Post on 22-Sep-2020
Joint Education Committee Meeting
Information
June 13-14, 2016 Presenters:
Boyd Brown Ed. D. - Superintendent Campbell County School District
Gerry Chase Ed. D. - Wyoming Association of School Administrators President and Superintendent Johnson
County School District
Ken Decaria - Wyoming Education Association Government Relations Director
Janine Bay-Teske – Past President Wyoming School Boards Association and School Board Member Teton
County School District
1
1
Table of Contents
May 4, 2016 Letter 3-15
1% funding cut translated into students 16
Request of the JEC 17
Wyoming Quality Counts Report 18-30
Press Release on Science and Math 31-32
Funding Loss Projection based on 5% loss of student population 33
Enrollment Compared to Energy Graphs 34
Unemployment Information 35-36
2
2
May 4, 2016
TO: Joint Education Committee Legislative Leadership Management Council
Joint Appropriations Committee Select Committee on School Finance Recalibration CC: Honorable Matthew H. Mead, Governor Jillian Balow, State Superintendent of Public Instruction
RE: K-12 Funding Cuts
The undersigned education stakeholders submit this letter in an effort to continue a
collaborative process for resolving the current K-12 funding issue.
I. BACKGROUND
Beginning in 2014, a diverse coalition of school districts from across the state
initiated a process to work with the Governor and the Legislature to resolve issues
regarding K-12 funding.1 At that time their efforts were directed primarily at restoring
the application of the External Cost Adjustment (ECA) to the statutorily enacted school
funding model (Statutory Model).
The concerted efforts of the districts proved largely successful. However, during
this past session, the Legislature used the ECA as a tool to cut K-12 funding. The cuts
were not based on any discernible methodology. Rather, they were based on a desire to
achieve an overall cut to education funding.
The funding cuts were based on an interpretation of a budget footnote to a general
appropriations bill, which effectively repealed the current statutory process governing the
computation and application of the ECA. This action raises serious constitutional issues.2
1 The Wyoming Coalition for an External Adjustment, as well as many other districts and stakeholders, were involved in this collaborative process. 2 Interestingly, the LSO recently issued a memorandum entitled “Constitutionally Permissible Content of the General Appropriations Bill”, which is relevant to this issue.
3
3
2
As a result of these funding cuts, the future of K-12 education is at a critical
juncture. It is imperative that everyone work together to restore the proper computation
and application of the ECA to the Statutory Model. To do otherwise will result in a lost
opportunity to maintain the substantial progress that has been achieved to ensure an equal
opportunity to a quality education.
II. 2015 RECALIBRATION
A review of the 2015 Recalibration is instructive before addressing the 2016
funding cuts to K-12 education. During the 2015 interim, the Select Committee on
School Finance Recalibration (Select Committee) began the process of recalibration. In
addition to the Select Committee, most if not all of the State’s forty-eight (48) districts
and other stakeholders invested a substantial amount of time and resources into the 2015
Recalibration, including providing position papers on various issues as well as public
testimony.
Following the final meeting held on November 16-17, 2015, the Select Committee
approved certain motions (Findings and Recommendations). Those relevant to this
discussion include the following:
• That the current legislative model be utilized to fund schools;
• That not a single district or person in [the] audience stood in support of moving to a funding model incorporating the evidence-based recommendations [of the consultants] 3;
• That the evidence-based model [recommended by the consultants]
is no more likely to represent the mode for delivery of services in
Wyoming’s schools than the current legislative model;
• That there is substantial benefit to continuing to fund schools via the
legislative model by providing consistency in the funding for the
school districts;
• That in many instances the various evidence-based models to
reallocate resources, as proposed by consultants, lacks [sic]
3 The term “evidence-based” was coined by the State’s consultants and merely references the model the consultants recommended, which was not approved by the Legislature.
4
4
3
sufficient research and data to warrant a new allocation of
resources in comparison to the existing legislative model;
• That based on all evidence and testimony the Committee
recommends the current method to allocate resources via the
legislative model be continued pursuant to the current statutes;
* * *
• That the legislative model will be referred to as the ‘statutory
model’ and the model constructed based upon the consultant’s
recommendations will be referred to as the ‘evidence-based model’
in the findings and report by the Committee to members;
• That the current legislative model delivers the basket of goods
and fulfills constitutional mandates related to education; and
• That the legislative grace as contained in the current statutory model
satisfies legislative goals.
The above Findings and Recommendations clearly reflect the intent of the Select
Committee to maintain the current level of funding for schools as set forth in the
legislative model (i.e. Statutory Model). There were no findings or recommendations
that funding for K-12 education should be cut by not applying the ECA to FY 2015 and
FY 2016 on a “cumulative basis” as required by statute. Instead, the Select Committee
expressly found that there is a “substantial benefit to continuing to fund schools via the
legislative [Statutory Model] by providing consistency in the funding for school
districts.”
Following the 2015 Recalibration, it was understood that funding levels would
continue at the present levels, which meant that the ECAs for FY 2015 and FY 2016
would be applied on a “cumulative basis” based on governing law as well as past
practice. However, shortly thereafter, districts learned that contrary to statute and past
practice, the ECAs enacted in 2015 for FY 2015 and FY 2016 might not be applied on a
cumulative basis.
Importantly, districts incorporated the ECAs provided in FY 2015 and FY 2016
into their budgets, understanding they would be applied cumulatively, as required by
statute and past practice. For example, the ECAs were committed to fund permanent
increases to staff salaries and benefits, an adjustment, in some cases, that had not been
5
5
4
possible the previous four (4) years due to the lack of a proper ECA. The ECAs were
further directed to fund long-deferred purchases of curriculum, technology and other vital
instructional goods. In sum, districts built their budgets in reliance upon a cumulative
application of an ECA. The manner by which districts budgeted ECA funds was in
accord with the LSO’s recognition that “the ECA is a cumulative factor, that is, each
year’s adjustment is built into the base that is adjusted the subsequent year and so on.”
This recognition by the LSO is consistent with sound economic theory. It is
imperative that inflation which has occurred in the previous year be included for the next
year. If this does not occur, those price increases are lost forever on a cumulative basis,
and the economic effect is a compounded loss in purchasing power over time. The error
will compound itself each year, resulting in a growing gap between the actual cost of
education and the funding provided by the Legislature. Annual price increases build
upon one another, resulting in the cumulative incorporation of inflation over time.4 The
proper application of the ECA ensures that changes in district funding levels from year to
year account for the existence of inflation in a manner that allows districts to maintain
purchasing power. This economic reality regarding inflation is reflected in the statute,
which requires that an ECA be applied on a cumulative basis.
III. 2016 LEGISLATIVE CUTS TO K-12 FUNDING
During the 2016 legislative session, the statutory process governing the ECA was
replaced by a motivation to cut K-12 funding. Even though neither the Select Committee
nor the Joint Education Committee made any findings or recommendations to cut funding
to K-12, the Joint Appropriations Committee recommended a cut. This cut was also
contrary to the Governor’s budget recommendation that the ECAs for FY 2015 and FY
2016 remain in the Statutory Model. The ensuing legislative debate revealed that support
for a funding cut was not universal. In the end, however, the Legislature cut K-12
funding by approximately $36 million for FY 2017 and FY 2018.
