Posts Tagged ‘Add new tag’

Countywide School Districts will Increase Administrative Costs and Property Taxes Statewide

Tuesday, April 6th, 2010

Passage of NJ Senate bill, S450, would eliminate all local school administrators over the level of principal and consolidate all school districts within each county under the control of the Executive County Superintendent.  S450 would have New Jersey adopt Maryland’s consolidated county school system model.  The state of Maryland eliminated all local school officials beyond the level of principal.  It consolidated all of its local schools serving less than one million students statewide within one of its 24 countywide school districts under an Executive County Superintendent.  

 

When Maryland abolished all school administrators above the level of principal, it said it was to save money, cut administrative expenses and cut property taxes.  But Maryland’s total statewide administrative costs increased rather than decreased as promised under the consolidated countywide school district because the Executive County Superintendent is not accountable to the voters which enables him/her to increase staff without taxpayer input.  The ever increasing cost of the County’s bureaucracy continued to more than offset any savings. 

 

In Maryland, for example, the Montgomery County Department of Education has an annual operating budget of about $2 billion with nearly 22,000 employees despite having a total student enrollment of less than 138,000.  The office of the Executive County Superintendent of Schools for Montgomery County employs roughly one administrator for every six of its students!  The Montgomery County consolidated school district has more than three times the number of administrators per student than it does teachers!  Contrary to what S450 purports, it will not provide for a more cost effective educational system rather it will increase costs especially administrative expenses.  States that have adopted this model such as California have increased costs and taxes. 

 

The implication behind S450 is that it would somehow save money and enable the state to lower property taxes by eliminating administrators over the level of principal.  Proponents even suggest unsubstantiated savings of $553 million.  But Maryland’s total statewide administrative costs increased rather than decreased as promised following the implementation of its consolidated countywide school district.  The experience of such a model in Maryland contradicts the assumptions inherent in S450 based on its consolidated county school district control model for New Jersey. 

 

Rather than add another bureaucracy, the most effective way to cut property taxes is to eliminate the tax burden imposed by county government.  County government places a tremendous burden on New Jersey’s taxpayers especially as compared to those in Connecticut where county government was eliminated in 1960.  New Jersey’s 21 counties combine to spend over $6.1 billion annually in property taxes, hold more than $5 billion in outstanding debt and have over 44,000 employees.  Just the three counties of Union, Essex and Bergen together levy approximately $1.6 billion in annual property taxes. 

 

The question facing New Jersey’s taxpayers is whether more money would be saved by eliminating county government or by adopting countywide school districts as advocated by S450.  The answer is straight forward.  Saving $6.1 billion annually in property taxes by eliminating county government would be the best way to ease New Jersey’s tax burden rather than implementing S450 and hoping that an unaccountable county bureaucracy will not overspend and overtax as it does in Maryland.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in accountability, bigger is not better, board of education, Capitalization of property taxes, Capitalization of school district quality, county government, County Property taxes, county run school districts, county wide school districts, Eliminate County Government | No Comments »

How New Jersey Senate bill S450 will Increase Administrative Costs and Property Taxes Statewide

Monday, March 15th, 2010

Passage of the pending New Jersey Senate bill, S450, would eliminate all local school administrators over the level of principal and establish the Executive County Superintendent as the official who will govern and operate all local public schools within each of the proposed consolidated countywide school districts.  When former Governor Corzine signed the CORE Act (Assembly Bill A4 and Senate Bill S19) into law, he transformed the role of county superintendents of education from mere disseminators of state educational policies into powerful Executive County Superintendents of Schools.  In so doing, the governor empowered each Executive County Superintendent to begin consolidating all schools into K to 12 districts and ultimately to consolidate all schools within one countywide organization. 

 

By creating the office of Executive County Superintendent of Schools, New Jersey is moving to replicate the state of Maryland’s consolidated county school system model.  First, the state of Maryland eliminated all local school officials beyond the level of principal.  It then consolidated all of its local schools serving less than one million students statewide within one of the 24 countywide school districts in each county under an Executive County Superintendent.

 

Although Maryland abolished all school administrators above the level of principal from its local schools in the name of saving money, cutting administrative expenses and cutting property taxes, these small savings were overwhelmed by the ongoing costs of the office of the Executive County Superintendent of Schools with its ever increasing bureaucracy.  The reason Maryland’s total statewide administrative costs increased rather than decreased as promised following the implementation of the consolidated county wide school district is that the Executive County Superintendent is not accountable to the voters and this enables him/her to increase staff largely without taxpayer input. 

 

In New Jersey, the Executive County Superintendent also is appointed by the governor.  He/she supervises, directs and manages the functions of the County Office of Education as a representative and subordinate of the New Jersey State Commissioner of Education.  The Executive County Superintendent oversees all public school districts within his/her county.  To accomplish these goals, each county superintendent is given a staff and a budget which are not subject to taxpayer input, approval or elections. 

 

In Maryland, for example, the Montgomery County Department of Education by itself has an annual operating budget of approximately $2 billion with nearly 22,000 employees despite having a total student enrollment of less than 138,000.  The office of the Executive County Superintendent of Schools for Montgomery County, therefore, employs roughly one administrator for every six of its students!  Furthermore, the Montgomery County consolidated school district has more than three times the number of administrators per student than it does teachers!  Contrary to what S450 purports, it will not provide for a more cost effective educational system rather it will increase costs especially administrative expenses.  Indeed, states that have adopted this model or a similar model such as California have increased costs. 

 

The implication behind Senate bill, S450, is that it would somehow save the taxpayers’ money and enable the state to have lower property taxes by eliminating administrators over the level of principal.  Proponents even a suggest savings of $553 million.  But Maryland’s total statewide administrative costs increased rather than decreased as promised following the implementation of its consolidated county wide school district.  Indeed, the experience of such a control model in the state of Maryland contradicts the assumptions inherent in S450 based on its consolidated county school district control model for New Jersey. 

 

Rather than add another bureaucracy, the most effective way to cut property taxes in New Jersey is to eliminate the tax burden imposed by county government.  County government places a tremendous burden on New Jersey’s taxpayers especially as compared to those in Connecticut where county government was eliminated in 1960.  New Jersey’s 21 counties combine to spend over $6.1 billion annually in property taxes, hold more than $5 billion in outstanding debt and have more than 44,000 employees.  Indeed, just the three New Jersey counties of Union, Essex and Bergen together levy approximately $1.6 billion in annual property taxes. 

