Saturday, September 26, 2015

Georgia's ERC Expanding an Unproven Solution

As Georgia's Education Reform Commission nears its deadline for recommendations, we are seeing more specific proposals emerge, including plans to create a new Student Scholarship Organization--one with somewhat greater accountability for academic performance with means testing to assure that funds benefit Georgians with the greatest needs. [A draft of their recommendations is posted here].

The reaction to these proposals has been...predictable:

Jason Bedrick of the CATO Institute calls the ERC proposals "A Solution in Search of a Problem." His blog post assails the ERC recommendations as unnecessary because the current program works just dandy as is. His arguments are worth noting as examples of what passes as support for a program that is essentially without evidence of its effectiveness.

Bedrick asserts, "According to the most recent data, three-quarters of scholarships statewide were awarded to students from families earning less than $62,202 annually."  This statement is not as definitive as it might seem. Looking at what is actually the most recent data, the Calendar Year 2014 Qualified Education Expense Credit Report, the numbers seem to bear out what Bedrick asserts. If one sums all the numbers for quartiles 1, 2, and 3 and divides by the total for all four quartiles, you do arrive at 73.18%.  The problem is 73.8% of what?  Georgia counts the number of scholarships but reports only the number of families receiving scholarships by quartile.

Why does this even matter? Glance at the yellow highlighted cells in this sheet. Each of those cells represents a mismatch between the total number of scholarships awarded and the sum of the number of families presented in each quartile. Georgia GOAL's number match up exactly, but Georgia Student Scholarship Programs's reporting doesn't account for some 495 individual awards--30% of their total.  There is absolutely no public accounting that accurately represents to what extent low-income Georgia students benefit from the current SSO program. As noted by the Andrew Young School of Policy Studies,
Regarding income, SSOs currently report the number of families receiving scholarships, but not the total number or amount of scholarships, by quartile of Georgia adjusted gross income. This reporting provides little detail regarding the income distribution of scholarship recipients and no information on the distribution of scholarship dollars. Georgia’s Tax Credit Scholarship Program (Buschman & Sjoquist, 26)

Bedrick holds up the Georgia GOAL Scholarship Program as an exemplar of how SSOs serve the most needy Georgians without the burden of specific income requirements. Unarguably, GOAL is the most noble implementation of what is a flawed program. But if anything, it is an outlier. Four SSO awarded more than 1000 schlarships for calendar year 2014: Georgia GOAL(4314), A Pay It Forward (2114), Apogee Georgia (1832), and Georgia Student Scholarship (1500). Bearing in mind that the quartile distributions are by family and not scholarship recipient, we still see striking disparities in which income groups benefit from each SSO:
[Click to enlarge]

Georgia GOAL is not representative of how SSOs distribute student scholarships. Also, a review of the 2014 Qualified Education Expense Report reveals some smaller SSO that award 84%, 94%, 100% of their scholarships to families earning over $61,953.00.

Contrary to how they have been presented by some, Georgia SSOs do not consistently provide support to Georgia students requiring the greatest assistance. Current law in Georgia provides that SSO
1021 In awarding scholarships or tuition grants, shall consider financial needs of students
1022 based on all sources, including the federal adjusted gross income from the federal income
1023 tax return most recently filed by the parents or guardians of such students, as adjusted for
1024 family size.
While they might consider income, the current law provides no requirement that SSOs actually relate scholarship awards to lower income students, and as noted by the Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, the reporting requirements provide "no information on the distribution of scholarship dollars."

The tax credit scholarships have been sold as a ticket out of low-performing school for low-income students, but the history of the program creates serious doubt as to whether we have met that expectation. [For that record, check these sources: "Millions of Tax Dollars Diverted to Private Schools," "What a Scam: Poor Kids' Money Snatched by Private Schools!" and "A Failed Experiment: Georgia's Tax Credit Scholarships for Private Schools."]

