School Funding for Students in Poverty

1. School Funding for Students in Poverty Sarah Burks Arkansas Political Science Association Conference February 28, 2014

2. Outline • Introduction to Poverty Funding • Allocation of Funding • Other States • Arkansas • Use of Funding • Our Recommendations

3. School Funding • Since the 1970s, at least 45 states have had school funding court cases. • Serrano (1971): California school funding case

4. Vertical Equity Funding • States recognize that schools/districts need additional funding to offset the costs necessary to educate certain students. • Including: English Language Learners; low-income students; etc • Students in poverty face challenges that may require additional funding. • For example, districts may institute summer school, hire additional school counselors and tutors, etc. • Schools/districts with high concentrations of poverty face particular challenges that require additional funding. (Kahlenberg)

5. Performance • NAEP: “The Nation’s Report Card” • Best ‘apples-to-apples’ comparison of students across the nation. • Low-income (FRL) students consistently perform less well than non-FRL students. 4th Grade Reading 8th Grade Reading

6. Poverty Funding • Majority of states provide additional funding for students in poverty. • Typically measured by % of free and reduced lunch students (FRL) or by census poverty data • States vary in the methods used to allocate additional funding. • Weighted method: incorporates increased weights per low-income pupil to the foundation base. • Federal Title I grants use 0.40 as the standard additional weight for FRL students. • Categorical grant method: provides a flat/weighted grant per pupil separate from the foundation base.

7. Poverty Funding in Other States *Not comprehensive States place different weights on low-income students. Source: Arkansas Bureau of Legislative Research

8. Poverty Funding in Illinois • Provides additional funding to districts per pupil in poverty • Accounts for concentration of poverty in districts through an exponential function

9. Poverty Funding in Minnesota • Similar to Illinois’ model: • Provides additional funding to districts per pupil in poverty • Accounts for concentration of poverty in districts through an exponential function • Assigns different weights to free lunch students vs. reduced lunch students in an attempt to better account for poverty • Free lunch students accounts for two times a reduced lunch student.

10. Poverty Funding in Arkansas • Public School Funding Act of 2003 • In response to the Lake View Decision, Arkansas reconfigured school funding formulas. • Categorical Funding • Not incorporated into the foundation base • Allocated to districts per pupil: • English Language Learners; Alternative Learning Environment students; Free and reduced lunch students

11. Poverty Funding in Arkansas (NSLA) • National School Lunch Act (NSLA) • Allocates additional funding per FRL pupil • Amount per FRL pupil dependent upon the concentration of poverty in the district • Allocations accounts for growth/decline

12. Achievement by %FRL Benchmark Literacy Achievement (GPA Measure), By % FRL Benchmark Math Achievement (GPA Measure), By % FRL

13. Evaluation of Arkansas’ System • The system does provide additional funding for students in poverty and accounts for high concentrations of poverty. • However, the tiered system creates arbitrary cutoffs such that districts with very similar demographics are treated differently in the funding system. • For example, a district with 69% FRL receives less funding per FRL pupil than a district with 70% FRL; however, student bodies with 69% and 70% FRL look relatively similar. • This discontinuous break in the funding system allows us to compare the academic achievement of districts around the 70% and 90% “cliffs.” • Based on the comparisons of these schools around the “cliffs”, we cannot claim justification for the discontinuous 70% and 90% “cliffs.” (See following slide.)

14. Evaluation of Arkansas’ System Achievement Comparisons at the 70% “Cliff” Benchmark Literacy GPA, 2007-08 to 2012-13 Benchmark Math GPA, 2007-08 to 2012-13 • On the math and literacy benchmark exams, the districts just above and below the cliff (thus, districts who are socio-economically “equal”) perform nearly identically.

15. Evaluation of Arkansas’ System • It is important to note that we do not have the counterfactual to examine how districts would perform without poverty funding. • Nevertheless, we do know that: • Most agree that additional resources should be provided to schools with higher concentrations of poverty (to help students overcome additional challenges associated poverty). • No “silver bullets”: no research indicates exact funding is needed to create equal opportunities for poor students. • Next, we examine how districts spend the money.

16. Poverty Funding Regulations • States vary in how school funding (and poverty funding) is regulated. • Some states provide districts with more autonomy in spending. • Other states prescribe certain uses for poverty funding, so that funds are targeted to students/programs. • Arkansas regulates poverty funding by limiting the usage to certain categories.

17. NSLA Expenditures Shaded box denotes a coded use originally set in 2003.

18. NSLA Expenditures • The majority of districts distribute funding among 8 or more expenditure codes. • Districts seldom focus the money in one or two specific areas. • It is unclear as to whether all districts are specifically pinpointing the funding towards students in poverty (or schools serving these students). • For example, a district may spend a large portion of funding on Highly Qualified teachers or Specialists – these teachers may or may not work specifically with the low-income students. • Furthermore, districts do not use all the funding – many have balances at the end of the year.