The cut was accomplished by: 1) essentially removing the ECAs for FY 2015 and
FY 2016 from the Statutory Model, i.e. not applying them on the required “cumulative
basis” and, 2) improperly using the ECA as a mechanism to cut the overall education
4 The Wyoming Economic Analysis Division offers clear direction on the application of annual inflation rates and the use of index values. See e.g. Inflation Tables Using WCLI and CPI-U Index Numbers, Wyoming Department of Administration and Information, Economic Analysis Division website.
6
6
5
budget by 1% for FY 2017 and 1.4% for FY 2018 (a/k/a the Penny Plan). This action is
unprecedented and not supported by governing law.
IV. THE ECA IS NOT A BUDGET CUTTING TOOL
The statutory purpose of the ECA is to ensure that the Statutory Model remains
cost-based between periods of recalibration by providing for the “effects of inflation”. In
almost every year, inflation causes the prices of the basket of goods and services required
by school districts to operate and teachers to live to increase, as compared to the previous
year. For the Statutory Model to be cost-based, inflation must be accounted for each year
to maintain constant purchasing power. This is accomplished through a “monitoring
process” set forth in WYO. STAT. ANN. § 21-13-309(u). This legislatively created
monitoring process does not contemplate the use of the ECA as a tool to cut K-12
funding based on political decisions.
Rather, the statutorily created monitoring process mandates that “[r]eport
recommendations shall be used by the joint appropriations interim committee in its
determination of legislative recommendation” regarding the amount of the ECA to apply
to the Statutory Model. WYO. STAT. ANN. § 21-13-309(u). The monitoring process was
recently applauded by the State’s consultant during the 2015 Recalibration when he noted
that Wyoming has “developed what is likely the most sophisticated ECA approach in the
country.” 2015 Recalibration Report, p. 105.
When implemented correctly, the “sophisticated approach” relies on four (4)
separate indices developed/recommended by State consultants in order to determine the
appropriate ECA percentage to be applied to specific model categories each year to
provide for the effects of inflation. This sophisticated monitoring process, however, was
not followed in arriving at the K-12 funding cut this past session.
Instead, as the legislative debate made clear, the final amount of the “ECA”
provided to districts was based entirely on the so-called Penny Plan rather than any
recognized cost-based methodology.5
It is possible that some may rely upon the unproven theory of “legislative grace”
to support the funding cut to K-12 education. The districts have previously set forth their
5 As discussed elsewhere, although it is referred to as an ECA by the Legislature, the ECA provided during this past session does not constitute an ECA as envisioned by statute.
7
7
6
position regarding this theory and the related two-model/convergence theory. In sum,
policy choices made by the Legislature on various instructional components, such as
class size, do not constitute legislative grace. Rather, these policy choices are what the
Legislature has identified as integral to the proper educational package each student in
Wyoming is entitled to have.6
In addition, the fact that the Statutory Model is the model that is set forth in
governing law and consistently embraced by the Legislature during previous
recalibrations, including the most recent recalibration in 2015, casts serious doubt on the
viability of the two-model theory.
V. THE K-12 FUNDING CUT CREATES UNJUSTIFIED
DISPARITIES AMONG DISTRICTS
The Legislature cannot create disparities (inequities) among the districts that are
not demonstrably cost-based. By not following the statutory requirements regarding the
computation and application of the ECA, the Legislature has created such unjustified
disparities.
As a result of recently enacted cuts, the districts are facing serious and substantial
cuts to the funding needed to provide equal educational opportunities for their students.
These cuts are exacerbated by the fact that districts went for several years without
application of the required ECAs, resulting in a substantial underfunding of the Statutory
Model. The severity of the disparities depends on the size and location of the districts as
well as other factors outside their control such as health care costs and declining
enrollment.
Although all districts are forced to cut their respective budgets to address the K-12
funding cuts -- some districts are forced to make even more dramatic cuts than other
districts. For example, one district was forced to close an elementary school while
several others will be forced to reduce staff even further to address funding cuts, resulting
in increased class sizes beyond those set by the Legislature.
Simply put, the cuts districts are forced to make to their respective budgets are
creating disparities not justified by cost differences. These disparities will only continue
6 As noted above, the Select Committee found at the conclusion of the 2015 Recalibration that inter alia “the legislative grace as contained in the current statutory model satisfies legislative goals.”
8
8
7
to widen as long as the statutory process for computation and application of the ECA is
not followed.
The disparities among the various districts could have been avoided. The
Statutory Model is designed to be self-adjusting and will reflect any downturn in the
economy through declining enrollment. By reducing funding even further, through a
misapplication of the ECA, the Statutory Model is no longer cost-based.
VI. CONCLUSION
All parties can take pride in the substantial gains made in education. Accordingly,
the districts request that the Legislature work with them to resolve the critical school
funding issue. As noted by the Governor during the 2016 State of the State Address: “So
over the next year, we need private businesses, schools, legislators, executive branch and
others to address the school funding issue.”
Without early resolution of this matter, districts are unable to accurately budget
given the current uncertainty. As a result of the inability to reasonably predict the
percentage that may or may not be cut from year to year, districts must react rather than
properly plan for the needs of their respective students. This has obvious negative effects
on the ability to deliver an equal opportunity to a quality education.
In sum, the districts are hopeful they can begin to work with the Legislature to
address these important issues affecting Wyoming students. The selection of a contact
(point) person on behalf of the Legislature to coordinate with the districts would
substantially streamline the process. Given the urgency of this situation, we look forward
to a response in time to be placed on the Agenda of the Joint Education Interim
Committee meeting scheduled for June 13-14, 2016.
