A CROSS-case COMPARISON of Criteria Used to Allocate Resources to Schools in four urban districts

1. A CROSS-case COMPARISON of Criteria Used to Allocate Resources to Schools in four urban districts Oral Dissertation Defense April 26, 2011 Peter Mangla Aloo California state university, East Bay

2. Purpose of the study Purpose Compare criteria used for student base funding (SBF) to allocate funds within district. Problem Inter-district allocation has been studied but research on allocation within districts is sparse especially dealing with student characteristics to allocate resources. Method Cross-case study of 4 mid-sized urban districts using SBF and RBB to achieve more equity in resource allocation.

3. Research Questions • What criteria do school district use to allocate resources to schools? • What data are used to inform the criteria selection? • Are the criteria weighted and, if so, what processes are used to weight them?

4. Theoretical Framework • Policies and structures that guide distribution of resources • Student characteristics or criteria that drive funding decisions • The theory of action for SBF and RBB has been to provide maximum budget flexibility and funding equity for all school sites

5. Methodology Pilot Study • Cincinnati Public School (CPS) is frequently cited as a success story for student based funding (Roza & Hawley-Miles, 2004). This study used CPS as a pilot to establish base-line criteria. • Three other mid-size urban districts were compared that use student based funding (SBF) to Cincinnati Public School (CPS)

6. Pilot-Cps Policy Implementation of SBF • Policy • Governance • Budget (Base-funding and need based funding)

7. Budget SBF & RBB Policy Governance Interaction Between policy, Governance and Budget

8. Emerging Analytical Framework Funding Allocation Framework: • Horizontal Equity- Baseline funding • Vertical Equity- According to student characteristics (need-based) Berne, R., & Stiefel, L. (1994,). Measuring equity at the school level: the finance perspective, (23), 447-467.

9. Methodology • Cross-case-comparison analysispolicy, governance and budget (three pillars) • Data collection:district budget & policy documents • Data recording:demographic, budget, policy

10. Equity Concepts-Horizontal & vertical • Horizontal or the equal treatment of equals, might take on real meaning at the school level, in terms of financial resources allocations • Base funding • Vertical or the appropriately unequal treatment of unequals, is very important equity concept at the school level • Tier I (mandatory- there are interpretations and variations issues) • Tier II (discretionary)

11. Criteria for need-based funding Tier I (Mandated) • Poverty (Title I) • English Language Learner (Title II) • Special education Tier II (discretionary) • Class-size reduction • Gifted program • Vocational education • Geographical location • Magnet school

12. Cross-case Comparison with CPS • Used categories to compare three other districts using weighted student based funding • Examined Tier II or discretionary allocation

13. Key Findings • 1. Governance structure, budgeting, and policy varied slightly among the districts. • 2. Cincinnati, Seattle, and Oakland had cash-reserves for budget adjustment twice during the school year, whereas San Francisco did not have cash-reserves. • 3. Funding for both Tiers I and II was budgeted after base funding was done.

14. Key Findings • There was variation among school districts in percentages of general purpose funding. (e.g. SFUSD=56%, OUSD=87%, CPS=64.3% and SPS = 53% of general purpose fund via SBF and RBB) • District officials made decisions on percentages of general-purpose funds to allocate, yet there was no evidence on how the percentages were determined. • Weighted index values were chosen by district officials and assigned a dollar value. Some districts used well-established indices, but translation of indices into dollar values appeared to be based on district officials’ judgment.

15. Implications • School district leaders do exercise discretion when deciding which criteria to include in Tier II criteria (discretionary). • Decisions about allocation reflect leaders’ values

16. Implications • Three basic criteria must be included in Tier I criteria are : • student poverty, • English language learner, • and need for special education. E.g. • EL student funding diminishes as the student as the student progresses • Percentage allocation of low SES student varies among the districts.

17. Rbb-Teacher salary • 87% of OUSD budget goes directly to sites • School Site Council must allocate full cost of teachers salary to site budget • The research is mixed regarding correlation between teacher experience and effectiveness. • Assumptions about how RBB would re-distribute experienced teachers have not materialized.

18. Recommendations • Superintendent monitor adherence to policy for allocating resources to schools. • School budgets reflect student needs and adequacy of funding at the school. • Superintendent ensure that budgets, policies, and governance are kept up to date, especially during these tough budgetary times. • Superintendent and School Business Officials provide workshops on budgetpreparation and funding procedures for principals.

19. Recommendation for Future study • While this study focused on the criteria used by the school districts to allocate resources and whether or not those resource are distributed equitably, there are other opportunities for future research that focuses on measuring adequacy in funding of criteria.

20. Conclusion • Process of prioritizing equity funding is discretionary even in Tier I or mandated • OUSD divergence from the other three districts because of how teacher salary is charged and use of ADA to allocate resources to sites. • Tier II or “discretionary funding" reflect leaders’ values and biases • What became evident is that there were different purpose behind allocations. Purpose varied the district after reviewing documents, no systematic processes were established (Arbitrary assignment of funding)