the use of educational resources in wyoming: report to the wyoming legislature february 14, 2008 by...

The Use of Educational Resources in Wyoming:

Report to theWyoming Legislature

February 14, 2008

by

Allan Odden, Lawrence O. Picus, Michelle Turner Mangan, Mike Goetz & Anabel Aportela

Allan Odden, Lawrence O. Picus, Michelle Turner Mangan, Mike Goetz & Anabel Aportela 2

Ten Steps to “Double” Performance1. Conduct a needs assessment2. Set higher goals

a. Double performance b. 90 percent of children at or above proficiency or

advanced.

3. Adopt a new research-based curriculuma. Including a vision of effective instruction/pedagogy

4. Implement Data-based decision making a. Formative assessmentsb. Tailor instruction to exactly what students do and do

not know


5. Invest in extensive, long-term professional development

a. Summer institutes for teachersb. Instructional facilitators in schoolsc. Money for trainers

6. Use school time more efficiently a. 90-120 minute reading blocksb. Protected math blocksc. Replace electives with double reading or math

periods for struggling students

Ten Steps to “Double” Performance


7. Multiple extra-help strategies for struggling students

a. 1-1 tutoring (by licensed teachers)b. Small group tutoring (by licensed teachers)c. Double periods during the regular dayd. Extended day programse. Summer schoolf. Extensive assistance for students with disabilities

8. Create professional learning communities that work together relentlessly to boost student performance



9. Support for improving instruction bya. Teachers – team leaders, coordinators, IFsb. School principalc. District leadership

10. Take advantage of external professional knowledgea. State department of educationb. Regional service unitsc. Consultantsd. Research-based curriculum programse. Practice-based research findingsf. Others



Core Instructional Elements of the Wyoming Funding Model

• Small class sizes

• 16 elementary (K-5)

• 21 secondary (6-12)

• High quality instruction

• Professional development

• School-based instructional facilitators



• Sequenced and integrated strategies – continuum of services -- to help struggling children meet state standards• Tutoring

• Extended days

• Summer school

• Special education with no budget cap



• Substantial resources for• Instructional materials, at sufficient

levels to buy any number of formative assessments: NWEA, DIBELS, Wireless Generation

• Technology


Instructional Materials

Gifted

Tutors and pupil support:1 per 100 at risk

Elem 20%

Middle33%

High School 33%

The Wyoming Evidence Based School Funding Model

K -5: 16 to 16-12: 21 to 1

District Admin Site-based Leadership

ELL1 per100

Technology

Small SchoolAdjustment

State


Research Questions

1. How are actual resource patterns in Wyoming aligned with or different from the resource use strategies that are used in the Wyoming Funding Model?

2. What are the current instructional improvement strategies at the school-level in Wyoming?

Instructional Strategies and the Use of Resources

At the School Level

Updated Findings


Methodology• 314 Schools visited in Year 1 (n=254) & Year 2 (n=60)

• 178 Elementary

• 67 Middle

• 69 High Schools

• 14 are alternative learning environment (ALE) schools

• Results based on 300 non-ALE, elementary, middle, & high schools.

• In-person interviews with principals & superintendents to collect schools’ staffing and fiscal resources

• Quantitative analyses and case studies


Updated Sample Characteristics

Demographics Statewide (2007-08) Updated Sample

Number of Students

85,332

Average ADM per School: 238

71,416

Number of Students in Average School: 227

Number of Schools

Elementary 196

Middle 80

High 83

Elementary 178

Middle 67

High 69

Percent Free and Reduced-Price Lunch

33% 32%

Percent ELL4% 4%

Percent Special Education

14% 14%


Average Number of Students in Updated Sample Schools*

Elementary Schools

< 49: 17

49-96: 72

>96: 270

Middle Schools

< 49: 24

49-105: 59

>105: 395

High Schools

< 49: 38

49-105: 80

>105: 448

*Does not include alternative schools data


Instructional Time*• Average Instructional Day: 5 hrs, 56 min• Average Class Length

• Math: 1 hr, 3 minutes

• Reading (Elementary): 1hr, 47 minutes

• English/LA (Mid/High): 1 hr, 3 minutes

• Soc. Studies & Science (each)

