Challenging the Adequacy of Funding Elementary and Secondary Education in the State of Florida

1. Challenging the Adequacy of Funding Elementary and Secondary Education in the State of Florida Advanced Public Education Finance University of Florida

2. The Challenge The Florida state education finance distribution formula violates federal and state equal protection laws and the state of Florida has failed in its fundamental duty to provide all children an adequate and “high quality” education.

3. Four Prongs to Our Challenge: • We direct our assault to the state courts. • We seek relief under both federal and state provisions for equal protection. • We find the Florida formula unconstitutional because the funds are not allocated in equitable manner (i.e. high-risk students.) • We find the formula fiscally inadequate because it fails the Florida constitutional and statutory mandates for an education that meets minimal education standards. Wood (2004) p.549

4. Evidence of Funding Inadequacy in FL State education funds are unable to meet educational and academic standards and goals set by State of FL (accountability plan, VPK, CSR) State funds are insufficient to help high need students (AYP subgroups, e.g., poverty) meet State of FL education standards (additional funds not aligned with additional needs) Funding formula itself is an obstacle to adequacy Federal funding is similarly inadequate to meet federal mandates, much less fill in gaps of sate funding Research supports direct relationship between level of funding and quality of education

5. U.S. ConstitutionEqual Protection Rights While important to ensure that equal protection clauses in the U.S. and state constitutions are followed, equality of funding is insufficient to achieve adequacy in education. The adequacy movement is an extension of earlier educational equity reforms, but its purposes and arguments are quite different. An adequate education explicitly acknowledges students’ distinct needs and focuses on how well students perform. The adequacy movement has transformed the way people think about educational equity—and it has changed the legal and political debate in the process. ~An uneducated population cannot truly enjoy any of the freedoms of the Bill of Rights.~ Wood (2007)

6. Florida Provision for Equal Protection “All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law and have inalienable rights… No person shall be deprived of any right because of race, religion, national origin, or physical disability.” (Florida Constitution, Article I, Section 2) http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?Mode=Constitution&Submenu=3&Tab=statutes

7. Florida ConstitutionArticle IX, Section 1 “The education of children is a fundamental value of the people of the State of Florida. It is, therefore, a paramount duty of the state to make adequate provision for the education of all children residing within its borders. Adequate provision shall be made by law for a uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high quality system of free public schools that allows students to obtain a high quality education ... .” http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?Mode=Constitution&Submenu=3&Tab=statutes

8. Florida ConstitutionArticle IX, Section 1 To ensure a high quality education for all students, the FL Constitution stipulates two specific components: • Class Size Reduction • Voluntary Pre-Kindergarten http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?Mode=Constitution&Submenu=3&Tab=statutes

9. Florida Statutes re. Education • 1008.22 Student assessment program • 1008.25 Public school student progression • 1008.31 FL’s K-20 performance accountability system • 1008.33 Authority to enforce public school improvement • 1008.34 School grading system 2008 Florida Statutes State Statutes Search the Florida Statutes: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?Mode=Search%20Statutes&Submenu=2&Tab=statutes&CFID=79185096&CFTOKEN=19091591

10. Summary of Florida Constitution and Statutes • Florida has explicit language in its constitution and statutes that argue for the fact that education is a fundamental value of high importance for all children residing within the state. • The statutes provide very clear direction for minimum standards that all students shall achieve.

11. Adequacy UnderFlorida Law Ch. 2008-235 --The commissioner shall design and implement a statewide program of educational assessment that provides information for the improvement of the operation and management of the public schools… A score shall be designated for each subject area tested, below which score a student’s performance is deemed inadequate. The school districts shall provide appropriate remedial instruction to students who score below these levels. http://laws.flrules.org/files/Ch_2008-235.pdf

12. Impact of NCLB As a result of NCLB it is no longer sufficient to look at the performance of total children or White children. Now, this federal law requires that racial and ethnic group performance is tracked and that these groups of students meet standards of proficiency. In addition, a number of at risk categories are identified (ELL, SWD, Economically disadvantaged) and these groups of students (both at school and district level) must meet standards of proficiency. (NCLB) NCLB entrusted and mandated that states themselves establish these proficiency standards. (NCLB) If a school district is not able to meet these stated standards, due to fiscal constraints or economic realities, then the state aid distribution formula is unconstitutional and inadequate. (Wood, 2004 p.553-555) No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Public Law No. 107-110 (2002) http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html

