education Model I I I I I I Change: These include sports, drama, music, and other after-school programs. The funding level helps keep participation fees to a reasonable level and eliminates them for students with financial need. This level of funding also ensures a full program of extra-curricular activities so that the maximum number of students can become involved. Element/Component Increase extracurricular expenditures from $17.51 per student to $35.03 per student Teacher professional development Increase to 10 days per certificated teacher from $62.52 per student to $193.50 per student Professional development travel and materials Increase to $10 per student Professional development for classified staff with classroom responsibilities Increase to 10 days per year Teacher preparation days Increase from $138 per student to $153 per student Centralized curriculum and assessment development Increase from $144 per student to $192 per student Centralized public information Increase to $5 per student Change in per pupil spending Current: $5,914 WQEM: $7,753 WQEM w/o salary increases: $7,379 Note: these figures are not equivalent to commonly-reported per-pupil expenditure figures and are specific to the WQEM due to differences in the method for calculating per-pupil expenditures Percent increase over Current Service Level model including salary increases 31% Percent increase over Current Service Level without salary increases 25% IL Overview costs 412 tin Wtralle Coomparisesa off per-pm/sin ants meter taree 2Int,1,40.1,, I Table Ea Mamma am the 2000-011 school{ year) State Allocations per pupil expenditure Elementary Middle High School $5,112 $4,687 $4,663 Tatfolle 1 CSL (State Allocations and Local Funds) per pupil expenditure $6,113 $5,615 $5,914 WQEM WQEM (w/o (w/salary increases) per salary increases) per % increase from CSL to % increase from CSL to WQEM WQEM w/o pupil expenditure pupil expenditure w/salary increases salary increases $8,393 $7,830 $7,753 $7,950 $7,451 $7,379 37% 39% 31% 30% 33% 25% esanngarrsoan off statewildle oasts unanaller tame am:tells The following funding sources are not included: federal funds; most capital funds; Running Start enrollment; institutional education; skills centers; small school factor; and a number of small state special grant programs. Current Services Level Quality Education Model Elementary Middle School $2,560,525,578 $1,299,623,002 $3,465,714,606 $1,724,579,051 High School Total $1,728,861,237 $5,589,009,816 $2,157,021,585 $7,347,315,242 BEST COPY AVARABILIE 48 "What Will It Take" Project 4l' ValtIle Gs Calm nn e enrecemse iparedipungll 557311ndibAg malt gore reeelexemll CO= diMennatses Nrrarin Mr(gEN orad watkonnee Source: Education Week, Quality Counts 2002 State average % of U.S. average District of Columbia $9,546 134.8 2 New Jersey $9,362 132.3 3 North Dakota $8,983 126.9 4 New York $8,858 125.1 5 Connecticut $8,804 124.4 6 Wisconsin $8,744 123.5 7 Wyoming $8,657 122.3 8 Rhode Island $8,630 121.9 9 Vermont $8,622 121.8 10 Minnesota $8,621 121.8 11 Delaware $8,552 120.8 12 West Virginia $8,444 119.3 13 Indiana $8,296 117.2 14 Pennsylvania $8,117 114.7 15 Nebraska $7,961 112.5 16 Michigan $7,922 111.9 17 Massachusetts $7,837 110.7 18 Maine $7,802 110.2 19 WQEM $7,656 20 Kentucky $7,639 107.9 21 Maryland $7,616 107.6 22 Oregon $7,614 107.6 23 Iowa $7,603 107.4 24 Kansas $7,591 107.2 25 South Carolina $7,275 102.8 26 South Dakota $7,157 101.1 27 Alaska $7,129 100.7 28 Montana $7,032 99.3 29 Illinois $6,968 98.4 30 New Hampshire $6,967 98.4 31 Virginia $6,965 98.4 32 New Mexico $6,956 98.3 33 Georgia $6,955 98.2 34 Ohio $6,890 97.3 35 Texas $6,772 95.7 36 Louisiana $6,695 94.6 37 Alabama $6,686 94.4 38 Oklahoma $6,591 93.1 39 North Carolina $6,570 92.8 40 Hawaii $6,409 90.5 41 Missouri $6,323 89.3 42 Tennessee $6,282 88.7 43 Washington $6,256* 88.4 44 Florida $6,251 88.3 45 Colorado $6,173 87.2 46 Mississippi $6,062 85.6 47 Arkansas $6,047 85.4 48 Nevada $5,911 83.5 49 Idaho $5,853 82.7 50 California $5,603 79.1 51 Arizona $5,006 70.7 52 Utah $4,579 64.7 1 * unadjusted figure for SY 01-02 is $6705 (source: National Center for Education Statistics, Early Estimates of Public Elementary and Secondary Education Statistics: School Year 2001-02). (See Appendix C for a comparison of Washington's adequacy of funding to other states) 49 40 Washington Quality Education Model BEST COPY AVAILABLE METmengz an CD'a), ca Caput gaelCo of Cho oIl This section presents the Prototype Schools in detail. The WQEM specifies the program elements and components that make up the prototype schools used as the basis for defining an adequate education. The tables used to present the Prototype Schools contain the level of detail necessary to ascertain the differences between current educational programs and practices and those that would be put in place as a result of a fully funded adequacy model. The WQEM presents prototype schools at elementary, middle, and high school. The changes in the elements and components in the Prototype Schools are compared to what is called the Current Service Level (CSL); programs and practices that exist currently, based on a survey of districts conducted for the project by consultant Bill Freund. The CSL serves as a departure point for comparisons with the elements and components of the WQEM. The specifications of Current Service Level should be viewed as approximations rather than precise figures at this point. This is a reflection of the diversity of practices that exist within Washington school districts currently and the lack of statewide data on educational expenditures in the types of categories contained in the Prototype Schools. is presented elementary, middle, and high school Each of the three educational levels in turn. Refer to the previous tables that summarized the key differences between CSL and WQEM for an overview of the distinctions between the CSL and WQEM. Elaranen=cer 2<anamil Iredle 11.a 493 ZS-wailer= enargerat Strevnen have email Mataleall Corrangeoilsorm Waslidirragb:Dira Quadaillinsr Mama= Mexilell Ellettammtery Z2aagell nranotyrip3 Program Element: Component CSL FIE Staff Enrollment Salary and Benefits CSL Workload WQEM CSL Component cost and Unit Costs FTE Staff (2000-01) WQEM Component cost (2000-01) WQEM Workload and Unit Costs 498.65 59.07 348.51 91.07 44.37 66.05 K-5 FTE Enrollment Kindergarten student FTEs Grade 1-4 student FTEs 478.96 39.38 5d' grade FTEs ESL Enrollment Special Ed Enrollment Principal Salary 91.07 44.37 66.05 $79,024.71 $85,385.00 Principal Insurance $5,528.00 $5,528.00 $69,909.00 $71,447.00 $5,446.00 $5,446.00 $42,233.00 $5,611.00 $46,692.00 $5,611.00 $122.06 $175.00 348.51 Benefits Administrative Assistant Salary Administrative Assistant Insurance Benefits Elementary Teacher Salary Certificated instructional staff insurance benefits per FTE Certificated Substitute rate per day including benefits 50 "What Will It Take" Project 419 Program Element: Component CSL CSL CSL Workload WQEM FTE Compone and Unit Costs FTE Staff nt cost Staff (2000-01) Classified Substitute Rate per day $123.14 including benefits. Educational Staff Associate Average Salary and Additional Salary (Non-special Ed) Educational Staff Associate Average Salary and Additional Salary (Special Ed) Average Classified Salary, including additional salary Average Classified Insurance Benefits Secretary/ office/clerical Total WQEM Compone nt cost (2000-01) $123.14 $51,961.32 $54,559.39 $49,652.93 $52,135.62 $30,054.21 $30,054.21 $6,042.41 $6,042.41 $29,937.00 $29,937.00 $25,124.00 $6,522.00 15.62% $25,124.00 15.82% 15.82% Salary Core certificated instructional staff Aides Total Salary Aides Insurance Benefits per FTE Certificated Mandatory Fringe Benefit Rate Classified Mandatory Fringe Benefit Rate Kindergarten FTE Teachers 1.65 $89,555.1 1 Grades 1-4 FTE Teachers 14.46 $787,058. 34 Grades 5 FTE Teachers 3.38 $184,087. 66 Other FTEs : music, PE, art, 5.48 $359,776. media/librarian, second language, 86 reading specialist, math specialist, highly capable, child development specialist, nurse, etc. English as a Second Language 0.27 $14,463.7 (ESL) Teachers 6 Special education certificated instructional staff 2.89 $111,734. 44 Substitute teacher cost for general instruction $22,815 Substitute teacher cost for special education $2,724 $6,522.00 15.62% 1 teacher per 3.28 23.94 FTEs 1 teacher per 16.60 24.11 FTEs 1 teacher per 3.79 26.93 FTEs ESA and teacher 8.31 FTEs, @ 1 per $195,573. 03 $989,038. 55 $226,145. 57 $570,891. 04 87.45 FTE students 1 teacher per 167.01 ESL students 1 teacher per 22.83 special ed students Rate per day = $122.06 including benefits Usage = 7.34 days per teacher. 1.00 $59,422.4 0 3.67 $153,911. 47 $45,550 Rate per day $4,954 including benefits. Usage = 7.71 days per teacher. Additional instructional time for students to achieve standards (LAP or other) (Not incl. Federal Programs) FTE Teachers $8,669 0.25 $13,766 $18.10 per student. Number of Students Served = N/A K-5 students per teacher=1894.2 1 teacher per 18 FTEs 1 teacher per 21 FTEs 1 teacher per 24 FTEs ESA and teacher FTEs, @ 1 per 60 FTE students = $122.06 Contract Instructional Services WQEM Workload and Unit Costs $9,025 2.50 $148,991 1 teacher per 44.5 ESL students 1 teacher per 18 special ed students Rate per day = $175 including benefits for annual average of 7.34 days per teacher. Rate per day =$175 including benefits for average of 7.71 days per teacher. $18.10 per student. Number of Students I Served = 100 Ratio of additional staff to students: 1 1:40 I I SG Washington Quality Education Model 51 0.56 FTE Classified Supplies $19,820 $1,762 Number of 2.50 $87,853 Number of Students Served = 100 K-5 students per aide = 40 Students Served = N/A K-5 students per aide=849.2 $ per K-5 student = $3.68 $50 per student for supplemental $5,000 texts, alternative teaching materials. Other activities Instructional improvement Core Instructional support staff $1,179 Instructional Support and Student 0.1 $7,821 Learning Specialist Special Education, Classified 2.7 $109,563 $ per K-5 student $2.46 Ratio of 1 staff per 4,029.36 students 1 staff per 24.63 0.5 $34,308 Ratio of I per 1000 students 3.7 $149,890 4.0 $162,963 1 FTE staff per 18 special ed. Students Ratio of 1 FTE staff per 125 students Assumes usage of 7 days per FTE at rate per day specified above. Ratio of 1 FEE staff per 200 students One principal per 482.40 students at salary and fringe benefits rates specified above. Ratio of 1 per 1000 students special ed. 2.7 Basic Ed Classified $110,562 $6,794 Substitutes Students Ratio of I staff per 176.97 students $10,905 Assumes usage of 7 days per FTE at rare per day specified above. Administrative accountability Computer hardware/software Secretary 1.9 $78,842 Principal 1.0 $98,714 Administrative Assistant 0.1 $10,771 $1,009 Supplies and materials for communications Hardware including student and administrative Ratio of 1 staff per 248.17 students Students per principal =482.40 2.5 $101,852 1.0 $107,761 Students per admin. assistant =3,725.40 $ per FTE student = $2.11 0.5 $43,908 $4,986 $10,093 $48,025 $ per FTE student = $10 Number of student computers = 83 Percent replaced per year = 25 Cost per computer = $750 Students per computer = 6 Number of Teacher/Adm in computers Included above. Software BEST COPY AVAIL 52 I $4,037 = 52 Software cost per new computer = $300 (assumes district software licensing to reduce costs) A It "What Will It Take" Project On Network upkeep/upgrades Included above. $1,346 $1001 computer. Upgrade and maintenance of school-based network hardware and software per school. Supplies, books, materials Texts, consumables, classroom $51,947 sets Classroom materials & equipment $0 $ per FTE student = 108.46 $30,916 $ per FTE student = N/A $50,862 Rate adequate for textbook for each child, supplementary reading materials, instructional materials. Includes video, tvs for classes, globes, maps, science equipment, etc. Copying $0 Included above. $13,324 1670 copies per student @ $.016 per copy= $26.72 per student Media center materials $0 $ per FTE student = N/A $7,480 Library books, reference materials, subscriptions, videos, library software and database subscriptions. Teacher reimbursement of $8,661 materials purchases Extra-curricular activities Professional training & development Extracurricular Expenditures $3,058 $ per FTE student = $18.08. $ per FTE $9,017 $3,989 student $6.38. Teacher professional development related to standards and $29,913 assessments Materials, Travel, $423 Consultants $2,312 $ per FTE student = $62.46 $ per student = $.88. $109,585 $4,986 $10 per student FTE. Covers travel to conferences, visits to exemplary schools, off-site meetings $ per student $2,407 $ per student $574 $9,430 10 days per classified 10 days per certificated teacher 44.83 Support staff professional development $ per FTE student = $18.08. $ per FTE student .$8 $4.83 $ 1 sp.ed student $8.69 support staff with instructional responsibilities Teacher preparation days $57,951 $/FTE $66,819 $/FTE Student.$134 $1,638 # of days per year = 5 at $317 per day. $885 $ per FTE student = $1.77 Student=$120.9 9 Leadership training for Principal $863 $/student.$1.8 0 Building support costs: Costs distributed to each building Food services $850 $ per FTE student = $1.77 53 ga Washington Quality Education Model $ per FTE student = $258.73 $ per FTE student=$106.7 $129,016 $123,921 Technology services $51,130 Operation, plant maintenance including utilities, insurance and security. $286,467 Other support services $23,602 $ per FTE student = $49.28 $24,572 $ per FTE student = $49.28 Centralized special education $30,839 $ per special ed student = $466.95 $32,381 $ per special ed student = $490.29 Centralized curriculum $64,477 $ per student = $134.62 $99,730 Support for centralized curriculum development $53,232 75 5 Centralized Services $ per FTE student = $258.73 $ per FTE student=$106. Student transportation/operating $ per FTE student = $298,244 student = $598.1 $598.1 development, assessment $ per FTE and assessment support $200 per student $32,510 $ per FTE student = $67.88 $33,846 $ per FTE student = $67.88 Business & Fiscal Services $39,741 $41,375 $ per FTE student = $82.97 Personnel Services $22,092 $ per FTE student = $82.97 $ per FTE student = $46.13 $23,000 $ per FTE student = $46.13 $ per FTE student = $0 $2,493 $2,857 $ per K-5 FTE student = $5.97 $2,975 $4,224 $ per FTE student = $8.82 $4,397 $ per FTE student = $5.00 $ per K-5 FTE student = $5.97 $ per FTE student = $8.82 Executive admin., Board of Education, superintendent, public information, supervision of schools. Public Information All Other non-k-12, Preschool levy supported programs. Change in Ending General Fund Balance CSL State and Local Expenditure Per Student $6,113 WQEM State and Local Expenditure Per Student $8,393 54 "What Will It Take" Project 5533 111 MallaElle S litDDIle IIo IIna Il eg C3603 acanalleanas Elastglled Camngmallsoma ©wave:mit Secvlice level small WasIlniinastaxm QuaasEillty Etaagsaltiletra MocEeE WEefille Sem:DE 1PasegaDiCssue Program Element: Component Enrollment Grades 6-8 FTE Enrollment ESL Enrollment Salary and Benefits CSL CSL FTE Component Staff cost (2000-01) CSL Workload and Unit Costs WQEM FTE Staff WQEM Component cost (2000-01) 848 848 36.6 Special Ed Enrollment 106.6 36.6 106.6 Average Principal Salary Avg. Principal Insurance Benefits Average Vice Principal Salary Avg. Vice Principal Insurance Benefits Average Teacher Salary $81,580 $85,720 $5,528 $5,528 $72,134 $73,743 $5,446 $5,446 $42,233 $46,692 Insurance Benefits Per Certificated Instructional Staff FTE $5,611 $5,611 Educational Staff $51,961 $54,559 $49,652 $52,135 $30,054 $30,054 $6,042 $6,042 $29,937 $29,937 $5,821 $5,821 $122 $175 $123 $123 15.62% 15.62% 15.82% 15.82% Associate Average Total Salary (Nonspecial Ed) Educational Staff Associate Average Total Salary (Special Ed) Classified, Average Total Salary Average Classified Insurance Benefits per FTE Secretary, Total Average Salary Office/clerical insurance benefits per FTE Certificated Substitute rate per day including benefits Classified Substitute Rate per day including benefits. Certificated Mandatory Fringe Benefit Rate Classified Core certificated instructional staff Mandatory Fringe Benefit Rate English, math, 33.14 science, social sciences, second languages, the arts Additional teacher in math, English, $1,804,116 1 staff per 25.60 students 35.34 None reported. 