9
9
SIGNATURE PAGE
RE: K-12 FUNDING CUTS
8
10
10
SIGNATURE PAGE
RE: K-12 FUNDING CUTS
9
11
11
SIGNATURE PAGE
RE: K-12 FUNDING CUTS
10
12
12
SIGNATURE PAGE
RE: K-12 FUNDING CUTS
11
13
13
SIGNATURE PAGE
RE: K-12 FUNDING CUTS
12
14
14
SIGNATURE PAGE
RE: K-12 FUNDING CUTS
13
15
15
CHART 1 SY 2016-17 Estimated Education Resource Block Grant Model Guarantee
With Estimated Categorical Grant Funding Outside Funding Model
School District (City)
Final
10/1/2015
Enrollment
Estimated Funding
Model Guarantee Instructional
Facilitators
Summer School
& Extended Day
Total Guarantee plus
Categorical Grants
Total Per
Student (Using
October
Enrollment)
1% of Total
Guarantee plus
Categorical Grants
Simple Decline in
Students Equal to
1% Funding Loss
Decline in Students Equal to
1% Funding Loss Using 3
Year Rolling Average
Albany #1 (Laramie) 3,907 $58,572,291 $836,487 $422,225 $59,831,003 $15,314 $598,310 -39.1 -117Big Horn #1 (Cowley) 1,012 $16,751,765 $235,107 $199,962 $17,186,835 $16,983 $171,868 -10.1 -30Big Horn #2 (Lovell) 687 $10,630,180 $156,641 $104,611 $10,891,433 $15,854 $108,914 -6.9 -21Big Horn #3 (Greybull) 520 $9,300,251 $121,064 $101,395 $9,522,710 $18,313 $95,227 -5.2 -16Big Horn #4 (Basin) 297 $7,366,571 $62,170 $44,562 $7,473,303 $25,163 $74,733 -3.0 -9Campbell #1 (Gillette) 9,177 $134,486,165 $2,166,644 $1,363,451 $138,016,259 $15,039 $1,380,163 -91.8 -275Carbon #1 (Rawlins) 1,889 $27,381,938 $415,053 $283,887 $28,080,878 $14,865 $280,809 -18.9 -57Carbon #2 (Saratoga) 640 $14,875,552 $136,516 $97,088 $15,109,156 $23,608 $151,092 -6.4 -19Converse #1 (Douglas) 1,753 $30,380,270 $401,371 $225,513 $31,007,154 $17,688 $310,072 -17.5 -53Converse #2 (Glenrock) 660 $11,330,055 $159,791 $89,928 $11,579,774 $17,545 $115,798 -6.6 -20Crook #1 (Sundance) 1,168 $21,023,237 $263,694 $148,041 $21,434,972 $18,352 $214,350 -11.7 -35Fremont #1 (Lander) 1,680 $26,956,452 $393,150 $252,700 $27,602,302 $16,430 $276,023 -16.8 -50Fremont #2 (Dubois) 144 $4,572,055 $28,624 $39,661 $4,640,340 $32,225 $46,403 -1.4 -4Fremont #6 (Pavillion) 372 $8,492,468 $82,924 $69,665 $8,645,058 $23,239 $86,451 -3.7 -11Fremont #14 (Ethete) 632 $11,914,545 $147,895 $173,590 $12,236,029 $19,361 $122,360 -6.3 -19Fremont #21 (Ft. Washakie) 505 $10,052,213 $118,216 $142,560 $10,312,989 $20,422 $103,130 -5.0 -15Fremont #24 (Shoshoni) 391 $7,622,213 $86,978 $55,051 $7,764,243 $19,857 $77,642 -3.9 -12Fremont #25 (Riverton) 2,542 $38,294,256 $581,168 $484,421 $39,359,845 $15,484 $393,598 -25.4 -76Fremont #38 (Arapahoe) 426 $9,824,371 $86,747 $151,836 $10,062,954 $23,622 $100,630 -4.3 -13Goshen #1 (Torrington) 1,763 $30,252,473 $411,232 $328,976 $30,992,681 $17,580 $309,927 -17.6 -53Hot Springs #1 (Thermopolis) 666 $11,034,182 $146,328 $91,690 $11,272,200 $16,925 $112,722 -6.7 -20Johnson #1 (Buffalo) 1,292 $20,897,051 $304,933 $181,004 $21,382,988 $16,550 $213,830 -12.9 -39Laramie #1 (Cheyenne) 14,029 $203,493,290 $3,463,073 $2,512,557 $209,468,920 $14,931 $2,094,689 -140.3 -421Laramie #2 (Pine Bluffs) 970 $18,248,676 $226,883 $165,438 $18,640,997 $19,218 $186,410 -9.7 -29Lincoln #1 (Kemmerer) 607 $10,414,977 $135,792 $56,698 $10,607,467 $17,475 $106,075 -6.1 -18Lincoln #2 (Afton) 2,801 $42,301,619 $635,654 $318,360 $43,255,633 $15,443 $432,556 -28.0 -84Natrona #1 (Casper) 13,082 $188,590,101 $3,118,301 $2,184,903 $193,893,305 $14,821 $1,938,933 -130.8 -392Niobrara #1 (Lusk) 906 $13,009,259 $210,622 $99,266 $13,319,146 $14,701 $133,191 -9.1 -27Park #1 (Powell) 1,818 $25,904,116 $433,434 $273,658 $26,611,208 $14,638 $266,112 -18.2 -55Park #6 (Cody) 2,071 $30,957,328 $506,844 $265,300 $31,729,471 $15,321 $317,295 -20.7 -62Park #16 (Meeteetse) 115 $3,446,807 $24,315 $37,088 $3,508,210 $30,506 $35,082 -1.2 -3Platte #1 (Wheatland) 1,000 $17,618,082 $214,036 $102,928 $17,935,046 $17,935 $179,350 -10.0 -30Platte #2 (Guernsey) 236 $5,141,057 $48,123 $39,609 $5,228,790 $22,156 $52,288 -2.4 -7Sheridan #1 (Ranchester) 941 $15,085,467 $221,566 $111,536 $15,418,569 $16,385 $154,186 -9.4 -28Sheridan #2 (Sheridan) 3,488 $48,480,684 $835,547 $526,249 $49,842,479 $14,290 $498,425 -34.9 -105Sheridan #3 (Clearmont) 90 $3,807,270 $0 $38,444 $3,845,715 $42,730 $38,457 -0.9 -3Sublette #1 (Pinedale) 1,041 $16,666,822 $242,733 $82,375 $16,991,930 $16,323 $169,919 -10.4 -31Sublette #9 (Big Piney) 605 $10,990,003 $153,404 $82,310 $11,225,717 $18,555 $112,257 -6.0 -18Sweetwater #1 (Rock Springs) 5,749 $82,735,125 $1,357,553 $878,121 $84,970,799 $14,780 $849,708 -57.5 -172Sweetwater #2 (Green River) 2,710 $39,986,336 $627,266 $281,674 $40,895,275 $15,091 $408,953 -27.1 -81Teton #1 (Jackson) 2,770 $46,901,784 $750,955 $410,972 $48,063,711 $17,352 $480,637 -27.7 -83Uinta #1 (Evanston) 2,794 $39,857,699 $643,291 $522,831 $41,023,821 $14,683 $410,238 -27.9 -84Uinta #4 (Mt. View) 828 $12,241,131 $180,535 $75,755 $12,497,421 $15,094 $124,974 -8.3 -25Uinta #6 (Lyman) 697 $11,378,907 $161,815 $74,803 $11,615,524 $16,665 $116,155 -7.0 -21Washakie #1 (Worland) 1,358 $21,019,703 $323,213 $257,685 $21,600,602 $15,906 $216,006 -13.6 -41Washakie #2 (Ten Sleep) 106 $3,081,528 $22,630 $37,453 $3,141,611 $29,638 $31,416 -1.1 -3Weston #1 (Newcastle) 799 $12,625,826 $182,186 $102,784 $12,910,796 $16,159 $129,108 -8.0 -24Weston #7 (Upton) 268 $6,109,800 $65,141 $39,931 $6,214,872 $23,190 $62,149 -2.7 -8State Total 94,002 $1,452,103,952 $22,127,645 $14,630,542 $1,488,862,140 $15,839 $14,888,621 -940.0 -2820
LSO
4-Mar-16
Estimated Categorical Grants
Note: Guarantee estimate uses 98.50% of preliminary October 2015 enrollment, 4% increases for reimbursable amounts, and most recent data for health insurance premiums. Further, ECA amounts as contained
in 2016 SF 1, Section 2, Section 205. Does not include additional retirement reimbursements outside the block grant.