 

The question facing New Jersey’s taxpayers is whether more money would be saved by eliminating county government or by adopting a consolidated county school district model as advocated by S450.  The answer is rather straight forward.  Saving $6.1 billion annually in property taxes by eliminating county government would be the best way to ease New Jersey’s tax burden rather than implementing S450 and hoping its unsubstantiated savings of approximately $553 million materialize.

 

Decentralization rather than centralization brings decision makers closer to the taxpayers and local priorities.  Taxpayers have more of a stake in the success of their local school district rather than county districts.  Indeed, separating the taxpayer from his/her ability to control and influence the operating budget and educational plan of his/her local school district cuts neither costs nor property taxes. 

 

In these challenging economic times, every home owner wants to make sure their property taxes are as low as possible and are put to use where they can do the most good.  Nowhere is this more necessary than in New Jersey, where it is imperative that all levels of government do not waste our scarce financial resources and cut taxes particularly property taxes.  To accomplish this goal, it is imperative that New Jersey does not add another unaccountable bureaucracy which will increase administrative expenses and property taxes statewide as would result under S450 should it become law. 

 

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in autonomy of schools, bigger is not better, board of education, Capitalization of property taxes, Capitalization of school district quality, county government, County Property taxes, county run school districts, county wide school districts, deregulation of schools, dumbing down, education, executive county superintendent, home rule, home values, homeownership, Local Education Authority (LEA), local property taxes, local schools, Maryland county run school districts model, New Jersey, New Jersey Commissioner of Education, New Jersey Property taxes, property taxes, property values, public education, public finance, regional schools, regionalization of schools, S450, school district consolidations, school district mergers, school finance, school funding, school governance, school performance, school reform, self-funding school districts, self-governance, tax base | No Comments »

Accountability: An Argument for Local School Districts

Sunday, January 24th, 2010

During the past 40 years, the locus of school district control has gradually shifted from a tradition of home rule or local control to state control.  Control over the decisions governing such areas as funding, budgeting, human resources, standards, capital projects, operations, curriculum and assessment that were once the sole province of local boards of education has been superseded largely by the state.  Increased state control has reversed the traditional operating philosophy of school systems that was based on limiting the power of any centralized remote governmental entity could exert over local school districts.  Historically, Americans wanted school decision making to be as close as possible to those citizens who were most affected.  School district residents realized that by being able to control what and how their children were taught as well as how and who administered and governed their schools plus how their taxes were used that they were able to enjoy the maximum of democratic accountability. 

 

The rising power of the state (Fusarelli and Cooper, 2009) grew from the states’ increasing domination of school finance and, therefore, policy making because of the strings the states attached to funding.  Legal challenges to funding inequities and disparities led to court decisions such as Serrano v. Priest establishing financial neutrality as the basis for school funding.  States remedied the disparities among districts with the infusion of incremental state funds and regulation.  Subsequent rulings focused on adequacy and required state governments to provide resources to disadvantaged districts such that the provision of education adequately met their constitutional requirements.  New Jersey’s state constitution was deemed to go even further because of its provisions guaranteeing a thorough and efficient education or a “T&E” education as it became known and manifested in the Abbott v. Burke court decision. 

 

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) accelerated the trend toward adequacy with its national educational standards. Under NCLB, the federal government holds states and school districts accountable for improving performance.  As a result, states are forced to define an adequate level of student and school achievement as well as the level of financial resources that would be constitutionally adequate.  NCLB, therefore, marked a pronounced policy making shift to an accountability model within which the allocation of school district financial and human resources was made largely at the state rather than the local level largely according to federal guidelines. 

 

But the consequences of centralizing most of the control over the allocation of a school district’s financial and human resources at the state level gave rise to many unintended obstacles to improving accountability. Chief among them was the contradictory challenge of trying to hold local school districts accountable to standards made remotely at the state level that did not reflect and often conflicted with unique local educational requirements and priorities. As a result, when states imposed a one-size-fits-all approach to local school district resource allocation, state funds were not used as efficiently as they could have been.  School systems would be more accountable if decision making over financial and human resources was made at the local district level. 

 

A local school district can improve student and school performance best when the district is empowered to allocate its financial and human resources according to its educational plan rather than being required to follow one-size-fits-all state directives. The local school district would have all the tools it would need to hold schools and students accountable because it could make real time decisions based on specific measurable performance goals for each school and student.  The local school district is the most qualified to continually calibrate local performance goals because only the local school district can combine a keen understanding of local educational necessities with the timely and specific assessment of individual school and student achievement. State control is too remote which causes not only inappropriate delays but also decisions that tend to be inconsistent with the district’s unique educational plan.  

 

State control especially over a district’s financial and human resource use creates barriers for achieving accountability. When a local school district is limited by the state’s one-size-fits-all approach, it is prevented from developing more innovative approaches to accountability.  In order for local school districts to innovate, they must be empowered to deploy more effective approaches for increasing accountability that are best suited to local needs. Improving accountability, therefore, requires the adaptation of new models for the control structure of local public schools that are largely free of state control. 

 

In response to the shortcomings of state dominated local school systems, communities need greater local control over their schools so that they can benefit from increased accountability.  Because a local school district’s control structure affects how all of the school system’s stakeholders combine to produce a quality education, school districts nationwide are searching for the most appropriate local control structure model that will provide the highest level of accountability.  As a result, local school districts are increasingly adapting a local control structure that provides the maximum accountability possible according to their unique characteristics.  What matters most in terms of maximizing accountability is that a school district employs the model that fosters the greatest public support for the maximum public funding of its public schools.  

 

 

References: 

Fusarelli, B. C., & Cooper, B. S., Editors.  (2009). The Rising State: How State Power is Transforming our Nation’s Schools, first edition, SUNY Press. 