• (Elementary): 30 minutes

• (Mid/High): 51 minutes*Does not include alternative schools data


Average Resources in Elementary Schools* with More than 96 Students

Staffing Funding Model Sample

Principals 1.09 0.90

Assistant Principals 0.00 0.06

Core Teachers 16.47 14.03

Specialist Teachers 3.29 2.36

Instructional Aides 0.00 3.92

Certified Tutors 1.12 0.75

Librarians/Media Staff 0.92 0.40

Pupil Support Staff 1.12 1.30

Secretaries 1.09 1.15



Average Resources in Elementary Schools* with 49-96 Students






Additional Teachers 0.92 0.00








Average Resources in Elementary Schools* with Less than 49 Students




Core & Specialist Teachers

2.75 2.10






Total Professional Staff 3.75 3.26



Key Findings on Resource Use in Elementary Schools• Compared to the Wyoming Funding Model, large elementary schools have: • Slightly less school site administration

• Fewer core and specialist teachers

• More aides

• Fewer certified tutors

• Less than half the certified library and media staff

• Slightly more pupil support


Average School-Level Resources in Middle Schools* with More than 105 Students














Average School-Level Resources in Middle Schools* with 49-105 Students






Additional Teacher 3.58 0.00








Average School-Level Resources in Middle Schools* with Less than 49 Students





3.48 3.01









Key Findings on Resource Use in Middle Schools

• Compared to the Wyoming Funding Model, large middle schools have: • About the same level of school administration

• Fewer core teachers

• More specialist teachers

• More aides

• Fewer tutors

• Less certified library and media staff

• Less pupil support


Average School-Level Resources in High Schools* with More than 105 Students






Additional Teacher 1.52 0.01








Average School-Level Resources in High Schools* with 49-105 Students














Average School-Level Resources in High Schools* with Less than 49 Students





5.75 5.97









Key Findings on Resource Use in High Schools

• Compared to the Wyoming Funding Model, large high schools have: • Similar amounts of administration (Principals &

assistant principals)• Fewer core teachers• More specialist teachers• More aides• 2/3 fewer certified tutors• 2/3 fewer certified librarian and media staff• Less pupil support• Double the number of secretaries


Students per Core Teacher (Excludes Small & Alternative Schools data)

Ratio of Students to Core Teachers Funded by State

Model

Ratio of Actual Students to Core Teachers in Updated

Sample Schools

Elementary 16:1AVERAGE 19:1

RANGE 11:1 to 25:1

Middle 21:1AVERAGE 22:1

RANGE 10:1 to 42:1

High 21:1AVERAGE 21:1

RANGE 8:1 to 36:1

Actual student to teacher ratios are slightly larger than the model in elementary and middle schools, and about the same as the model level in high schools. But there are wide ranges in actual practice.


Students Per Core TeacherMedium and Large Elementary

21

3

56

7

12

21

23

21

1211

8

4

1

0

5

10

15

20

25

Student:Core Teacher Ratio

No

. of

Stu

den

ts

S:CT Ratio 2 1 3 5 6 7 12 21 23 21 12 11 8 4 1

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25


Students Per Core TeacherMedium and Large Middle School

1 1

2

1

0

1

3

1

0

3

5

6

4

3

5

2

3

0

4

0 0

1

0

1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7


No

. of

Stu

den

ts

S:CT Ratio 1 1 2 1 0 1 3 1 0 3 5 6 4 3 5 2 3 0 4 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42


Students Per Core TeacherMedium and Large High School

1 1

0

1

2 2

0

2

1

4

6

2

7

1

2

3

1 1

4

2 2

1

0

1

0

1

0

1 1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8


No

. of

Stu

den

ts

S:CT Ratio 1 1 0 1 2 2 0 2 1 4 6 2 7 1 2 3 1 1 4 2 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36


Core Teachers in Sample Schools (Excludes Small & Alternative Schools Data)

