Educational Adequacy

Educational Adequacy

Betsy Moore

University of New England

Odden and Picus (2008) state that in schools today, “the key school finance issue in most states is whether there is sufficient – adequate – amount of dollars for districts and schools to teach students to new and rigorous performance standards that have been developed during the past 15-20 years of standard-based education reform, to meet both the goals of state standards-based education reform and the stiffer accountability requirements of the federal No Child Left Behind Act,” (p. 27). It is difficult to meet such high standards without the resources needed and adequate training for the teachers. There has not been a lot of study on analyzing educational adequacy so Odden and Picus created the Odden-Picus Adequacy Index (OPAI). This system can show how the finance system relates to the educational adequacy for all students, including those with special needs. However, there have been some concerns with the high foundation expenditure level. “Four methodologies have been used to determine an adequate foundation expenditure level: (1) the input or professional-judgment approach, (2) the successful-district approach, (3) the cost function approach, and (4) the evidence-based approach,” (p.77-78). The input approach is beneficial because it recognizes what can be purchased, but focuses on student achievement without the actual appraisal of student performance. The successful-district approach can dictate the spending level needed to increase student performance, yet does not specify exactly the best use of the spending. The cost function approach looks at a per-pupil spending level which results in the expenditure being higher as the performance is higher. The evidence-based approach uses research-based strategies, prices each one, and then can combine the two to meet district and state needs, (Odden and Picus, 2008). This is one of the approaches my district needs to be the best steward of the budget.

Issues of adequacy in my district came full circle this week as a school board, who is suppose to be bipartisan, dismissed the superintendent with a $250,000 agreement. Yet our budget is still affected from cuts made during the 2009-2010 school year. This included losing teacher assistants in third grade classes, $4.7 million in textbooks, $200,000 for Literacy Coaches, $200,000 for mentors to work with beginning teachers, $900,000 in technology, and $800,000 in staff development. All of these are important for student success. By implementing the evidence-based approach, the district would benefit (Odden and Picus, 2008). Looking at some of the budget cuts, it would be enlightening to see the research behind the effectiveness of the programs. The research is contradictory of the direct impact of literacy coaches with student performance, but most do support the effectiveness if the coach is properly trained and uses the majority of their time working with the teachers directly. The adoption of Common Core is to make students college and career ready. Technology is a huge component of that effort and therefore more investments should be made towards the purchase of resources and training. I stress the word training because the district has used funding from the instructional budget, though it has not been disclosed exactly how much, to create and purchase technology tools and software. There are benefits to the use of such programs, but the problem in the adequacy of the program lies with the training, or lack thereof. Teachers have been “introduced” to tools such as Voicethread and Edmodo, yet sufficient training has not occurred for the websites to be properly implemented. Therefore school finances are not adequate.

To help provide avenues to solutions to such issues of educational adequacy, one must direct the attention to not just what funds are needed in the school, but to how they are used, (Roza, 2010). At this point the district is trying to implement so many good ideas and initiatives that it is too much at once to provide the results that should be expected. Training is brief, mostly through a train the trainer model, and support for the implementation is provided through e-mails and documents to read and not actual practice. It leaves teachers pondering as to why the district says they do not have funding for certain needs, yet we have money for all these technology resources and money to release the current superintendent and hire another. Adequacy is the not only the quantity of funds, but also the quality of how the funds are being used; something that definitely needs to be addressed.

Roza, (2010) also discusses educational adequacy. One of her arguments is how lawsuits confirm the decision makers at the district level. More money gets poured into low income schools because of the attention they are given from the public, the quality of teachers and leadership that tend to work at these schools, and their stability. Just as Odden and Picus (2008) stated about adequacy, Roza (2010) also mimics their remarks. “The logic behind the movement is that with more funds, the education finance system can more effectively meet all the needs of students, and therefore state lawmakers should increase spending to some adequate level,” (p. 75). Many lawsuits are a result of disadvantaged students in urban public schools needing more funding in order to equal the funding to high-needs students. The fact is this is not true. More funding may be granted, but there is no guarantee that those funds will reach the targeted students. Additional funding is used to lower the class size, provide teacher pay raises, and increase electives. However, this will not help students who are high-need students, (Roza, 2010).

Roza, (2010) reviews the blemishes in the solutions for adequacy by a number of approaches. All of the approaches tend to use the existing finance system, which is already flawed. Adequacy relies on how the resources purchased will be applied. “There is no way for policymakers to assess the coast effectiveness of new schooling models without accurate cost estimates,” (p. 78).

Abstract

Adequacy is defined as identifying if there is enough to meet the needs. This is an issue in my school district which impacts the 169 schools that service about 150,000 students. North Carolina has adopted Common Core Standards and signed for a federal Race to the Top grant worth about $400 million. Many expectations are held to this grant, yet funding is slow to be released to all schools and some districts, such as the one I teach, have purchased other programs to help prepare the vast majority of schools in the district who have not been allotted with the grant money yet.

References

Odden, A. & Picus, L. (2008). School Finance, A Policy Perspective. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Roza, M. (2010). Educational economics: Where do school funds go? Washington DC: The Urban Institute Press.