Information provided is an ESTIMATE only and should not be used for school district budgeting purposes.
16
16
Request of the Joint Education Committee (JEC)
a. We request the committee draft and sponsor legislation that will take the model
back to the 2015 JEC, Select Committee on School Finance Recalibration, and
Gover or Mead’s reco e datio to keep the odel status the sa e as it has been over the past year.
b. This would include removing the 1% cut from this session and the proposed 1.4%
cut for the upcoming year. The funding model is self-adjusting. The arbitrary cuts
that were enacted during the 2016 legislative session have resulted in underfunding
the model and created inequities between districts.
c. We request the draft legislation be placed on the September JEC meeting agenda
and request a copy of the draft legislation by August 5, 2016 to allow us to prepare
comments and suggestions at the September JEC meeting.
17
17
Wyoming – State Highlights 2016
Education Week Research Center ▪ www.edweek.org/rc
State Highlights 2013
Wyoming
State Highlights 2016
A Special Supplement to Education Week’s
QUALITY COUNTS 2016
Called to Account
New Directions in School Accountability
18
18
Wyoming – State Highlights 2016
Education Week Research Center ▪ www.edweek.org/rc
Wyoming—State Highlights 2016 A special supplement to Education Week’s Quality Counts 2016 Called to Account: New Directions in School Accountability Copyright © 2016 by Editorial Projects in Education Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication shall be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means, electronic or otherwise, without the written permission of the copyright holder. Readers may make up to 5 print copies of this publication at no cost for personal noncommercial use, provided that each copy includes a full citation of the source. Visit www.edweek.org/go/copies for information about additional print photocopies. Published by: Editorial Projects in Education Inc. 6935 Arlington Road, Suite 100 Bethesda, MD 20814 Phone: (301) 280-3100 www.edweek.org
19
19
Wyoming – State Highlights 2016
Education Week Research Center ▪ www.edweek.org/rc 1
About Editorial Projects in Education
Editorial Projects in Education (EPE) is a nonprofit, tax-exempt organization based in Bethesda, Md. Its primary mission is
to help raise the level of awareness and understanding among professionals and the public of important issues in American education. EPE covers
local, state, national, and international news and issues from preschool through the 12th grade. Editorial Projects in Education publishes
Education Week, A eri a’s e spaper of re ord for pre ollegiate edu atio , the o li e Teacher, and Digital Directions channels, and the
TopSchoolJobs employment resource. It also produces periodic special reports on issues ranging from technology to textbooks, as well as books
of special interest to educators.
The Education Week Research Center conducts policy surveys, collects data, and performs analyses that appear in Education
Week and its special reports. The center also conducts independent research studies and maintains the Education Counts data resource.
About this Report The 20th annual edition of Education Week’s Quality Counts continues the tradition of tracking key indicators and grading the
states on their performance and outcomes. This ear’s i stall e t e a i es ho e state a d federal strategies are transforming the assessment of school performance and reshaping the consequences for poor results. As the newly enacted
Every Student Succeeds Act – the long-awaited successor to the federal No Child Left Behind Act – raises fresh questions
about the future direction of accountability, Education Week journalists explore options for holding schools to high standards
while simultaneously improving student achievement.
To o ple e t the report’s jour alis , the Edu atio Week Resear h Ce ter o du ted a origi al a al sis of stude t achievement in the No Child Left Behind era, which highlights results on the National Assessment of Educational Progress
from 2003 to 2015. The analysis examines overall achievement, poverty-based gaps, and trends over time.
To offer a comprehensive perspective on state performance, the 2016 State Highlights Reports provide summative grades
focused on educational outcomes. The 2016 summative grades are based on three key indices making up Quality Counts’ State of the States framework: the Chance-for-Success Index; K-12 Achievement Index; and school finance. Results for all
three of these ategories ha e ee updated for this ear’s report.
Overall findings show that some states consistently perform strongly or poorly across the full range of graded categories.
However, most states post a strong showing in at least one area. This suggests that a deeper reading of the results presented
in this State Highlights Report will provide a more nuanced perspective on the educational condition of the nation and the
states.
Education Week Research Center
January 2016
20
20
Wyoming – State Highlights 2016
Education Week Research Center ▪ www.edweek.org/rc 2
OVERALL GRADE A state’s o erall grade is the a erage of the scores for the three graded categories.
Wyoming: B-
Rank: 8
Nation: C
Online extra Calculate your own Quality Counts
grades at http://www.edweek.org/go/qc16calculate
Wyoming How did the
average state score?
grade rank
Chance for success (2016) B- 16 C+
School finance (2016) B+ 2 C
K-12 achievement (2016) C- 21 C-
Quality Counts Grading Breakdown This table reports the detailed scoring behind the grades for the three major
topics examined in Quality Counts. Scores for those major categories are
based on the respective subcategory scores.
Wyoming
U.S.
Average
The Grading Framework
The 20th annual edition of Quality Counts features newly
updated 50-state grades in three areas monitored by the report
on an ongoing basis: the Chance-for-Success Index, K-12
Achievement Index, and school finance. To provide a
comprehensive perspective on state performance, summative
grades integrate results for all three of those categories.
The report card has evolved through the years, taking on its
current, streamlined form in 2015. Summative grades issued
since that time are not directly comparable to those from prior
reports.
Chance for success (2016)
Early foundations 93.4 82.6 School years 76.0 74.7 Adult outcomes 77.8 77.5
School finance analysis (2016)
Equity 84.4 84.8 Spending 91.0 64.3
K-12 achievement (2016)
Status 66.4 65.8 Change 65.3 69.1 Equity 89.7 83.5
Grading Curve A (93-100), A- (90-92), B+ (87-89), B (83-86), B- (80-82), C+ (77-79), C (73-76), C- (70-72), D+ (67-69), D (63-66), D- (60-62), F (0-59)
QUALITY COUNTS 2016 GRADING SUMMARY
21
21
Wyoming – State Highlights 2016
Education Week Research Center ▪ www.edweek.org/rc 3
Student Achievement in an Era of Accountability
The No Child Left Behind Act, signed into law in January 2002, ushered in an unprecedented role for federal policies intended to hold
schools accountable for student achievement. To shed light on performance in the NCLB era, the Education Week Research Center
averaged the percent of students scoring at the "proficient" level or above on NAEP reading and math tests in grades 4 and 8 to create an
overall proficiency rate. The results in this analysis are based on this combined proficiency metric for states and the nation.
Progress in Student Achievement
When viewed over time, scores on
NAEP indicate a modest degree of
improvement in the nation's
academic achievement. From
2003 to 2015, the combined
proficiency rate for 4th and 8th
graders in reading and math
increased from 29.6 percent to
34.8 percent. Although this long-
term pattern signals progress, a
1.2 point decline between 2013
and 2015 makes the future
direction of achievement trends
more uncertain. At the high school
level, the combined proficiency
rate for 12th graders climbed from
27.6 percent in 2005 to 30.3
percent in 2013, the most recent
year of data available.