1 staff per 65.14 students $2,106,348 1 staff per 24 students. 3.00 $178,630 I additional staff member in English, math, science 0.82 $49,076 1 staff per 44.5 students . science English as a Second 0.56 Language (ESL) Teachers TA WQEM Workload and Unit Costs Washington Quality Education Model $30,626 55 Media/Librarian 1.05 $68,817 School nurse 0.24 $15,640 1 staff per 810 students 1 staff per 3,563 1.00 $68,713 1 staff per 848 students 0.50 $34,275 1 staff per 1700 students 5.92 $373,741 1 staff per 18 students $56,842 Expenditure per day= $175, Average usage = 6.9 days per students $243,326 1 staff per 25.75 students Substitute teachers for general instruction $31,817 Substitute teachers for special education $3,556 Avg. expenditure per day= $121.94, Average usage = 6.9 days per year. Avg. expenditure per day= $121.94, Special education certificated instructional staff 4.14 Contract $16,557 average usage = 7.04 days per year. $19.52 per student. $166,724 1 staff per 334.21 year. $7,301 Avg. expenditure per day= $175, average usage = 7.04 days per year. $16,557 $19.52 per student. 3.39 $233,073 1 staff per 250 students 3.00 $178,810 Number of students served: $122,568 Ratio 1:57 Ratio 1:57 Instructional Services Counseling/Child Development Additional instructional time for students to achieve standards (Learning Assistance Program or other) (Not Specialists FTE Teachers 2.54 students 0.27 $14,958 Core Instructional support staff 3.00 1 staff per 1,716 students. $833 Rate per 6-8 Student =$.98 $8,500 $50 per student for supplemental texts, alternative teaching Other activities 0.14 Curriculum Development Specialist Cert FTEs $1,338 $9,185 $1.58 per student 1 staff per 6,066 students. 1.00 $1,338 $68,713 Principal's secretary 1.84 $74,451 1.84 $74,451 Nurse/health 0.25 $10,232 1.00 $40,863 1 staff per 848 students. Special education 2.99 $122,311 5.92 $241,968 1 staff per 18 special students. Support to academic departments Attendance Community outreach Family resource center coord. Volunteer coordinator Media center assistant Receptionist Campus monitor Substitutes 2.52 $102,975 1 staff per 461.36 students. 1 staff per 3,386.74 students. 1 staff per 35.61 special students. 1 staff per 336 students. $1.58 per student 1 staff per 848 students. Provide direct support to classroom teachers to improve curriculum, employ instructional methodologies that meet the needs of all students, provide coaching for improvement. 1 staff per 461.36 students. 4.00 $163,452 1 staff per 212 students. 0.50 $20,431 $0 1.00 1.00 $40,863 $40,863 1 staff per 848 students. 1 staff per 848 students. $0 0.50 $20,432 I staff per 1,696 students. $0 0.50 $20,432 1 staff per 1,696 students. 0.50 $20,431 0.50 $20,432 1 staff per 1,696 students. 0.50 0.50 $20,431 $20,431 1.00 $40,863 $40,863 $20,911 Principal 1.04 1 staff per 848 students. 1 staff per 848 students. Assumes usage of 7 days per FTE. 1 principal per 848 students. 0.49 Supplies materials. assistant Administrative accountability 170 $20,196 FTE Classified Incl. Federal Programs) Instructional improvement 1 staff per 3,087 students. Assistant principal 1.28 1.00 $8,705 Assumes usage of 7 days per FTE. $104,534 students per principal=817.12 Students per v. principal = 662.2 $115,926 1.00 $ 104,668 1.00 $ 90,734 1 vice principal per 848 students. BEST COPY AVASLAMIg 56 "What Will It Take" Project Toz Teacher leadership $12,362 $ per FTE student = $14.57 Supplies and materials Computer hardware/ software Hardware including student and administrative $97,942 $ per FTE student = $115.46 $84,825 $ per FTE student = $100. $8,482 Rate per student= $10 $40,521 Number of student computers = 141 Percent replaced per year = 25 Cost per computer = 750 Students per computer = 6 Number of Teacher/Admin/Support Staff computers = 76 @1:1 $16,209 Software cost per new computer = $300 (assumes district software licensing to reduce costs) $5,403 $100/computer $50,047 $ per student = $59 $91,611 108$ per FTE student Students per computer = N/A Instructional staff & administrative staff per computer $0 =N/A Software cost per new computer =N/A Annual update cost /computer, if any = N/A Amount per school =NIA $ per student = $102.45 Included above. $0 Included above. $18,661 $0 Included above. $33,082 1400 copies per student ® .016 per copy = $22 per student 39$ per FTE student $12,604 $ per FTE student = $14.86 $12,604 $ per FTE student = $14.86 $112,809 $ per FTE student = $132.99 $ per FTE student = $52.44 $112,809 $ per FTE student = $132.99 10 days per certificated teacher. $186 per student Software Supplies, books, materials, for instruction Extra-curricular activities Professional training & development. Network upkeep/upgrades Texts, consumables, classroom sets Classroom materials, all equipment, supplies Copying Media center materials Teacher reimbursement of materials purchases Extracurricular expenditures Teacher professional development related to standards and $86,902 $44,483 $157,770 assessments Materials, Travel, $620 $ per FTE student = $.73 $8,482 Consultants $5,265 $ per FTE student $5,265 $4,304 = $6.21 $ per special ed student= $40.37 $17,493 10 days per classified support staff with instructional responsibilities $111,387 $3,171 $ per FTE student = $131.31 5 days ® $317/day $1,515 $ per FTE student = $1.79 Special ed. support staff Teacher preparation $100,750 days Leadership training for principal and assistance $1,876 Food services $1,515 $ per FTE student = $118.77 $ per fre student$2.21 $ pe$10 per student FTE. Covers travel to conferences, visits to exemplary schools, off-site meetingsr FTE student = $ $ per FTE student = $6.21 principal Building support costs: Cost $ per FTE student = $1.79 57 ga Washington Quality Education Model distributed to each building Student transportation $220,838 $ per FTE student = $260.35 $220,838 $ per FTE student = $260.35 Technology services $123,752 $ per FTE student = $145.89 $123,752 $ per FTE student = $145.89 Operation, maintenance of plant, including utilities, insurance and security. $510,829 $ per FTE student = $602.22 $510,829 $ per FTE student = $602.22 Other support $30,107 $ per FTE student = $35.49 $30,107 $ per FTE student = $35.45 $ per special ed $72,103 $ per special ed student =$644.08 $152,488 Support for centralized curriculum development services Centralized Services Centralized special education $68,670 Centralized curriculum development, $114,369 student =$644.08 $ per student = $134.83 and assessment support. $180 per student assessment Executive $50,043 $ per FTE student = $59 $50,043 $71,166 $ per FTE student = $83.90 $ per FTE student = $46.56 $71,166 $ per FTE student $4,241 administration Board of Education, superintendent) Business & Fiscal Services Personnel Services $39,497 Public Information $0 All Other non-k- $ per FTE student = $55 $ per FTE student = $83.90 $ per FTE student = $46.56 $ per FTE student = 55 $39,497 =0 $0 $0 12, levy supported programs. Change in Ending General Fund $5,572 $ per FTE student = $6.57 $ per FTE student = $6.57 $5,572 Balance CSL State and Local Expenditure Per Student $5,615 WQEM State and Local Expenditure Per Student _ $7,830 1 I I I I I 1 I 58 "What Will It Take" Project S7 Co Oft& Zane)oll UeDlle Os ne82n o=allearaz EsIatilled Caramparitesm arg Cazrannia Zarevilen Eavell email Weadaduageont fNeAllitts, Tafinnesudterra Matdell Aft Zzawn uprevacctrga Program Element: Component CSL CSL FTE Component Staff cost (2000-01) Enrollment 9-12th grade enrollment Special Education ESL salary and Benefits Secondary Principal, Average Salary Principal, Average Insurance Benefits Secondary Asst. Principal Average Salary Asst. Principal, Average Insurance Benefits Secondary Teacher, Average Salary Secondary Teacher, Average Insurance Benefits Educational Staff Associate Average Total Salary (Non-special Ed) Educational Staff Associate Average Total Salary (Special Ed) Classified, Average Total Salary Classified, Average Insurance Benefits Office/clerical, Average Total Salary Office/clerical insurance benefits per FTE Certificated Substitute rate per day including benefits Classified Substitute Rate per day including benefits. Certificated Mandatory Fringe Benefit Rate Classified Mandatory Fringe Benefit Rate Core certificated English, math, science, 60.15 instructional staff social sciences, second languages, the arts Additional teacher in 0.18 math, English, science cost (2000-01) 1,421 165 52 1,421 165 52 $86,387 $91,966 $5,782 $5,782 $74,593 $79,191 $5,488 $5,488 $42,208 $46,692 $5,654 $5,654 $51,961 $54,559 $49,652 $52,136 $30,054 $30,054 $6,042 $6,042 $29,937 $29,937 $5,821 $5,821 $122 $175 $123 $123 15.62% 15.62% 15.82% 15.82% 60.15 $3,587,218 1 staff per 23.63 students. $9,919 1 staff per 6.00 $357,836 1 staff per 236.87 FTE students. 1.17 $69,804 1.00 $68,745 1 staff per 44.5 ESL students 1 staff per 1,421 students. 1.00 $68,745 1 staff per 3,6804.6 students. 9.19 $580,079 1 staff per 18 special ed students. 2.00 $119,380 1 staff per 710 students. $40,464 0.90 $59,159 School Nurse 0.39 $25,354 Special education 5.60 certificated instructional $329,171 staff. $64,957 7,802.7 students. 1 staff per 70.09 ESL students. 1 staff per 1,579.11 students. 1 staff per 3,6804.6 students. 1 staff per 29.54 special ed students. 1 staff per 1,191.43 students. 59 5 Z3 Washington Quality Education Model WQEM Workload and Unit Costs 1 staff per 23.63 students. 0.74 1.19 WQEM Component $3,275,384 English as a Second Language (ESL) Media/Librarian Additional special student programs CSL Workload WQEM and Unit Costs FTE Staff Substitute teachers for general instruction 60,318.58 Substitute teachers for special education 5,056.62 Contract Instructional 51,879.29 105,364 Rate per day = $ 121.76 Substitute days per teacher per year= 7.25 Rate per day = $121.76 Substitute days per teacher per year. 11,897 ear4 Services 51,879 $ per student $36.50 5.68 $390,749 1.00 $68,745 1 counselor per 250 students. 1 cocurricular director per 1421 students. 5.01 $272,947 5.01 $204,761 Counseling 4.06 $266,918 Co-curricular/activities director 0.31 $20,659 Additional Instructional Time for Students to FTE Teachers 0.21 $11,669 Achieve Standards FTE Classified 0.29 11,748 1 staff per Supplies $0 4,942.09 students. Rate per 9-12 Student = N/A $14,200 Other activities $0 Number of $449 (Not including federal programs) Students Served = 0.40 $26,024 2.13 $86,220 0.50 $20,283 Special education 0.60 $24,625 Support staff for alternative education and teen parent Counseling office 0.34 $13,744 0.48 $19,235 School-to-work coordinator Registrar 0.33 $13,467 0.96 $38,961 Attendance 0.72 $29,271 Community outreach 0.16 $6,363 Family resource center coord. Departmental support - $0 0.38 $15,272 Bookkeeper 0.51 $20,536 Volunteer coordinator Health clerk Media center assistant - 1.07 $0 $0 $43,213 Receptionist 0.74 $29,835 Campus monitor 1.51 $61,656 Curriculum Development Specialist FTEs Core Instructional General administrative support Support Staff Nurse/health assistant Instructional Improvement N/A Rate per student = N/A 1 curriculum specialist per 3,589.67 students. 1 staff per 667.48 students. I staff per 2,862.41 students 1 staff per 274.33 students 1 staff per 4224.38 students 1 staff per 2,992.01 students 1 staff per 4,273.38 students 1 staff per 1,477.12 students 1 staff per 1,966.09 students 1 staff per 9,044.02 students 1 staff per 3,768.34 students 1 staff per 2,802.37 students 1 staff per 1,331.78 students 1 staff per 1,928.92 students 1 staff per 941.64 students 60 Rate per day of $ 175 at 7.4 days per teacher per year. Y $ per student =$36.50 1 counselor per 349.99 students. 1 cocurricular director per 4,522 students. 1 staff per 6,632.28 students. Rate per day of $ 175 at 7.25 days per teacher per Students served: 284, 20% of enrollment. Staff/pupil ratio: 57 Students served: 284 Staff/pupil ratio: 57 $50 per student for supplemental texts, alternative teaching materials. Number of Students Served = 284 Rate per student = 1.58 1.00 $68,745 1 curriculum specialist per 1421 students. 2.13 $86,220 1.00 $40,857 1 staff per 667.48 students. 1 staff per 1,421 students 3.06 $125,100 1 staff per 1,421 students 1.00 $40,857 1 staff per 1,421 students 1.00 $40,500 1 staff per 1,421 students 1.00 $40,500 1 staff per 1,421 students 1.00 $40,500 1 staff per 1,421 students 1.00 $40,500 1 staff per 1,421 students 0.50 $20,250 1 staff per 2842 students - $0 6.00 $242,828 1 staff per 237 students 0.51 $20,536 1 staff per 2,802.37 students - 1.00 $0 $0 $40,500 1 staff per 1,421 students 1.00 $40,500 1 staff per 1,421 students 1.51 $61,656 1 staff per 941.64 students "What Will It Take" Project DV Miscellaneous basic ed 4.13 $168,829 staff Classified Substitutes Administrative Accountability Computer Hardware/ Software $12,785 Principal 1.21 $127,513 Administrative assistant and building manager 2.21 $201,995 Teacher leadership $45,746 Supplies and materials $24,890 Hardware including student and administrative $183,881 1 staff per 343.88 students Assumes rate of $13.29 per hour, 8 hours per day, usage of 7 days per FTE, plus mandatory benefits. 