13. ANNUAL TARGETS State Accountability Plan http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/stateplans03/index.html (p.95)

14. ANNUAL TARGETS http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/stateplans03/index.html (p.96)

15. Impact of NCLB Wisconsin ASCD conducted an electronic survey of administrators in every school district in the state. Responses from 171 districts indicated that the very resources that are central to the goals of NCLB—instructional time, staff time, and fiscal resources—have been diverted away from teaching and learning and have been reinvested in test preparation, administration, and reporting. Zellmer, M., Frontier, A., and Pheiffer, D. (2006). Education Leadership, 64(3)

16. Impact of NCLB Nearly 11,000 Title I schools were identified for improvement in 2006-07, and almost half were in the more advanced stages of corrective action and restructuring. Student participation in Title I school choice and supplemental educational services (SES) continues to rise, and district expenditures on these choice options doubled from 2003-04 to 2005-06., diverting funds away from Title I schools and students. Most teachers have been designated as highly qualified under NCLB, but teachers in high-poverty schools had less experience and were less likely to have a degree in the subject that they teach. www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html

17. Impact of NCLB Federal education funds were more targeted to high-poverty districts than were state and local funds. However, the higher level of federal funding in high-poverty districts was not sufficient to close the funding gap between high- and low-poverty districts. The overall share of Title I funds going to the highest-poverty districts and schools changed little between 1997-98 and 2004-05. Schools that were identified for improvement were more likely to receive Title I funds than non-identified schools, but they received smaller allocations per low-income pupil. http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/disadv/nclb-targeting/nclb-targeting-highlights.pdf

18. Florida’s Differentiated Accountability Model (FDAM) Walsh, M. (2008, Jan 16). Court Ruling in NCLB Suit Fuels Fight Over Costs. Education Week. Similar to the 6th Circuit "unfunded mandate" appeal (Dec. 10, 2008) in which the federal court agreed that the USDE had not notified the states of the NCLB implementation costs, the Florida Department of Education has not notified school districts of the implementation costs of FDAM.  As a result, school districts should not be required to make up the difference from their own pockets. 

19. FDAM History http://www.ed.gov/nclb/accountability/differentiated/factsheet03.html On July 1, 2008 Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings announced that six states won her approval to participate in the differentiated accountability pilot program.  The lucky states are Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, and Ohio.  Spellings indicated her decisions had been based on the plans submitted by these states that embraced data-based decision making and accountability.

20. FDAM Overview The F-DAM proposal aligns and integrates Florida's "School Grading" Accountability System and the federal "NCLB" accountability. Specifics: Title I schools are grouped by Schools in Need of Improvement status (SINI), school grade and the percent of AYP criteria met. Non-Title I Repeating F, F, and D schools are included in the model to ensure continued support. http://flbsi.org/pdf/DAMGUIDE.pdf

21. No Child Left Behind Schools in Need of Improvement “Those schools that do not meet state targets for two consecutive years are identified as schools in need of improvement (SINI) and are required to institute changes so that all students receive adequate and appropriate instruction to enable them to reach proficiency.” http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/mcclure3-03-2005.pdf

22. Growing Number of Title I Schools Approach Restructuring http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/differentiatedaccountability/fldap.pdf

23. SINI Status 2008 1,081 SINI Schools in Florida “The Department will continue its work with school districts to ensure each and every school receives the support it needs to be successful.” ~ Education Commissioner Eric J. Smith http://www.fldoe.org/news/2008/2008_07_29.asp

24. FDAM Support Areas The F-DAM focuses on progressive support and increases requirements as school grades and percent of AYP met declines.  The progress support includes nine areas of focus: School Improvement Planning Leadership Educator Quality - including performance pay Professional Development  Curriculum Aligned and paced Continuous Improvement Model School Choice with transportation SES tutorial programs Monitoring plans and processes http://www.flbsi.org/pdf/DAMGUIDE.pdf p.13

25. FDAM Funding No additional dollars allocated to provide FDAM support The State calls for "redirecting funds to support low-performing schools".  However most of these existing categorical funds are earmarked for other requirements and then taken from schools that need it the most.  This creates a vicious cycle. http://www.flbsi.org/pdf/DAMGUIDE.pdf p.15-22

26. Inadequacy of Funding Formula to Achieve Proficiency If cost differences among school districts are substantial, then imposing statewide student performance standards without simultaneously allocating more state financial aid to school districts with high costs may result in some districts not having enough resources to educate all their students to meet the new standards. (Reschovsky and Imazeki, 2003 p.265) A relationship exists between high-cost factors and proficiency across Florida districts.