The Expanding Educational Options and School Choice Subcommittee has also stirred a hornet's nest by having the temerity to suggest that scholarship recipients be tested to measure the quality of the private schools cashing the checks. The subcommittee includes among its recommendations:
Require each SSO to ensure that participating schools that accept its scholarship shall: annually administer either state achievement tests or nationally norm-referenced tests that measure learning gains in math and language arts to all participating students in 3rd, 5th and 8th grades;
Similarly, the Andrw Young School of Policy, notes a dearth of evidence about the current SSO program:
The data that would be necessary, or at least very useful, to conduct an evaluation include:

  • The public schools attended by scholarship recipients prior to award of the scholarship. These data would be used to estimate the switching rate and to evaluate the quality of the public schools the students are leaving.
  • To explore the improvement in student performance, it would be useful to have scores on comparable standardized tests for the private and previously attended public schools. Private schools are not required to use the same standardized tests that public schools use, but available performance information could be used to judge the benefits in terms of quality of the private schools relative to the public schools the scholarship students had been attending.
  • The characteristics of scholarship recipients is an important aspect of any evaluation of the program. Thus, the distribution by race, gender, family income, and age (grade) of the scholarship recipients would be important data to report.
    Georgia’s Tax Credit Scholarship Program (Buschman & Sjoquist, 25).
(I would go further to state that these students shall take the same tests as would their counterparts in the public schools they left to best assess if they are achieving gains in learning.) The focus of education reform in Georgia has been on CCRPI and performance on state assessments as the sole measure of effective schools. The state has defined a successful school as one that produces growth in student learning. Yet the state has enabled millions of dollars in SSO funds--tax credits that reduce state revenue--to flow into private schools without any accounting for whether the students actually benefit. 

Bedrick states that imposing a test on these students would restrict parent's choice: "A testing mandate would force schools and parents that are ideologically opposed to standardized testing to choose between their principles and their pocketbooks." And to that I would have to say, "yep." If state dollars flow to a school, then that school should demonstrate effective practice and instruction through the same measure imposed on public schools.

Louisana provides an excellent case in point: the state requires state assessments for students using state vouchers to attend private schools. And what did Bobby Jindal learn?
The academic performance of Louisiana's voucher students remained low in 2013-14, according to Education Department data released Monday. Of 126 private schools accepting the publicly funded tuition subsidies, 23 posted scores low enough to prevent them from accepting new voucher students next fall.
Less than half the voucher students who took the LEAP and iLEAP exams passed: 44 percent. In public schools, 69 percent of students passed. If the voucher students were a school system, they would be tied for fifth-worst in the state, with Bogalusa and Baker.
The data shed new light on the performance of the Louisiana Scholarship Program. Gov. Bobby Jindal has advocated vouchers as ways to give parents more education choices and to rescue students from failing public schools.
Louisiana voucher students perform poorly in 2013-14; proponents praise gains (Nov 13, 2014).

And in this one respect, Georgia could learn a lesson from Louisana. It is the same thing principals tell new teachers: "If you are going to expect it, you better inspect it." In Georgia, we have to this point chosen not to gather information on the effectiveness of the schools to which these students transfer.

Without a common assessment, the state, SSO donors, and parents do not have an objective evaluation of the quality of the instructional program benefiting from SSO funds. Without lifting the legislated prohibition on gathering and reporting specific information on student race, gender, and family income, we will continue to lack visibility into who actually benefits from this program. What is  most evident about Georgia's tax credit scholarship program is that we know very little about how effective it is or even who benefits from it. Bedrick contends that the new program proposal is "a solution in search of a problem." The new proposal is even worse than that: it is an expansion of a program that has gone far too long without critical evaluation.







Sunday, August 16, 2015

Education Reform Commission Plays Odd Game on School Funding

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

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!)
GAFLKYNCTXTN
4th grade reading343936352834
8th grade reading323336353133
4th grade math394141454140
8th grade math293130363828

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
GAFLKYNCTXTN
4th grade reading343936352834
8th grade reading323336353133
4th grade math394141454140
8th grade math293130363828
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 PPERank Total PPEState PPERank State PPE
Georgia$1037038$450340
Florida$920744$352848
Kentucky$1053337$578224
North Carolina$867048$537532
Tennessee$895346$412944
Texas$1019140$392847
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.

Sunday, August 2, 2015

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.