1 principal per 1,170.4 students 1 asst. principal per 6412.83 students - $0 $23,031 Based on substitute rate per day specified above at 7 days per year per FTE. 1.00 $112,129.09 1 principal per 1,421 students 2.00 $194,262 1 assistant per 710 students $142,120 Amount per student = $100 $ per FTE Student= $17.51 Number of student computers = 236 Amount per student = $32.19 $ per FTE Student= $17.51 $ per FTE Student= $129.38 Students per computer =N/A Instructional staff & administrative staff per computer $24,890 67,461 Percent replaced per year = 25% Cost per computer = 750 Students per computer = 6 =N/A Number of Teacher /Admin /Support Staff computers = 123 @ 1:1 Software Included above. 62,964 $0 Included above. 8,995 Software cost per new computer = $700 (assumes district software licensing to reduce costs) More intensive use ofa wider range of software at the high school level. $100 per computer $199,509 $116,539 $ per FTE student = $82 $0 $ per FTE student = $140.38 $ per student = $153,490 108$ per FTE student Copying $0 $ per student = $32,688 Media center materials Teacher reimbursement of materials purchases $0 $23,826 $ per student = $79,587 $23,826 1400 copies per student @ .016 per copy = $23 per student 56$ per FTE student Out-of-pocket teacher expenses for materials/supplies = $16.76 per student Network Supplies, Books, Materials upkeep/upgrades Texts, consumables, classroom sets Classroom materials, all equipment, supplies Out-of-pocket teacher expenses for Extra-Curricular Activities materials/supplies = $16.76 per student Coaching $295,570 Cther extracurricular $24,890 sponsors Athletic event-related $10,243 expenses Professional Training & Development Other extracurricular $45,177 materials and supplies Teacher professional development related to standards and $88,848 $ per FTE student=$207.97 $ per FTE student=$17.51 $ per FTE student = $7.21 $ per FTE student = $31.79 $ per student = $62.52 $295,570 $49,781 $10,243 $45,177 $274,956 assessments I $ per FTE student=$207.97 $ per FTE student=$35.03 $ per FTE student = I $7.21 I $ per FTE student = $31.79 10 days per certificated teacher. $ per student = $193.50 I I 61. an) Washington Quality Education Model 1 Materials, (ravel, $3,124 $ per student = $2.20 $14,212 Consultants $7,174 $7,174 Support staff $4,747 $ per student = $5.05 $ per special ed student = $28.71 $10 per student FTE. Covers travel to conferences, visits to exemplary schools, offsite meetingsr FTE student = $.73 $ per student = $5.05 $9,943 10 days per classified $ per student = $138.43 $ per student= $4.10 $217,637 support staff with instructional responsibilities $ per student = $153.14 $4,758 5 days @ $317/day $ per FTE student = $1.91 $ per FTE student = $267.36 $ per FTE student = $113.99 $ per FTE student = $605.72 $ per FTE student = $50.80 $2,717 $ per FTE student = $379,970 $ per FTE student = $267.36 $ per FTE student = $113.99 $ per FTE student = $605.72 $ per FTE student = $50.80 $ per special ed student = $439.60 Support for centralized curriculum development professional development Teacher preparation $196,737 days Building Support Leadership training for principal and administrative assistants $5,834 Food services $2,717 Student transportation $379,970 Technology services $162,000 Operation, maintenance of plant Other support services $873,859 Centralized special education Centralized curriculum development, $72,694 Costs: Costs Distributed to Each Building Centralized Services $72,198 $204,238 $ per special ed student = $439.60 $ per student = $143.71 $1.91 $162,000 $873,859 $72,198 $76,329 $272,311 and assessment support= assessment Executive $ per FTE student $83,038 = $58.43 administration (Board of Education, superintendent, public information) Business & Fiscal $122,506 $ per FTE student Personnel Services $64,723 Public Information $0 $ per FTE student $45.54 = $ per FTE student = 12, levy supported programs. Change in Ending General Fund $122,506 = $86.20 Services All Other non-k- $83,038 $7,106 $ per FTE student = $86.20 $ per FTE student = $45.54 per FTE student = 15 U $0 $0 $15,081 $64,723 $192 per student $ per FTE student = $58.43 $ per FTE student $15,081 = $10.61 $ per FTE student = $10.61 Balance CSL State and Local Expenditure Per Student $5,915 WQEM State and Local Expenditure Per Student 62 $7,753 "What Will It Take" Project al aragamentssalaten stivallegles Implementing a model of this proportion and significance is not a simple matter. In fact, the act of implementing it will reshape relationships between the state and schools. An adequacy model as conceived in this report suggests more than just new or additional resources for schools. It also requires schools to accept their responsibility to deliver a quality education and be held accountable if they do not do so. These broader systemic changes necessitate new governance structures to manage the policies that surround a new system of this nature. Implementation, then, begins by establishing the infrastructure necessary to manage an adequacy-based funding and accountability system. Meg, as kestigen reeexuadilbffianee to cogammissilega b:u nnazasze tlIne Warag The first step is to create a commission or charge an existing commission with the responsibility to manage the various dimensions of this system. Most important among these responsibilities are communicating the intent and purposes of the WQEM to educators and legislators, maintaining and updating the Prototype Schools, establishing expected performance goals for schools, identifiying the measures by which performance will be determined, and adapting the models to specific contexts such as rural or high-poverty schools. eril Washington Quality Education Model 63 Meg 2.2 13evellav tOne deata sMialOMM:5 fraeCeaSSIII7 aIl2tM113111020 lane millema3 atm/mate &unwilling am =Rage conDwatilogaz A uniform school-based data system is a necessary prerequisite in order to understand fiscal equity issues better and to compare school performance in relation to system goals. Once such a system exists, it becomes possible to understand adequacy better by tracking the ways in which schools have allocated funds and the quality that results. The commission that monitors the WQEM can then make necessary adjustments in the Prototype Schools based on what is learned from practice. Schools can also learn from one another how best to budget to achieve maximum results. Many of the necessary performance measures do not exist currently. With current data, we are unable to determine how well schools are functioning and how much they improve when provided adequate funding. A work group of educators and evaluation experts needs to identify an array of instruments and data collection protocols that all schools would agree to use when judging the effectiveness of their programs. This would be the first step toward being able to determine whether schools succeed in providing an adequate education when sufficient funding is provided. Meg 33.1 eaugastiltante al Pollnam-attamea telsra. Rama to as agrinoe &mains mamas mall alTiVoilbuntilogn An adequacy model quickly raises the issue of where the money will come from to meet the defined level of spending. Clearly, this is a larger question that must be examined in the broader context of revenue policy. It is beyond the scope of this report. In fact, this report should not necessarily be judged on demands that adequacy funding would put on the current revenue system, but on the degree to which the Prototype Schools seem to be reasonable representations of adequate educational funding needed to achieve broadly-held educational goals. The fundamental questions regarding revenue should be taken up by a blue-ribbon task force charged with examining the education funding system in its entirety, including the current mix of local operating levies, state general fund, and special-purpose state funds. The goal of the task force would be to formulate an education funding system that would be equitable and adequate; in other words, one that enabled all students to achieve similar educational outcomes and that gave all schools the resources necessary for them to meet state education goals, provided they operated in an efficient and effective fashion. I3 IFtmfIl limnipllaranancsOlonn varsans ameal Vgms finttullarear&sdonn Ornasee In considering a funding strategy, the method for implementing an adequacy model should also be considered. Two basic approaches and several variations are presented here. Full implementation means that funds would be provided simultaneously at all levels, K-12, for all elements of the quality education model. The strengths of this approach are that all students benefit simultaneously and that the various elements of the model can interact with one another to magnify their positive effects on learning. The drawbacks are (1) the amount of money needed to accomplish this approach can likely only be obtained at one time by a restructuring of the tax system, and (2) schools may have difficulty coping with an influx of funds and all of the changes that would be required at one time to ensure that improvements occurred concomitant to the funding increase. 64 "What Will It Take" Project asS Otacceeahre greade Bruen furageraamtaatilean Phased implementation strategies can take several forms. One approach is to begin at kindergarten and add one additional grade level each year. Funds are provided for the activities specific to the grade in question, thereby distributing the fiscal effect out over a much longer timeline. Similarly, implementation may be accomplished by addressing adequacy at the primary level (K-3), then intermediate (4-5), middle (6-8), and high school (9-12). The primary funding would be provided for all K-3 elements, and the next funding increase would then be three years later, for all elements related to grades 4 and 5. Two years later, middle level funding would be provided, and three years after that, high school funding provided. Phased implementation has the advantage of creating less of a one-time fiscal impact. It runs the risk, however, of being abandoned somewhere before it is completed due to changes in the political or economic landscape. Another advantage is that it provides funds in ways that allow schools to integrate them successfully. It does, though, create a line between the students who are on the side of the fence where adequacy has been implemented and those on the side where it has not. For a period of some time, perhaps 12 years, inequality will exist in the schools between those who are benefiting from the adequacy model and those who continue to be educated in the limited-resource environment. EkiellIIMIlt small COMIEDIDIIMEit rl/E11)1:PRennterreationn Another phased implementation approach is to select specific elements and fund them individually. For example, a set of elements designed to help low-performing students could be implemented at all levels simultaneously. These might include class size reduction, provision of additional teachers in core areas, extra time for students to meet standards, and reductions in the size of special education classes. Another combination might focus on providing greater variety in the curriculum and would include increasing the number of teachers at the elementary level available to teach special classes, and providing additional support staff at middle and high schools to allow teachers to handle more preparations. A focus on safety could result in adequacy funding for all elements of the WQEM that address student safety. In this fashion, the model might eventually be fully implemented, but in a way that all students were able to benefit simultaneously. Mot =aces ruzapilenuterateaara Another way to move toward implementation is to fund pilot sites to adequacy levels, use the performance measures identified to determine success, and then observe how well they deliver an adequate education. This is known as a "proof of concept" approach. The goal is to demonstrate that the basic concept is sound and that it works as predicted. Funding for such an approach might be garnered from philanthropic foundations in partnership with the state. The pilot schools might be from communities with above-average educational needs and challenges, although they should not be the most needy schools in the state initially. From these experiments, legislators and the public alike might develop support for broader applications of adequacy models to the entire educational system. 65 124 Washington Quality Education Model Co Y)122D. .Crins Chia eng The Washington Quality Education Model defines a challenge for educators, policy makers, and citizens. The WQEM raises a series of questions: What is an adequate education? Is an adequate education the same as a quality education? Are the leaders of the political system willing to accept the challenge of funding schools adequately? Are educators willing to design and operate schools so that they deliver a quality education to all students? This report outlines the dimensions of the challenge and presents a tangible strategy for taking the first step toward accepting the challenge. The journey on the road to an adequately funded quality education system for all of Washington's children is not one that can be accomplished in a single step. It cannot take place at all, however, without taking the first step. The road ahead is clearer now, and it will be up to the state's educators and policy makers to decide if they are willing to venture down this road. If they are, Washington will eventually have adequately funded schools that are accountable to provide a quality education that prepares all students for successful and fulfilling lives. 