27. NAEP Scores http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde/statecomp/index.asp

28. Florida NAEP Scores Disaggregated Reading Grade 4…. http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/stt2007/2007497FL4.pdf The percentage of students in Florida who performed at or above the NAEP Proficient level was 34 percent in 2007. In 2007, Black students had an average score that was lower than that of White students by 24 points. In 2007, Hispanic students had an average score that was lower than that of White students by 14 points. In 2007, students who were eligible for free/reduced-price school lunch, a proxy for poverty, had an average score that was lower than that of students who were not eligible for free/reduced-price school lunch by 21 points. 

29. Florida NAEP Scores Disaggregated Math Grade 4… http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/stt2007/2007495FL4.pdf The percentage of students in Florida who performed at or above the NAEP Proficient level was 40 percent in 2007. This percentage was greater than that in 2005 (37 percent) and was greater than that in 1992 (13 percent). In 2007, Black students had an average score that was lower than that of White students by 25 points. In 2007, Hispanic students had an average score that was lower than that of White students by 13 points. In 2007, students who were eligible for free/reduced-price school lunch, a proxy for poverty, had an average score that was lower than that of students who were not eligible for free/reduced-price school lunch by 18 points. 

30. Florida NAEP Scores Disaggregated Reading Grade 8 http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/stt2007/2007497FL8.pdf The percentage of students in Florida who performed at or above the NAEP Proficient level was 28 percent in 2007. This percentage was not significantly different from that in 2005 (25 percent) and was greater than that in 1998 (23 percent). In 2007, Black students had an average score that was lower than that of White students by 24 points. In 2007, Hispanic students had an average score that was lower than that of White students by 12 points. In 2007, students who were eligible for free/reduced-price school lunch, a proxy for poverty, had an average score that was lower than that of students who were not eligible for free/reduced-price school lunch by 18 points.

31. Florida NAEP Scores Disaggregated Math Grade 8… http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/stt2007/2007495FL8.pdf The percentage of students in Florida who performed at or above the NAEP Proficient level was 27 percent in 2007. This percentage was not significantly different from that in 2005 (26 percent) and was greater than that in 1990 (12 percent). In 2007, Black students had an average score that was lower than that of White students by 29 points. In 2007, Hispanic students had an average score that was lower than that of White students by 18 points. In 2007, students who were eligible for free/reduced-price school lunch, a proxy for poverty, had an average score that was lower than that of students who were not eligible for free/reduced-price school lunch by 23 points. 

32. Florida Inadequacy Graduation rate press release that includes graduation rate by ethnicity and district http://www.fldoe.org/eias/eiaspubs/pdf/gradrate.pdf *Florida Information Note Dec 2007 http://www.fldoe.org/eias Graduation Rates by Race:

33. Florida Inadequacy AYP Performance 2007-2008: 100% of FL counties failed to meet Adequate Yearly Progress standards due to subgroup performance. Only 5 counties failed to meet AYP standards in the White subgroup: Bradford, Franklin, Gadsden, Jefferson, Hamilton. In contrast only 2 counties (Clay and Sumter) did NOT fail to meet AYP standards in Black subgroup. Only two (Glades, Lafayette) did NOT fail to meet AYP standards in SWD subgroup. District comparison of AYP in Reading and Math shows a total of 47 Math or Reading areas not proficient in 30 counties. 91.5% of these areas are in districts with 50% or higher F/R lunch or minority percentages. Florida School and District Grades http://schoolgrades.fldoe.org/default.asp?level=District

