- School funding should be based on education strategies that work. The amount of funding allocated for public education should be determined by a method that relies on research into successful practices that have led to student achievement, an approach known as the evidence-based model for costing out.
Central to any discussion about improving the school funding system is the issue of how much money schools need. How much does it cost to provide an adequate education for Ohio's children? What are the components of an adequate education? And how do we ensure that money for schools funds those components?
To create an effective school funding system - one that helps create safe, nurturing learning environments that challenge children to achieve - Ohio's citizens and leaders need a systematic approach that ties dollar amounts to proven teaching methods. One such approach is the evidence-based model for costing out.
What is costing out?
Costing-out studies are tools used to determine how much money would be needed for schools to have the resources to bring all children to state education standards.
Costing-out models attempt to answer two questions:
- What resources and conditions do schools need so that they can enable students to meet state learning standards?
- How much funding is required to build and maintain the necessary resources and conditions?
The evidence-based approach
The evidence-based approach to costing out an adequate education identifies effective programs and practices to determine what works to improve student performance, selecting only methods that are supported by solid research evidence or best practices. Designed by Alan Odden and Lawrence Picus, it has been adopted in Arkansas and Kentucky.
The evidence-based approach employs teams of state policymakers as well as education leaders and practitioners to review the recommendations about effective programs and tailor them to the unique conditions, cultures, desires and requirements of a particular state.
Evidence-based studies have identified some strategies that work, including:
- a rigorous curriculum program
- intensive professional development including school-based instructional coaches
- strategies to help struggling students, including as the first intervention individual and small-group tutoring and followed up with academically focused extended-day and summer school programs for some students
- class sizes of 15 in grades K-3
The approach also has found that successful schools:
- use data to drive decision making, including state tests and curriculum-focused, formative assessments
- engage teachers in collaborative work centered on the instructional program
- establish a professional school culture
- orchestrate efforts at the district, school and teacher leader levels toward improving the academic achievement of every student
Four key aspects of funding reform
The evidence-based approach has identified four aspects of funding adequacy.
- Identify what it takes to dramatically improve student performance. We believe educators have sufficient information to be specific about this, with our evidence-based model a good summary of that evidence.
- Cost out those strategies. The evidence-based model offers a solid place to start, providing states with what currently is the most reasonable adequacy cost estimate. States would be smart to start with this level of resources and make sure this amount is used effectively before adding more resources.
- Surround any school finance reform based on an adequacy study with a sharp accountability system. This would hold students, teachers, schools and districts appropriately accountable for results, so that there is at least some pressure, other than local discretion, to use resources for the most effective strategies.
- Establish some constraints to ensure that schools use key resources as part of a strategy to double student performance. These resources can include instructional coaches, tutors and formative assessments for data-based decision making.
Learn more about the evidence-based approach.
Background: Costing-out models
The evidence-based approach is one of four main models for costing out an adequate education.
As one of the earliest and most predominant models, the professional judgment approach, developed by James Guthrie and Richard Rothstein, relies on a panel of professionals to design an educational program that would meet proficiency goals and identify all the specific resources necessary for its success. With a basic prototype established, the panel then determines what extra resources would be needed for specific types of students, such as those from low-income families, students with disabilities or English-language learners, to ensure they receive an adequate education. This approach was pioneered in Wyoming.
The cost function approach applies econometric models to determine how much a given school district would need to spend, relative to the average district, to obtain a specific performance target, given the characteristics of the school district and its student body. The cost function approach is not widely used as it requires extensive data that often are not available. Texas has used this approach.
The successful school district approach (or empirical approach) was designed by John Augenblick and John Myers in response to Ohio's DeRolph adequacy ruling. The approach identifies school districts that are currently meeting state standards and then uses their average expenditure amount as a fair estimate of the actual cost of an adequate education.
This approach was pioneered in Ohio in the mid-1990's. In 1997, then-Gov. George Voinovich established the Ohio School Funding Task Force, which hired an expert who used the "successful schools" method to generate new cost-based figures. (Ohio has since revised its school funding formula and uses.the Building Blocks model to direct funding.)
As a relatively newer model, the evidence-based approach (or the expert judgment approach), relies on research into effective educational practices and the judgment of experts who have developed or analyzed these practices to determine appropriate levels of spending.
The results of costing out
More than 50 costing-out studies have been conducted in 38 states since 1991, using one or some combination of these four models. Generally, costing-out studies have recommended significant increases in state and local spending. Beyond this fact, the results of costing-out studies have varied widely since:
- states have differing standards of how to determine adequate funding,
- different studies approach the additional needs of certain populations of students differently, and
- researchers have altered their findings at the request of legislative leaders to produce a more acceptable funding amount for the legislature.
While in some states have accepted the recommendations of costing-out studies, others have incorporated modified versions of the findings or ignored costing-out recommendations.