SOURCE: Education Week Research Center analysis of data from U.S. Department of Education, 2003-2015
Gains Occur Amid Growing Diversity
The nation's achievement gains
between 2003 and 2015 took
place during a period when the
student population became more
diverse. In the 2002-03 school
year, about 4 in 10 students
enrolled in pre-K through grade
12, nationwide, were non-white.
By 2013-14, non-white students
made up half of the nation's public
school population.
SOURCE: Education Week Research Center analysis of data from U.S. Department of Education, 2003-2014
29.630.6
32.633.2
34.3
36.0
34.8
27.6
30.7 30.3
2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015
NAEP COMBINED PROFICIENCY RATE
(READING AND MATH)
Grades 4 and 8 Grade 12
White, 50%
Asian, 5%
Black, 16%
Hispanic, 25%
American Indian,
1%
Hawaiian
Native/Pacific
Islander, 0%
Two or more
races, 3%
Percent of Enrollment
(2013-14)
ACHIEVEMENT TRENDS
22
22
Wyoming – State Highlights 2016
Education Week Research Center ▪ www.edweek.org/rc 4
A sizable gap separates the highest- and lowest-scoring states on NAEP. Massachusetts was the only state with a combined
proficiency rate reaching 50 points out of 100 in 2015. Two other states—Minnesota and New Hampshire—record rates between
45 and 49. By contrast, rates in nine states are below 30 points.
Achievement Analysis
Wyoming
From Quality Counts 2016 State
Average Rank
National Average
NAEP Combined Proficiency Rate Proficiency rate
4th and 8th grade reading and math (2015) 40.2% 13 34.8%
Proficiency-rate change
4th and 8th grade reading and math (2003-2015) +5.5 26 +5.2
Poverty gap-free or reduced-price lunch (noneligible minus eligible)
4th and 8th grade reading and math (2015) 22.6 2 30.1
Poverty-gap change (negative value = closing gap)
4th and 8th grade reading and math (2003-2015) +3.7 15 +3.8
Achievement Varies Across States
A sizable gap separates the highest- and lowest-scoring states on NAEP. Massachusetts was the only state with a combined
proficiency rate reaching 50 percent in 2015. Two other states—Minnesota and New Hampshire—record rates between 45
percent and 49 percent. By contrast, rates in nine states are below 30 percent.
SOURCE: Education Week Research Center analysis of data from U.S. Department of Education, 2015
2015 NO. OF
SCORE STATES
50 or more 1
45-49 2
40-44 11
35-39 16
30-34 12
29 or less 9 (including D.C.)
DC DC
RI
23
23
Wyoming – State Highlights 2016
Education Week Research Center ▪ www.edweek.org/rc 5
CHANCE-FOR-SUCCESS
The Chance-for-Success Index
The Education Week Research Center developed the Chance-for-Success Index to better understand the role of education across an
i di idual’s lifeti e. Based o a origi al state-by-state analysis, this index combines information from 13 indicators that span a
perso ’s life fro radle to career. The Chance-for-“u ess fra e ork allo s states to ide tif stro g a d eak li ks i their reside ts’ edu atio al life ourse―their t pi al traje tor fro hildhood through adulthood. More i porta tl , the i de also pro ides information that could be used to target the efforts of public education systems in ways that better serve students of all ages.
State Success Indicators
Wyoming National
From Quality Counts 2016 State Average Rank Average
Early Foundations Family income
Children from families with incomes at least 200% of poverty level (2014) 64.7% 12 56.0%
Parent education
Children with at least one parent with a postsecondary degree (2014) 56.5 13 48.1
Parental employment
Children with at least one parent working full time and year-round (2014) 79.1 10 74.4
Linguistic integration
Children whose parents are fluent English-speakers (2014) 94.8 14 83.2
School Years Preschool enrollment
Three- and 4-year-olds enrolled in preschool (2014) 45.0 27 47.1
Kindergarten enrollment
Eligible children enrolled in kindergarten programs (2014) 76.3 32 77.8
Elementary reading
Fourth grade public school students proficient on NAEP (2015) 41.2 7 34.8
Middle school mathematics
Eighth grade public school students proficient on NAEP (2015) 35.3 20 32.1
High school graduation
Public high school students who graduate with a diploma (class of 2012) 80.0 27 81.0
Postsecondary participation
Young adults enrolled in postsecondary education or with a degree (2014) 51.4 32 55.2
Adult Outcomes Adult educational attainment
Adults with a two- or four-year postsecondary degree (2014) 37.4 36 40.4
Annual income
Adults with incomes at or above national median (2014) 53.5 15 50.0
Steady employment
Adults in labor force working full time and year-round (2014) 72.0 25 71.6
GRADE B- 16 C+
24
24
Wyoming – State Highlights 2016
Education Week Research Center ▪ www.edweek.org/rc 6
The Chance-for-Success
Index captures the
importance of education
i a perso ’s lifeti e from cradle to career. Its
13 individual indicators
span a variety of factors,
including preparation in
early childhood, the
performance of the public
schools, and educational
and economic outcomes
in adulthood.
The states are graded
usi g a est i lass rubric, where a score of
100 points on the index
would mean that a state
ranked first in the nation
on each and every
indicator.
State scores range from
92.3 (Massachusetts,
earning an A-) to 66.5
(Nevada, with a D). A
closer examination of
results shows that, while
early foundations and
adult outcomes do
contribute to the index,
indicators related to
formal education (the
schooling years) are the
driving force behind the
state rankings.
Note: State subscores may not
sum to total score due to
rounding.
SOURCE: Education Week Research
Center, 2016
Opportunities for Success
22.4
22.2
23.6
23.9
24.5
24.9
23.4
24.7
23.9
23.0
24.6
24.6
22.7
24.6
24.5
25.3
25.1
26.6
26.4
24.9
26.6
26.3
25.8
27.0
26.3
27.1
26.6
27.1
28.7
25.8
26.6
26.2
27.2
25.5
28.7
28.7
27.0
24.7
27.6
27.9
28.5
28.7
28.9
28.3
29.8
28.9
29.4
28.3
27.8
29.8
29.0
25.4
28.2
28.5
30.6
29.9
29.4
30.0
31.7
30.9
32.0
32.8
32.1
32.5
33.4
32.8
33.9
33.1
33.9
32.5
32.5
34.4
31.2
34.2
34.7
34.4
35.1
32.8
34.1
34.9
32.6
36.0
35.0
35.8
35.0
36.2
35.1
35.1
36.9
35.3
36.0
37.1
36.7
36.8
35.7
37.0
36.2
39.3
38.2
39.4
40.6
39.6
42.7
34.5
15.9
16.3
15.6
16.4
16.5
15.9
15.7
17.0
17.0
17.5
16.7
16.4
17.5
17.2
16.7
16.8
16.4
16.4
17.3
17.2
18.9
16.6
17.0
17.4
17.5
19.0
18.6
17.5
18.5
18.1
18.9
18.5
18.4
19.1
17.9
18.0
18.2
22.9
19.6
18.3
18.9
19.1
20.1
19.7
19.3
18.6
19.8
19.7
19.7
19.7
20.6
17.9
66.5
66.9
69.8
70.3
70.4
70.7
70.8
72.6
72.8
73.3
73.4
73.5
73.6
74.6
75.1
75.2
75.4
75.5
76.1
76.5
76.7
77.2
77.5
78.7
78.9
78.9
79.3
79.5
79.7
79.8
80.4
80.5
80.7
80.8
81.6
81.8
82.1
82.8
83.2
83.3
84.1
84.6
84.7
85.0
85.3
86.8
87.4
87.4
88.1
89.1
92.3
77.8
0 20 40 60 80 100
NV
NM
MS
LA
AL
WV
AR
OK
AZ
TX
SC
TN
CA
GA
FL
OR
KY
ID
MI
NC
AK
MT
IN
MO
OH
HI
DE
ME
SD
RI
WA
IL
KS
NY
UT
WY
PA
DC
CO
WI
NE
IA
MD
VA
ND
VT
MN
CT
NJ
NH
MA
US
Chance-for-Success Index
(points awarded by element)
Early Foundations
School Years
Adult Outcomes
25
25
Wyoming – State Highlights 2016
Education Week Research Center ▪ www.edweek.org/rc 7
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY PERFORMANCE
The K-12 Achievement Index
The K-12 Achievement Index examines 18 distinct state achievement measures related to reading and math performance, high school
graduation rates, and the results of Advanced Placement exams. The index assigns equal weight to current levels of performance and
changes over time. It also places an emphasis on equity, by examining both poverty-based achievement gaps and progress in closing those
gaps.