34. FL Districts & AYP 2007-2008 All of the 67 districts in the state of Florida failed to make AYP for the 2007-2008 year. Top Districts Bottom Districts DistrictF/R Lunch %% of Criteria Met Lafayette (B ) 50.4 95 Gilchrist (A) 47.6 90 Glades (B) 38.8 90 Wakulla (A) 37.8 90 DistrictF/R Lunch %% of Criteria Met Hamilton (C) 71.0 64 Putnam (C) 67.6 64 St. Lucie (B) 54.0 64 Suwannee (C) 54.9 64 Gadsen (C) 71.1 62 Osceola (B) 63.0 62 Sources: http://schoolgrades.fldoe.org/default.asp?level=District Florida Department of Education, Student Demographic Information (2008)

35. FL Districts & AYP 2007-2008 Free/Reduced Lunch Percentage Top Districts 43.65% Bottom Districts 63.6% The percentage of students eligible for the free or reduced lunch program in the bottom districts according to AYP data is 20 points higher than the percentage eligible for the free or reduced lunch program in the top districts. Sources: http://schoolgrades.fldoe.org/default.asp?level=District Florida Department of Education, Student Demographic Information (2008)

36. FL Schools & AYP 2007-2008 787 Schools Made AYP (23.9%) 2,512 Schools Did Not Make AYP (76.1%) This year, 1,104 (81%) Florida Title I schools did not make AYP. There are 1358 Title I schools total. http://schoolgrades.fldoe.org/pdf/0708/factsheet.pdf

37. Reading Results FCAT 2008 Achievement Level 3 and Above (On Grade Level) Top Districts Bottom Districts DistrictF/R Lunch %% Level 3 and  Okaloosa 29.5 74 St. Johns 20.2 74 Santa Rosa 30.5 73 Brevard 30.5 71 Martin 23.2 70 Seminole 31.6 70 DistrictF/R Lunch %% Level 3 and  Hardee 63.5 50 Hendry 61.6 48 Madison 71.8 44 Hamilton 71.0 42 Jefferson 76.6 40 Gadsen 71.1 37 Average F/R % = 27.58 Average F/R % = 69.27 http://fcat.fldoe.org/mediapacket/2008/pdf/08pressPacketGR4_10.pdf Florida Department of Education, Student Demographic Information (2008)

38. Math Results FCAT 2008 Achievement Level 3 and Above (On Grade Level) Top Districts Bottom Districts DistrictF/R Lunch %% Level 3 and  Okaloosa 29.5 80 Santa Rosa 30.5 78 Brevard 30.5 77 St. Johns 20.2 77 Martin 23.2 76 Seminole 31.6 76 DistrictF/R Lunch %% Level 3 and  Bradford 55.0 55 Osceola 63.0 55 Jefferson 76.6 48 Gadsen 71.1 46 Hamilton 71.0 43 Madison 71.8 43 Average F/R % = 27.58 Average F/R % = 68.08 http://fcat.fldoe.org/mediapacket/2008/pdf/08pressPacketGR4_10.pdf Florida Department of Education, Student Demographic Information (2008)

39. Science Results FCAT 2008 Achievement Level 3 and Above (On Grade Level) Top Districts Bottom Districts DistrictF/R Lunch %% Level 3 and  Brevard 30.5 61 Sarasota 35.1 58 Monroe 33.3 57 Okaloosa 29.5 57 Santa Rosa 30.5 57 Seminole 31.6 56 DistrictF/R Lunch %% Level 3 and  Washington 54.7 27 Hamilton 71.0 26 Taylor 60.2 26 Franklin 55.4 24 Madison 71.8 23 Jefferson 76.6 21 Average F/R % = 31.75 Average F/R % = 64.95 http://fcat.fldoe.org/mediapacket/2008/pdf/08pressPacketGR4_10.pdf Florida Department of Education, Student Demographic Information (2008)

40. Adequacy and FCAT Certain groups of students in Florida are underachieving according to our state’s defined measures of adequacy. Definition of adequate is based on Florida learning standards and each student’s need to be educated (as specified in Florida law and statutes). Because the state of Florida set the standards and the measures of adequacy and proficiency, issues of reliability and validity are not germane.