 

Tags:, , , , , , , ,
Posted in accountability, autonomy of schools, bigger is not better, Bruce Cooper, Capitalization of property taxes, Capitalization of school district quality, Charles Tiebout, county run school districts, deregulation of schools, education, educational leadership, home rule, local schools, mandates, New Jersey, New Jersey Property taxes, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, No Child Left Behind Act, property taxes, property values, public education, public finance, school finance, school funding, school governance, school reform, state financial aid, state mandates | No Comments »

Smaller Class Sizes Work Best to Close the Achievement Gap

Monday, January 11th, 2010

Research concentrating on class size not only has demonstrated that when qualified teachers teach students in smaller class sizes the students in the smaller classes learn more and these students retain this advantage over other students who attend larger classes but also has shown how smaller class sizes help to significantly close the achievement gap among minority and majority students.  Smaller class size not only increases achievement for all students but also seems to benefit most those students (Nye, Hedges, & Konstantopoulos, 2000a) who are minorities, eligible to receive free or reduced-price lunches, or attend urban schools in low income districts.  Krueger and Whitmore (2001) conclude that for these at-risk students, small class sizes narrow the achievement gap, reduce grade retention, decrease behavioral problems, reduce truancy and increase graduation rates.

 

One leading study is the longitudinal class size reduction initiative conducted over a number of years in Tennessee called the Student-Teacher Achievement Ratio (STAR) project.  Along with Wisconsin’s Student Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE) project, the STAR study is one of the few very large scale class size experiments making its conclusions some of the most credible.  Both standardized and curriculum based tests were employed to determine the performance of approximately 11,600 students in inner city, suburban, urban and rural school districts.  The tests assessed the students’ reading, mathematics and basic study skills. 

 

The STAR study was conducted in three phases.  The first phase, following a similar study conducted on a much smaller scale in Indiana called Project Prime Time, was performed over four years.  In Project Prime Time, Bain and Achilles (1986) found that students in smaller classes scored higher on standardized tests and had fewer behavioral problems than those in larger classes.  The STAR project showed that after four years, students in smaller class sizes demonstrated significantly improved achievement as compared to those in larger classes.

 

The STAR project demonstrated that students, who were enrolled in small classes beginning with kindergarten and continuing through third grade, were significantly more likely than their counterparts who attended larger classes, to: 

  • Demonstrate better reading and mathematics skills
  • Complete more advanced mathematics, science and English courses
  • Complete high school 
  • Graduate high school on time 
  • Graduate with honors

 

Moreover, the STAR study showed (Word, Johnston, Bain & Fulton, 1990) that minority students gained more than other students, demonstrated an improvement rate almost double that of majority students over the first two years and showed improvement comparable to majority students during the second two years. 

 

STAR’s second phase, called the Lasting Benefits Study, confirmed that the benefits of smaller class sizes continued into the later grades.  The study (Achilles, Nye, Zaharias & Fulton, 1993) found that even after the students returned to larger classes in the fourth through eighth grades those students who had attended smaller class sizes for their first three or four years maintained an advantage over students who had attended the larger classes from kindergarten through third grade.  The students who attended smaller class sizes in Kindergarten through third grade, therefore, continued to outperform those who had attended larger classes.  The Lasting Benefits Study (Nye, Hedges, & Konstantopoulos, 2000b; Finn & Achilles, 1999) supported STAR’s earlier findings that minority students benefited the most from having smaller class sizes. 

 

STAR’s third phase, called Project Challenge, was conducted over three years and placed all of the kindergarten through third grade students of Tennessee’s 17 most economically challenged school districts into small classes.  As a result of having smaller class sizes, (Nye, Achilles, Zaharias & Fulton, 1993) these 17 districts raised their performance levels for reading and mathematics from well below average to above average.  

 

The findings of the STAR project are echoed by other studies such as Wisconsin’s Student Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE) project, which was a statewide initiative that increased student achievement.  The SAGE project (Molnar, Smith, Zahorik, Palmer, Halbach & Ehrle, 1999) found that students who attended small classes beginning with kindergarten and continuing through third grade significantly improved their academic achievement and that the benefits were greater for students from low income or poverty level families.  In Colorado, Sherry (2005) reported that African American and Latino students in the Denver schools dedicated to small class sizes were closing the achievement gap, “All students, no matter their ethnicity, are learning to read, computing math problems and writing essays at the same level.”

 

The research demonstrates that having a smaller class size not only increases student achievement but also helps to significantly minimize the achievement gap among different groups of students.  But it should not be surprising that smaller class sizes raise student performance.  Having fewer students in the classroom enables the teacher to dedicate more time to each child.  Consequently, students pay more attention to class work and participate more in academics.  Because the students are more involved with their studies they learn more and behave better.  Is it any wonder then that test scores are significantly higher for students who attend small classes?  Based upon the findings of the STAR project and other studies there is little doubt that students taught in small classes enjoy significant and lasting educational advantages especially minority and low income students. 

 

 

References

 

Achilles, C. M., Nye, B. A., Zaharias, J. B., & Fulton, B. D. (1993). Paper, The Lasting Benefits Study (LBS) in grades 4 and 5 (1990-1991):  A legacy from Tennessee’s four-year (K-3) class-size study (1985-1989), Project Star.  Paper presented at the North Carolina Association for Research in Education. Greensboro, North Carolina, January 14, 1993.  

 

Bain, H. P. & Achilles, C. M. (1986). Interesting Developments in Class Size, Phi Delta Kappan, 67:662-65.

 

Finn, J. D. & Achilles, C. M. (1999). Tennessee’s Class Size Study: findings, implications, misconceptions, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(2): 97-109.

 

Krueger, A. B. & Whitmore, D. M. (2001). Would Smaller Classes Help Close the Black-White Achievement Gap? Princeton, New Jersey:  Princeton University Press.

 

Molnar, A., Smith, P., Zahorik, J., Palmer, A., Halbach, A., & Ehrle, K. (1999). Evaluating the SAGE program: A pilot program in targeted pupil-teacher reduction in Wisconsin, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(2): 167-77.

 

Nye, B. A., Achilles, C. M., Zaharias, J. B., & Fulton, B. D. (1993). Project Challenge third-year summary report: An initial evaluation of the Tennessee Department of Education “At Risk” Student-Teacher Ratio Reduction Project in seventeen counties 1989-90 through 1991-92, Nashville: Center of Excellence for Research in Basic Skills, College of Education, Tennessee State University: Tennessee State University Press.

