Education Committee Senate & House

Study updates. What happens once again and got a couple quick slides a study update. And then we're gonna right into our presentations so again today we're gonna do this really quick study update we will then do a review of the resource matrix I wish Amanda will lead and then I will finish up with methods for Richmond routinely reviewing adequacy. We are going to see you in a couple weeks amend and I have had booked our tickets and we are planning at this point to come on down and be there in person as we walked through recommendations on the night and then will be at. Fourteen. Section of the draft report so any questions on that and then putting two or two presentations. I anybody have any questions on that. But one thing we need to do first before you will get started as we need to approve the minutes of the last meeting do I hear a motion. Taking a second. Questions on where we are we can go right into the first present okay I don't favor. Thank you okay yes go right ahead. Thank you all or meet as we can't hear you. Sure K.. There's no question we will go into the first presentation. Yeah we have no questions go ahead. Just in a. Check one thing make sure. So it's a little early and I'm not doing it quite right. This is really the first step in bringing together all the information that we've been sharing with you all for the last several months so for each matrix component we'll first talk about what's the current level of resource in the matrix has there been a historic variation overtime are there any recently approved changes expected for the next by William then how does that compare against prior Arkansas studies from pages on in two thousand three two thousand six in two thousand fourteen and well how does it compare to finding some adequacy studies conducted in other state. Will also share any information about current district expenditures are staffing based on information from the districts survey are available data from Beale are ET. We'll share feedback from the educator panels and stakeholder survey then any commenting seven subcommittee studies that would be relevant. Information from the national policies clean and literature working we conducted in the number of a means by newly any relevant rules are accreditation requirements or applicability should be kept in. I will share this information as I mentioned for each component of the matrix when any areas that are not currently in the matrix that were kind of seen bubble up from a number of sources that are a registration. All additional contacts for the presentation. I must be really understand that is the legislatures responsibility to determine adequacy and that we've not been asked to determine the specific levels of resource that should be in the matrix or overall spending that should be provided instead of our intent and what will be presenting at the November nineteen meeting is recommendations for areas that the committee should consider based upon that data that personally. Each side will. Include adequate detail over what's been found to the very status or system they're pretty tense line we've also included this is a full charge and a short summary in your materials but I really want to highlight for two days. Is. Information seems to be consistent what a little more make and then how that compares to what's currently in the nature. We'll talk about our classroom teachers in in kindergarten. Funds on twenty to one and not his stand. The changes for next. Pair adequacy studies or other state starting. Is that there's some consistency around fifteen to one particularly in kindergarten. We looked at the data is there wasn't really a significant relationship between classes and performance and the date and Arkansas when you look at the broader body of research someone that literature and policies can. Line you see that there is quite a bit of research around the need for small class sizes in lower grades and it typically talk about fifteen to one but it's really ranges thirteen to seventeen to one what we're saying is that you might not see the same educational impact classes Speaker and seventeen to answer some context for how the Arkansas deductions with will be seen nationally. panels and stakeholders service really talked about the need for smaller class sizes in particularly in the work great. Hearing the recommendations but again that fifteen to one as an actor in completing from those panels. An inmate can also talked about how the. Amended ratio at twenty to one is essentially the same as the current rules for kindergarten class sizes on average there should be no more than twenty kindergarteners in the classroom the little variation in any but that that being so close together makes it difficult to actually provide staff on the amount of funding for student. From grades cantor one it is similar entity under guard in it was sent in the original makes tricks that twenty three to one and it's not changed over time and is not expected to change you to see some of that information about. Classes were fifteen to one twenty to one coming out of the parity at Arkansas studies in the prior adequacy study was another state. The stakeholder feedback educator plan feedback is similar to that as are the kind of what we're seeing at the key statement this tended to be smaller schools with smaller class sizes kind of by default. And you're saying that same literature again that focus on small class sizes can occur in up to grade three is fairly consistent. It's a little more wiggle room in that distance between funded amount twenty three to one and the average required classes of twenty five to one so not seem quite that's an issue in grades one two three that we saw in kindergarten. Queens four to twelve. A lot of the information is really supportive of what you see in the matrix currently set at twenty five one that hasn't changed over time thanks back to change the next biennium is supported by the prior adequacy study aids and other. Other studies and other state so seeing kind of a lot of triangulation around that twenty five to one in grades four through twelve. What makes it is non core teacher