The Use of Educational Resources in Wyoming Preliminary Report to the Wyoming Legislature’s Joint...

The Use of Educational Resources in Wyoming

Preliminary Report to the Wyoming Legislature’s

Joint Interim Education CommitteeJune 18, 2007 (Revised January 7, 2008)

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

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

Research Questions

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

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


Background

• Recalibration of Wyoming School Funding Model in 2005

• Implementation of an Evidence-Based Model to estimate costs and funding levels

• New model builds from the school level • Question facing policy makers is how all

school resources are used


Background

• Conversations in 2005 with Legislative Leaders about how resources are used in Wyoming schools to improve student performance

• Intensive field work in Wyoming Schools • Partnership with the Educational

Leadership Department at the University of Wyoming


Preliminary (Year 1) Findings

• In-depth, school level field work on the instructional strategies and allocation of resources

• State-level analysis of salaries • State-level analysis of school district

expenditures


Instructional Materials

Gifted

Tutors and pupil support:1 per 100 at risk

Elem 20%

Middle33%

High School 33%

The Wyoming Evidence Based School Funding Model

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

District Admin Site-based Leadership

ELL1 per100

Technology

Small SchoolAdjustment

State

Instructional Strategies and the Use of Resources

At the School Level

Preliminary Findings


Methodology• Random Sample of 187 Schools in Year 1

• 115 Elementary

• 35 Middle

• 37 High Schools

• 9 are alternative learning environment schools

• 1 school closed

• Results based on 177 non-ALE, open elementary, middle, & high schools.

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

• Quantitative analyses and case studies


Sample Characteristics

Demographics Statewide Sample

Number of Students

85,330

Number of Students in Average School: 328

42,156

Number of Students in Average School: 227

Number of Schools

Elementary 193

Middle 77

High 92

Elementary 115

Middle 35

High 37

Percent Free and Reduced-Price Lunch

33% 32%

Percent ELL4% 3%

Percent Special Education

14% 14%


Average Number of Students in Sample Schools

Elementary Schools

< 49: 14

49-96: 70

>96: 271

Middle Schools

< 49: 23

49-105: 66

>105: 418

High Schools

< 49: 46

49-105: 68

>105: 477


Data Collection

• Timeline• January, 2007 – Data training and sent letters to

principals and superintendents

• February to April, 2007 – School site visits

• February to June, 2007 – Data entry and case study write-ups

• Analysis is on-going


Data Analysis• Online data entry & follow-up data collection• Data cleaning identified missing and outlying

data points • Analyses include:

• Frequency statistics• Ratios of demographic characteristics • Staffing resources

• Observed and reported staffing ratios are compared with model funded ratios

• Case study write-ups


Instructional Time• Average Instructional Day: 5 hrs, 47 min• Average Class Length

• Math: 1 hr, 4 minutes

• Reading (Elementary): 1hr, 47 minutes

• English/LA (Mid/High): 1 hr, 5 minutes

• Soc. Studies & Science (each)• (Elementary): 29 minutes

• (Mid/High): 54 minutes


Average Resources in Elementary Schools* with More than 96 Students

Staffing Funding Model Sample

Principals 1.09 0.92

Assistant Principals 0.00 0.07

Core Teachers 16.6 14.45

Specialist Teachers 3.32 2.40

Instructional Aides 0.00 4.25

Certified Tutors 1.15 0.85

Librarians 0.92 0.41

Pupil Support Staff 1.15 1.34

Secretaries 1.09 1.19

*Does not include alternative schools data


Average Resources in Elementary Schools* with 49-96 Students






Additional Teachers 1.03 0.00








Average Resources in Elementary Schools* with Less than 49 Students




Core & Specialist Teachers

2.53 2.21






Total Professional Staff 3.53 3.38



Key Findings on Resource Use in Elementary Schools• Compared to the Wyoming Funding Model,

large elementary schools have: • Slightly less school site administration

• Fewer core and specialist teachers

• More aides

• Fewer certified tutors

• About half the certified librarian staff

• Somewhat more pupil support


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














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






Additional Teacher 3.67 0.00








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





2.94 2.61









Key Findings on Resource Use in Middle Schools

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

• Fewer core teachers

• More specialist teachers

• More aides

• Fewer tutors

• Less certified librarian staff

• Less pupil support


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






Additional Teacher 1.47 0.00








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














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





6.19 6.81









Key Findings on Resource Use in High Schools

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

assistant principals)• Double the number of secretaries• Slightly fewer core teachers• More specialist teachers• More aides• 1/5 the number of certified tutors• Less certified librarian staff• Less pupil support


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

Ratio of Students to Core Teachers Funded by State

Model

Ratio of Actual Students to Core Teachers in Sampled Schools

Elementary 16:118:1

RANGE 11:1 to 24:1

Middle 21:123:1

RANGE 11:1 to 42:1

High 21:120:1

RANGE 9:1 to 36:1

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


Core Teachers in Year 1 Sampled Schools (Excludes Small & Alternative Schools Data)

Core Teachers Funded by State Model in Sampled Schools

Actual Core Teachers in Sampled Schools

Elementary 1,396 1,227

Middle 433 401

High 444 406

TOTAL 2,273 2,033

240 fewer core teachers than provided by the funding model


Number of Instructional Aides*

Type of Inst. Aide

# of Elementary Inst. Aides

# of Middle School Inst. Aides

# of High School Inst.

Aides

ELL 15 3 5

Library 64 16 13

Title I 87 3 1

Other Extra Help 61 10 4

Other Instructional 61 16 9

Non-Certified Tutors 69 6 8

Special Education Inclusion & Resource Room

262 90 69

TOTAL 619 144 109

Model does not fund instructional aides

*Does not include small or alternative schools data


Number of Tutors*

Tutors Funded by State Model in

Sampled Schools

Teachers Tutoring in

Sampled Schools

Aides Tutoring in Sampled

Schools

Elementary 97 69 69

Middle 32 10 6

High 31 7 8

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

*Does not include small or alternative schools data


Average Number of Instructional Facilitators in Medium and Large Schools

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

Model Funded Sample Elementary 1.29 0.85 0.87 Middle 1.60 1.06 0.92 High School 1.70 1.12 1.04