                                                                                       

Nye, B. A., Hedges, L. V., & Konstantopoulos, S. (2000a). Do Minorities and the Disadvantaged Benefit More from Small Classes? Evidence from the Tennessee Class Size Experiment, American Journal of Education, 109: 1-26.

 

Nye, B. A., Hedges, L. V., & Konstantopoulos, S. (2000b). The Effects of Small Classes on Academic Achievement: The results of the Tennessee Class Size Experiment, The American Educational Research Journal, 37(1): 123-51.

 

Sherry, A. (2005). Schools that Erase the Gap say Key is Never to Settle, Denver Post, October 4, 2005. http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_3084628.   

 

Word, E. R., Johnston, J., Bain, H. P. & Fulton, B. D. (1990). The State of Tennessee’s Student-Teacher Achievement Ratio (STAR) Project: Technical Report 1985-90, Nashville, Tennessee State University: Tennessee State University Press.

 

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in at-risk students, education, Indiana, Lasting Benefits Study, Project Challenge, Project Prime Time, SAGE, smaller class sizes, smaller classes, STAR, Student Achievement Guarantee in Education, Student Teacher Achievement Ratio, Tennessee, Wisconsin | No Comments »

Leveling Down to the Lowest Common Denominator is Math Education’s Major Problem

Wednesday, December 23rd, 2009

To solve the challenges confronting our nation so that we can continue to improve our quality of life, we must improve mathematics education, because mathematics is the cornerstone of our civilization.  But our schools must provide more challenge for students in all mathematics classes to improve math education.  State mandated restrictions and school district imposed curriculum limitations must be lifted to empower teachers to teach more and better math classes as well as for students to have the opportunity to learn as much math as they possibly can. 

 

Listen to students discussing the perceived shortcomings in the quality of their education and the most commonly heard complaint is the lack of challenge especially in seventh and eighth grade math classes.  While their parents readily agree, students feel as if their classes too often level down to the lowest common denominator.  Students report that teachers spend too much time trying to raise the performance of the lowest common denominator while the more talented students as well as those most in need of instruction languish. 

 

But the key causal factor for the lack of challenge is heterogeneous grouping within each class.  Heterogeneous grouping is the inclusion of students of all levels of ability in the same classroom with the same teacher at the same time.  No matter how well qualified is the teacher; however, not even a teacher highly trained in differentiated instruction can overcome the problems of heterogeneous grouping.  Indeed, it is profoundly difficult to differentiate instruction well enough within a classroom of 20 or so students so that all students benefit equally.  This forces the top students to enroll in Advanced Placement or Honors courses so that their skill levels can be stretched while those students at the other end of the continuum seek remedial assistance. 

 

Tracking, on the other hand, is the grouping of students according to their level of ability in the same classroom with the same teacher at the same time.  Tracking reflects the reality that students are not all alike.  On the contrary, each student is unique and he/she learns in different ways, at different rates and performs best at varying degrees of course content difficulty.  Grouping classes according to ability enables teachers to customize instruction so that the entire class not only learns more but also performs at a higher level of achievement.  Those students at the polar opposite ends of the ability continuum are not disenfranchised.  All students in every grade are able to raise their achievement levels. 

 

But no student should be locked into any track especially one that is lacking in proper mathematics content and challenge for that student.  Indeed, all students must be given the opportunity not only to improve their ability in mathematics but also to advance to a higher track level when they have demonstrated such improvement.  Tracking is most effective because it enables students to benefit from the rigorous teaching of mathematics.

 

Why do American students especially those in seventh and eighth grade seem to lag behind those of other nations in mathematics?  Perhaps it is because American students may not learn as much mathematics as do their international counterparts.  Compared to other nations where mathematics proficiency is rather high such as Japan and Germany, American students do not seem to study the same amount of geometry, algebra and trigonometry in the seventh and eighth grades.  Because the students of other nations attend more higher level math classes earlier in their school life, they are also able to study more and achieve greater proficiency in science courses especially physics including Advanced Placement physics.  When these factors are combined with the fact that most American school districts have dropped tracking in favor of heterogeneous grouping, the mathematics education gap widens.   

The one size fits all approach of heterogeneous grouping penalizes the students particularly at the upper and lower achievement levels while focusing a disproportionate amount of time on the lowest common denominator.  As a result, all students suffer and do not learn as much as they possibly can.  This leads to the dumbing down of mathematics education.  Because learning mathematics is essential for all students, tracking provides perhaps the best way for all students to become highly proficient in mathematics based on the understanding that every student is unique in how he/she learns. 

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in academic performance, Advanced Placement, Advanced Placement (AP), Annual Yearly Progress (AYP), curriculum, differentiated instruction, dumbing down, education, education gap, Hetergeneous Grouping, Honors, Honors courses, learning, leveling down, lowest common denominator, Math instruction, Mathemtics education, Physics, public education, Tracking, Uncategorized | No Comments »

CEIFA’s Impact

Thursday, December 10th, 2009

The rising power of state government (Fusarelli and Cooper, 2009) has grown from the states’ increasing domination of school finance and, therefore, policy making because of the strings the states attached to funding.  Legal challenges to funding inequities and disparities led to court decisions such as Serrano v. Priest establishing financial neutrality as the basis for school funding.  States remedied the disparities among districts with the infusion of incremental state funds and regulation.  Subsequent rulings focused on adequacy and required state governments to provide resources to disadvantaged districts such that the provision of education adequately met their constitutional requirements.  New Jersey’s state constitution was deemed to go even further because of its provisions guaranteeing a thorough and efficient education especially in the Abbott v. Burke court decision. 

 

Although the state’s flawed approach to education is exemplified by the new funding formula contained in the New Jersey School Funding Reform Act (SFRA) of 2008, it is manifested in its predecessor, the Comprehensive Education Improvement and Financing Act of 1996 (CEIFA.)  Dr. Reock studied the financial impact on school districts of the state’s failure not only to not fully enact CEIFA but also to freeze most CEIFA funding beginning with the 2002-03 school year (Reock, 2007.)  Based on his study (Sciarra, 2008), Dr. Reock found that “the state aid freeze caused massive under-funding of many school districts throughout the state, especially poor non-Abbott districts, and contributed to the property tax problem in the state.” 