Core Teachers Funded by State Model in Sampled Schools

Actual Core Teachers in Updated Sampled

Schools

Elementary 2,147.5 1,844.22

Middle 788.1 715.36

High 870.7 776.86

TOTAL 3,806.2 3,336.44

469.76 fewer core teachers than provided by the funding model


Number of Instructional Aides*Type of Inst. Aide

# Elementary Aides

# Middle School Aides

# High School Aides

Library 98 32 30

ELL 26 6 9

Title I 122 8 3

Other Extra Help 87 22 14

Other Instructional 102 11 14

Non-Certified Tutors 69 23 12

Special Education Inclusion & Resource

392 174 154

In-School Suspension 6 17 7

Gifted & Talented 5 0 0

TOTAL 907 293 243

Model does not fund instructional aides

*Does not include small or alternative schools data


Number of Tutors*

Tutors Funded by State Model in

Sampled Schools

Teachers Tutoring in

Sampled Schools

Aides Tutoring in Sampled

Schools

Elementary 146 95 69

Middle 63 26 23

High 62 17 12

We found substantially fewer certified tutors to provide extra help to struggling students, especiallyin middle and high schools

*Does not include small or alternative schools data


Average Number of Instructional Facilitators in Medium and Large Schools

Actual instructional facilitators loosely mirrored the level funded through the categorical program (about two thirds of model level).

Model Funded Sample Elementary 1.30 0.87 0.85 Middle 1.60 1.07 0.97 High School 1.70 1.13 0.98


Updated Findings Related to Instructional Improvement (300 non-ALE schools)

• Fewer core teachers than model funds in large schools

• Specialist Teachers in large schools• Elementary -- About 28% fewer than funded

• Middle schools -- About 27% more than funded

• High schools -- About 59% more than funded

• Large number of aides despite no funding• Substantially fewer certified tutors than funded


Updated Findings Related to Instructional Improvement (300 non-ALE schools)

• Instructional facilitators • Observed at almost the estimated funding

level in all three school levels

• This is a categorical not a block grant program

• School administrators employed at a slightly lower level than funded by the model


Tentative Conclusions• The observed resource use patterns:

• Appear to represent a different theory about how to boost student achievement

• Less professional development

• More electives

• More classroom aides dealing with academic needs

• Are different from evidence-based resource use patterns to double student performance observed in Wyoming and other states

State-Level Expenditure Analysis

Findings


Total Expenditures: 2002-03 to 2006-07

2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-075-Year Change

Enrollment 85,051 83,871 83,078 83,338 85,332General Fund $728,284,018 $741,864,255 $772,813,538 $865,539,002 $1,018,575,240Special Revenue Funds $91,095,959 $109,714,624 $131,495,499 $138,718,134 $155,786,695Food $25,717,247 $26,101,340 $27,838,483 $30,520,781 $33,239,143Other $2,612,761 $2,747,464 $2,411,531 $5,205,096 $13,190,513

Total $847,709,985 $880,427,684 $934,559,051 $1,039,983,012 $1,220,791,592Percent Increase 3.86% 6.15% 11.28% 17.39% 44.01%


Total Expenditures Per Pupil: 2002-03 to 2006-07

2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-075-Year Change

General Fund $8,563 $8,845 $9,302 $10,386 $11,937Special Revenue Funds $1,071 $1,308 $1,583 $1,665 $1,826Food $302 $311 $335 $366 $390Other $31 $33 $29 $62 $155

Total $9,967 $10,497 $11,249 $12,479 $14,306Percent Increase 5.32% 7.16% 10.93% 14.64% 43.54%


Expenditures by Function: 2002-03 to 2006-07

$0

$200,000,000

$400,000,000

$600,000,000

$800,000,000

$1,000,000,000

$1,200,000,000

$1,400,000,000

2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-07

Other

Food

Transportation

Maintenance

Operations

Central Office Administration

School Administration

Instructional Support

Student Support

Instruction


Percent of Expenditures By Function: 2002-03 to 2006-07

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-07

Other

Food

Transportation

Maintenance

Operations

Central Office Administration

School Administration

Instructional Support

Student Support

Instruction


Total Compensation as a Percent of Instruction

2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-075-Year Change

Salary $324,271,747 $328,316,000 $342,131,905 $378,968,162 $446,201,145Percent Increase 1.25% 4.21% 10.77% 17.74% 37.60%

Per Pupil $3,813 $3,915 $4,118 $4,547 $5,229Percent Increase 2.67% 5.20% 10.42% 14.99% 37.15%

Benefits $103,392,432 $108,118,694 $115,774,840 $134,204,864 $158,235,939Percent Increase 4.57% 7.08% 15.92% 17.91% 53.04%


Total Compensation $427,664,178 $436,434,694 $457,906,744 $513,173,025 $604,437,084Percent Increase 2.05% 4.92% 12.07% 17.78% 41.33%


