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.

Students in poverty a critical test for Knapp and ed reform commission

Georgia Governor Nathan Deal's hand-picked Education Reform Commission faces an August 1 deadline to present a proposal for a new school funding model and curiously cancelled its funding subcommittee meeting May 28.

Commission chair Charles Knapp, UGA President Emeritus had described the meeting as a "critical time":

"We've been talking thus far conceptually, and now we're really starting to work the numbers," ("School funding question top task for Deal's education panel" Online Athens).

Dr. Knapp is in a difficult position: he's charged not with determining an appropriate amount of funding for Georgia students but with devising a new way of redistributing whatever portion the General Assembly decides to appropriate for public education. 

[And it should be noted here that replacing the current QBE funding formula with anything will kill those nagging, specific charges about exactly how much the Governor underfunds the state's public schools in each budget].

One specific concern for the funding subcommittee as they careen toward their deadline is how to weight the needs of certain student groups, particularly students in poverty.

The funding committee did post a weighting report that included one striking chart showing the correlation of high poverty and student performance on state tests:

The chart reinforces the relationship between student poverty and academic performance. Poverty increases as the scale moves to the right and test performance decreases as the vertical scale increases.  The notes indicate that the four outliers--schools with very high levels of students not meeting standards--are the state schools (serving the deaf and blind) and a state charter virtual school. 

The chart makes clear what should be painfully obvious: students raised in poverty face distinct academic challenges that require greater support. What has Governor Deal's response been for these students? To label their schools as failing and to petulantly disparage these schools for having the audacity to spend more to address the needs of these children in poverty. (Politifact Georgia)

Dr. Knapp is no stranger to the challenges involved with educating disadvantaged students. As chair of the New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce (2007) he oversaw the creation of a plan for recreating education set out in Tough Choices or Tough Times (executive summary). Here is that commission's vision for supporting schools serving the disadvantaged:

The additional funds for schools serving high concentrations of disadvantaged students will make it possible for those schools to stay open from early in the morning until late at night, offering a wide range of supportive services to the students and their families. They will have the funds needed to screen and diagnose their students, and to make sure that they get the eyeglasses they need or the hearing aids or the therapy for dyslexia or any of the many other things that have prevented these children from learning as well as their wealthier peers. These schools will be able to afford the tutors they need, the counselors and mentors that are the birthright of richer children elsewhere. And they will have the staff needed to reach out to the community and to find the community leaders in the private sector who will develop campaigns to raise the aspirations of these young people, so they come to believe that they too can reach the top if they work hard enough. (Tough Choices or Tough Times, executive summary, 18)

This vision of positioning disadvantaged students for success was predicated on using funding to "level-up" these schools. Under Governor Deal's restrictive charge to the commission, they can recommend additional funding weights for students in poverty, but those tweaks seem unlikely to institute the comprehensive intervention envisioned by the previous reform group led by Dr. Knapp.

With one meeting cancelled and one funding subcommittee meeting remaining, Dr Knapp and the commission faces some distinct challenges, least of these would be what does one do when the numbers don't "work out"?

---

[Hat tip to Claire Suggs and GBPI for the reference to Dr. Charles Knapp's work on Tough Choices or Tough Times in Education Reform Commission – Can We Talk About the Cost? ]