Preliminary Findings Related to Instructional Improvement (177 open, non-ALE schools)

• Fewer core teachers than model funds at all levels

• Specialist Teachers (in schools with >49 students)• Elementary -- About 26% fewer than funded

• Middle schools -- About 31% more than funded

• High schools -- About 75% more than funded

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


Preliminary Findings Related to Instructional Improvement (177 open, non-ALE schools)

• Instructional facilitators • Observed at about the level funded in all three

school levels

• This is a categorical not a block grant program

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


Tentative Conclusions• The observed resource use patterns:

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

• Less professional development

• More electives

• More classroom aides dealing with academic needs

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

Salary Analysis

Findings


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

86,117

84,741

83,772 83,705

84,611

82,000

82,500

83,000

83,500

84,000

84,500

85,000

85,500

86,000

86,500

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

Year

Enrollment declined by 1,506 students or -1.75 percent


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

7,616 7,5997,645

7,732

8,178

7,300

7,400

7,500

7,600

7,700

7,800

7,900

8,000

8,100

8,200

8,300

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

Year

FTE

Teac

hers

Five year change 562 FTE teachers 7.37 percent


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

-2.00%

-1.00%

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

6.00%

7.00%

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

Year

Per

enta

ge

Ch

ang

e

Enrollment

FTE Teachers


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

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

814 810 814 839905

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

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

Year

FT

E T

each

ers

Special Ed

Non-Special Ed

*Includes nurses, social workers, phychologists, and others


Percent Change in Enrollment and FTE Teachers by Type

-4.00%

-2.00%

0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%

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

Year

Per

cen

t C

han

ge

Enrollment

All Teachers

Special Ed

Non Special Ed


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

7,474 7,272

2,500

3,500

4,500

5,500

6,500

7,500

8,500

Model Actual

FT

E T

each

ers


Average Teacher Salary: 2002-03 to 2006-07

$39,364

$51,574

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

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

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

Year

Ave

rag

e S

alar

y


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

17.08%

6.70%

2.69%1.62%

0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%

12.00%

14.00%

16.00%

18.00%

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

Year

Perc

ent C

hang

e

Five Year Change 29.75 Percent


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Middle Salary Schedule Steps

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


Top of Salary Schedule

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


Findings on Salaries

• Dramatic increase in teacher salaries in last two years

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

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

State-Level Expenditure Analysis

Findings


Total Expenditures: 2002-03 to 2005-06

Category 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 4 Yr. Chg. ADM 85,051 83,871 83,078 83,338 -2.01% General Fund $728,284,018 $741,864,255 $772,813,538 $865,539,002 18.85% Special Revenue Funds $91,095,959 $109,714,624 $131,495,499 $138,718,134 52.28% Food $25,717,247 $26,101,340 $27,838,483 $30,520,781 18.68% Other $2,612,761 $2,747,464 $2,411,531 $5,205,096 99.22% Total $847,709,985 $880,427,684 $934,559,051 $1,039,983,012 Percent Increase 3.86% 6.15% 11.28% 22.68%


Total Expenditures Per Pupil: 2002-03 to 2005-06

2002-2003

2003-2004

2004-2005

2005-2006

Four-Year Change

General Fund $8,563 $8,845 $9,302 $10,386 21.29% Special Revenue Funds $1,071 $1,308 $1,583 $1,665 55.41% Food $302 $311 $335 $366 21.12% Other $31 $33 $29 $62 103.31% Total $9,967 $10,497 $11,249 $12,479 Percent Increase 5.32% 7.16% 10.93% 25.20%


Expenditures by Function: 2002-03 to 2005-06

$0

$200,000,000

$400,000,000

$600,000,000

$800,000,000

$1,000,000,000

$1,200,000,000

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

Year

Exp

end

itu

res

Other

Food

Transpor tation

Maintenance

Operations

Central Offi ce Administration

School Administration

Instructional Suppor t

Student Suppor t

Instruction


Percent of Expenditures By Function: 2002-03 to 2005-06

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

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

Year

Per

cen

t o

f T

ota

l Exp

end

itu

res

Other

Food

Transpor tation

Maintenance

Operations

Central Offi ce Administration

School Administration

Instructional Suppor t

Student Suppor t

Instruction


Total Compensation as a Percent of Instruction

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

Four-Year

Change Total Compensation $427,664,178 $436,434,694 $457,906,744 $513,173,025 Percent Increase 2.05% 4.92% 12.07% 19.99% Comp. Per Pupil $5,220 $5,406 $5,729 $6,367 Percent Increase 3.56% 5.98% 11.14% 21.98% Percent of Total Instruction 87.29% 87.24% 86.86% 87.25% -0.05%


General Conclusions and Implications

• Large increases in salaries • Fewer teacher positions in schools

than model funds • Could lead to future pressure for

more money


Discussion and Questions

Lawrence O. Picus and Associates

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

The Use of Educational Resources in Wyoming Preliminary Report to the Wyoming Legislature’s Joint...

Documents

Transcript of The Use of Educational Resources in Wyoming Preliminary Report to the Wyoming Legislature’s Joint...