so currently the matrix for Brian's twenty percent of classroom teachers as additional FTP again that's hasn't changed over time is not expected to school. Arkansas studies we're consistency doesn't three and two thousand six but in two thousand fourteen the recommended a higher percentage for me to talk after the thirty three percent of your classroom teachers versus twenty percent and that's pretty similar to what you see in other states adequacy study a lower percentage for here elementary and middle school grades and a higher percentage of school really offered the robustness of classes are seeking programs that need to be offered. We didn't really do any kind of additional review were announced this is Jerry it's pretty limited in how the research approaches staffing uncle were. And there was very little discussion of this educator panels are the key study other than that collaboration is important for teachers in planning time and that is something that you're non core teachers also provide to the additional acting you put in the building make sure that every teacher combat those clear instead to me collaboratively or work. Special education from the matrix currently provides two point nine. For that prototype school five hundred and there's been no change over time the prior studies and two thousand three two thousand six Worst. Thanks act is the matrix is currently within very when they got to two thousand fourteen really going with a total of six point six ACT teams over the doubling what was in the matrix when you click and other state and because the city's special education is an area that's fairly inconsistent there's different approaches that result in some pretty wide differences an FTP. But I will say some consistency is that they tend to address teachers instructional people support staff searches occupational or physical therapist speech therapist with the levels being sent by actual street so they tend not to included within the base research it's currently provided in Arkansas but really more on a special ed student count. We heard from the districts to remain in the educator panels is that they're having to use other funds either matrix or yes staying to provide the resources for this special session. Section requirements around the but those two. for service from their IT deems. There was some P. back that. Then you should be based again on population. Is a very school to school and there was come again a range of three D. suggests that higher than what's currently checks. When you look at this information across to other states and how they approach it most states fund an actual student hurts the some put it happened to limit what that overall percentage ins. And then there's four states including Arkansas the providers resources it's personal spending so it's not not unusual but not commonly done in so this state to provide funding based on actual student counts ten use. A single weight or dollar amount in ten states multiple weights or dollar amounts that vary by a disability or need level in fourteen states resource allocation little in seven state. Or similar to your current system through reimbursement or hybrid approach. Instructional facilitators. So instruction facilitators are currently being funded in the matrix adoration two hundred to one and there's been no change over time and no expected change the prior studies have been consistent. With that as our other adequacy study. What we saw when we looked at the information collected by bill lack with that they presented to you earlier this year. On average have one point Stephanie as T. E. five hundred so there staffing it a little less ratio than what's currently provide even though there's so much consistency and what you see out there commission on its wasn't really potentially addressed and educator parents are key studies or in a literature review. But we did see there the related accreditation requirement that's relevant to keep in mind we come back to this later schools with an enrollment exceeding five hundred students show employed at least one full time principal and a half assistant principal instructional supervisor or curriculum specialists. Facilitator is really quick to assistant principals and again that'll come only during this presentation. Labrie media specialist so the matrix currently provides a point five FTE and this is increased over time the original matrix was points here was zero point seven and then it's gradually increased and spend a couple different points there's no anticipated changes from tax. Prior studies have been a little different approach to and by a two thousand six they're recommending one point oh F. T. for all levels and then some additional staffing in two thousand fourteen so a little of up to. Another state studies or more based on the case load so for fifty to one friend entry or five five to one for second secondary which would amount to about a one point ACT UP within the current matrix unconstrained constraints. Approach. Districts on average are stopping about a full time position five hundred student feedback from the educator panels and that she says is really around having a full time position in a school that science. And the accreditation requires that a school with three hundred or more students enrolled shall imply full time certified library media specialist. Again this is an area requesting some consistency around the idea of a one you know act. so the matrix currently group sees two positions together at a level of two point five ACT. So that would be that two hundred to one so this really hasn't changed over time and is not expected to change for the next biennium. Arkansas standings. Recommended a minimum of one position and then we'll different levels based on need change this approach over time ultimately in two thousand fourteen recommending a total of two point three ACT. was some differentiation bicycle type but that's kind of the combined Shakir. Other studies tend to group together can what they think about is that people support commission so it could be a guidance counselor under a psychologist or social worker so that ranges from a hundred fifty to one for