19. Evaluation of Arkansas’ System • Arguments for prescriptive use: • There is a current lack of focus of funds. • Funds should pinpoint only to students in poverty. • Use funding in a prescriptive manner as a way to figure out what works • Arguments against prescriptive use: • Flexibility is necessary: State-wide policies may not fit for all. • What do you prescribe? Research isn’t conclusive on what works best

20. Our Recommendations • Distribution of Poverty Funding • Progressive system: “Smooth sliding” scale to replace the current tiered system • Distribute more funding for districts with higher concentrations of FRL students • Weighting the funding to differentiate between poverty levels by factoring in the difference between “free” and “reduced” lunch students

21. Our Recommendations • Progressive system: “Smooth” sliding scale • Weighted to account for differences in “free” and “reduced” • Weights are 75% for Reduced-Lunch Students and 100% for Free-Lunch Students.

22. Our Recommendations • Regulations on spending: More or less prescriptive? • Some argue flexibility is needed: perhaps offer this to districts that are succeeding with poor students. • For those still not meeting the needs of poor kids, develop a “menu” of promising programs targeted to poor students. (This will help ADE learn more about effectiveness.)

23. Questions? Comments? Thank you.

24. Alternative Certification The Effectiveness of Teacher from Rigorous Programs on Math & Literacy Achievement: A Systematic Review Panelist: Benton M. Brown Co-Authors: Alexandra Boyd, Sarah Burks, and Alexandra Vasile

25. Outline • Research Question • Purpose • Background Information • Review Methodology • Search Yield • Study Characteristics • Meta-analysis • Results • Discussion • Limitations • Implications for Policy & Practice

26. Research Question Does having an alternatively certified teacher from a rigorous program lead to better outcomes in math and literacy?

27. Purpose • Add to and synthesize the literature • To our knowledge, there is no systematic review that compiles all of the studies on the effectiveness of rigorous alternative certification programs. • Main studies primarily quoted: 2004 Mathematica Study, CREDO and Darling-Hammond Studies • Need for a compiled completelist that is unbiased • Policy and practice implications • Alternative certification is growing in Arkansas and across the nation

28. Background Information Common Alternative Certification ("Alt. Cert.") definition: • To receive a license to teach in K-12 without completing the traditional process of teacher licensure (B.A. in Education or M.A. in Teaching with student teaching experience). There are many different methods to gain an alternative certification. Programs are offered by: • Universities • States' Department of Education • Private organizations

29. Background Information Areas of research on alternative certification: • Effectiveness of alt. cert. teachers • Compared to traditional teachers and novice teachers • Compared to other alt. cert. programs • Training systems • Preparedness of teachers • Perceptions of alt. cert. teachers

30. Background Information • Focus of our study: • Effectiveness of alternatively certified teachers from a rigorous program • Rigorous alternative certification program: • One that recruits, selects, and trains teachers • Distinguished from other programs based on the selectivity of the program • NOT based on length of training or other training components

31. Review Methodology • Search Sources • Google Scholar • ProQuest • JStor • NBER • EBSCO • Inclusion Criteria • Focuses on a particular rigorous alternative teacher certification program • Includes one or more of the following outcomes: math, reading, or ELA (CRT or NRT) • Based on a rigorous research design: RCT or QED (matching with baseline equivalence) • Counterfactual: Compares alt cert teachers with teachers already in the classroom and/or novice teachers • 1990 and after

32. Review Methodology

33. Review Methodology • Articles eliminated during abstract stage due to: • Non-rigorous alt. cert. program • Unspecified alt. cert. program • Improper outcomes (e.g. lack of quantitative outcomes) • Non-rigorous research design/methods • Improper counterfactual to alt. cert. teachers • Articles eliminated during coding stage due to: • Non-rigorous research methods • Improper outcomes (e.g. lack of quantitative outcomes) • Improper counterfactual to alt. cert. teachers

34. Results *Studies with multiple counterfactuals or outcomes were double-counted

35. Results *Significant at 10%; ** significant at 5%; *** significant at 1% or less

36. Results

38. Results

39. Discussion • Complications in Data Analysis • Studies on the same dataset looking at same outcomes • Different models or tests within each study - with somewhat different results • Difficulty in separating effect size for outcome of interest: Xu et al. (2009)

40. Discussion • Implications for Policy and Practice • Alternative certification should be supported as a fast-track way to certification • Rigorous programs • Alt. Cert. Teachers provide districts a viable way to fill teacher vacancies • Districts, state departments of education, and legislatures should be open to rigorous alternative certification teachers and programs

41. Discussion Contact Info: Benton M. Brown University of Arkansas bentonb@uark.edu 479-575-6418

42. Additional Information

45. TFA Math All Teachers’ Studies

47. TFA Math Novice Teachers’ Studies

49. TFA ELA All Teachers’ Studies