Education Reform Commission Plays Odd Game on School Funding

When you were growing up, did you ever play the game "Guess Who?"?

Image by Bethany Khan

The premise is simple: each person starts with a collection of different characters, and then through a series of questions ("Is this person wearing a hat?" Does she have glasses?") the players race to narrow down to a pre-selected character card.

Martha Ann Todd, Executive Director of the Governor's Office of Student Achievement, must have been a formidable "Guess Who?" player in her day. PAGE reports that she led off the latest meeting of the Funding Committee of the Georgia Education Reform Commission with "a presentation of data comparing Georgia's proposed new education funding formula with the formula implemented in the states of Florida, Kentucky, North Carolina, Texas, and Tennessee." What's interesting is the criteria for selecting those states:

1. The state’s average 2013 NAEP scale score must be higher than Georgia’s in at least one of the following areas: 4th grade reading, 8th grade reading, 4th grade math, or 8th grade math. This difference must be statistically significant.

2. The state’s average 2013 NAEP scale score is not lower (statistically significant) than Georgia’s in at least any of the following areas: 4th grade reading, 8th grade reading, 4th grade math, or 8th grade math.

3. The state’s percent of students performing at Proficient or higher on the 2013 NAEP must be greater than Georgia’s in at least two of the following areas: 4th grade reading, 8th grade reading, 4th grade math, or 8th grade math. [NOTE: But not necessarily statistically significant].

4. The state must be similar to Georgia in terms of the percentage of NAEP test takers who qualify for free or reduced-price lunch.

And then there are the asterisks: Texas didn't quite meet the set criteria, scoring lower than Georgia on 4th grade reading, and, heck, Tennessee is not statistically superior to Georgia on any NAEP measure, but they are improving.  Basically, GOSA can choose to pick any state that fits the narrative.

That narrative would be something like this: to quell the rebellion on the funding committee that has argued that they should consider the adequacy of funding, not just the distribution of the funds, GOSA needs to establish through engineered comparisons that funding is adequate for the performance desired--through comparison to lesser funded states.

Hence, GOSA chooses to ignore statistical significance when comparing NAEP test proficiency rates, yielding a table that shows Georgia faltering behind these "comparison" states:

Percent Proficient or above relative to Georgia (statistical significance be damned!)
	GA	FL	KY	NC	TX	TN
4th grade reading	34	39	36	35	28	34
8th grade reading	32	33	36	35	31	33
4th grade math	39	41	41	45	41	40
8th grade math	29	31	30	36	38	28

However, NAEP clearly indicates through maps and charts which differences meet the test of statistical significance. With their guidance, the GOSA chart looks more like this:

Statistically significant Percent Proficient or above relative to Georgia
	GA	FL	KY	NC	TX	TN
4th grade reading	34	39	36	35	28	34
8th grade reading	32	33	36	35	31	33
4th grade math	39	41	41	45	41	40
8th grade math	29	31	30	36	38	28

Georgia performs very nearly the same as these states, despite having a greater percentage of children in poverty (27%).

What Todd glosses over is that the carefully-selected comparison states (with two gimmes), represent the aft end of national funding for schools.

	Total PPE	Rank Total PPE	State PPE	Rank State PPE
Georgia	$10370	38	$4503	40
Florida	$9207	44	$3528	48
Kentucky	$10533	37	$5782	24
North Carolina	$8670	48	$5375	32
Tennessee	$8953	46	$4129	44
Texas	$10191	40	$3928	47
US	$12380		$5650
PPE=per pupil expenditure. Source US Census Bureau: Public Education Finance 2013 Table 11.

Georgia is ranked 38th in total per pupil expenditures, but when you look at the state's share of this funding, Georgia's rank drops to 40th in the nation.

And here is the most stunning bit of clever omission in this entire charade:
Of these five comparison states, all three with state per pupil expenditures less than Georgia's have pending suits or have lost suits over the adequacy of education funding in their states (National Conference of State Legislatures).