 

Instead of fully funding CEIFA’s school funding formula as required by law, the state froze financial aid to schools at their 2001-02 school year levels regardless of any increases in enrollment, rising costs as well as state and federal unfunded mandates.  The shortfall was hardest on those districts that were most dependent upon state aid.  During the 2005-06 school year the statewide shortfall amounted to $846 million which translated into per pupil shortfalls of $1,627 in non-Abbott DFG A and B districts, $758 in DFG C through H districts, $386 DFG I and J districts and $188 in Abbott districts.  

 

The impact of the CEIFA funding shortfall was minimized on the Abbott districts largely due to their “parity-plus” court mandated protection.  State law forbids the budget of an Abbott district from falling below its level of the prior school year (Hu, 2006.)  Furthermore, under state law, if an Abbott district increases local property taxes without a state directive to do so, it will lose a similar amount of state aid. 

 

The CEIFA funding shortfall caused serious imbalances between local school districts.  During the 2005-06 school year, Abbott districts received approximately 58% of all state financial aid while educating only 23% of New Jersey’s K to 12 student enrollment.  This meant non-Abbott districts were educating 77% of New Jersey’s students with only 42% of state aid.  This imbalance has continued to widen under SFRA with Abbott aid increasing to approximately 60% of all state aid or $4.64 billion.  State aid reductions and the ever increasing unfunded state mandates force non-Abbott districts to balance their budgets by raising property taxes, increasing class sizes as well as cutting regular education programs and services.   

 

As part of his statement of New Jersey Supreme Court certification in support of the Plaintiffs’ opposition to the School Funding Reform Act (SFRA) of 2008, Dr. Reock concluded (Sciarra, 2008) that “the State’s failure to fund CEIFA for the past six years directly resulted in an enormous shortfall of funding in districts across New Jersey.”  He went further to state, “By 2007-08, the sixth year of the CEIFA “freeze,” the total under-funding of state aid had reached $1.326 billion annually, despite the introduction of several new, smaller aid programs.”  The result was a state-driven increase in local property taxes within non-Abbott districts to make up for the shortfall. 

 

By passing through the majority of the cost of state mandates to local school districts, the State of New Jersey forces local schools to divert resources to bureaucratic regulatory compliance.  As a result, disproportionate amounts of a typical school district’s scarce financial and human resources are not invested in the classroom where they are needed most.  Local school districts would be able to operate more cost-effectively, earn a higher rate of return on their educational investment and provide greater accountability if they were free to concentrate on improving every student’s performance with the maximum possible level of local public support for the public funding of its public schools.

 

 

References

 

Fusarelli, B. C., & Cooper, B. S., Editors.  (2009) The Rising State: How State Power is Transforming our Nation’s Schools, Albany, New York: SUNY Press. 

Hu, W. (2008) In New Jersey, System to help Poorest Schools Faces Criticism, New York Times, October 30, 2006. 

Reock, E. C. Jr., (2007) Paper, Estimated Financial Impact of the ‘Freeze’ of State Aid on New Jersey School Districts, 2002-03 to 2005-06, Institute on Education Law and Policy, Rutgers University, Newark, http:// ielp.rutgers.edu/docs/CEIFA_Reock_Final.pdf.  

Sciarra, D. G., (2008) Certification of Dr. Ernest C. Reock, Jr. for the Supreme Court of New Jersey in support of the Plaintiffs’ opposition to the School Funding Reform Act of 2008, Education Law Center, Newark New Jersey, http://www.edlawcenter.org/ELCPublic/elcnews_080521_ReockCertification.pdf  

 

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in accountability, autonomy of schools, bigger is not better, board of education, Bruce Baker, Bruce Cooper, Capitalization of property taxes, Capitalization of school district quality, Charles Tiebout, data-based decision making, decision making, education, educational leadership, federal financial aid, home rule, local property taxes, local schools, mandates, New Jersey, New Jersey Property taxes, property taxes, property values, public education, public finance, school finance, school funding, school governance, school law, self-funding school districts, self-governance | No Comments »

Accountability Requires Local Control of Public Schools

Tuesday, September 15th, 2009

During the past 40 years, the locus of school district control has gradually shifted from a tradition of home rule or local control to state control.  Control over the decisions governing such areas as funding, budgeting, human resources, standards, capital projects, operations, curriculum and assessment that were once the sole province of local boards of education has been superseded largely by the state.  Increased state control has reversed the traditional operating philosophy of school systems that was based on limiting the power of any centralized remote governmental entity could exert over local school districts.  Historically, Americans wanted school decision making to be as close as possible to those citizens who were most affected.  School district residents realized that by being able to control what and how their children were taught as well as how and who administered and governed their schools plus how their taxes were used that they were able to enjoy the maximum of democratic accountability. 

 

The rising power of the state (Fusarelli and Cooper, 2009) grew from the states’ increasing domination of school finance and, therefore, policy making because of the strings the states attached to funding.  Legal challenges to funding inequities and disparities led to court decisions such as Serrano v. Priest establishing financial neutrality as the basis for school funding.  States remedied the disparities among districts with the infusion of incremental state funds and regulation.  Subsequent rulings focused on adequacy and required state governments to provide resources to disadvantaged districts such that the provision of education adequately met their constitutional requirements.  New Jersey’s state constitution was deemed to go even further because of its provisions guaranteeing a thorough and efficient education or a “T&E” education as it became known and manifested in the Abbott v. Burke court decision. 

 

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) accelerated the trend toward adequacy with its national educational standards. Under NCLB, the federal government holds states and school districts accountable for improving performance.  As a result, states are forced to define an adequate level of student and school achievement as well as the level of financial resources that would be constitutionally adequate.  NCLB, therefore, marked a pronounced policy making shift to an accountability model within which the allocation of school district financial and human resources was made largely at the state rather than the local level largely according to federal guidelines. 