66 "What Will It Take" Project aDt3 o liopegaally D e c e m b e r 3 1 2, 9 chircanaogy Rif° aanDai 11.41etireg 012 artickpastile TweemeetilingDatate6 2 W E E 11 flf sgreteN Invitations went to 40 people, representing 18 organizations, agencies, and universities. Twenty people attended, representing the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI), Washington State School Directors Association (WSSDA), Washington School Principals Association (AWPS), Washington School Personnel Association (WSPA), Latino/a Educational Achievement Project (LEAP), Washington Association for Colleges of Teacher Education (WACTE), University of Washington College of Education, the Washington Education Association (WEA), and the WEA Special Education Cadre. Participants agreed on shared interests in determining adequate funding for schools and requested a clear statement of the project's intent to share with their respective organizations. Participants discussed the Oregon Quality Education Model and wanted to learn more about it as a possible model for us to follow. The group also discussed doing this body of work itself or finding a foundation or other neutral convener to help. Participants asked that invitations for the next meeting be extended to additional organizations, including State PTA, League of Education Voters, Partnership for Learning, Business Roundtable, and the Multi-Ethnic Think Tank. Brian Barker John Brickell Bob Butts Carol Coar Karen Davis Elvis Dellinger Donna Dunning Mary Alice Heuschel Ken Kanikeberg Martharose Laffey Joann Kink Mertens Margit McGuire Patty Raichle Ann Randall Ricardo Sanches Suzanne Saylor Pat Steinburg Greg Williamson Lorraine Wilson Janna Skorupa AWSP WEA OSPI WEA Special Ed. Cadre WEA WSPA UW College of Ed. OSPI OSPI WSSDA WEA WACTE, Seattle U WEA WEA LEAP WEA Special Ed. Cadre WEA OSPI WSSDA WEA support staff TabrUnarey 1129 20©2 o Illreezerratsvalenn (Dim ©mem QiincsEtalr Ede Modell Invitations went to 55 people, representing 23 organizations. Seventeen people attended, representing OSPI, WACTE, Academic Achievement and Accountability Commission (AAA Commission), AWSP, WEA Special Education Cadre, State PTA, WSSDA, University of Washington Center for Education Leadership, New Horizons for Learning, University of exp Washington Quality Education Model 67 Washington College of Education, and WEA. Guest speakers Nancy Heiligman, Oregon Department of Education, and Frank McNamara, Confederacy of Oregon Superintendents and Administrators, explained the concept, history and, process for development of the Oregon Quality Education Model. Participants expressed interest in developing a similar model for Washington and discussed funding and various approaches to the work. The request was made to invite David Conley, the lead researcher for the Oregon Quality Education Model, to our next meeting. Suzanne Saylor Margit McGuire Brian Barker Chris Thompson Lisa Bond Jean Carpenter Randy Parr Roger Barron Lorraine Wilson Steve Fink Patty Raichle Donna Dunning Barbara Lawson Doris Lyon John Brickell Dee Dickinson Maggie Calica WEA Special Ed. Cadre WACTE, Seattle U AWSP AAA Commission State PTA State PTA WEA OSPI WSSDA UW Center for Education Leadership WEA UW College of Education WEA WEA WEA New Horizons for Learning WEA support staff Merman 79 2002 a Mesintrag In IIDaerna1 Casa Iley Invitations went to 55 people, representing 23 organizations. Twelve people attended, representing AAA Commission, WSPA, WACTE, WSSDA, WEA, WASA, LEAP, State PTA, Washington Roundtable, and OSPI. David Conley gave participants detailed information about the Oregon Quality Education Model, the strategies involved in its development, and its impact to date on school funding. Participants continued to express interest in pursuing a similar project in Washington, especially if it were possible to work with a credible convener. Chris Thompson Elvis Dellinger Ann Randall Mark Pitts, Lorraine Wilson Patty Raichle Barbara Lawson Doyle Winter Doris Lyon Steve Mullin Lisa Bond Ricardo Sanchez David Conley Maggie Calica AAA Commission WSPA WEA WACTE WSSDA WEA WEA WASA WEA Roundtable State PTA OSPI University of Oregon WEA support staff 68 "What Will It Take" Project 67 kpriill 1129 2002 o Meetrugas wrgh time lamturailex ItignstiAtunqe WEA staff met with Booth Gardner, Judith Billings, and Cindi Laws of the Rainier Institute to explain the "What Will It Take?" project and to discuss whether the Rainier Institute might be interested in becoming the official convener. Subsequent phone calls confirmed the Rainier Institute's decision to become the convener. Agreement is reached on a project plan, involving a steering committee that will meet monthly to direct and review the work of smaller fiscal and educational work groups under the direction of lead consultants David Conley and Bill Freund. k.Eptell 11 219 2002, assiliitunte %Font% Rom David Conley discussed how to approach this project with the work group. He recommended working from areas of current consensus in the state and creating a concept statement that briefly describes what the group is attempting to accomplish. This statement can be shared widely for feedback. The group also discussed a work plan, steering committee meetings, and next steps. Booth Gardner Bill Freund Ken Kanikeberg Bob Butts Randy Parr Patty Raichle David Conley Rainier Institute Independent Consultant OSPI OSPI WEA WEA University of Oregon &note nT9 2002 a Ironse Oteeirrieng earaiondinee bfeettiltrag Booth Gardner greeted the steering committee and led introductions. After a short presentation on the Rainier Institute, the participants heard a description of the "What Will It Take?" project, the work to date, and the proposed timelines for project completion. Roger Barron Judith Billings John Brickell Bob Butts Dr. David Conley Jim Crawford Jack Daray Jessica DeBarros Elvis Dellinger Dee Dickinson Cheryl Ellsworth Ginny Fitch Bill Freund Booth Gardner Randy Hathaway Jill Jacoby Ken Kanikeberg Cherise Khaund Gary King Jeanne Kohl-Welles Barbara Lawson Rosemary McAuliffe OSPI Rainier Institute WEA OSPI University of Oregon, Lead Project Consultant OFM Spokane and Seattle SD consultant University of Washington WSPA New Horizons for Learning Seattle SD Kent SD, retired staff developer Lead Fiscal Consultant Rainier Institute WSPA WASA OSPI League of Education Voters WEA State Senator, Rainier Institute WEA State Senator 69 CASE3 Washington Quality Education Model Margit McGuire Bob McMullen Barbara Mertens Janie Nurse Randy Parr Kim Peery Patty Raichle Ann Randall Julie Salvi Suzanne Saylor Carol Taylor-Cann Lexie Tigre Jennifer Vranek Lorraine Wilson Joan Yoshitomi Lucinda Young Zusri fl r fl 9 WACTE, Seattle U AWSP WASA Bellevue PTA WEA PSE WEA WEA OFM WEA Special Ed. Cadre State PTA League of Education Voters Partnership for Learning WSSDA OSPI WEA 20:XM o Rime W®tp113 Gostu The group discussed the history of school funding in Washington in order to have a common understanding of where we are starting this project. Topics included the basic education allocation, constitutional obligations, practical considerations, and best ways to approach an funding adequacy model. Dr. David Conley Ken Kanikeberg Chuck Cuzzetto Bruce Blaine Julie Salvi Perry Keithly Denise Graham Randy Parr Patty Raichle Jnnfli 819 nOCD24 Lead Researcher OSPI WASA and Peninsula SD WASA Centralia SD retired Superintendent OFM Retired OSPI, WEA Legislative Staff WEA WEA 7)12,2=174 Grentig The group came up with a work plan, described in the "Primary Tasks" document. Cheryl Ellsworth Bruce Blaine Dee Dickinson Patty Raichle David Conley Seattle School District WASA Centralia SD retired Superintendent New Horizons for Learning WEA University of Oregon cEndir 1179 2002 a Sgeenetang C IIMIZeln0a Dleelltring Participants learned more about the Oregon Quality Education Model and the professional judgment approach to adequacy funding studies. David Conley shared the "Primary Tasks for Washington Quality Education Model," which outlines the four areas of work: (1) the Quality Education Vision; (2) Elements and Components; (3) Indicators of School Quality; (4) Performance Measures and Standards. Participants discussed the challenges of this study and strategic ways to make use of it. Participants also reviewed the first draft of the WQEM vision statement. 70 "What Will It Take" Project ,24) Booth Gardner Bruce Blaine Jack Daray Larry Davis Cheryl Ellsworth Steve Fink Ginny Fitch Leslie Goldstein Martharose Laffey Barbara Lawson Rosemary McAuliffe Margit McGuire Bob McMullen Barbara Mertens Janie Nurse Ricardo Sanchez Suzanne Saylor Carol Taylor-Cann Lexie Tigre Ann Randall Gary King Randy Parr Patty Raichle Dave Conley Bill Freund Ow Ey 291 2002 IF Rainier Institute Centralia SD, retired Superintendent Spokane and Seattle SD consultant State Board of Education Seattle SD University of Washington Kent SD, retired staff developer Staff for the State Senate WSSDA WEA State Senator Seattle University and WACTE AWSP WASA Bellevue PTA LEAP WEA Special Education Cadre State PTA League of Education Voters WEA WEA WEA WEA University of Oregon Fiscal Consultant M'apolh. Ganiang, The group discussed the project and how participants could help generate appropriate fiscal data. Issues included whether to report federal dollars, ESD costs, Voc. Ed. money, levy equalization, grants from private sources, etc. Ken Kanikeberg Cheryl Ellsworth Randy Parr Julie Salvi John Molohon Patty Raichle Bill Freund Dave Conley OSPI Seattle SD WEA OFM North Central ESD WEA Fiscal Consultant University of Oregon %hay 3309 2005 = Vila= Oteaterranerma WIDTPZ Ga°601111ip This work group developed the draft "Vision Statement for WQEM" and draft "Indicators of Quality Schools" documents. Joan Yoshitomi Ann Randall Ginny Fitch Margit McGuire Bob Butts Dee Dickinson Patty Raichle David Conley `70 Washington Quality Education Model OSPI WEA Kent SD, Retired staff developer Seattle University and WACTE OSPI New Horizons for Learning WEA University of Oregon knasnot 2119 2002 Oteererigas Convairraiiinee blezdirms Participants reviewed the Primary Tasks document. They discussed and revised first drafts of the Vision Statement and the Indicators of School Quality. (Revisions were sent to Steering Committee members on September 4, 2002.) Participants also were informed about activities with district business managers to collect information on current spending of state and levy dollars. Chris Thompson Rosemary McAuliffe Randy Hathaway Dee Dickinson Suzanne Saylor Lexie Tigre Joan Yoshitomi Tomiko Santos Janie Nurse Bob Butts Barb Mertens Donna Dunning Judith Billings AAA Commission State Senator WSPA New Horizons for Learning WEA Special Education Cadre League of Education Voters OSPI State Representative Bellevue PTA OSPI WASA University of Washington Rainier Institute Agar= 229 2002 0 OellnaDell IDEtezEtet Mane &mew himasseav Participants discussed the "What Will It Take?" project and how the school district survey fits into the final report. Bill Freund reviewed the survey form that he sent out in advance. Participants considered changes to make the survey more useful and discussed common definitions for various pieces. Bill will make the changes and send the survey out again to be completed prior to the next meeting. Carolyn Webb Patty Metropulos Bob Collard Barbara Posthumus Jim Stevens Rich Moore Fred High Matthew Benuska Norm Koenig Ken Kanikeberg Denise Graham Julie Salvi Randy Parr Patty Raichle Bill Freund David Conley Mukilteo SD Evergreen SD Lake Washington SD Lake Washington SD Bellingham SD Renton SD Kent SD WASBO representative (Lake Washington SD) ESD 105 (Yakima) OSPI House legislative staff OFM WEA WEA Lead Financial Consultant Lead Project Consultant 72 "What Will It Take" Project 711 katenazt 2339 2002 0 ElletErnetraqo mend CorelgooneEraqz Dilsenusenerm Participants: Roger Barron Bruce Blaine David Conley Patty Raichle OSPI Centralia Superintendent, retired University of Oregon WEA OegaetindosT nB9 2©©2 a lElleirmerinqs Coo:raga:Drama:3 Onscuasermon The group spent five hours developing recommendations for elements and components of the prototype schools. Pete Bylsma Hertica Martin Carol Coar Ginny Fitch Chuck Cuzzetto Ann Randall Chris Thompson Geoff Praeger Rodrico Barron Margit McGuire Judith Billings Patty Raichle David Conley OSPI Tacoma School District WEA Special Ed. Cadre Kent School District, retired Peninsula School Dist. WEA AAA Commission Consultant OSPI Seattle U., WACTE Rainier Institute WEA University of Oregon Zeggeguitere 1 9 20e2 o ragag wadi &mama:Lan Conaraqilez Mag Devellorspereo Fkleettgag Discussion of necessary time for professional development in a quality education model. Staff developers from the following districts or organizations participated: Tukwila Vashon Island Franklin-Pierce Sumner Auburn Tahoma Seattle University WEA Four people from the Puget Sound Educational Service District alggemarvie 2Z9 2002 ° SS( gram DEllasomsErne wadi Coarcriptgasnns Dilecuzzolut This smaller group focused primarily on staffing recommendations for the prototype schools. Bob McMullin Dee Dickinson Kathy Mannely Patty Raichle AWSP New Horizons for Learning PSE WEA 73 72 Washington Quality Education Model OsipteganIna° 2t9 2002 ,== Oteeatang CODTAlandittee Meetnang Bill Freund shared the progress of the fiscal work group, including the baseline spread sheets that show current spending with state money only. Participants approved the WQEM vision statement and discussed and revised the WQEM "Characteristics of a Quality Education." The group reviewed the initial work on elements and characteristics and started a discussion of performance measures and standards. Rosemary McAuliffe Judith Billings Dee Dickinson Bob Butts Barbara Lawson Patty Raichle Dave Conley Bill Freund State Senator Rainier Institute New Horizons for Learning OSPI WEA WEA University of Oregon Fiscal Consultant ©eta:Ana° 2§9 2©02 o Meettleag wilt% ofietwilae latasAnnom bialIMBST The participants reviewed the survey they had received from Bill Freund. They discussed items that were confusing and categories that were missed. The group listed central administrative costs that should be funded for a quality education model, including cost items that are required by law but currently unfunded (for example, Becca Bill requirements, asbestos removal, retired teachers' health care reimbursements, etc. ). Four districts turned in completed surveys. Jeff Riddle Jeff Moore Bod Collard Barbara Posthumus Josette Baines Patty Metropolous Ann Marie Williams Joe Zimmer John Molohon Norm Koenig Judith Billings Ken Kanikeberg Randy Parr Jennifer Priddy Patty Raichle Bill Freund Everett SD Everett SD Lake Washington SD Lake Washington SD Mukilteo SD Evergreen SD Kent SD Kent SD North Central ESD (Wenatchee) ESD 105 (Yakima) Rainier Institute Public School Employees WEA OSPI WEA Fiscal Consultant 74 "What Will It Take" Project 733 Dattainfr 299 300 03 e allearneiratte Comiponteanto Drocmosilom Participants provided extensive input for the elements and components of the Quality Education Model. Hertica Martin Bob McMullen Bruce Blaine Chuck Cuzzetto Diana Eggers Dee Dickinson Chris Thompson Sue Shannon Don Saul Carolyn Webb Jeff Riddle Roger Barron Larry Nyland Doris Lyon Patty Raichle Dave Conley Bill Freund Tacoma SD AWSP WASA; Retired Superintendent, Centralia SD WSPA; Peninsula SD Learning Space New Horizons for Learning AAA Commission OSPI Superintendent, Lake Washington SD Mukilteo SD Everett SD OSPI High line SD WEA WEA University of Oregon Fiscal Consultant ©etc bare Ba9 2000 M e Oteentme Commenee Mernme The Steering Committee adopted the "Characteristics of Effective Schools." Bill Freund reported on his activities to collect fiscal information from participating school districts. The committee discussed future work, timelines, and who should be contacted for additional input. Rosemary McAuliffe Janie Nurse Carol Taylor-Cann Suzanne Saylor Neal Powell Judith Billings Lorraine Wilson Ken Kanikeberg Joan Yoshitomi Jack Daray Randy Parr Patty Raichle Dave Conley Bill Freund State Senator Bellevue PTA State PTA WEA Special Education Cadre Washington Assn. of School Administrators Rainier Institute WSSDA Public School Employees OSPI Seattle SD / Spokane SD WEA WEA University of Oregon Fiscal Consultant 75 741 Washington Quality Education Model Nevearrnbew 2119 2002 .