elementary or a hundred eighty one for a secondary so can be tricks is currently at two hundred to one of these are a little lower ratios to allow for all the disposition and what's currently in matrix and districts on average are staffing. One point three seven counselors and twenty seven nurses per five hundred so pretty closely aligned with what's already in the matrix using that additional at team to provide. Additional student support. Really thank you Sir is really just emphasized for strong The social emotional support and help support for students so including nurses the petitioner and that you need additional state mental health services. Come up again later and I presentation. Overall Arkansas is staffing lowered conservation yelp in all of the S. P. states or Massachusetts. Higher than the counselors assess motion recommendation one. The level is not within the accreditation rules and requirements that the state what they're staffing Well as the next area this one's pretty straight forward the matrix provides a one point oh FTP hasn't changed over time all the studies are consistent generally folks think you should have a principal in the building and any other information from the city center to be a strong leader and that's just as important as the persons that is how they're school. Another piece that will come up later is again system principal. Secretary does major currently provides monthly suspend consistent over time it at first it was including the carry forward but sense kind of a seventy is about one point fifteen. Compared to prior Arkansas studies. What is consistent in two thousand three two thousand six in two thousand fourteen they really recommended to increased staffing in this area so two point three one FTP. When you look at other studies intended also recommends board in one position some most common thing that recommending two ACT team or more based on the size of the school. The district a answer districts on average of two point five ACT five hundred students and educators panels also strongly stated that to really accomplish all the duties that US central office pastor managed to start maintenance. These two staff members thank you Sir this is an area where the information is pretty consistent around meeting at least two ACT. It's a little different than what's currently funded checks. Looking. Salaries and benefits. So currently the matrix spending just over sixteen thousand dollars so that's including bill teacher's salary retirement healthcare and other benefits. This has changed over time there's been pretty. There's a pretty big increase in the first year over what the salaries were at the time and then steadily increased by about two celebrity percent in every year since then expected to continue to increase that some level for the next by any means. Overall this is not an area. To the lot and taking into there wasn't a lot of information out of other scene settings because calories so widely from state to state. What we saw is that. On average the average salary of Arkansas compare to the bordering states is higher than Missouri Mississippi in Oklahoma lower than taxes from Tennessee so the lower than the national average this is someone in the information we're hearing from the educator panels and stakeholder Sir any that they didn't feel salaries for competitive a lot of that was between districts for some discussion of to certain state that created issues a contraction retention. An overall some feedback to educators service should be increased in that most teachers are not level which is the funded level of about sixty thousand is much higher than the average stock. Johnson again most of that is attributable to. Differences and benefits. Secretary means the matrix funds principals at about ninety nine thousand dollars and secretaries and forty one absent. Only they have increased in most years us instead by it five however principals had a big increase in one year and then no increases for six years. Terry's creased by a lower percentage one point three percent on average annually but had no increases for over thirty years. A lot mistake older and also the salaries and not registered over time however the next biennium both are expected to increase it's it's really address the concern that folks will happen. Technologies to this the first staring at the school level resources permission from F. T. need a person ounce so the matrix currently provides two hundred fifty dollars per student and not spend. Consistent over time it was to fifteen the original matrix it was reduced and then increased. Looking back up to that two fifty an echoing seventeen. Mr no change expected explaining them and the prior studies and articles to studies in other states are consistent with the local districts are spending a little bit more than from what we can see from all funding sources. Was the back of the educator and stakeholder panels that this is an underfunded and districts are using other funds to supplement. This is a particular area of concern this year in light of conventional remote construction. The case studies as well most of the information is pretty consistent with what. Six. Instructional materials just under a hundred ninety dollars for certain critical and are expected to increase for the next biennium. The historic information is that start at two fifty reduced to one sixty percent in FY eight await his creased overtime so little variation prior studies and other adequacy study to really focus on this to fifteen percent. The highlight for the other and who's the studies included in the construction materials and then also has separate amounts for assessment and student to. Districts on average of spending about two hundred thirty dollars per student sell above the current matrix funding but a little below this other sources and thank. This can come up a lot treatment educator the case studies. Some of the matrix currently provides sixty six dollars per student. This has also changed over time starting at a little higher a declining in FY only around recession then gradually increasing since then also expected to increase for the next five. That information is. A