State Achievement Indicators
Wyoming National
From Quality Counts 2016 State Average Rank Average
Achievement Levels
4th grade math – Percent proficient on NAEP (2015) 48.3% 5 39.4%
8th grade math – Percent proficient on NAEP (2015) 35.3% 20 32.1%
4th grade reading – Percent proficient on NAEP (2015) 41.2% 7 34.8%
8th grade reading – Percent proficient on NAEP (2015) 36.0% 19 32.7%
Achievement Gains
4th grade math – Scale-score change on NAEP (2003-2015) +5.7 32 +5.9
8th grade math – Scale-score change on NAEP (2003-2015) +3.2 32 +5.2
4th grade reading – Scale-score change on NAEP (2003-2015) +6.1 19 +4.9
8th grade reading – Scale-score change on NAEP (2003-2015) +1.8 29 +2.7
Poverty Gap (National School Lunch Program, noneligible minus eligible)
Reading gap – 4th grade NAEP scale score (2015) 17.7 1 27.5
Math gap – 8th grade NAEP scale score (2015) 20.4 3 27.8
Reading-gap change – 4th grade NAEP (2003-2015), negative value = closing gap +1.1 26 -0.4
Math-gap change – 8th grade NAEP (2003-2015), negative value = closing gap +3.1 39 -0.6
Achieving Excellence
Math excellence – Percent advanced on 8th grade NAEP (2015) 7.2% 25 7.8%
Change in math excellence – Percent advanced on NAEP (2003-2015) +2.8% 24 +2.8%
High School Graduation
Graduation rate – Public schools (class of 2012) 80.0% 27 81.0%
Change in graduation rate – Public schools (2002-2012) +5.6% 36 +8.4%
Advanced Placement
High AP test scores – Scores of 3 or higher per 100 students (2014) 10.4 48 29.3
Change in AP Scores – Change in high scores per 100 students (2000-2014) +7.0 47 +20.2
GRADE C- 21 C-
26
26
Wyoming – State Highlights 2016
Education Week Research Center ▪ www.edweek.org/rc 8
The Education Week
Resear h Ce ter’s K-12
Achievement Index
awards states points
based on three distinct
aspects of student
achievement: current
levels of performance
(status), improvements
over time (change), and
achievement gaps
between poor and non-
poor students (equity).
The nation as a whole
earns 71.0 points, on a
100-point scale, for a
grade of C-minus. The
leading state,
Massachusetts, earns
85.2 points and a B, while
Mississippi finishes last
with a score of 60.0.
Massachusetts is the only
state to earn an A in the
status category. In the
change category, the
District of Columbia posts
the only B, the highest
grade in the nation. Seven
states top the nation in
equity, with grades of A-
minus.
NOTE: State subscores may not
sum to total score due to
rounding.
SOURCE: Education Week
Research Center, 2016
Nation Earns Mediocre Grade on Achievement
16.2
16.5
16.9
19.2
18.3
22.0
17.5
24.3
22.6
22.6
20.8
24.6
20.5
19.9
24.2
24.5
24.0
25.7
26.5
21.4
24.6
22.9
26.9
26.2
25.6
23.3
27.1
25.0
24.5
24.0
25.8
26.1
27.1
28.8
23.5
25.3
27.2
27.6
29.0
30.4
25.1
28.5
29.8
28.0
31.0
32.1
30.1
31.7
32.0
33.6
36.9
25.6
25.6
25.7
25.6
23.4
33.6
24.7
27.3
22.4
23.6
25.1
26.0
23.4
25.2
26.4
24.7
24.5
24.3
23.7
24.7
28.7
25.4
28.6
24.8
24.4
24.5
28.8
25.6
26.9
27.5
28.9
25.4
25.8
26.5
25.7
30.0
27.7
25.8
26.3
27.6
25.8
28.5
27.9
27.2
27.7
27.4
26.6
28.9
27.4
28.0
29.6
30.3
26.9
18.2
19.6
20.3
20.2
11.1
17.7
19.8
18.5
19.4
17.9
19.2
18.0
20.4
19.9
17.5
18.5
19.6
18.8
17.9
18.9
19.3
17.8
18.6
19.9
20.5
18.5
18.0
19.0
19.0
18.3
19.9
19.4
18.0
17.3
18.5
19.3
19.3
19.3
16.6
17.1
20.3
18.2
17.6
19.6
17.3
17.2
17.8
19.7
19.4
17.9
18.0
18.6
60.0
61.8
62.8
62.8
63.1
64.4
64.6
65.2
65.6
65.6
66.0
66.0
66.1
66.2
66.4
67.6
67.9
68.1
69.0
69.0
69.2
69.3
70.3
70.5
70.6
70.7
70.7
70.9
71.0
71.2
71.2
71.2
71.6
71.8
72.0
72.3
72.4
73.2
73.2
73.3
73.9
74.6
74.6
75.3
75.8
75.9
76.8
78.8
79.4
81.0
85.2
71.0
0 20 40 60 80 100
MS
NM
LA
WV
DC
SC
AL
SD
MI
AK
AR
KS
OK
NV
OR
MO
DE
ND
NC
HI
ID
CA
IA
MT
NY
AZ
OH
TX
RI
GA
WY
IL
NE
CO
TN
KY
ME
UT
WA
CT
FL
PA
WI
IN
VA
MN
MD
VT
NH
NJ
MA
US
Status
Change
EquityK-12 Achievement Index
(points awarded by element)
27
27
Wyoming – State Highlights 2016
Education Week Research Center ▪ www.edweek.org/rc 9
Equity and Spending Indicators
Wyoming National
From Quality Counts 2016 State Average Rank Average
Equity (2013)
Wealth-Neutrality Score – Relationship between district funding and local property
wealth 0.084 11 0.134
McLoone Index – Actual spending as percent of amount needed to bring all students
to median level 89.0% 41 90.7%
Coefficient of Variation – Amount of disparity in spending across districts within a
state 0.163 31 0.166
Restricted Range – Difference in per-pupil spending levels at the 95th and 5th
percentiles $5,897 41 $4,655
Spending (2013)
Adjusted per-pupil expenditures (PPE) – Analysis accounts for regional cost
differences $17,256 4 $11,667
Students funded at or above national average – Percent of students in
districts with PPE at or above U.S. average 100% 1 41.5%
Spending Index – Per-pupil spending levels weighted by the degree to which districts
meet or approach the national average for expenditures 100.0 1 89.2
Spending on education – State expenditures on K-12 schooling as a percent of state
taxable resources 3.8% 13 3.4%
GRADE B+ 2 C Definitions of School Finance Indicators
Wealth-Neutrality Score: The wealth-neutrality score shows the degree to which
state and local revenue are related to the property wealth of districts. A negative
score means that, on average, poorer districts spend more dollars per weighted pupil
than do wealthy districts. A positive score means the opposite: Wealthy districts have
more funding per weighted pupil than poor districts.
