Hot Topics in AR Education Reform:

The UA Office for Education Policy

Joshua Barnett, Ginny Blankenship, & Laura IsraelResearch In Progress Seminar

Fall 2005

Who Are We?

• OEP = one of many research and service units in COEHP

• Housed in new Department of Education Reform

• OEP Mission– to serve as a resource to aid state legislators,

school board members, and other policymakers in thoughtful decision-making concerning K-12 education in the State of Arkansas.

– In light of this mission, naturally, OEP has been following AR Ed Reform and trying to track resulting changes in state education.

AR Ed Policy Context

• Why is the state in constant reform?– Lake View Litigation and Decisions– 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005?

• What did the AR legislature enact?– District Governance (consolidation)– Increased funding ($650M in 2 yrs)– Increased accountability (Act 35)

• Always Hovering – NCLB!

Current TopicsWhat are the preliminary reports on:

• New funding formulae• New accountability requirements• New governance rules (consolidation)

How are recent reforms related to funding and teacher quality being received by school administrators around the state?

• What is happening with new money?• Is there quantity and quality of applicants for

teaching positions?• How is NCLB influencing the recruitment

process of high quality teachers?

Funding Reforms

New Funding Formulae:

• Pre-reform (2003-2004): foundation = $4,700• Post-reform (2004-2005): foundation = $5,400• Additional Categorical Funding• No data on distribution of new $ as of today

Accountability Regulations require:

• Both curriculum-based exams (ACTAAP) and nationally norm-referenced exams (ITBS)

• Schools rated for (1) Absolute performance level, (2) Score growth, and (3) Fiscal management

• Consequences for schools unable to meet standards (i.e., recent takeover in Helena)

• NCLB must be integrated with state-level rules• Too early to talk about results

District Consolidation

• Special Legislative Session of 2003-04:

– School districts with fewer than 350 total students for 2 consecutive years must merge (administrative)

– First option is voluntary merger– No school mergers in year 1

• Results:

– 57 districts targeted for consolidation– 2003-04 = 308 districts– 2004-05 = 254 districts– Post 2004-2005 = 11 high schools within merged

districts were closed

District Consolidation• Which schools closed?

Receiving School (m=366) School closed (m=117)

Greenland Winslow High

Fouke McRae High

Beebe Cord-Charlotte High

August Holly Grove High

Clarendon Grady Campus

Star City Gould High

Dumas Lake View campus

Barton-Lexa Mt. Holly High

Smackover Arkansas City High

McGehee Bright Star High

Cedar Ridge Cotton Plant High

High Schools Affected

74

48 46

32 32 34

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

% Poor % Minority % Pass Lit G11

11 Closed HS 11 Receiving HS

District ConsolidationChallenges with data collection:

• Incomplete data from ADE

• Compiling lists through newspaper and online searches

Considerations:

• Only high school level data is currently available

Future work:

• New list of consolidated schools will be available October 1st from ADE

• Comparing the schools involved in consolidation with state-wide averages

• Policy brief on consolidation findings

Superintendent Survey

• How are districts using new funding increase? Is new categorical funding making a difference?

• Are superintendents satisfied with the quantity & quality of teachers hired over past 3 years? How impacted by NCLB?

Methods & Challenges

• Mailed surveys to 253 superintendents

• Mix of quantitative (scaled) & qualitative (open-response) questions

• Coded & analyzed qualitative data

• Survey Challenges– Low response rate: 34% (Representative? Short

turnaround? Bad timing? Mailed vs. e-mailed?)

– Still following-up with non-respondents via e-mail & re-mailing surveys

– Handling missing data & interpreting results

– Don’t ask multiple-response questions!

Preliminary Results

Potential problems with validity?

To what extent do you agree with the following statements?

Agree/ Strongly

Agree

Nearly all teachers who apply to work in my district are highly qualified.

85%

My district has adequate funding to attract enough highly-qualified teachers.

32%

The current funding level in my district is sufficient to provide an adequate education to all students.

31%

A performance-pay system would help attract more highly-qualified teachers to our district.

40%

The school from which teachers receive their degrees matters a great deal in our hiring.

25%

Qualified Applicants?

Does this differ by discipline?

8%

67%

40%

88%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Math & science Language & socialstudies

Special education Elementaryeducation

Our district is receiving an adequate number of qualified applicants for positions in the following subject areas:

Impact of NCLB?

How is the NCLB “highly-qualified teacher” requirement affecting teacher hiring in your district?

Positive 10%

Negative 32%

Mixed/Too soon to tell 13%

No impact 39%

• Is this surprising?

Superintendent Comments

How are you using new funding?

Professional development 38%

Hiring new teachers 33%

Increasing teacher salaries 31%

Instructional materials 24%

Hiring other staff (i.e., reading coaches) 20%

Other 14%

No new funding/Not enough provided 9%

Smaller class sizes 8%

New programs/classes 7%

Special needs students 5%

Office for Education Policy

For copies of our previous newsletters, working papers, and all other OEP

research, check out our website:

http://www.uark.edu/ua/oep/

202 Graduate Education Building

479.575.3773