=.=, Oteenebas Caorragransbe bteeerivas The Steering Committee reviewed the work by Bill Freund to create the spending baseline of state and levy moneys. The committee also contributed to the input on elements and components for the Quality Education Model and began the discussion on performance indicators. Washington School Personnel Association State Representative Rainier Institute Washington Association of School Administrators WEA Special Education Cadre WEA WSSDA Bellevue PTA WEA Rainier Institute University of Oregon Fiscal Consultant Elvis Dellinger Kathy Haigh Judith Billings Barbara Mertens Carol Coar Doris Lyon Lorraine Wilson Janie Nurse Patty Raichle Cindi Laws Dave Conley Bill Freund ff:Deasimewer 49 = Matanzas onnit OM =min abating= Participants reviewed compilation of input from previous discussions on elements and components and added new information. Dee Dickinson Jonelle Adams Patrick Sexton Janet Hayakawa Ken Crawford Steve Rowley Margo Stewart Lydia Sellie Laurie Ferwerda John Knutson Bill McKeighen Stephen McCammon Dave Conley Bill Freund New Horizons for Learning Washington Assoc. for Better Schools Alliance for Education ATLAS Bainbridge Island SD Superintendent, Bainbridge Island SD Sumner SD, Business Services Northshore SD, Director of Finance Northshore SD, Personnel Director Kent SD, Director of Accounting Edmonds SD, Budget and Finance Fife SD, Superintendent University of Oregon Fiscal Consultant 76 "What Will It Take" Project 70 Decem3aerr no9 2003 o 711'13nel:in s9 Meet tints Thirteen principals and one principal intern met at the offices of AWSP to provide input on school spending and on elements and components for a Quality Education Model. Cheryl Petra Jeanie Engelland Paula Quinn Lydia Chris Sharp Little Brad Smith Steve Rood Steve Warren Gary Benedetti Janie Hunzinga Monica Miles Bob McMullin Karen Eitreim John McCrossin Jan Smith Lincoln Elementary, Olympia SD Stanley Elementary, Tacoma SD Hawk Elementary, North Thurston SD Rock Elementary, Tumwater SD Black Lake, Tumwater SD Nisqually Middle School, North Thurston SD Centralia Middle School White River Middle School Mann Middle School, Clover Park SD Intern, Nisqually Middle School, North Thurston SD Kamiakin H.S., Kennewick SD, Retired North Thurston H.S. Fife High School Aberdeen High School DeceimaDera 5129 20= e Meant gag ©391:1marMee Rgewailirnig The Steering Committee reviewed the assumptions of the WQEM Prototype Schools, reviewed the cumulative input on elements and components, discussed an outline of the final report, and considered various roll-out strategies for the report. Randy Hathaway Barbara Lawson Lorraine Wilson Janie Nurse Margit McGuire Dee Dickinson Joan Yoshitomi Randy Parr Neal Powell Bob Butts Bob McMullin Judith Billings Cindi Laws Patty Raichle Dave Conley Bill Freund Washington School Personnel Association WEA WSSDA Bellevue PTA WACTE New Horizons for Learning OSPI WEA Washington Association of School Administrators OSPI Assn. of Washington School Principals Rainier Institute Rainier Institute WEA University of Oregon Fiscal Consultant A Review of the 1996 National Education Summit (1997). Achieve, Inc., Washington, DC. Accountability Options: Most Effective When Combined. Executive Summary (1990). Office of 6 Washington Quality Education Model 77 kippermalliiz D33: neseaTelin Urma Ilen.lerrag 1E1 leanneants email Comragentegats mirada ClInommtegtiss-nca eg &lanenty Ocala:elle A Review of the 1996 National Education Summit (1997). Achieve, Inc., Washington, DC. Accountability Options: Most Effective When Combined. Executive Summary (1990). Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED), Washington, DC. Achilles, C. M. (1997). Small Classes, Big Possibilities. School Administrator, 54(9), 6-9,12-13,15. Achilles, C. M., & Finn, J. D. (1999, February). Some Connections between Class Size andStudent Successes. Paper presented at the Conference of the Center for Development and Learning, New Orleans, LA. Achilles, C. M., Harman, P., & Egelson, P. (1995). Using Research Results on Class Size to Improve Pupil Achievement Outcomes. Research in the Schools, 2(2), 23-30. Achilles, C.M. (1997). Small Classes, Big Possibilities. The School Administrator, 54 (9), 6-9, 12, 13, 15. Agne, K.J., Greenwood, G.E., & Miller, L.D. (1994). Relationships between Teacher Belief Systems and Teacher Effectiveness. The Journal of Research and Development in Education, 27 (3), 141-152. Albright, B. N. (1995). The Accountability Litmus Test: Long-Term Performance Improvement with Contained Costs. New Directions for Higher Education, 91(1), 65-76 Alves-Zervos, K. L. E., & Shafer, J. R. E. (1993). Syntheses of Research and Practice: Implications for Achieving Schooling Success for Children at Risk. Publication Series #93-5. Temple University, Philadelphia, PA. National Education Center on Education in the Inner Cities. Ambrosie, F., & Haley, P. W. (1988). The Changing School Climate and Teacher Professionalization., 72(504), 82-89. American Federation of Teachers. (1999). Making Standards Matter, 1999: An Annual Fifty-State Report on Efforts To Raise Academic Standards. Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers. America's Public Schools Must Change...But Can They? Results from the ECS 1996 National PostElection Voter Survey (1997). Education Commission of the States, Denver, CO. Anderson, R.N., Green, M.L, & Loewen, P.S. (1988). Relationships Among Teachers' and Students' Thinking Skills, Sense of Efficacy, and Student Achievement. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 24 (2), 148-165. Archbald, D. A., & Porter, A. (1994). Curriculum Control and Teachers' Perceptions of Autonomy and Satisfaction. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16(1), 21-39. Ashbaugh, C., & Kasten, K. (1991). Educational Leadership: Case Studies for Reflective Practice. New York: Longman. Assessing the Impact of High School Restructuring in Kentucky. (1995). Louisville University, KY. School of Education. Assessment and Accountability in Higher Education. Proceedings Document (Sante Fe, New Mexico, December 5-7, 1989). ECS Working Papers (1990): Education Commission of the States, Denver, CO. Austin, J. D. (1979). Home Work Research in Mathematics. School Science andMathematics, 79(2), 115-121. Bailey, W. J. (1997). Organizing Schools. Educational Leadership for the 21st Century. Lancaster, PA: Technomic Publishing Company, Inc. Bamburg, J. D. (1994). Raising Expectations to Improve Student Learning. Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. 78 "What Will It Take" Project 77 Barth, R. (1987). School: A Community of Leaders. Paper presented at the Annual Spring Conference of the Georgia State University Principals' Institute, Atlanta, GA. Bernal, E. M. (1996, April). Site-Based Decision-Making: Achieving a New Level of Professionalism. Paper presented at the Annual Curriculum and Instruction Conference of the Edgewood Independent School District, San Antonio, TX. Blankenship, G. (1990). Classroom Climate, Global Knowledge, Global Attitudes, Political Attitudes. Theory and Research in Social Education, 18 (4), 363-386. Bloom, B. S. (1980). The New Direction in Educational Research: Alterable Variables. Phi Delta Kappan, 61(6), 382-385. Bossert, S.T. (1985). Effective Elementary Schools. In Reaching for Excellence: An Effective Schools Sourcebook. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education. Bost, W. A., & Ruch, C. P. (1977). Management for Adaptability. NASSP Bulletin. 61(408), 19-24. Breaking Ranks: Changing an American Institution. A Bulletin Special. (1996). NASSP Bulletin, 80(578), 55-66. Brember, I., & Davies, J. (1997). The Effects of Pre-School Experience on Reading Attainment: A Four-year Cross-sectional Study. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology 17(3), 255-266. Bringing It All Together for Children in Public Schools: North Carolina (1997). North Carolina State Board of Education, Raleigh, NC. Brookover, W. B., et al. (1996). Creating Effective Schools: An In-Service Program for Enhancing School Learning Climate and Achievement. Revised Edition. Holmes Beach, FL: Learning Publications, Inc. Brookover, W. B., et al. (1996). Creating Effective Schools: An In-Service Program for Enhancing School Learning Climate and Achievement. Revised Edition. Holmes Beach, FL: Learning Publications, Inc. Brophy, J. (1986). Teacher Influences on Student Achievement. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1069-1077. Bryk, A.S., & Thum, Y.M. (1989). The Effects of High School Organization on Dropping Out: An Exploratory Investigation. CPRE Research Report Series. Madison, WI: Center for Policy Research in Education. Building Knowledge for a Nation of Learners: A Framework for Education Research 1997. A Report by the Assistant Secretary, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Sharon P. Robinson, and the National Educational Research Policy and Priorities Board (1996). National Educational Research Policy and Priorities Board (OERI/ED), Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Butchart, R. E. E., & McEwan, B. E. (1998). Classroom Discipline in American Schools: Problems and Possibilities for Democratic Education. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Cambone, J. (1995). Time for Teachers in School Restructuring. Teachers College Record, 96(3), 512-543. Candoli, I. C. (1995). Site-Based Management in Education: How To Make It Work in Your School. Lancaster, PA: Technomic Publishing Company, Inc. Carlson, K. G., Shagle-Shah, S., & Ramirez, M. D. (1999). Leave No Child Behind: A Baker's Dozen Strategies To Increase Academic Achievement. Chicago, IL: Chicago Board of Education: The Chicago Schools Academic Accountability Council. Cawelti, G. (1995). High School Restructuring: What Are the Critical Elements? NASSP Bulletin, 79(569), 1-15. Cawelti, G. (Ed.). (1995). Handbook of research on improving student achievement (1st ed.). Arlington: Educational Research Service. 70 Washington Quality Education Model 79 Cheng, Y. C., et al. (1996). A Multi-level and Multi-criteria Perspective of School Effectiveness: A Case Study. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY. Cicchelli, J. J. (1975, February). Assessing the Organizational Health of School Systems. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Association of School Administrators, Dallas, TX. Clough, M. P., et al. (1994). Managing Each Minute. Science Teacher, 61(6), 30-34. Conley, D. T (1991). Restructuring Schools: Educators Adapt to a Changing World. Trends & Issues Series, Number 6 A Series of Papers Highlighting Recent Developments in Research and Practice in Educational Management. ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, Eugene, OR. Conley, D. T. (1993). Evaluation of the Oregon Network: Educator Perceptions of Restructuring in Nine Schools. Conley, D. T., et al. (1992). The "Vision Thing" and School Restructuring. OSSC Report, 32(2), 1-8. Conley, S. (1991). Review of Research on Teacher Participation in School Decision Making. In G. Grant (Ed.), Review of Research in Education. Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association. Cooper, H. (1989). Synthesis of Research on Homework. Educational Leadership, 47 (3), 85-91. Cosden, M. 0. (1993). The Impact of Age, Sex, and Ethnicity on Kindergarten Entry and Retention Decisions. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 209-222. Cotton, K. (1996). Affective and Social Benefits of Small-Scale Schooling. ERIC Digest. ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools, Charleston, WV. Cotton, K., & Savard, W. G. Class Size. Research on School Effectiveness Project: Topic Summary Report. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, Portland, OR. Cotton, K., & Savard, W. G. Instructional Grouping: Ability Grouping. Research on School Effectiveness Project: Topic Summary, Report. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, Portland, OR. Cotton, K., & Savard, W. G. Parent Participation. Research on School Effectiveness Project: Topic Summary Project. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, Portland, OR. Cotton, K., & Savard, W. G. Time Factors in Learning. Research on School Effectiveness Project: Topic Summary Report. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, Portland, OR. Cotton, K., & Savard, W.G. The Principal as Instructional Leader. Research on School Effectiveness Project: Topic Summary Report. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, Portland, OR. Coyle, L. M., & Witcher, A. E. (1992). Transforming the Idea into Action: Policies and Practices to Enhance School Effectiveness. Urban Education, 26(4), 390-400. Crooks, T.J. (1988). The Impact of Classroom Evaluation Practices on Students. Review of Educational Research, 58 (4), 438-481. Daigle, P. D., & Leclerc, D. C. (1997). Turning a New Leaf: Flex Time for Teachers in a Restructured School. NASSP Bulletin, 81(588), 38-43. Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Reshaping Teaching Policy Preparation, and Practice. Influences of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. Washington, D.C: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Target Time toward Teachers. Journal of Staff Development, 2(X2), 31-36. Darling-Hammond, L., & Ball, D. L. (1998). Teaching for High Standards: What Policymakers Need To Know and Be Able To Do. CPRE Joint Report Series. Consortium for Policy Research in Education, Philadelphia, PA. National Commission on Teaching & America's Future, New York, NY. 80 "What Will It Take" Project 79 David, J. L. (1996). The Who, What, and Why of Site-Based Management. Educational Leadership, 53(4), 4-9. Day, C. (1999). Developing Teachers: The Challenges of Lifilong Learning. Educational Change and Development Series. Bristol, PA: Taylor and Francis. Devlin-Scherer, W., Spinelli, A. M., Giammatteo, D., Johnson, C., Mayo-Molina, S., McGinley, P., Michalski, C., Schmidek, S., Tomaiuolo, L., & Zisk, L. (1998, February). Action Research in Professional Development Schools: Effects on Student Learning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, New Orleans, LA. DeYoung, A. J. (1998, April). Parent Participation, School Accountability and Rural Education: The Impact of KERA on School Consolidation in Kentucky. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. Dimmock, C. (1995). Reconceptualizing Restructuring for School Effectiveness and School Improvement. International Journal of Educational Reform, 4(3), 285-300. Divine, P. (1998). Welfare Families' Use of Early Childhood Care and Education. Practitioners Perspectives [I]. Early Childhood Research Quarterlys 13(4), 565-566. Dockett, S., Perry, B., & Tracey, D. (1997). Getting Ready for School. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Brisbane, Australia. Dodge, D. T., & Bickart, T. S. (1998). Preschool for Parents: What Every Parent Needs To Know about Preschool. Washington, DC: Teaching Strategies, Inc. Doyle, D. P., & Pimentel, S. (1999). Raising the Standard: An Eight-Step Action Guide for Schools and Communities. Second Edition. A Standards Work Project. Coalition for Goals 2000, Inc., Washington, DC. Druian, G., et al. (1987). School Improvement Research Series. Research You Can Use. Northwest Regional Educational Lab, Portland, OR. Duke, D.L. (1989). School Organization, Leadership, and Student Behavior. In Strategies to Reduce Student Misbehavior. O.C. Moles. Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. 31-62. English, F (1969). Et Tu, Educator, Differentiated Staffing? Rationale and Modelfir a Differentiated Teaching Staff. TEPS Write-in Papers on Flexible Staffing Patterns, No. 4.: National Commission on Teacher Education and Professional Standards, Washington, D.C. Epstein, J. L. (1984, April). Effects of Teacher Practices of Parent Involvement Change in Student Achievement in Reading and Math. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Epstein, J. L. (1987). Parent Involvement: What Research Says to Administrators. Education and Urban Society. 19(2), 119-136. Epstein, J. L. (1992). School and Family Partnerships. Report No. 6 Center on Families Communities, Schools and Children's Learning. Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD. Epstein, J. L., & Dauber, S. L. (1991). School Programs and Teacher Practices of Parent Involvement in Inner-City Elementary and Middle Schools. Elementary School Journal, 91(3), 289-305. Epstein, J., & Becker, H. (1982). Teachers' Reported Practices on Parent Involvement: Problems and Possibilities. Elementary School Journal, 83(1) 103-114. Evans, S. (1996). Heterogeneous Grouping: Is it an Effective Instructional Arrangement for All Students? Southern Social Studies Journal, 22(1), 3-16. Evertson, C. M. (1981). Organizing and Managing the Elementary School Classroom. Austin, TX: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, University of Texas. Evertson, C. M. A., & Anderson, L. (1980). Relationship between Classroom Behavior and Student Outcomes in Junior High Mathematics and English Classes. American Elementary Research Journal, 17(1), 43-60. CC Washington Quality Education Model 81 Evertson, C., & Harris, A. (1992). What We Know About Managing Classrooms. Educational Leadership, 49(7), 74-78. Falvey, M. A. E. (1995). Inclusive and Heterogeneous Schooling: Assessment, Curriculum, and Instruction. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company. Farkas, S., & Johnson, J. (1998). Looking at the Schools: Public Agenda Asks African-American and White Parents about Their Aspirations and Their Fears. American Educator. 22(3), 3033,38-39. Ferguson, J. M., and Nochelski, P. (1996). The Power of Letting Go. American School Board Journal, 183(4), 37-39. Finn, C. E., Jr. (1996). Different Schools for a Better Future. Hudson Briefing Paper, No. 193. Hudson Institute, Indianapolis, IN. Finn, C. E.., Jr., Kanstoroom, M., & Petrilli, M. J. (1999). The Quest for Better Teachers: Grading the States. Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, Washington, DC. Finstad, E. (1987). Effects of Mathematics Homework on Second Grade Achievement. Sam Houston State University, TX. Fitzpatrick, K. (1991). Restructuring to Achieve Outcomes of Significance for All Students. Educational Leadership, 48(8), 18-22. Fletcher, J. D., Hawley, D.E. & Piele, P.K. (1990). Costs, Effects, and Utility of Microcomputer Assisted Instruction in the Classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 27(4), 783-806. Foley, J. (1997, February). Success in Restructuring: A Step-by-Step Recipe. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Scottsdale, AZ. Folger, J. (1989). Lessons for Class Size Policy and Research. Peabody Journal of Education, 67(1), 123-132. Foriska, T J. (c1998). Restructuring Around Standards : A Practitioner's Guide to Design and Implementation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Foyle, H. C., & Bailey, G. D. (1986). High School Homework: Increasing Student Achievement. Illinois School Research and Development, 22(2), 71 -77. Foyle, H. C., & Bailey, G. D. (1988). Research. Homework Experiments in Social Studies: Implications for Teaching. Social Education, 52(4), 292-294, 296-298. Fraser, B.J., et al. (1987). Syntheses of Research on Factors Influencing Learning. International Journal of Educational Research. 11(2), 155-64. Fuchs, D. F., Fuchs, L.S., Mathes, P.G., & Simmons, D.C. (1996). Peer Assisted Learning Strategies: Making Classrooms More Responsive to Diversity. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University. Fullan, M. (1992). Overcoming Barriers to Educational Change. Washington, DC: Office of Policy and Planning, U.S. Department of Education. Fuller, B., Wood, K., Rapoport, T, & Dornbusch, S. (1982). The Organizational Context of Individual Efficacy. Review of Educational Research, 52(1), 7-30. Fulton, M. (1996). The ABCs of Investing in Student Performance. Education Commission of the States, Denver, CO. Gamoran, A. (1986). Instructional and Institutional Effects of Ability Grouping. Sociology of Education, 59, 185-198. Gatewood, T E., & Conrad, S. H. (1997). Technology in the Classroom: Is Your School's Technology Up-to- Date? Childhood Education, 73(4), 249-251. Glass, G. V., et al. (1982). School Class Size: Research and Policy. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Goertz, M. E., et al. (1996). The Bumpy Road to Education Reform. CPRE Policy Briefs. Consortium for Policy Research in Education, Philadelphia, PA. 82 "What Will It Take" Project e32. Gottfredson, D. C. (1987). An Evaluation of an Organization Development Approach to Reducing School Disorder. Evaluation Review, 11(6), 739-763. Gottfredson, D. C. (1989). Developing Effective Organizations to Reduce School Disorder. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. Gottfredson, D. C., Marciniak, E. M., & and Birdseye, A. T (1995). Increasing Teacher Expectations for Student Achievement. Journal of Education Research, 88(3), 55-63. Grissmer, D. (1999). Class Size Effects: Assessing the Evidence, Its Policy Implications, and Future Research Agenda. Conclusion. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(2), 231-248. Guinn, S. L. (1999). Executive Development-Why Successful Executives Continue To Change. Career Development International 4(4), 240-43. Guskey, T R. (1998, April). Teacher Efficacy Measurement and Change. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. Guthrie, J. W. E., & Kirst, M. W. E. (1984). Data-Based Accountability in Education. California Univ., Berkeley. School of Education. Policy Analysis for California Education, Berkeley, CA. Stanford Univ., CA. School of Education. Hagans, R., & Crohn, L. (1986). State Curriculum Standards as a School Improvement Strategy. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, Portland, OR. Hallinan, M. (1987). Ability Grouping and Student Learning. In M. Hallinan (Ed.), The Social Organization of Schools: New Conceptualizations of the Learning Process (pp. 41-69). New York: Plenum. Hanson, E. M. (1998). Strategies of Educational Decentralization: Key Questions and Core Issues. Journal of Educational Administration, 36(2), 111-128. Harris, I. B. (1993). Education-Does It Make a Difference When You Start? Aspen Institute Quarterly, 5(2), 30-52. Hart, A. W, & Murphy, M. J. (1990). Preparing Principals to Lead in Restructured Schools. In P. Thruston (Ed.), Advances in Educational Administration, Volume 2 Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Harwood, W. S., & McMahon, M. M. (1997). Effects of Integrated Video Media on Student Achievement and Attitudes in High School Chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(6), 617-631. Haskin, K. (1995). A Process of Learning: The Principal's Role in Participatory Management. San Francisco, CA: American Educational Research Association. Hawkins, C. H., Jr. (1996). Lessons from the League: Relationship between Teacher Involvement and Sense of Efficacy. Haycock, K. (1998). Good Teaching Matters...A Lot. OAH Magazine of History, 13(1), 61-63. Head Start's Impact on School Readiness in Ohio: A Case Study of Kindergarten Students (1998). Ohio State Legislative Office of Education Oversight, Columbus. Hebert, E., Lee, A., & Williamson, L. (1998). Teachers' and Teacher Education Students' Sense of Efficacy: Quantitative and Qualitative Comparisons. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 31(4), 214. Heins, T. (1996). Presenting Rules to Young Children at School. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 21(2), 7-11. Holm, D. T., Hunter, K., & Welling, J. (1999). Supporting Systematic Change through Action Research. Hord, S. M. (1992). Facilitative Leadership: The Imperative for Change. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Hord, S. M. (1997). Professional Learning Communities: Communities of Continuous Inquiry and Improvement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. 1 83 C321 Washington Quality Education Model 1 Horsch, P., Chen, J.Q., & Nelson, D. (1999). Rules and Rituals: Tools for Creating a Respectful, Caring Learning Community. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(3), 223-227. Howley, C. (1997). Dumbing Down by Sizing Up. The School Administrator, 54(9), 24-26,28,30. Hoy, W, & Woolfolk, A. (1993). Teachers' Sense of Efficacy and the Organizational Health of Schools. The Elementary School Journal, 93(4), 355-372. Hunkins, E P., & Gehrke, N. J. (1985, April). Curriculum Alignment Measures of Effective Schools: Findings and Implications. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Ilg, T J., & Raisch, C. D. (1999, April). Building-Based Budgeting and Decentralization: A 20 Year Perspective. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Jacobs, R. (1987). The Effect of Class Sizes of 1:15, 1:25, and 1:25 Plus Full- Time Aide on Kindergarten Reading Readiness Achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Tennessee State University. Johns, K. M., & and Espinoza, C. (1996). Management Strategies for Culturally Diverse Classrooms. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa. Joyce, B., Showers, B., & Rolheiser-Bennett, C. (1987). Staff Development and Student Learning: A Synthesis of Research on Models of Teaching. Educational Leadership, 45(2), 11 -23 Kang, S., & Dennis, J. R. (1995). The Effects of Computer-Enhanced Vocabulary Lessons on Achievement of ESL Grade School Children. Computers in the Schools, 11(3), 25-35. Kao, M. T., Lehman, J. C., & Cennamo, K. S. (1996). Scaffolding in Hypermedia Assisted Instruction: An Example of Integration. Paper presented at the 1996 National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Indianapolis, IN. Keith, M., Puzerewski, B., & Raczynski, P. (1999). Improving Student Responsibility for Learning and Behavior through Ownership Development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, St. Xavier University, Chicago, IL. Kelley, C., & Smithmier, A. (1998). Aligning Organizational Features and School Reform: An Examination of Two Recent Reforms. Consortium for Policy Research in Education, Madison, WI. Finance Center. Wisconsin Center for Education Research, Madison. Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. (1999, April). Balancing the Core Strategies of Institutional Transformation: Toward a 'Mobile" Model of Change. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. King, M. B., et al. (1996). Participatory Decision Making. Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools, Madison, WI. King-Sears, M. E., & Bradley, D. F. (1995). Classwide Peer Tutoring: Heterogeneous Instruction in General Education Classrooms. Preventing School Failure, 40(1), 29-35. Kinneman, D. E. (1990). What's the Research Telling Us? Classroom Computer Learning, 10(6), 3135, 38-39. Klecker, B., & Loadman, W. E. (1996). Dimensions of Teacher Empowerment: Identifying New Roles for Classroom Teachers in Restructuring Schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-south Educational Research Association, Tuscaloosa, AL. Klecker, B., & Loadman, W. E. (1996). Exploring the Relationship between Teacher Empowerment and Teacher Job Satisfaction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-western Educational Reseach Association, Chicago, IL. Kleinsasser, A. M., & Paradis, E. E. (1997). Changing Teacher Education in the Context of a School-University Partnership: Disrupting Temporal Organizational Arrangements. Teacher Education Quarterly; 24(2), 63-73. Klonsky, M. (1995). Small Schools: The Numbers Tell a Story. A Review of the Research and Current Experiences. The Small Schools Workshop. Chicago, Illinois University: College of Education. 84 "What Will It Take" Project CB Kronberg, R. M. (1999). Teacher Efficacy in Heterogeneous Fifth and Sixth Grade Classrooms: Weaving Teachers' Practices and Perspectives. Minnesota University, Minneapolis, MN. Institution on Community Integration. Lagana, J. F. (1989). Ready, Set, Empower! Superintendents Can Sow the Seeds for Growth. The School Administrator, 46(1), 20-22. Land, R. (1997). Moving Up to Complex Assessment Systems. Proceedings from the CRESST Conference (Los Angeles, CA, September 5-6, 1996). National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, Los Angeles, CA. Lanier, J., & Sedlak, M. (1989). Teacher Efficacy and Quality Schooling. In T. Sergiovanni & J. Moore (Eds.), Schooling for Tomorrow: Directing Reform to Issues That Count. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Lashway, L. (1999). Holding Schools Accountable for Achievement. ERIC Digest, Number 130. ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, Eugene, OR. Lashway, L. (1999). Measuring Leadership: A Guide to Assessment for Development of School Executives. ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, Eugene, OR. Lashway, L. (1999). School Size: Is Small Better? ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, Eugene, OR. Leithwood, K. (1990). The Principal's Role in Teacher Development. In B. Joyce (Ed.), Changing School Culture Through Staff Development (Annual Yearbook of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development ed., pp. 71-90). Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Leonard, L. J. (1999). Towards Maximizing Instructional Time: The Nature and Extent of Externally-Imposed Classroom Interruptions. Journal of School Leadership, 9(5), 454-474. Lessons Learned: How Collaboration Contributes to School Improvement. State Leadership for Learning (1996). Education Commission of the States, Denver, CO. Levine, D. U., & Lezotte, L. W. (1990). Unusually Effective Schools: A Review and Analysis of Research and Practice. National Center for Effective Schools Research and Development, Madison, WI. Levine, D. U., & Lezotte, L. W. (1995). Effective Schools Research. In Handbook of Research on Multicultural Education, edited by J.A. Banks & C.A. Banks. New York, NY: Macmillan, 525-547. Levine, S. L. (1989). Promoting Adult Growth in Schools: The Promise of Professional Development. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Lewit, E. M., & Baker, L. S. (1995). School Readiness. Future of Children, 5(2), 128-139. Lieberman, G. A., & Hoody, L. L. (1998). Closing the Achievement Gap: Using the Environment as an Integrating Context for Learning. Results of a Nationwide Study. State Education and Environmental Roundtable, San Diego, CA. Liebling, C. R. (1997). Achieving Standards-Based Curriculum Alignment through Mindful Teaching. RMC Research Corporation, Portsmouth, NH. Little, J. W. (1981). Finding the Limits and Possibilities of Instructional Leadership: Some Possibilities for Practical and Collaborative Work with Principals.: Center for Action Research. Loosening the Reins: How Flexibility Policies Contribute to Student Achievement (1997). Education Commission of the States, Denver, CO. Lopez, 0. S. (1995). The Effect of the Relationship between Classroom Student Diversity and Teacher Capacity on Student Performance. Executive Summary. Conclusions and Recommendations for Educational Policy and Practice. The Strategic Management of the Classroom Learning Enterprise Research Series.Berliner, D., & Cassanova, U. (1989). Effective Schools: Teachers Make the Difference. Instructor, 99 (3), 14-15. 041 Washington Quality Education Model 85 Lopez, 0. S. (1995). The Effect of the Relationship between Classroom Student Diversity and Teacher Capacity on Student Performance. Executive Summary. Conclusions and Recommendations for Educational Policy and Practice. The Strategic Management of the Classroom Learning Enterprise Research Series. Loveless, T. (1998). The Tracking and Ability Grouping Debate. Volume 2, Number 8.: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, Washington, DC. Macpherson, R. J. S. (1996). Accountability: Towards Reconstructing a "Politically Incorrect" Policy Issue. Educational Management & Administration, 24(2), 139-150. Macpherson, R. J. S. (1996). Educative Accountability Policies for Tasmania's Locally Managed Schools: Interim Policy Research Findings. International Journal of Educational Reform, 5(1), 35-55. Macpherson, R. J. S. (1996, April). Refiaming Accountability Policy Research with Postpositivism, Pluralism, Democracy and Subsidiarity. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY. Macpherson, R. J. S. (1998). The Politics of Accountability: Educative and International Perspectives. The 1997 Yearbook of the Politics of Education Association. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. Macpherson, R. J. S., & Taplin, M. (1995). Principals' Policy Preferences Concerning Accountability: Implications for Key Competencies, Performance Indicators, and Professional Development. Journal of School Leadership, 5(5), 448-481. Macpherson, R. J. S., et al. (1995). Accountability Research in Education: Current Developments. International Journal of Educational Research, 23(6), 475-567. MacTaggart, T. J. E. (1996). Restructuring Higher Education. What Works and What Doesn't in Reorganizing Governing Systems. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Making City Schools Work. What We Know, What It Takes (1995): North Central Regional Educational Lab. Oak Brook, IL. Malloy, W, & Malloy, C. (1997). Deconstructing the Impediments to Responsible Inclusion through the Essential Schools Option. Journal for a Just and Caring Education, 3(4), 459-479. Marks, H. M., & Louis, K. S. (1997). Does Teacher Empowerment Affect the Classroom? The Implications of Teacher-Empowerment for Instructional Practice and Student Academic Performance. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(3), 245-275. Martin, N. K., & Shoho, A. R. (1999, April). Belief Regarding Classroom Management Style: Differences between Traditional and Alternative Certification Teachers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Massanari, C. B. (1993). Outcome-based education: Its relevance to state and national decision making ( Synthesis Report 9): The College of Education, University of Minnesota. Massell, D., et al. (1997). Persistence and Change: Standards-Based Reform in Nine States. Report #37, CPRE Report Series. Consortium for Policy Research in Education, Philadelphia, PA. Mathews, J. (2000). Tennessee System for Gauging Results Angers Some Educators but Gains Acceptance Elsewhere. Washington Post, pp. A07. McCaslin, M., & Good, T. (1992). Compliant Cognition: The Misalliance of Management and Instructional Goals in Current School Reform. Educational Researcher, 21(3), 4-17. McColskey, W., Mikow-Porto, V., & Bingham, S. (1998). Reflecting on Progress: Site-Based Management and School Improvement in North Carolina. R&D. Special Report. SERVE: SouthEastern Regional Vision for Education. McElrath, R. (1988). Will Empowerment of Teachers Remove Barriers to Educational Reform? Paper presented to the National Council of States on Inservice Education, New Orleans, LA. "What Will It Take" Project 4130 McMillan, J. H. (1997). Classroom Assessment. Principles and Practices for Effective Instruction. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. McNinch, G. H., Shaffer, G. L., Campbell, P., & Rakes, S. (1998). Allocation of Time in Reading. Reading Horizons, 39(2), 123-130. Means, B., & Olson, K. (1995). Technology's Role within Constructivist Classrooms. SRI International, Menlo Park, CA. Mitchell, A., & Raphael, J. (1999). Goals 2000: Case Studies of Promising Districts. Urban Institute, Washington, DC. Mitchell, A., & Raphael, J. (1999). Goals 2000: Case Studies of Promising Districts. Urban Institute, Washington, DC. Mitchell, K. J. (1995). Charting the Progress of New American Schools: Creating a School Reform Portfolio. Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, CA. Institution on Education and Training. Mosteller, E, et al. (1996). Sustained Inquiry in Education: Lessons from Skill Grouping and Class Size. Harvard Educational Review, 66(4), 797-842. Murphy, J., & Hallinger, P. (Eds.). (1993). Coordinating Restructuring. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press. School and District Developement in National Leadership Network Study Group on Restructuring Schools. (1991). Developing Leaders for Restructuring Schools: New Habits of Mind and Heart. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Natriello, G., & McDill, E. L. (1986). Performance Standards, Student Effort on Homework, and Academic Achievement. Sociology of Education, 59(1), 18-31. Newman, A. P. (1978). Twenty Lives: A Longitudinal Study of the Effects of 5 Variables on 20 Students Who Were Low Readiness in First Grade (1964-1976), ED188126. the Lives of Organizing for Schooling. IDRA Focus (1996). Intercultural Development Research Association, San Antonio, TX. Paschal, R. A., et al. (1984). The Effects of Homework on Learning: A Quantitative Synthesis. Journal of Educational Research, 78(2), 97-104. Perie, M., et al. (1997). Time Spent Teaching Core Academic Subjects in Elementary Schools. Comparisons across Community, School, Teacher, and Student Characteristics. Statistical Analysis Report. American Institutes for Research in the Behavioral Sciences, Washington, D.C. Perry, D. G. (1999). A Study To Determine the Effects of Pre-Kindergarten on Kindergarten Readiness and Achievement in Mathematics.Unpublished master's thesis, Teikyo University, Waterbury, CT. Peyton, D. (1995). Time Management and Educational Reform. National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education, Washington, DC. Pianta, R. C., Cox, M. J., Taylor, L., & Early, D. (1999). Transition Practices. National Center for Early Development & Learning, Chapel Hill, NC. Pigge, E L., & Marso, R. N. (1993, February). Outstanding Teachers' Sense of Teacher Efficacy at Four Stages of Career Development. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators, Los Angeles, CA. Pool, H. E., & Page, J. A. E. (1995). Beyond Tracking: Finding Success in Inclusive Schools. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational. Porter, A. (1989). External Standards and Good Teaching: The Pros and Cons of Telling Teachers What to Do. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(4), 343-356. Porter, A., & Brophy, J. (1988). Synthesis of Research on Good Teaching: Insights from the Work of the Institute for Research on Teaching. Educational Leadership, 45(8), 74-85. 87 4116 Washington Quality Education Model Postlethwaite, T N., & Ross, K. N. (1992). Effective Schools in Reading: Implications for Educational Planners. An Exploratory Study. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. Powell, D. R. (1991). Strengthening Parental Contributions to School Readiness and Early School Learning, ED 340467. Prestine, N. A., & McGreal, T. L. (1997). Fragile Changes, Sturdy Lives: Implementing Authentic Assessment in Schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 33(3), 371-400. Promising Programs and Practices in Multicultural Education (1995). North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, Oak Brook, IL. Quality Teaching: Quality Education for Alberta Students. A Discussion Paper for Consultations on Enhancing the Quality of Teaching (1995). Alberta Department of Education, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Raywid, M. A. (1995). The Subschools /Small Schools MovementTaking Stock. Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools, Madison, WI. Raywid, M. A. (1996). Downsizing Schools in Big Cities. ERIC Digest. No. 112. ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education, New York, N.Y. Raywid, M. A. (1996). Taking Stock: The Movement to Create Mini-Schools, Schools- within-Schools, and Separate Small Schools. Urban Diversity Series No. 108. Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools, Madison, WI. ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education, New York, N.Y. Readiness To Learn. 1997 Kindergarten Survey Report and County Data (1998). Oregon State Department of Education, Salem, OR. Reeves, D. B. (1998). Holding Principals Accountable. School Administrator, 55(9), 6-9,4-12. Renzulli, J. S. (1995). Building a Bridge between Gifted Education and Total School Improvement. Talent Development Research-Based Decision Making Series 9502. Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Riedinger, S. A. (1997). Even Start: Facilitating Transitions to Kindergarten. Mathematical Policy Research, Inc., Plainsboro, NJ. Roach, V., Dailey, D., & Goertz, M. (1997). State Accountability Systems and Students with Disabilities. Issue Brief. Center for Policy Research on the Impact of General and Special Education Reform, Alexandria, VA. Roellke, C. (1996). Curriculum Adequacy and Quality in High Schools Enrolling Fewer Than 400 Pupils (9-12). ERIC Digest. ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools, Charleston, WV. Rogers, K. B. (1998). Using Current Research To Make "Good" Decisions About Grouping. NASSP Bulletin, 82(595), 38-46. Rosenholtz, S. (1989). Workplace Conditions That Affect Teacher Quality and Commitment: Implications for Teacher Induction Programs. The Elementary School Journal, 89(4), 421-440. Ross, J. A. (1994). Beliefs That Make a Difference: The Origins and Impacts of Teacher Efficacy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Rothman, R. (1997). Measuring Up: Standards, Assessment, and School Reform. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc. Rugg, C. D. (1994). Joining Forces: Communities and Schools Working Together for a Change. A Special Report. Mott (C.S.) Foundation, Flint, MI. Rutherford, B. E. (1995). Creating Family/School Partnerships. National Middle School Association, Columbus, OH. Saban, A. (1997). Emerging Themes of National Educational Reform. International Journal of Educational Reform, 6(3), 349-356. 8 "What Will It Take" Project 07 Sammons, P., et al. (1995). Key Characteristics of Effective Schools: A Review of School Effectiveness Research. London University (England): Institution of Education. Sanacore, J. (1997). Reaching Out to a Diversity of Learners: Innovative Educators Need Substantial Support. Sanders, E. T W. (1999). Urban School Leadership: Issues and Strategies. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education. Sanders, M. G., & Epstein, J. L. (1998). School-Family-Community Partnerships in Middle and High Schools: From Theory to Practice. Report No. 22. Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk, Baltimore, MD. Sanders, M. G., Epstein, J. L., & Connors-Tadros, L. (1999). Family Partnerships with High Schools: The Parents' Perspective. Report No. 32. Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk, Baltimore, MD. Sanders, W. L. (1998). Value-Added Assessment. School Administrator, 11(55), 24-27. Sanders, W. L., & Horn, S. P. (1994). The Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System (TVAAS): Mixed- Model Methodology in Educational Assessment. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 8(3), 299-311. Sanders, W. L., & Horn, S. P. (1998). Research Findings from the Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System (TVAAS) Database: Implications for Educational Evaluation and Research. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12(3), 247-256. Sauer, J., & Walz, L. (1999). Planning Our Future Together: Usinga Large-Scale Systems Change Process for Educational Reform (Video Discussion Guide]. (Available from St. Paul, Minnesota State Department of Education. Minnesota University: Minneapolis Institute on Community Integration.) Schlechty, P. C. (1997). Inventing Better Schools: An Action Plan for Education Reform. The JosseyBass Education Series. Schoolwide Programs: Preparing for School Reform. A Planning and Development Handbook (1998). Colorado State Department of Education, Denver, CO. Sebring, P. B., et al. (1995). Charting Reform: Chicago Teachers Take Stock. A Report. Consortium on Chicago School Research, IL. Sewall, A. M. (1999). Central Office and Site-Based Management: An Educator's Guide. Lancaster, PA: Technomic Publishing Company, Inc. Shepard, J. M. (1999). Developing Responsibility for Completing and Handing in Daily Homework Assignments for Students in Grades Three, Four, and Five. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, FL. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22. Sipe, T A., & Curlette, W. L. (1997). A Meta-Synthesis of Factors Related to Educational Achievement: A Methodological Approach to Summarizing and Synthesizing Meta-Analyses. International Journal of Educational Research. 