The Study establishes 36 criteria
for success, 27 of which are based on student performance
on the Washington Assessment of Student Learning
(WASL), the state exam to measure proficiency. The
other criteria consist of a single learning curve
growth index, a single achievement gap index, and
an on-time graduation rate for each of the three
years analyzed by the study.
Calculated Base Costs:
The study calculates
spending for regular instruction programs, as
well as categorical programs for serving students
with special needs, federally-funded programs,
and total expenditures. It calculates costs for
districts meeting 24/36 performance criteria as
well as for schools meeting 36/36 performance
criteria categories, and it uses separate analyses
based on 2004-2005 and 2007-2008 benchmarks.
Regular instruction plus categorical per-pupil
spending
2004-2005 performance benchmarks:
State average: $7,354
Districts that met 36/36 criteria for success:
$7.171
Districts that met 24/36 criteria for success:
$7,105
2007-2008 performance benchmarks:
State average: N/A
Districts that met 36/36 criteria for success:
$7,348
Districts that met 24/36 criteria for success:
$7,049
Additional Findings:
The study finds that Washington’s school
districts face serious challenges in meeting current
and future performance standards. Moreover, it
shows a decline in student performance from 2004-2005.
The study also finds that districts with lower
poverty levels serving non-urban populations were
more successful in meeting selection criteria.
Conversely, districts with higher
concentrations of poverty and in urban or rural
locales tend to spend more than other districts
regardless of performance level.
The study concludes that higher performing
districts spent slightly more per-pupil than other
districts, and they also tended to have higher
property tax revenues.
The study finds that successful districts prioritized
spending on improving teaching and learning.
Special Features of the Study:
The study adds an innovative new dimension
to the successful school district methodology
by conducting in-depth cases studies of a sample
of successful districts to try to determine how
their resource use practices related to their
successful outcomes.
The study accounts for additional costs
for special education, low-income, and English
language learner students.
The analysis included the disaggregation of results
by poverty quartiles and district locale.
Outlier districts – small districts with
less than 100 students, districts that do not
serve K-12, and districts with significant amounts
of missing data – were excluded from the
analysis.
This study did not consider food service costs,
costs associated with community services, adult
education, capital costs (such as school building
construction), or debt cost services. These costs
are ordinarily excluded from adequacy studies.
This study uses the Successful
District approach as the primary costing-out
methodology. However, it adds a second level of
analysis by identifying school districts that meet
established criteria for success, and conducting
case studies in a sample of schools and districts
identified as successful. This enhanced analysis
is meant to increase the usefulness of the successful
district approach and overcome difficulties associated
with the method – namely the lack of information
about how to best use resources to double student
performance.
The researchers established a set of 36 selection
criteria to measure school performance.
District performance on each of the criteria was
calculated and compared against a performance
benchmark. The study conducted two separate analyses,
one used NCLB’s 2004-2005 Uniform Bar Goals
as benchmarks and the other used its 2007-2008
Goals.
Goals:
The goal of the study was to learn more about
how successful districts and schools achieve dramatic
improvement in student performance, and how they
use their resources to attain these standards.
Public Input:
Public comment was taken at public meetings of
the K-12 Advisory Committee of Washington Learns,
the sponsor of the study.
Implications:
The study finds that the improvements
identified in the successful districts usually occurred
in just 1-2 academic subjects and at 1-2 education
levels ( e.g. elementary or middles schools). Both
more resources and engagement in specific improvement
processes will be needed to meet the state’s
challenging educational goals.
Implementation:
None to date
Prepared for:
Washington Learns
Prepared by:
Lawrence O. Picus and Associates
National Access
Network, Teachers College, Columbia University. Copyright 2001-2008.
Pre-K
to 12 Students, 2005-2006: 1,031,985
The study finds that Washington’s school
districts face serious challenges in meeting current
and future performance standards. Moreover, it
shows a decline in student performance from 2004-2005.