 

But the consequences of centralizing most of the control over the allocation of a school district’s financial and human resources at the state level gave rise to many unintended obstacles to improving accountability. Chief among them was the contradictory challenge of trying to hold local school districts accountable to standards made remotely at the state level that did not reflect and often conflicted with unique local educational requirements and priorities. As a result, when states imposed a one-size-fits-all approach to local school district resource allocation, state funds were not used as efficiently as they could have been.  School systems would be more accountable if decision making over financial and human resources was made at the local district level. 

 

A local school district can improve student and school performance best when the district is empowered to allocate its financial and human resources according to its educational plan rather than being required to follow one-size-fits-all state directives. The local school district would have all the tools it would need to hold schools and students accountable because it could make real time decisions based on specific measurable performance goals for each school and student.  The local school district is the most qualified to continually calibrate local performance goals because only the local school district can combine a keen understanding of local educational necessities with the timely and specific assessment of individual school and student achievement. State control is too remote which causes not only inappropriate delays but also decisions that tend to be inconsistent with the district’s unique educational plan.  

 

State control especially over a district’s financial and human resource use creates barriers for achieving accountability. When a local school district is limited by the state’s one-size-fits-all approach, it is prevented from developing more innovative approaches to accountability.  In order for local school districts to innovate, they must be empowered to deploy more effective approaches for increasing accountability that are best suited to local needs. Improving accountability, therefore, requires the adaptation of new models for the control structure of local public schools that are largely free of state control. 

 

In response to the shortcomings of state dominated local school systems, communities need greater local control over their schools so that they can benefit from increased accountability.  Because a local school district’s control structure affects how all of the school system’s stakeholders combine to produce a quality education, school districts nationwide are searching for the most appropriate local control structure model that will provide the highest level of accountability.  As a result, local school districts are increasingly adapting a local control structure that provides the maximum accountability possible according to their unique characteristics.  What matters most in terms of maximizing accountability is that a school district employs the model that fosters the greatest public support for the maximum public funding of its public schools.  

 

 

References: 

Fusarelli, B. C., & Cooper, B. S., Editors.  (2009). The Rising State: How State Power is Transforming our Nation’s Schools, first edition, SUNY Press. 

 

 

 

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in academic outcomes, academic performance, accountability, autonomy of schools, bigger is not better, board of education, charter, deregulation of schools, education, educational leadership, home rule, Local Education Authority (LEA), local schools, mandates, school funding, school governance, school reform, State Board of Education, state mandates | No Comments »

Local School Districts mean Better Education

Tuesday, April 7th, 2009

Is bigger really better?  This is the crucial question facing New Jersey’s schools as the state moves toward a consolidated county-wide school district framework.  The proposed consolidation would eliminate local school district administrative personnel and centralize the operation of each of the county’s schools within one county-wide district such as the model used in Maryland (Enlighten-New Jersey, 2006).  As a result, all decisions concerning local school functions would be made at the county level with little local recourse. 

 

While consolidation may sound tempting, because it is based on a presumption of economies-of-scale leading to assumed lower operating costs as well as improved administrative efficiencies which, in turn, are expected to result in lower property taxes plus greater parental engagement, the reality is much different, however.  It has been shown that county-wide districts often result in increased costs, increased bureaucracy, students being so remote that parents are less engaged, and increased special interest group control of the agenda, curriculum as well as the distribution of funds (Wenders, 2005).  

 

County-wide school districts tend to expand the county departments of education into unwieldy bureaucracies (Wenders, 2005).  These bureaucracies often become so large that their administrative costs exceed the combined cost of the local administrative personnel, including but not limited to superintendents, business administrators and directors of special education, they are supposed to replace.  Moreover, because these county departments of education are staffed largely by political appointees, they tend to operate without the essential public feedback that is the backbone of local boards of education. 

 

At the outset, New Jersey’s legislators used Maryland’s experience (School Board Notes, 2006) as a benchmark for the expected savings and efficiencies for New Jersey’s consolidation.  However, during her testimony to a panel of New Jersey state senators, Ms. Marie S. Bilik (2008), Executive Director of the New Jersey School Boards Association, demonstrated that the total state-wide administrative costs of the Maryland school system exceed those of New Jersey’s.  While testifying in front of the New Jersey Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee on March 20, 2008, Ms. Bilik referenced an U.S. Department of Education report (2006), “A recent report by the U.S. Department of Education ranks New Jersey 38th among the states and District of Columbia in the percentage of current expenditures devoted to administration.  That means 37 other states – including Maryland and Pennsylvania – spend more on administration than New Jersey.”  In addition, enrollment in New Jersey’s public schools was over fifty percent greater than that of Maryland during the same period and continues to exceed Maryland’s enrollment by similar margins.  Thus, rather than removing administrative costs, the Maryland model has actually added costs and administrative overhead (Bilik, 2008). 

 

While New Jersey has not yet moved to a complete county-wide model, its recent school consolidation legislation has significantly increased the power of the politically appointed Executive County Superintendent.  Among these expanded powers is the ability to compel the creation or expansion of regional school districts with the ultimate goal of consolidating the regionalized districts into one county-wide school district in every county.  New Jersey’s county-wide school districts would be run by Executive County Superintendents, political appointees, who would not be accountable to the voters but rather would serve at the discretion of partisan political forces. 

 

But consolidation of local school districts into county level districts also tends to result in more of a traditional military-type command-and-control decision making process rather than a process controlled by local school districts with the active participation of local constituencies most notably local parents.  In a command-and-control model, while the state and federal policy makers develop the overall strategy for policy implementation (Fusarelli and Cooper, 2009), it is the county-wide school districts that combine these policies with their political directives to determine the curriculum, priorities and budget for each school.  However, because the county level is too distant from where education actually takes place and is more easily influenced by special interest groups, the result is often less parental engagement. 

 

Concentrating the school system at the local district level rather than at the county level will not only enable more resources to be focused on those most affected by education, the students, but also enable those most intimately involved in providing education, the teachers, to provide better instruction.  But the rise of county departments of education will also cause the local school districts to spend less time on students as well as parents because more time will be required to be spent on bureaucratic obligations thereby decreasing parental engagement which is a key component in improving student performance.  It is the local districts that not only are closest to the students but also have the necessary local expertise to most effectively decide how to provide a quality education. 