41. What is the evidence that living in poverty impacts achievement? • NAEP 8th grade math analysis demonstrates what accounts for the so-called gap between US performance and that of other nations: • Top Scorers • Asian students, U.S. schools 287Taiwan 285Iowa 284Top third of U.S. schools 284Korea 283Advantaged urban students, U.S. 283Hungary 277White students, U.S. schools 277 • Bottom ScorersJordan 246Mississippi 246Hispanic students, U.S. schools 245Bottom third of U.S. schools 240Disadvantaged urban students 239Black students, U.S. schools 236 “In IAEP-2, disadvantaged urban students scored lower than the lowest nation. “ – Gerald Bracey

42. What is the evidence that living in poverty impacts achievement? Jacob, B., Ludwig, J. (September, 2008). Improving Educational Outcomes for Poor Children. Institute for Research on Poverty Discussion Paper no. 1352-08 (p2). According to the 2007 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), only 16 percent of fourth grade students eligible for free lunch score at proficient levels in reading compared with 44 percent of fourth graders whose family incomes are above the eligibility cutoff for free lunch; the disparity in math scores is even larger, 21 versus 53 percent (NCES 2007).

43. Low-Income Children: 39% (1,565,179) of children live in low-income families (National: 39%), defined as income below 200% of the federal poverty level.

44. The Cost of Educating Children in Poverty Alexander, K., et. al. (Winter 2006) . Adequate Funding of Education Programs for At-Risk Children: An Econometric Application of Research-Based Cost Differentials. Journal of Education Finance v. 31 no. 3 p. 301 Children in poverty have long been recognized to constitute a dominant educational burden for public schools. Most educators and sociologists agree that they warrant special consideration in compensatory education. States with higher percentages of children from low-income families bear a greater fiscal burden in their efforts to address the educational deficiencies caused by economic deprivation. FL annual participation in Federal School Lunch Program: 2008- 1,557,738

45. The Cost of Educating Children in Poverty Alexander, K., et. al. (Winter 2006) . Adequate Funding of Education Programs for At-Risk Children: An Econometric Application of Research-Based Cost Differentials. Journal of Education Finance v. 31 no. 3 p. 397-319 Teaching difficulty and the costs of adequate instruction increase as the percentage of low-income children in a classroom increases. The concentration of low-income children in a school or classroom therefore can influence the learning environment and the prospect for each child to attain an appropriate level of achievement. Adequate costs of instruction depend on both the concentration of low-income children and the degree of poverty of children. Salmon indicated that the concentration of children in poverty has a linear relationship with cost per pupil, where cost per pupil rises with the percentage of low-income children (Alexander and Salmon, 1995, 218).

46. The Cost of Educating Children in Poverty Abbott v. Burke • Equalized spending across districts • Provided additional funding for children from economically disadvantaged backgrounds (Abbott, 643 A.2d 575, 1994) Research Support Both scholars and policy makers have recognized that it costs more to achieve any given level of student performance when the students are disadvantaged than when they are not. Ladd, et. al. (1999) http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=6166, p. 192

47. The Cost of Educating Children in Poverty Duncombe and Yinger:  "All else equal, for example, a student's performance is likely to be lower if she comes from a poor family or if a large share of her classmates come from poor families. If performance declines as student poverty increases, then a district with a high poverty rate cannot achieve the same performance as a district with a low poverty rate without running programs (which, of course, cost money) to offset the impact of poverty.” Ladd, et. al. (1999) http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=6166, p. 268

48. The Cost of Educating Children in Poverty William Clune: “The national average spending is about $5,000 per pupil, and the total adequacy package is about $5,000 per pupil above the typical budget of a high-poverty school, suggesting a total budget of $10,000 per pupil per year.” Ladd, et. Al (1999) http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=6166, p. 193

49. The Cost of Educating Children in Poverty Alexander, K., et. al. (Winter 2006) . Adequate Funding of Education Programs for At-Risk Children: An Econometric Application of Research-Based Cost Differentials. Journal of Education Finance v. 31 no. 3 p. 297-319 Alexander and Salmon: Although research concerning the relative costs of educating children from low-income families is not absolute, most research suggests that the cost differentials now used in state funding formulas are not realistic. Minor funding adjustments of 15% or 25% per child, though helpful, cannot meet any reasonable standard of adequate funding.

50. The Cost of Educating Children in Poverty Duncombe and Lukemeyer: (2002, p26) Noted that their own statistical analysis of pupil weights for children in poverty and those with limited English proficiency (LEP) shows that cost differentials or weights used by states, which hover around 25% (1.25 weight), "maybe significantly underestimating the additional resources that are required to support at-risk students achieving higher standards.“