McLoone Index: The McLoone Index is based on the assumption that if all students
in the state were lined up according to the amount their districts spent on them,
perfect equity would be achieved if every district spent at least as much as that spent
on the pupil in the middle of the distribution, or the median. The McLoone Index is the
ratio of the total amount spent on pupils below the median to the amount that would
be needed to raise all students to the median per-pupil expenditure in the state.
Coefficient of Variation: The coefficient of variation is a measure of the disparity in
funding across school districts in a state. The value is calculated by dividing the
standard deviation of adjusted spending per pupil by the state’s average spending per
pupil. The standard deviation is a measure of dispersion (i.e., how spread out spending
levels are across a state’s districts). If all districts in a state spent exactly the same
amount per pupil, its coefficient of variation would be zero. As the coefficient gets
higher, the variation in the amounts spent across districts also gets higher. As the
coefficient gets lower, it indicates greater equity.
Restricted Range: This indicator captures the differences in funding levels found
between the highest- and lowest-spending districts in a state. The index value is
calculated as the difference in per-pupil spending levels at the 95th and 5th percentiles.
Districts enrolling fewer than 200 students are excluded from the analysis.
Spending Index: The Spending Index takes into account both the proportion of
students enrolled in districts with spending at the national average, and the degree to
which spending is below that benchmark in districts where per-pupil expenditures fall
below the national average. Each district in which the per-pupil-spending figure
(adjusted for student needs and cost differences) reaches or exceeds the national
average receives a score of 1 multiplied by the number of students in the district. A
district whose adjusted spending per pupil is below the national average receives a score
equal to its per-pupil spending divided by the national average and then multiplied by
the number of pupils in the district. The Spending Index is the sum of district scores
divided by the total number of students in the state. If all districts spend above the U.S.
average, the state attains a perfect index score of 100 points.
Note: The District of Columbia and Hawaii are single-district jurisdictions. As a result, it is not
possible to calculate measures of financial equity, which capture the distribution of funding across
districts within a state. The District of Columbia and Hawaii do not receive grades for school finance
and are not included in the rankings reported in this table.
SCHOOL FINANCE ANALYSIS
28
28
Wyoming – State Highlights 2016
Education Week Research Center ▪ www.edweek.org/rc 10
Quality Counts 2016
This ear’s th editio of Quality Counts
examines student achievement in the NCLB
accountability era by highlighting NAEP results
from 2003 to 2015. Quality Counts 2016 also
provides a 50-state update on results in three
distinct areas: Chance for Success, K-12
Achievement, and school finance.
The State Highlights Reports present state-
specific summaries of key findings across the
three performance categories that comprise
the report’s state-grading rubric. Reports for
the 50 states and the District of Columbia are
available on the Web at
www.edweek.org/go/qc16.
The Chance for Success, K-12 Achievement,
and school finance are scored using a best-in-
class rubric. Under this approach, the leading
state on a particular indicator receives 100
points, and other states earn points in
proportion to the gaps between themselves
and the leader.
To compute a state’s s ore for a gi e category, we average points across the
applicable set of indicators. On a best-in-class
s ale, a state’s o erall s ore for a ategor a be gauged against an implicit standard where
100 points would correspond to a state that
finished first in the nation on each and every
measure.
A state’s o erall su ati e s ore is the average of the three graded categories:
Chance for Success, K-12 Achievement, and
school finance.
The methodology section of Quality Counts
provides detailed descriptions of our
indicators and procedures for grading the
states. That information can be accessed
online at www.edweek.org/go/qc16.
Quality Counts regularly tracks and grades
state progress in three categories comprising
roughly 40 different state-by-state indicators.
Most of these 50-state indicators are based
on original analyses of federal data. The
report also draws on published information
from other organizations.
Indicators are derived from the sources listed
in the notes that follow.
Chance for Success (2016)
Elementary Reading and Middle School
Mathematics: 2015 State NAEP assessment.
U.S. Department of Education, 2015.
High School Graduation: Averaged Freshman
Graduation Rate (AFGR) 2011-12. National
Center for Education Statistics, Public High
School Four-Year-On-Time Graduation Rates
and Event Dropout Rates: School Years 2010-
11 and 2011-12, April 2014.
Other Indicators: Education Week Research
Center analysis of data from the U.S. Census
Bureau’s A eri a Co u it “ur e , 4. K-12 Achievement (2016)
Reading and Mathematics Achievement:
2015 State NAEP assessment. U.S.
Department of Education, 2015.
High School Graduation: Averaged Freshman
Graduation Rate (AFGR) 2011-12. National
Center for Education Statistics, Public High
School Four-Year-On-Time Graduation Rates
and Event Dropout Rates: School Years 2010-
11 and 2011-12, April 2014.
Advanced Placement: Education Week
Research Center analysis of data from the
College Board’s AP “u ar Reports 4,
a d the U.“. Depart e t of Edu atio ’s Common Core of Data, 2013-14.
School Finance Analysis (2016)
Original Education Week Research Center
Analysis of Equity and Spending: Data for
these analyses were obtained from a variety
of sour es, i ludi g: U.“. Ce sus Bureau’s Public Elementary-Secondary Education
Finance Data for 2013; U.S. Department of
Edu atio ’s Co o Core of Data CCD -12 and 2012-13 (district-level data); NCES
Comparable Wage Index 2013, as updated by
Lori Taylor of Texas A&M University; U.S.
Ce sus Bureau’s “ all-Area Income and
Poverty Estimates 2013; U.S. Department of
Edu atio ’s “ hool Distri t De ographi s data, based on the 2008-13 American
Community Survey; U.S. Census Bureau,
Public Education Finances: 2013, June 2015;
and 2013 gross-state-product data from the
U.“. Depart e t of Co er e’s Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Achievement Analysis
The Education Week Research Center
conducted an original analysis of NAEP test
scores. Demographic data are provided for
context for this achievement analysis. The
e ter’s analysis highlights poverty gaps and
trends over time. These indicators are not
i luded i the states’ su ati e grades.