• Texas Texas Taxpayer & Student Fairness Coalition (TTSFC) v. Scott. Trial court has ruled that the state's education funding system in inequitable, inadequate, and unconstitutional. Currently on appeal. Education Law Center.
• Florida. CSS v. Florida State Bd. of Educ. argues that "the state’s funding system fails to 'make adequate provision for education,' as the state constitution requires, because it relies too heavily on local funding and provides insufficient funding." Stalled since 2009 by state action, the Florida Supreme Court upheld a trial court decision against the state's motion to dismiss.  The case will go to trial in 2016. Education Law Center.
• Tennessee. Hamilton County Bd. of Educ. v. Haslam. Filed in March 2015, seven county school districts contend that the state “breached its duty under the Tennessee Constitution to provide a system of free public education for the children of this state.” Education Law Center.

 The Funding Committee of the Georgia Education Reform Commission must continue to maintain their skepticism of these funding plans being presented on behalf of Governor Deal. This latest contrived presentation by the Governor's Office seeks to baffle the committee rather than provide clarity on the adequacy of Georgia's K-12 education funding. If Georgia truly seeks to be a educational leader, we do not need to be seeking comparisons to states whose own citizens are contesting the adequacy of the funding of their schools.

A little context for Governor Deal's rant on education funding

I can't say I was surprised by the tenor and the content of Governor Nathan Deal's recent defense of his plan to disrupt the education funding formula for Georgia. The good governor is obviously miffed that his hand-picked commission would defy him on one central tenet: that the commission should not consider what it costs to educate a child in Georgia.   That's where the funding express train derailed,

Commission chair Charles Knapp was forced to tell the governor that the commission could not meet the unreasonably ambitious deadline of remaking the Georgia education system in six months. Commission members spoke heresy: "It all starts with what does it cost. You’ve got to know that (Rep. Tom Dickson, R-Cohutta)” and [in reference to changing the formulation for teacher salaries] "There’s no way not to have a huge impact, and in some cases, a crippling impact, on individuals and school districts if we don’t" (Rep. Terry England, R-Auburn). Governor Deal's Education Reform Commission Pushes Back on School Funding, AJC).

Governor Deal's letter to the AJC relied on one standby argument of the disruptive reform crowd--that since 1970 education spending has increased 170% with no corresponding gain in student achievement. This is a well-worn argument put forth by the Cato Institute that tracks inflation-adjusted per-pupil spending over time. What Cato does not admit nor control for is that society and our schools have changed radically in forty years.

Any comparison that starts pre-1975 is suspect as schools were substantially transformed in 1975 with the passage of PL94-142, the Education for all Handicapped Children Act. Signed by President Ford, this Act provided that students with mental and physical disabilities would no longer be kept at home or shuffled off to institutions.  Instead they would attend classes and receive service in the least restrictive environment possible. This was a case where as a society we finally recognized that it was time to do the right thing by our students with disabilities. Any district finance officer can tell you providing these services is not cheap, and the federal government has never fully funded its share.  But no one would suggest we should return to the way we treated these students pre-1975.

Obviously, compliance with 94-142 alone does not explain the increase in the cost to educate children. Anyone who has darkened the door of a school building realizes that schools today require many more resources to meet the expectations placed upon them, from the technology to produce 21st century learners (and to take state-mandated assessments) to the career labs that enable our graduates to leave school with industry certifications, and to the counseling and even psychological services we provide our students. Most importantly, education is still an enterprise that depends heavily upon highly-qualified individuals to guide and educate a population of students with greater needs and challenges. The costs to employ these persons and to retain the best personnel requires funding.

And to provide one extra bit of context for the governor's assertion, the esteemed CATO institute notes that Georgia's education funding has decreased sharply in recent years and now represents substantially less than the 170% increase the Governor suggested was true for Georgia:

http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/state-education-trends#/GA


Looking specifically at Georgia, we can track changes in funding per FTE using school system finance reports (revenues) maintained by the Business Services division of the Georgia Department of Education. Information is available for 1996-2014. Adjusting those combined local, state, and federal funds for inflation and dividing by the number of FTE (students) served each year, it is immediately evident that Georgia schools for the past two decades have not enjoyed a surge in funding.

In fact after almost two decades, the amount being spent per FTE in 2014, $5653.29 is only 12% higher (in constant 1996 dollars) than the amount being spent per student in 1996, $5062.85. Spreadsheet of this data can be accessed here.

