Joint Education Committee Meeting Information June 13-14,...

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appropriations bill, which effectively repealed the current statutory process governing the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


9

11

11

SIGNATURE PAGE


10

12

12

SIGNATURE PAGE


11

13

13

SIGNATURE PAGE


12

14

14

SIGNATURE PAGE


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


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

http://www.edweek.org/go/copies


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



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

http://www.edweek.org/go/qc16calculate



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



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



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



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



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


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



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



Equity and Spending Indicators

Wyoming National


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



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

http://www.edweek.org/go/qc16



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

https://www.facebook.com/notes/wyoming-education-association/wyoming-students-science-and-math-scores-top-world-rankings/1151368768213569

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 [email protected]

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

https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/studies/naep_timss/profiles_temp.html?wmode=transparent#/science/state/wy

https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/studies/naep_timss/profiles_temp.html?wmode=transparent#/science/state/wy

https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/studies/naep_timss/profiles_temp.html?wmode=transparent#/math/state/wy

https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/studies/naep_timss/profiles_temp.html?wmode=transparent#/math/state/wy

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

Joint Education Committee Meeting Information June 13-14,...

Documents

Transcript of Joint Education Committee Meeting Information June 13-14,...