NAEP Combined Proficiency Rate and
Proficiency-Rate Change: Education Week
Research Center analysis of data from 2003-
2015 NAEP assessment.
NAEP Poverty Gap and Poverty-Gap Change:
Education Week Research Center analysis of
data from 2003-2015 NAEP assessment.
Demographic Data: Education Week Research
Center analysis of data from the U.S.
Depart e t of Edu atio ’s Co o Core of Data, 2003-2014.
How We Graded the States
Performance Indicators
NOTES AND SOURCES
29
29
Wyoming – State Highlights 2016
Education Week Research Center ▪ www.edweek.org/rc 11
Highlights from this year’s report
A comprehensive look at educational accountability, including timely
journalistic coverage and original data analyses
Education Week Research Center’s Chance-for-Success Index, a cradle-
to-career perspective on the importance of education throughout a
person’s lifetime
State of the States—Our comprehensive annual review of state
performance, this year highlighting: Chance for Success, K-12
Achievement, and school finance
Online Extras
State Highlights Reports—Download individualized reports
featuring state-specific findings from Quality Counts
Education Counts—Access hundreds of education
indicators from Quality Counts using our exclusive online
database
Interactive tools—Readers can delve into state data and
use an online calculator to recompute grades based on
the indicators they feel are most important
Visit Quality Counts Online
www.edweek.org/go/qc16
> Purchase extra copies of Quality Counts by visiting
http://www.edweek.org/go/qc16-copies.
> Continue getting access to edweek.org, Quality Counts,
other annual reports, and the entire archives of
Education Week. Subscribe today!
www.edweek.org/go/subscribe
> To place orders by phone, call 1-800-445-8250.
Called to Account New Directions in School Accountability
The 20th edition of Quality Counts examines accountability for student achievement. The print edition of the report
also provides a 50-state update of results in three areas monitored by the report on an ongoing basis: Chance for
Success, K-12 Achievement, and school finance.
QUALITY COUNTS 2016
30
30
WYOMING STUDENT’S SCIENCE AND MATH SCORES TOP WORLD RANKINGS August 11, 2015 at 3:02pm
(Cheyenne – WY) – Aug 11, 2015 - Data that shows Wyoming education leading the region, nation and the
world was shared during a key legislative meeting last week. This positive education news was shared with the
Select Committee on School Finance Recalibration. Senators Coe and Wasserburger, along with
Representatives Northrup and Connolly, having just attended the Council of State Governments-West (CSG
West) in late July, shared the positive numbers regarding education in Wyoming. Dr. Julian Vasquez Heilig,
Professor of Education Leadership and Policy Studies at the California Sacramento State University presented
numbers to the CSG-West that show Wyoming leading the Western states in NAEP/TIMMS Science scores
and ranking sixth in the world. Wyoming's NAEP/TIMMS Math scores also ranked first in the Western states
and eighth in the world.The statistical calculations by the National Center for Educational Statistics also show
that Wyoming is statistically tied for number two in the world in Science, behind Finland.
“Wyoming has invested in small class sizes, which result in more one-on-one, student-teacher interaction; the
results are obviously paying off,” said WEA President Kathy Vetter. “The WEA is thrilled that legislators shared this information during recalibration, because this shows that now is not the time to increase class sizes,
or cut educational funding in Wyoming. The Wyoming Legislature has supported a strong education in
Wyoming in the past,and we are confident they will continue to make education a priority in the future.”
House Education Committee Chair and Select Committee on School Finance Recalibration Committee Chair
Representative Northrup said, “Wyoming has always invested in education and supported local control. This success is the result of everyone’s efforts, and I’m so proud of the teachers, students and all the education community.”
Senator Jeff Wasserburger is a member of the current School Finance Recalibration Committee,and past House
Chairman of Education, “I was a part of the first recalibration over 10 years ago, along with Chairman Coe, and we made education a priority in Wyoming through investing in a great system; those dollars are paying
off. Wyoming has the best education system in our country. There is not a state that would not trade Wyoming
straight across for our K-12system. The funding for K-12 comes directly from the mineral industry and I
would like to thank them for all they do to educate students in our state. God bless the mineral industry in
Wyoming for all that it does for educating this state's children."
31
31
Dr. Julian Vasquez Heilig also weighed in on Wyoming’s overall rankings, “Wyoming has obviously made education a top priority by making investments in its educators and students. When you make those kind of
investments, you get results.”
For questions regarding education or recalibration in Wyoming, please call:
Coleen Haines, WEACommunications Director (307) 214-4518
For specific questionsregarding statistics and this study, please email:
Dr. Julian VasquezHeilig at heilig@csus.edu
What is NAEP? - The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is anassessment program
conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics(NCES) to inform the public of what elementary and
secondary students in theUnited States know and can do in various subject areas, including mathematics and
science.
What is TIMMS? - The Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) is an international
comparative study of student achievement developed and implemented by the International Association for the
Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA).
Links to Wyoming's scores:
https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/studies/naep_timss/profiles_temp.html?wmode=transparent#/science/stat
e/wy
https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/studies/naep_timss/profiles_temp.html?wmode=transparent#/math/state/
wy
The Wyoming Education Association (WEA) members work in Wyoming’s schools, colleges, and the university to help improve public education and the lives of Wyoming’s students. WEA members–more than
6,300 strong–provide a wide range of professional education services in communities throughout the state.
###
32
32
LSO estimate used for 2016-17 funding
(98.50% of October 1, 2015 Enrollment) 92,592 A
Estimated Statewide Funding 2016-17 $1,488,862,140 B
Estimated per student funding $15,839 C
Percent of funding which is reimburseable 21.70% D
Estimated per student funding based on
Average Daily Membership (ADM) $12,402 E = C-(C*D)
5% decline in ADM in 2016-17 4,630 F = A* 5%
Decrease in Funding 2017-18 $19,119,531 G = E*F*.333
Decrease in Funding 2018-19 $38,296,477 H = E*F*.667
Decrease in Funding 2019-20 $57,416,008 I = E*F
From Chart 1 of March 4, 2016 LSO Fiscal Summary of School
Finance
Estimate of decreased statewide funding if enrollment decline of
5% in 2016-17 and stable for next two years using 3 year rolling
average:
3 Year Funding Loss Based on One-Time 5% Enrollment Decline
33
33
Figure 1. Wyoming Annual Changes in K12 Enrolment vs. Annual Changes in Oil Prices
Figure 2. Wyoming K12 Enrollment vs. Oil Prices
1. Oil price slide of 1991-1998 (44% drop in price over 7 years) was a leading indicator of an 18.5%
reduction ion WY K12 enrollments from 1995-2006.
2. The price drop of 2014 to now has been a 77% reduction. This implies a sharp drop in
enrollments is a likelihood over the coming years as extraction industries align with market
conditions.
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
80,000
85,000
90,000
95,000
100,000
105,000
Wyoming K12 Enrollments vs. Oil Prices
Enrollment Oil
34
34
35
35
36
36