But what about results?  The chart above also shows Georgia's performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Despite uneven funding, Georgia students continue to make progress on this national assessment. [The Georgia Department of Education provides an excellent analysis of Georgia's performance on the NAEP]. In fact, Georgia's 4th grade students NAEP reading scores surpassed the national average score in 2013 ("New NAEP Scores Released: Georgia Shows Progress"). In 2012, Ga DOE celebrated a singular distinction for the state:

Georgia leads the country when looking at year-to-year growth on the most recent national tests. One-year growth on the SAT, ACT, Advanced Placement (AP), and the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in Math, Reading and Science shows Georgia is the only state in the country to make gains on the most recent administration of each test. GADOE

Kudos to those legislators with the backbone to stand up to the Governor and insist that the state must consider the costs to achieve the results needed to move our state forward.

Will the Georgia Education Reform Commission Shortchange Students with Disabilities?

As the Georgia Education Reform Commission subcommittee on funding meets today, one topic on the unposted agenda is determining weights for special categories of students--those in poverty, English language learners, and "exceptional" students.

As a Georgia educator I have taught my fair share of gifted classes, and I have deep reservations about the financial impact of the commission's proposal to merge all categories of special education students with gifted students into one funding category, "exceptional." [Furthermore, the subcommittee is opening the door to replacing the specifically-defined category of "gifted" with a more encompassing students "participating in advanced coursework."]

The proposed changes could result in more funding being steered to systems who have proportionally more "gifted" students (and students taking advanced coursework) than they have students with disabilities.

Working from data available from the Governor's Office of Student Achievement, I calculated the ratio of gifted students to students with disabilities for each system in the state. For example, Decatur City has 2.45 gifted students for each student with disabilities, while Dougherty County proportionally has fewer than half (.426) the number of gifted students compared to the number of students with disabilities on their rosters.  I then plotted this ratio of Gifted/SWD against the percentage of economically disadvantaged students in each system.

Want to view an interactive version of this chart?

The obvious trend is that schools with higher portions of economically disadvantaged students have more students with disabilities and fewer students identified as gifted. A significant change in how the state funds the newly conflated category of "exceptional" students could adversely impact districts with higher levels of economically disadvantaged students. Also, the funding proposal does little to ensure adequate funding for the most profoundly disabled students.

 The current QBE model provides different funding weights for students depending upon the degree of their impairment. Students with profound disabilities earn more funds for a school system to offset the cost for the teachers and paraprofessionals who serve them. Students with less limiting learning disabilities qualify for less funding.

Under the current funding rules, a non-exceptional grades 9-12 student earns 1.0 FTE as a funding weight.  A gifted students earns 1.6597 FTE, while a student receiving special education services earns between 2.3810 FTE and 5.7555 FTE. [Those funding formulas are explained in detail at the Georgia DOE website].

The funding subcommittee's discussion of "Weighting Considerations" indicate the commission is looking to replace this existing needs-based reimbursement with funding weighted only by the portion of the day a student receives "exceptional" services--gifted, advanced courses (?), or special education.

To this point, nothing has been published with real data to show the true impact of the funding change on SWD students and systems. Indeed, the subcommittee is still wrestling with the ramifications of this proposal, including (apparently) how funding for students with autism or specific  learning disabilities could affect the funds distribution. Their meeting materials indicate this concern: "Including students with those two primary disabilities [autism and specific learning disability] in a weighting category defined by disability would effectively skew the funding to be either an overpayment or an underpayment."

After the funding subcommittee cancelled its April meeting, Governor Deal extended to December 18 his August 1 deadline for the full commission to ratify his "student-based" funding proposal. The plan is now for a special joint legislative committee to review and act on the completed funding scheme in 2016.

While the commission members suggest there will be a "hold harmless" period to give systems time to adjust to reductions in funding levels, this commission and the special joint legislative committee must publish the precise result of the new funding formulas on districts and clearly indicate the impact on the funds available to serve our students with disabilities.

This education reform commission must not become a vehicle for redistributing funds away from schools serving the most challenged students.