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.~

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)

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 ... .”

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 (Use other team’s references to estimate costs?)

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.

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, 2001) 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)

13. ANNUAL TARGETS 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 To gather information on how No Child Left Behind's testing mandates have affected students and schools, Wisconsin ASCD conducted an electronic survey of administrators in every school district in the state. A total of 171 districts responded. Their responses 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. Secretaries, teachers, guidance counselors, and other school personnel devote many hours to logistical preparation and test administration, resulting in loss of services to special needs students and instructional time for all students. 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. Most elementary teachers reported no change from 2004-05 to 2006-07 in the amount of instructional time that they spent on specific subjects. 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. 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. Almost half of identified Title I schools were in the more advanced stages of identification status. Forty-six percent of all identified Title I schools in 2006–07 were in either corrective action or restructuring, up from 33 percent in 2005–06 and 23 percent in 2004–05. The number of Title I schools in corrective action more than doubled from 1,223 in 2005–06 to 2,663 in 2006–07, while the number in restructuring status rose from 1,683 to 2,271. www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html

17. Impact of NCLB Federal education funds were more strongly 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, and the highest-poverty schools continued to receive smaller Title I allocations per low-income student than did the lowest-poverty schools. 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) • 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 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.

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. School Categories Prevent I: • SINIs 1,2, and 3 and are • ABC or ungraded schools; and • Meet at least 80% of AYP criteria Prevent II: • SINIs 1,2,and 3 • That meet less than 80% of AYP criteria; and • All Title I D and F schools; and  • All non-Title I D schools

25. School Categories Correct I: • SINIs 4 or 5+, schools planning for or implementing Restructuring; and are • A, B, C, or Ungraded schools; and  • Meet at least 80% of AYP criteria Correct II: • SINIs 4 or 5+ schools planning for or implementing Restructuring; • That meet less than 80% of AYP criteria; and • ALL Title I D and F schools; and • All non-Title I Repeating F and F schools

26. 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

27. Progressive Support How are schools to receive all of this support?  The plan calls for a budget made up of a combination of categorical funds.  For instance Title I Basic, IDEA, Title III (ELL), and $111.5 M from a research-based Reading Allocation. The State calls this "redirecting funds to support low-performing schools".  However most of these categorical funds are earmarked for and then taken from schools that need it the most.  This creates a vicious cycle.

28. 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) A relationship exists between high-cost factors and proficiency across Florida districts.

29. NAEP Scores

30. 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. 

31. 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. 

32. 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.

33. 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. 

34. Florida Inadequacy Graduation Rates by Race: graduation rate press release that includes change in grad rate by ethnicity and district http://www.fldoe.org/eias/eiaspubs/pdf/gradrate.pdf

35. Florida Inadequacy AYP Performance 2007-2008: Review of District performance meeting FL statute mandated standards of proficiency, as measured by % of AYP indicators met, shows that 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, ELL %, F/R Lunch %, Minority, % 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

36. 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 District% of Criteria Met Lafayette (B) 95 Gilchrist (A) 90 Glades (B) 90 Wakulla (A) 90 District% of Criteria Met Hamilton (C) 64 Putnam (C) 64 St. Lucie (B) 64 Suwannee (C) 64 Gadsen (C) 62 Osceola (B) 62 http://schoolgrades.fldoe.org/default.asp?level=District

37. 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

38. Reading Results FCAT 2008 Achievement Level 3 and Above (On Grade Level) Top Districts Bottom Districts District% Level 3 and Above Okaloosa 74 St. Johns 74 Santa Rosa 73 Brevard 71 Martin 70 Seminole 70 District% Level 3 and Above Hardee 50 Hendry 48 Madison 44 Hamilton 42 Jefferson 40 Gadsen 37 http://fcat.fldoe.org/mediapacket/2008/pdf/08pressPacketGR4_10.pdf

