“Determining the Cost of Providing an Adequate Education in the State of Montana”

October 2005

The only methodology in this study that attempted to cost out a specific level of achievement was the successful schools method, which attempted to cost out a graduation rate standard, an accreditation standard, and three different levels of performance on the Montana criterion-referenced test and the norm-referenced Iowa Test of Basic Skills.

So-called* evidence-based program: $20.6 million plus unstated amount from Young and Stoddard Report
Needs assessment approach: $34.4 million
Professional judgment approach: $329 million
Successful Schools Analysis: $96.2 million**
Indian Achievement Gap Analysis: $16 million to address the increased costs of meeting the achievement goals for American Indians.

*The “evidence-based approach,” as used in this study provides a crude estimate for adequacy by simply estimating $5 million for “pilot programs” for pre-school programs, smaller class sizes, and student support/outreach. There is no apparent basis or explanation for this cost, making the overall estimate highly misleading. The consultants report that the method “does not lend itself to a robust explanation of future costs,” since Montana has an unusually high number of small and isolated school districts. The consultants claim that this factor makes applying the approach more complicated.

**this figure appears to be erroneous, since summing the findings totals $162.2 million.

Small and isolated school districts should be grouped into clusters, which would receive a guaranteed amount per classroom, regardless of enrollment.

Evidence-based approach
Pilot preschool programs for “neediest” districts (those with a high percentage of students receiving free or reduced price lunch or relatively low achievement on state-wide tests)
Class size reductions – limited grant to study, identify, and fund a small number of districts
Extended professional development opportunities
State legislature should undertake complete facilities review

Needs assessment approach
Develop and implement a plan to meet accreditation standards of Senate Bill (S.B.) 152 for “at risk” students
Develop and implement plan for a gifted and talented program
Fully provide for the Indian Education for All program
Develop and implement a plan for facilities improvements
Remove the three-mile restriction on state and county compensation for transportation within three miles of the school.
Additional funding to support assessment under S.B. 152
Consultants found that the state was already meeting its minimum statutory obligations to provide superintendents, curriculum coordinators, teachers, professional development, and special education.

Professional judgment approach
Eight additional days of professional development
Summer and extended day programs
Gifted and Talented programs
Early intervention pilot program
For schools with populations of American Indians of 30 percent or more: smaller class sizes, mental health classes, framework for understanding poverty, curricular improvements

Comparative state-to-state study on the unique state funding issues for small and isolated school districts, making a distinction between the two classes of schools. It also provides an evaluation and detailed set of recommendations on the Indian Education for All program, which is unique to Montana.

None

The study utilized three of the commonly accepted cost-out methodologies: the successful schools approach, the professional judgment approach, and the evidence-based approach. The study also used a “needs assessment” analysis that asked all 331 administrative units in the state to complete an online survey that asked if each component of S.B. 152 was adequately funded. A shorter version was offered to the public.

The consultants suggest that many commonly suggested interventions and policies to improve achievement do not apply to Montana, where schools are most often smaller than those in most previous research.
The costs of qualified and effective teachers and administrators are not included in the study, which refers to an earlier study by Young and Stoddard from Montana State University. That study found that higher salary growth and more generous benefits were associated with lower turnover; additionally, isolated districts were also more likely to have lower salaries.

This study lacks a true statistical analysis of professional quality, since researchers fail to make a meaningful attempt to gather existing data, instead opting for a survey sent to district administrators. The successful schools approach also fails to identify a single measure of success, making the analysis almost meaningless to policymakers. Additionally, without estimated base-cost figures, it is impossible to compare the different methodologies’ estimates.

For the cost-function analysis, the “Needs Assessment” was provided to the public online to provide information on the public perception of school funding in Montana. The consultants received 861 “useable” responses. The top three items that the public identified as being least satisfactorily accomplished with current funding were: (1) federal mandates are adequately funded; (2) State mandates (i.e. Indian Education for All) are adequately funded; and (3) State mandates (i.e. Accreditation standards) are adequately funded.

Quality Schools Interim Committee and the Montana State Legislature