Percent of Total Instruction 87.29% 87.24% 86.86% 87.25% 88.71% 1.42%


General Conclusions and Implications

• Large increases in salaries • Fewer teacher positions in schools

than model funds • Could lead to future pressure for

more money

Salary Analysis

Findings


Changes in Student Enrollment: 2002-03 to 2006-07

86,117

84,741

83,772 83,705

84,611

82,000

82,500

83,000

83,500

84,000

84,500

85,000

85,500

86,000

86,500

2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07

Year

Enrollment declined by 1,506 students or -1.75 percent


State Total Teacher FTE: 2002-03 to 2006-07

7,616 7,5997,645

7,732

8,178

7,300

7,400

7,500

7,600

7,700

7,800

7,900

8,000

8,100

8,200

8,300

2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07

Year

FTE

Teac

hers

Five year change 562 FTE teachers 7.37 percent


Annual Percent Change in Enrollment Compared to Change in Total FTE Teachers

-2.00%

-1.00%

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

6.00%

7.00%

2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07

Year

Per

enta

ge

Ch

ang

e

Enrollment

FTE Teachers


Composition of Teaching* Staff: 2002-03 to 2006-07

6,802 6,789 6,831 6,893 7,272

814 810 814 839905

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07

Year

FT

E T

each

ers

Special Ed

Non-Special Ed

*Includes nurses, social workers, phychologists, and others


Percent Change in Enrollment and FTE Teachers by Type

-4.00%

-2.00%

0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%

2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07

Year

Per

cen

t C

han

ge

Enrollment

All Teachers

Special Ed

Non Special Ed


Model v. Actual FTE Teachers 2006-07 (W/O Special Ed.)

7,474 7,272

2,500

3,500

4,500

5,500

6,500

7,500

8,500

Model Actual

FT

E T

each

ers


Average Teacher Salary: 2002-03 to 2006-07

$39,364

$51,574

$44,049$41,284$40,204

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07

Year

Ave

rag

e S

alar

y


Percent Change in Average Teacher Salary: 2003-04 to 2006-07

17.08%

6.70%

2.69%1.62%

0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%

12.00%

14.00%

16.00%

18.00%

2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07

Year

Perc

ent C

hang

e

Five Year Change 29.75 Percent


Beginning Teacher Salary Schedules (BA + 0 Years Exp.)

02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 5 Yr Chg.

Minimum $22,000 $22,500 $23,000 $24,310 $24,638 $2,638

Maximum $32,000 $32,320 $32,820 $35,000 $50,000 $18,000

Range $10,000 $9,820 $9,820 $10,690 $25,363 $15,363

Average $26,251 $26,706 $27,729 $29,261 $35,924 $9,673

% Increase 1.73% 3.83% 5.53% 22.77% 36.85%


Middle Salary Schedule Steps

02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 5 Yr. Chg. BA-Step 6 $29,897 $30,423 $31,493 $33,073 $39,701 $9,804 1.76% 3.52% 5.02% 20.04% 32.79% MA-Step 0 $29,664 $30,141 $31,206 $32,009 $39,073 $9,409 1.61% 3.54% 2.57% 22.07% 31.72% MA-Step 10 $36,652 $37,238 $38,376 $39,901 $46,974 $10,322 1.60% 3.06% 3.97% 17.73% 28.16%


Top of Salary Schedule

02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 5 Yr. Chg. Minimum $40,838 $40,838 $43,538 $43,538 $43,538 $2,700 Maximum $59,000 $60,320 $61,820 $63,820 $84,091 $25,091 Range $18,163 $19,483 $18,283 $20,283 $40,554 $22,391 Average $48,949 $49,496 $50,786 $52,730 $60,085 $11,137 1.12% 2.61% 3.83% 13.95% 22.75%


Findings on Salaries

• Dramatic increase in teacher salaries in last two years

• Model funds more positions than districts employ with block grant funds

• Difference may have led to higher salaries than anticipated in the model


Discussion and Questions

Lawrence O. Picus and Associates

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

the use of educational resources in wyoming: report to the wyoming legislature february 14, 2008 by...

Documents

byallan odden

knowallan odden

struggling studentsallan

wyoming funding modelsequenced

double reading

budget capallan odden

student performanceallan

double performanceconduct