 

Indeed, it seems as if the reason for preventing or eliminating county-wide school districts is embodied in the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case.  In Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court not only ruled against school racial segregation by striking down the practice of separate but equal but also established the right of all students to attend their neighborhood school.  Consistent with this ruling, it is essential that every child be able to attend their neighborhood school within a local school district free from the burden of county level bureaucracies so that the schools are better able to concentrate on improving every student’s performance. 

 

Consolidating local school districts into larger county-wide districts removes decision making authority from those most affected by educational policy decisions:  the individual student as well as his/her parents, school and district.  It also concentrates policy formulation and decision making at a centralized level where special interest groups have greater leverage on the policy makers and, as a result, greater control of the policy outcomes including local school budgets.  Moreover, consolidation of local school districts into county level districts while fewer in number tends to result in higher state-wide total administrative costs due to the lack of accountability, more political patronage and reduced local parental input. 

 

_______________________________

References

Bilik, M. S. (2008).  Testimony: FY09 State Budget, Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee, Senate Annex, Committee Room 4, Trenton, New Jersey, March 20, 2008.   

Enlighten-New Jersey, (2006).  Is School Consolidation The Answer To New Jersey’s Property Tax Crisis?  August 9, 2006, Retrieved from http://www.enlightennj.com. 

Fusarelli, B. C. and Cooper, B. S., (2009).  The Rising State: How State Power Is Transforming Our Nation’s Schools, State University of New York Press, Albany.   

School Board Notes, (2006)  New Jersey vs. Maryland: The Facts,  September 14, 2006, Retrieved from http://www.njsba.org Trenton, New Jersey: New Jersey School Boards Association. 

U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2006).  Common Core of Data, August, 2006.  

Wenders, J. T., (2005)  Deconsolidate Oregon’s School Districts  March 21, 2005, Retrieved from http://www.cascadepolicyinstitute.org. 

 

 

 

 

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in bigger is not better, county government, county run school districts, county wide school districts, education, enrollment, executive county superintendent, home rule, independent schools, Local Education Authority (LEA), local schools, mandates, Maryland county run school districts model, New Jersey, Pennsylvania schools, property taxes, regional schools, regionalization of schools, school district consolidations, school district mergers, school finance, school funding, school governance, school law, school reform, small is beautiful, special education, state mandates | No Comments »

Data: The DNA of Education-based Decision Making

Thursday, March 12th, 2009

Policy makers, administrators and educators at all levels need sound data with which to make decisions.  Quality data enable decisions to be made with greater accuracy.  But the growing need for student achievement in the current standards-based environment has placed increasing demands on all of those involved with K to 12 education to obtain sound data with which not only to more fully understand their school systems but also to improve the quality of education. 

 

While there seems to be no lack of school-based data, what seems to be missing is data that are generally agreed upon to be sound or of good quality.  But discussions of data quality and their use with models usually brings to mind the adage of “garbage-in, garbage-out” because the quality of decisions made, the outcomes, is directly related to the quality of data used, the inputs.  According to Kowalski, Lasley, and Mahoney (2008) “unless those entering the data use exactly the same metrics, measures, or procedures, the realities of one school can be quite different from the realities of another, even though the data may look similar.  Because all fifty states use different tests, measures, and approaches, a real absence of common metrics exists and that void makes it difficult for educators, even psychometrically astute ones, to make good judgments based on published data.”  

 

The key to school improvement is improved data-relevance.  Therefore, it is crucial to understand how data are collected, aggregated, analyzed, reported and used.  But this may sound easier than it is because data come in many forms, at many levels, and is often unconnected or is connected from the individual district, school, classroom, teacher and student.  There are also different methods for data collection, aggregation, analysis and reporting. 

 

DNA is defined as the location where your body’s cells store coded information and the pairing of the DNA bases in the middle of the two strands or helices helps to keep the coded “data” intact.  Because data, like DNA, are so intertwined in the formulation of educational policy such as decision-making for funding formulas, the double helix that forms the structure of DNA might be the best way to depict our five-level model.  The DNA diagram below depicts how its coded “data” or information flows vertically, up and down its two congruent helices, as well as horizontally, across the base pairs. 

 

 

 

 

In our model the vertical dimension relate each level to the one above and below it.  The vertical dimension represents the ways in which the data bubble up and down between and among the various levels.  Using DNA’s double helix to exemplify our model, individual student test score data move up from the student in the classroom for collection at the school level before being aggregated at the district level and reported to the state Department of Education where the data are analyzed and transmitted to the federal level for nation-wide use.  The federal data, in turn, are disseminated back to the individual states for their use and, in turn, the states provide the information to their school districts for policy making purposes among other things.  The districts share the information with the schools within the district so that improved curriculum, operational and program student-centric decisions can be made. 

 

Just as the “base pairs” of DNA intersect the two “sugar phosphate backbones” or its two helices, our model’s horizontal dimensions form the important intersections with its two helices or data flow “backbones.”  Our model’s horizontal dimensions include the relationships, comparisons and uses within a level such as:  

 

  • Federal level:  Comparisons of the American educational system with those of other nations.
  • State level:  Comparisons of school systems between and among states.
  • District level:  Comparisons of local education authorities (LEA) or school districts with one another especially ones that share similar characteristics. 
  • School level:  Comparisons of different schools either within a state or across a number of states. 
  • Student level:  Comparisons of students according to various factors such as socio-economic status, race, gender, subject matter, and grade level. 

 

The dimensions and intersections of our model resemble those of DNA as data flow vertically, up and down the two congruent helices, as well as horizontally, across the levels as shown below for our model: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

School

Student

State

District

Federal

 

 

This study poses a five-level model for data building and data use that is intended not only to help gather the right types and “levels” of information but also to put the information where it is needed most and best used.  It examines the five key levels of education-based decisions as highlighted above, identifying the availability and limitations of data at those levels as well as how the data analysis might affect education at that level and throughout the system.  While decision-making depends on data, it is important to explain the limitations at each level and what might be done (for good or for bad) by creating more information at that level. 

 

 

Level 1:  Federal Data and Decision Making:  

 

The United States is beginning to create a national system of schools, with national accountability and nationally as well as internationally comparative data.  This is further necessitating more national standards, alignment of curriculum across the states, and new reliable data on how America’s schools are performing.  All nations of the world have information on their schools and many provide comparative studies.   

