Connecticut Fact Sheet
Related
News
The scope of this study was narrow. It estimated
the marginal cost of administering those provisions
of ESEA that are new with the enactment of NCLB in
2002. The study did not examine: (1) the cost of any
state or federal requirement that was in existence
prior to 2002; (2) the cost of providing students with
the opportunity to meet state student learning standards,
as adequacy cost studies do; or (3) the cost of trying
to help 100 percent of students reach “proficiency,” as
NCLB requires. The study has two parts:(1) state-level costs; and
(2) local-level costs.
| Study Title: |
“Cost of Implementing the Federal
No Child Left Behind Act in Connecticut ”
|
| Date Completed: |
Part 1 State-Level Costs: March 2, 2005
Part 2 Local-Level Costs: April 5, 2005
|
| Calculated Marginal Administrative
Costs: |
Part I – State Level Costs (through
Fiscal Year 2008): $112.2 million total
1. Standards and Assessments:
$41.6 million
2. Development and Administration of Accountability
System: $18.2 million
3. Creation of Technical Assistance and Support
Systems for schools and Districts: $19.2
4. School Transfers and Supplemental Educational
Services: $2.7 million
5. Highly Qualified Educators (Teachers and
Paraprofessionals):$3.2 million
6. Data Management: $13.6 million
7. Administration of NCLB and Title I Programs
under NCLB: $13.7 million
Part
II – Local Level Costs of Three
Sample School Districts:
New Haven : $150.1 million
total cost- $10.1 million borne by district
alone
Hamden : $16.4 million total cost – $8.7
million borne by district alone
Killingly $8.0 million total cost - $3.8 borne
by district alone
|
| Highlights of the Study: |
Federal Funding Gap: an
estimated $41.6
million dollars of state-level costs not covered
by federal allocation.
Biggest Cost Areas: (1)
standards and assessments; and (2) technical
assistance to those schools and districts labeled “in
need of improvement.”
|
| Special Features of the
Study: |
Study of Local-Level Costs:
Pursuant to the state
law cited above, the Connecticut State Department
of Education conducted a study of new local-level
administrative costs engendered by NCLB, as
well as conducting the state-level study. The
CSDE chose three sample districts that varied
in: (1) size, (2) average per capita income,
(3) percentage of children qualifying for free
or reduced lunch, (4) percentage of children
from homes where English is not the native
language, and (5) percentage of minority students.
The three districts are: (1) New Haven ; (2)
Hamden ; and (3) Killingly.
The CSDE restructured the Augenblick, Palaich
and Associates, Inc. (APA) template, described
in the methodology section below, to apply
it to the three districts. CSDE relied on the
local school districts to estimate the costs
in nine areas: (1) high quality staff (teachers
and paraprofessionals); (2) parent involvement
and notification; (3) AYP responsibilities;
(4) responsibilities for districts with schools
and districts labeled “in need of improvement;” (5)
assessments for English language learners for
English language proficiency and for Title
III purposes; (6) school transfers; (7) supplemental
educational services; (8) curriculum and assessments;
and (9) overall NCLB requirements.
|
| Methodology: |
Connecticut is part of the CCSSO consortium
of states conducting cost studies on the marginal
additional administrative cost of NCLB. The
Connecticut State Department of Education used
a template developed by APA. APA developed
a template, used by all members of the consortium,
to collect, organize and aggregate costs at
four levels:
components : a broad
category of NCLB (such as highly qualified
educators);
areas : more specific
aspects of components (such as ensuring highly
qualified teachers);
tasks : to be performed
within areas (such as defining standards or
creating processes for assessing teachers);
and
activities: actions
associated with tasks
The templates that
collect raw data and generate cost are
activity based and unique to each state.
The component, area and tasks are standard
across all states using the APA templates
and were developed by a close reading of
the NCLB, its regulations and the non-regulatory
guidance issued by the U.S. Department of
Education. The Connecticut State Department of Education
examined the cost of each activity in staff
time (organized by activity and personnel category)
and in contracts and other costs. Inaccuracies
and missing data were checked by the Associate
Commissioner of Education and senior staff
members of the Division of Teaching, Learning
and Assessment.
The CSDE staff estimated the costs in the
seven NCLB major categories listed above in
the section on Calculated Marginal Administrative
Costs.
Implementation: This study served as one basis
for the Connecticut Attorney General's announcement
on April 5, 2005 , that Connecticut intends
to sue the federal government over the cost
of NCLB.
|
| Recommendations: |
Seek additional funds for NCLB implementation,
especially for the two most costly items; and
reallocate existing funds.
The report makes
clear that Connecticut is investing in research-proven
initiatives, independent of NCLB, which it
believes will narrow the achievement gap. These
programs include: preschool, after-school programs,
class size reduction, and summer school or
summer leadership activities.
|
| Prepared for: |
This study was required by Connecticut Public
Act 04-054, which mandated that the secretary
of the Office of Policy and Management and
the Commissioner of Education analyze and report
the costs associated with compliance with NCLB.
|
| Prepared by: |
Connecticut State Department of Education,
using a template designed by Augenblick,
Palaich and Associates, Inc.
|
|