25(7), 583-698. Sirois, H. A. (1980). Alterable Variables in Education. Position Paper. Middletown Public Schools, CT. Slavin, R. E. (1988). Synthesis on Research on Grouping in Elementary and Secondary Schools. Educational Leadership, 46(1), 67-77. Smith, D. (1997). Teaching and Learning in a Standards-based Classroom. West Albany, NY: West Albany High School. Smith, W. L., et al. (1986). Class Size and English in the Secondary School ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills, Urbana, IL: National Council ofTeachers of English. 89 CO Washington Quality Education Model Sorensen, A. B. (1987). The Organizational Differentiation of Students in Schools as an Opportunity Structure. In M. Hallinan (Ed.), The Social Organization of Schools: New Conceptualizations of the Learning Process. New York: Plenum. Sorensen, A. B., & Hallinan, M. T (1986). Effects of Ability Grouping on Growth in Academic Achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 519-542. Stapleford, T. A. (1995). Successful School Change: Lessons from Two Schools. ERS Spectrum, 13(2), 25-28. State University, Nashville: Center of Excellence: Basic Skills.Achieving Nationwide School Improvement through Widespread Use of Effective Programs and Practices. CRESPAR Research and Development Report, No. 2 (1997). Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk, Baltimore, MD. Stuck, G. B., & White, K. P. (1992). Maximizing Time To Teach and Time To Learn. North Carolina Educational Policy Research Center, Chapel Hill, NC. Suarez, T M., et al. Enhancing Effective Instructional Time: A Review of Research. North Carolina Educational Policy Research Center, Chapel Hill, NC. Suydam, M. N. (1985). Research Report: Homework: Yes or No? Arithmetic Teacher, 32(5), 56. Swanson, A. D. (1988). The Matter of Size: A Review of the Research on Relationships between School and District Size, Pupil Achievement and Cost. Research in Rural Education, 5(2), 1-8. The Culture of an Effective School. Research Action Brief Number 22 (1984): ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, Eugene, OR. Time in the Classroom. Indicator of the Month (1993). National Center for Education Statistics (ED): Washington, DC. Townsend, S. (1995). The Effects of Vocabulary Homework on Third Grade Achievement. Unpublished Master's thesis, Kean College of New Jersey. Townsend, T. (1996, January). School Effectiveness and Restructuring Schools: What Does the Research Tell Us? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement, Minsk, Belarus. Transforming Education Systems: Finding the Middle Ground (1995). National Governors' Association, Washington, D.C. Transforming Teacher Knowledge: A 21st Century Policy Challenge (1997). National Institution on Educational Governance, Finance, Policymaking, and Management (ED/OERI), Washington, DC. Transforming the Education System: The 1997 Education Agenda (1997). Education Commission of the States, Denver, CO. Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W K. (1998). Teacher Efficacy: Its Meaning and Measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202-248. Turvey, J. S. (1986). HomeworkIts Importance to Student Achievement. NASSP Bulletin, 70(487), 27-35. U.S. Department of Education. (1995). Supporting Community Efforts To Improve Schools. The Goals 2000 Act. Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED), Washington, DC. Office of Reform Assistance and Dissemination. Universal, T., et al. (1990). Time Management: Managing Instructional Time To Enhance Program Congruence. New York State Education Department, Albany, NY. Vollansky, A., & Bar-Elli, D. (1996). Moving toward Equitable School-Based Management. Educational Leadership, 53(4), 60-62. VonVillas, B. A. (1996). High Schools Can Visibly Improve: The District That Became a Model. NASSP Bulletin, 80(578), 68-74. 90 "What Will It Take" Project 09 Walberg, H. J. (1978, January). A Theory of Educational Productivity. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Georgia Educational Research Association. Walberg, H. J. (1984). Families As Partners in Educational Productivity. Phi Delta Kappan. 65(6), 397-400. Walberg, H. J. (1997). Uncompetitive American Schools: Causes and Cures. Publication Series No. 12. Mid-Atlantic Laboratory for Student Success, Philadelphia, PA. National Research Center on Education in the Inner Cities, Philadelphia, PA Walberg, H. J., & Lane, J. J. (1985). The Role of the Administrator in School Productivity. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 11(2), 217-230. Walberg, H. J., et al. (1986). Walberg and Colleagues Reply: Effective Schools Use Homework Effectively. Educational Leadership, 43(8), 58. Walberg, H. J., et al. (1994). Assessment Reform: Challenges and Opportunities. Fastback 377. Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation, Bloomington, IN. Walberg, H. J., et al. (1994). Productive Curriculum Time. Peabody Journal of Education, 69(3), 86-100. Watson, K. (1985). Mixed-Ability Classrooms Produce Superior Results. Highway One, 8(3), 57-63. Watt, J. (1996). Educational Disadvantage in a Culture of Achievement: Research Priorities for the Early Years. Scottish Educational Review, 28(2), 139-148. What's Noteworthy on Learners, Learning, Schooling (1995). Mid-Continent Regional Educational Laboratory, Aurora, CO. Wheelock, A. (1992). The Case for Untracking. Educational Leadership, 50(2), 6-10. Wiggins, G. (1997). Work Standards: Why We Need Standards for Instructional and Assessment Design. NASSP Bulletin, 81(590), 56-64. Williams, D. T. (1990). The Dimensions of Education: Recent Research on School Size. Working Paper Series. Clemson University, SC: Strom Thurmond Institution of Government and Public Affairs. Witcher, A. E. E., & Kennedy, R. L. E. (1996). Big Schools, Small Schools: What's Best for Students? Hot Topics Series. Phi Delta Kappa, Bloomington, IN. Center on Evaluation, Development, and Research. Word, E. R., et al. (1990). The State of Tennessee's Student/Teacher Achievement Ratio (STAR) Project: Technical Report (1985-1990). Nashville, Tennessee State Department of Education. Yoder, N. (1994). Teacher Leadership. An Annotated Bibliography. Washington, D.C: National Foundation for the Improvement of Education. St. Louis, MO: Danforth Foundation. 91_ 9© Washington Quality Education Model Ihantallrung saalleozinamcg osatiirrag gen. Waollanntigtenn kgmennatio Cs otaaso stsatess consagetreefi Education spending per student, adjusted for regional cost differences (2002) Overall grade for adequacy State average State Percent of U.S. average Percent change from Percent of students in districts with perPupil expenditures at or above the U.S. average' ($5.594) 100.0 7.8 127.1 6.1 91 120.3 121.4 112.7 4.6 3.9 91 $ 123.1 5.1 97.8 93.9 76.6 B. 89 110.5 4.3 76.1 By By 89 87 $8,315 $8,695 $8,328 B 86 $8,461 5.4 -2.4 5.7 69.0 99.8 Pennsylvania Iowa B 86 $8,078 $8,570 114.2 110.7 112.5 107.4 4.1 54.7 Delaware Wisconsin Connecticut Michigan Rhode Island Maine Indiana New Jersey Oregon 97 A A 94 A AAA- 93 B 98 94 93 92 86 119.0 4.1 131.7 124,8 9.2 100.0 81.6° 100.0 97.5° 11.7 100.0 100.0 984 99.9 100.0 99.8 98.7 98.8 98.2 100.0 96.7 98.3 113.9 4.6 11.3 Ohio B 85 $8,407 111.7 Nebraska B 85 Georgia Massachusetts 13 84 $8522 $8194 113.3 108.9 B 54 112.0 Minnesota B 84 $8,429 $7,987 11.6 8.9 106.2 5.1 South Carolina B 83 $7 930 105.4 Kansas B 83 102.8 102.2 9.5 4,8 5.1 3.9 5.2 C+ 77 $1540 100.2 C+ C+ 77 $1,444 98.9 100.5 2.5 4.2 C+ 77 _57,230 98.2 5.1 31.4 93.3 88.4 92.0 92.6 87.9 101.5 84.2 91.2 4.1 18.3 17.5 28.2 83 B- 81 $7 792 103.6 B- 81 Hawaii B- 80 $7,689 $6 794 102.2 90.3 Kentucky Texas C+ 78 _$2,314 C+ C+ C+ $7 248 77 $7,363 $1,170 95.9 96.3 97.9 95.3 5.1 78 South Dakota Alaska New Hampshire North Dakota 77 77 Louisiana Alabama C C 76 75 $7,018 $6 652 Missouri Washington C 75 $6 924 C 74 $6,969 Arkansas New Mexico Colorado Oklahoma Nevada C 74 C 74 C C 72 C 71 $6 438 Idaho D+ 69 $6 291 Mississippi Florida D+ D+ 68 67 $6 006 __AS 512 D 68 $5,994 D 65 F 58 Tennessee California Arizona Utah District of Columbia U.S 49.2 39,7 32.9 57.4 5.1 8 Illinois North Carolina 55.1 56.2 57.8 40.8 50 84,1 32.9 47,2 0.0 38.6 24.2 31.6 36.9 26.5 29.3 39.6 $7721 $7 889 Maryland Montana Virginia F 71 57 - $6,616 47 634 99.9 97.4 99.9 129.7 A A A dequacy Index' (2000) Percent of total taxable resources spent on education (2000) 5% OF GRADE Average annual rate of change in expenditures per pupil, adjusted for inflation (1991-2001) 2991 $9,758 $9,563 $8,957 $9,907 $9,392 $9,948 59,136 $8 479 West Virginia New York Wyoming Vermont 15% OF GRADE 40% OF GRADE 40% OF GRADE 1,4 3.5 5,1 4.2 1.6 4.9 3.8 3.7 4.9 2.7 4.3 3.6 4.4 3.7 4.6 4.2 3.2 0.4 3.9 -68 1.3 1.0 1.9 1.6 0.2 1.7 2.3 1.9 2.5 3.8 0.4 3.9 1.7 97.8 3.4 1.6 95.1 3.8 3.7 3.5 1.9 3.1 1.7 97.1 3.7 1.5 94.8 4.0 2.3 99.5 90.2 3.7 4.4 -0.3 97.1 3.2 0.9 99.5 3.0 0.6 94.5 93.6 3.3 1.9 3.5 2.3 92.8 3.3 1.3 95.4 91.8 2.9 3.3 1.4 90.1 4.1 2.4 -0.6 91.8 3.1 1.3 91.9 92.9 3.6 1.4 1.9 92.8 3.2 3.7 3.5 1.1 3.2 1.0 95.4 97.9 96.5 1.4 2.3 1.3 96.7 1.1 2.7 7.9 5.6 11.0 1,5 10.2 91.5 80.4 16.9 90.9 3.7 1.9 9.8 25.0 3.5 2.8 2.7 6.4 6.1 8.1 8.7 6.1 11.4 84.0 3.7 2.7 6.2 85.3 88.3 3.3 2.8 -0.4 5.1 5.7 0.9 2.3 2.3 3.7 3.6 88,181 85.8 83.6 79.8 86.6 79.7 81.9 3.3 83.6 92.9 84.0 91.2 $5 487 72.9 5.1 8.6 $6,334 $6,859 $4,995 86.4 ;10 251 136.2 $7,524 5.1 0.8 2.8 86.0 2.7 1.3 80.8 78.7 3.1 0.9 0.3 2.3 0.2 3.1 69.5 3.5 100.0 100.0 1.2 397 92A 3.5 5.1 0.3 2.2 2.9 NOTE: States are ranked by number grade to the neare t decimal. Source: Quality Counts, 2003, Education Week. En COPY AVAILABLE 92 "What Will It Take" Project VI About the Authors Dr. David Conley is founder of the Center for Educational Policy Research at the University of Oregon. Under the direction of the Oregon Quality Education Commission convened by Gov. John Kitzhaber, Dr. Conley developed the often-cited Oregon Quality Education Model. Dr. Conley conducts research with state and local governments and school districts throughout the country. William Freund is an independent financial economist working with the Rainier Institute. Mr. Freund previously served as senior budget analyst for the Washington State Legislature, specializing in public education. 3 Pragmatic Solutions to Public Policy Concerns 615 2nd Ave., Suite 560 Seattle, WA 98104 206-575-1964 www.rainierinstitute.corn 0 .014."2 94 4/30/03 10:31 M Reproduction Release U.S. Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences (IES) National Library of Education (NLE) Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) Etutand fleuanes IrOtritlaa Cent Reproduction Release (Specific Document) I. DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION: Title: IWhat Will It Take? Defining a quality education in Washington and a new vision of adequacy for school funding Author(s): 'Conley, David T. & Freund, William Publication Date: 'March 2003 Corporate Source: II. REPRODUCTION RELEASE: In order to disseminate as widely as possible timely and significant materials of interest to the educational community, documents announced in the monthly abstract journal of the ERIC system, Resources in Education (RIE), are usually made available to users in microfiche, reproduced paper copy, and electronic media, and sold through the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). Credit is given to the source of each document, and, if reproduction release is granted, one of the following notices is affixed to the document. If permission is granted to reproduce and disseminate the identified document, please CHECK ONE of the following three options and sign in the indicated space following. The sample sticker shown below will be affixed to all Level 1 documents The sample sticker shown below will be affixed to all Level 2A documents The sample sticker shown below will be affixed to all Level 2B documents PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRA A 13Y DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN MICROFICHE, AND IN ELECTRONIC MEDIA FOR ERIC COLLECTION SUBSCRIBERS ONLY, BY HAS BEEN GRAN' PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN MICROFICHE ONLY HAS B 'N GRANTED BY *.s. C7 TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) Level 1 Level 2A Level 2B n_xt t t Check here for Level I release, permitting reproduction and dissemination in microfiche or other ERIC archival media (e.g. electronic) and paper copy. Check here for Level 2A release, permitting reproduction and dissemination in microfiche and in electronic media for ERIC archival collection subscribers only Check here for Level 2B release, permitting reproduction and dissemination in microfiche only Documents will be processed as indicated provided reproduction quality permits. If permission to reproduce is granted, but no box is checked, documents will be processed at Level 1. http://cric.uoregon.edu/ReproductionRelease.html Page I of Reproduction Release 4/30/03 10:31 AN I hereby grant to the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) nonexclusive permission to reproduce and disseminate this document as indicated above. Reproduction from the ERIC microfiche, or electronic media by persons other than ERIC employees and its system contractors requires permission from the copyright holder. Exception is made for non-profit reproduction by libraries and other service agencies to satisfy information needs of educators in response to discrete inquiries. Sigatatuce4__ Printed Name/Position/Title: David T. Conley/Associate Professor & Director Organization/Address Center for Educational Policy Research Telephond: 1541-346-6153 720 E. 13th Ave. Suite 201 Eugene, OR 97401 E-maiLAddress: 1conley@uoregon.edu Fax:1541-346-6154 Date: 14-30-03 III. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY INFORMATION (FROM NON-ERIC SOURCE): If permission to reproduce is not granted to ERIC, or, if you wish ERIC to cite the availability of the document from another source, please provide the following information regarding the availability of the document. (ERIC will not announce a document unless it is publicly available, and a dependable source can be specified. Contributors should also be aware that ERIC selection criteria are significantly more stringent for documents that cannot be made available through EDRS.) IV. REFERRAL OF ERIC TO COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION RIGHTS HOLDER: If the right to grant this reproduction release is held by someone other than the addressee, please provide the appropriate name and address: V. WHERE TO SEND THIS FORM: Send this form to the following ERIC Clearinghouse: Document Acquisitions Department ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management 5207 University of Oregon Eugene, Oregon 97403-5207 http://cric.uorcgon.edu/ReproductionRelcasc.html Page 2 of 2