39. Math Results FCAT 2008 Achievement Level 3 and Above (On Grade Level) Top Districts Bottom Districts District% Level 3 and Above Okaloosa 80 Santa Rosa 78 Brevard 77 St. Johns 77 Martin 76 Seminole 76 District% Level 3 and Above Bradford 55 Osceola 55 Jefferson 48 Gadsen 46 Hamilton 43 Madison 43 http://fcat.fldoe.org/mediapacket/2008/pdf/08pressPacketGR4_10.pdf

40. Science Results FCAT 2008 Achievement Level 3 and Above (On Grade Level) Top Districts Bottom Districts District% Level 3 and Above Brevard 61 Sarasota 58 Monroe 57 Okaloosa 57 Santa Rosa 57 Seminole 56 District% Level 3 and Above Washington 27 Hamilton 26 Taylor 26 Franklin 24 Madison 23 Jefferson 21 http://fcat.fldoe.org/mediapacket/2008/pdf/08pressPacketGR4_10.pdf

41. Florida Inadequacy Relationship exists between high cost factors and proficiency in Florida. ELL Performance: Batalova, J. Fix, M., Murray, J. (2007) Measures of Change: The Demography of Adolescent English Learners

42. Florida InadequacyDifference in White and ELL Student Math Proficiency Rates (% points):Source: Fry, R. (2008). Role of Schools in the English Language Learner Achievement Gap. Pew Hispanic Center Report www.pewhhispanic.org

43. 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.

44. 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.

45. 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 Braceyhttp://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kres9811.htm

46. The Cost of Educating Children in Poverty • Children in poverty have long been recognized to constitute a dominant educational burden for the 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. • The most commonly accepted method of determining the incidence of children with greater educational needs as a result of low income is participation in the National School Lunch Program. Children from families with annual incomes at or below 130% of the poverty level are eligible for free meals, incomes between 130% and 185% of the poverty level are eligible to receive meals at a reduced price. • FL annual participation in Federal School Lunch Program: 2008- 1,557,738 • 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

47. The Cost of Educating Children in Poverty The concentration of children from low-income families attending school must be considered. One would be hard-pressed to argue convincingly that the teaching difficulty and the costs of adequate instruction remain constant 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). This rationale has been incorporated by a few states, including Illinois and Ohio. In Illinois, a district with the state average of low-income students, would receive an additional weight of approximately 50% (Alexander and Salmon, 1995, 218). However, both states have child poverty thresholds that appear to identify too few children and prescribe cost weights that are unrealistically low. • 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

48. The Cost of Educating Children in Poverty • In Abbott v. Burke, filed on behalf of a group of the state's poorest urban school systems, two results have emerged. First, the court has required that the state equalize the spending in the poorest districts to that of the wealthiest districts. Second, the court has also required that the state provide additional funding to the poorer districts to account for the extra educational needs of children from disadvantaged backgrounds (Abbott, 643 A.2d 575, 1994). • 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. (Yinger) http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=6166, p. 192 • 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.”http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=6166, p. 268

49. The Cost of Educating Children in Poverty • “Education cost studies include measures of the share of children in poverty in a school district not as a measure of the individual educational programming needs of any one or a group of students in the district, but as a broad proxy measure of the socio-economic conditions in the school district, which most often relate quite strongly with educational outcome differences…it can be shown that additional financial leverage, perhaps played out in reduced class sizes or improved teacher quality, can have positive marginal effects on the outcomes of populations disproportionately from impoverished family backgrounds. “ (R. C. Wood, p. 7) • William Clune’s writing on adequacy has evolved from a description of adequacy that includes all children to one that targets poor children. His estimate of the cost of adequate education in high-poverty schools: "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.” http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=6166, p. 193

50. The Cost of Educating Children in Poverty • Thus, in determining what constitutes an adequate education for at-risk children, an accurate picture requires mapping of the levels or lowness of poverty within schools or school districts. Districts with high percentages of the very poor will need greater financial resources. • Alexander and Salmon (1995, 217-218) listed 16 states that included cost differential weightings in their general school programs and supplemental funding for low-income children. These weightings, sometimes called formula add-ons, generally amounted to little more than estimates that had no basis in research. (i.e. Florida’s cost differential) 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