 

Federal level data are actually an aggregation of state level data such as data collected according to the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) often referred to as “The Nation’s Report Card” and other state-level achievement tests.   “The Nation’s Report Card” is an aggregation and an analysis of the NAEP test results and the NCLB Act requires the NAEP testing of all students nation-wide in the near future.  NAEP provides a measure of how students in grades 4, 8 and 12 nation-wide are performing in mathematics, science, and language arts. 

 

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) holds a wealth of information on schools and student performance nation-wide particularly student demographic data and school district financial data.  The NCES also provides analyses of its data in such publications as the Education Statistics Quarterly, the annual Conditions of Education report, the Nation’s Report Card, the Digest of Education Statistics, and reports on selected current educational issues.

 

Level 2:  State Data and Decision Making:

 

States, through their departments of education, collect, aggregate and report data to the federal level as well as other levels through measures such as the NCLB, NAEP, and in New Jersey, the New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJASK.)  The NJASK is a state assessment of public school student achievement in grades three to seven which is administered by the New Jersey Department of Education.  The NJASK is defined by the New Jersey Core Curriculum Content Standards (CCCS) in language arts, mathematics and science that was implemented to help meet the requirements of NCLB.  The NJASK test is given for up to two hours per day covering a three to five day time frame.  The questions are either multiple choice or ones requiring a written response. 

 

The New Jersey CCCS provide local school districts with benchmarks for student achievement of the skills the State of New Jersey expects its public school students to acquire during their K to 12 education in nine content areas.  These benchmarks set the levels which students should attain in the following areas: 

 

  • Visual and performing arts
  • Health and physical education
  • Language arts literacy
  • Mathematics
  • Science
  • Social studies
  • World languages
  • Technology
  • Career education, consumer, family, and life skills

 

The CCCS are “outcome statements” that form the basis of “strands” and “Cumulative Progress Indicators” (CPI).  Strands are defined as tools to help teachers identify content and skills.  Each strand is composed of a number of CPIs.  The CPIs provide the specific content and skills to be taught at the appropriate grade levels. 

 

Level 3:  District Data and Decision Making:

 

In all states except Hawaii, the Local Education Authority (LEA) or school district is the major decision-making setting.  The overwhelming majority of districts elect boards of education who in turn hire the superintendent as well as other staff and operate the school system within the LEA or district.  Hence, data gathered, analyzed and acted upon at the district level are critical to the system of control and accountability. 

 

Districts play a central role in collecting data as well as in using data to improve student achievement.  While nearly all districts nation-wide generate some sort of district “Report Card,” districts in New Jersey are key to the process of collecting, aggregating, reporting and using data through such measures as the: 

 

  • Grade Eight Proficiency Assessment (GEPA)
  • High School Proficiency Assessment (HSPA)
  • Advanced Placement (AP) program and tests
  • New Jersey Quality Single Accountability Continuum (NJQSAC)

 

A variety of tests are used to assess public school student achievement as well as to help improve public education through data collection in New Jersey school districts.  The GEPA is a standardized test administered to all New Jersey eighth graders on several subjects and is very similar to the HSPA.  As such, the GEPA is often referred to as the “preparation test” for the HSPA.  The HSPA is a standardized test administered during a four day period to all New Jersey high school students in their eleventh grade or junior year on language arts literacy and mathematics.  Public school students must pass the HSPA exams to graduate from high school in New Jersey.  The Advanced Placement (AP) program provides high school students with a way in which to earn college level credit depending how well they perform on the subject matter exams given for the AP level courses they attend. 

 

The system for monitoring and evaluating New Jersey’s public school districts is the New Jersey Quality Single Accountability Continuum (NJQSAC) which is often referred to as the “QSAC.”  QSAC replaced the Quality Annual Assurance Report (QAAR) beginning with the 2006-07 school year.  As a result it shifted the focus from primarily compliance to district, individual school and student improvement.  The QSAC combines a wide range of state monitoring requirements with those of the federal government into a “single” system of monitoring and evaluating school districts.  All New Jersey school districts must perform an annual self-assessment according to five key components:   

 

  • Instruction
  • Personnel
  • Financial management
  • Operations
  • Governance

 

The QSAC addressed the problem of a large number of significantly different and often conflicting state and federal monitoring and evaluating requirements.  The QSAC simplified the monitoring of district performance by forging one set of standards for all school districts as well as enabling districts to make their own adjustments more readily.  It also enables more informed school district comparisons through the use of a “continuum” on which all districts are rated. 

 

Level 4:  School Data and Decision Making: 

 

The school is the primary working unit for education and as such it is also the primary decision-making unit.  Many educators, central office staff and policy makers tend to believe that those closest to the classroom because of their daily access to students and their performance have a more in depth understanding of school-centric and student-centric data.  Therefore, those at the school level may be better positioned to make more informed decisions concerning educational programs and services than those at other levels especially at the state and federal Departments of Education.   Examples of school level measures include school “Report Cards” and Annual Yearly Progress (AYP).  

 

Level 5:  Student Data and Decision Making: 

 

Ultimately, the level of decision-making and analysis is the student:  the child is taught, supported, tested and reviewed in many ways.  Data are collected on students according to many factors including but not limited to subject matter, grade level, socio-economic status, race, gender, Limited English Proficiency (LEP), Advanced Placement as well as special education and Individual Education Plans (IEP).  

 

 

_______________________________

References

Kowaski, T. J., Lasley II, T. J., & Mahoney, J. W. (2008), Data-Driven Decisions and School Leadership: Best Practices for School Improvement, Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

State of New Jersey, Department of Education, web site. United States Library of Medicine, DNA Double Helix diagram.  

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Advanced Placement (AP), Annual Yearly Progress (AYP), data-based decision making, decision making, Grade Eight Proficiency Assessment (GEPA), High School Proficiency Assessment (HSPA), LEA, Local Education Authority (LEA), National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP), National Center for Education Statistics, New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJASK), New Jersey Core Curriculum Content Standards (CCCS), New Jersey Quality Single Accountability Continuum (NJQSAC), NJQSAC, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act | No Comments »