little different than what was in the prior. Studies show. It's kind of been a little lower than what they recommended each turn and districts are actually spending about two hundred thirty three dollars per string on average in this area so quite a bit higher than what's currently providing educator panels and stakeholders thought that you need to revisit this in light of minimum wage increases let's see that same feedback come up in terms of substitute super buys retains an extra anywhere where you're missing an hour session with the shipment Representative might minimum wage increases. Supervisory eighteen meters combined fifty dollars per student. That started out of thirty five dollars it's increase. Down a little bit. Fifty dollars per student level and is expected to increase for the next by. Prior studies. It was higher than the amount recommended two thousand three but lower than the amount that was recommended in two thousand six. Exxon and respond about eighteen dollars in this area. Well educators that again this is something that needed to be revisited in light of minimum wage increases it does seem that the matrix is providing higher finding that what they're doing. Did you was about seventy two dollars per student. This is to gradually increase for the most part over time and is expected to increase for next biennium. Is higher than what was recommended it is. Three two thousand six. The information the funding in that those relevant matrix years following the studies that was consistent with that information on average districts are spending about a hundred and five dollars per student in this state so they're spending more than is currently provided. This section the area that the outside. Or call a five point twenty one was funded at levels forty one dollars or so a student this change to better recurring and mostly it was fifty dollars for students in FY fifteen it was released in two dollars and forty cents there is no until at twenty twenty one. A forty dollars and eighty cents for the same there's no one second changes for the next. Initial matrix is pretty well under Arkansas study recommendation for both for fifty dollars. See also recommended fifty dollars in two thousand and two thousand fourteen but with the important cabbie out the full membership of the districts so again that computers and FOR twenty seven dollars of that categorical funding from the district. Other articles. A higher amount than a hundred dollars per student. If you look at districts they're spending about thirty nine dollars on average for PT once once. As a federal title funds. Development. That's about twelve. Dollars more than this is currently funded or to just. Our was a stapler survey. A citizen literature we were more focused around Meeks affected professional development was that person. One of the sources that checks for by out for its operation center office and transportation. Air. This is an approach this change over time regional matrix the Kerry for senators amount in weight of this was changed student dollars for each of those categories again for and one of the central office and transportation. And those amounts were pretty similar to the recommendations of the prior adequacy study the central office. In the center gradually increase in in most years most of the categories the winter time. Central office the gradual increase. In the past five years and transportation has not changed and fourteen there are however expected changes for the next plane for me it's not creation and FOR central office but there's still no change for transportation. And again as I mentioned studies were pretty well lines with the amounts of rain system. District data really shows that they're spending about those amounts on average again district to district the spending about a little over a thousand dollars and not creation and twenty eight dollars and central office and four hundred eighteen dollars and transportation so higher than which of those levels. We really limited permits from the educator panels that thought that you should review and a no cost and reading the same cost. This studies or Sir. We are on the mir is they're not currently in the matrix of things we wanted to bring some instance law so the first thing on state mental health again this is comical one. A very important issue for many folks seems to be an emerging. On December. So as I mentioned it's not checked and it was not included in the prior statement. But if you look at other see adequacy settings the again and have these ratios for a combined guidance counselor or psychologist and social worker bill at a hundred fifty to one for elementary and hunting with respect. And that compares against that guidance counselors will restriction it will start earlier two hundred to one answer both of those are a little lower in what's present their. District. House bill sings on mental health services for instance so not on the shelves but we did see some information of the educator canals a stakeholder survey which instead was about how crucial the support is there could be any need for additional F. T. for this kind or specialist positions or social workers psychologists or special. And that many of the case for the schools reported that they're using outside community groups to provide those services Medicaid but that is not sufficient to all of their students particularly the ones that don't have Medicaid. Can provide. We also heard that many districts and was in a state funds to offer additional help. Justin some recommendations on the side from the professional associations on what staffing levels they would reckon impeach those. Or some variation between San. School resource officers schools the team with. The only mental health within the most amount of the needs of those fifty seven that they're not really provided the checks for the other funds for. The other thing funds in some feedback suggested that they should be at least a full time school resource officer in your secondary schools schools so little limited information but a real strong training on this feedback the. There's. Thanks to you as well so well it's not currently in Jackson is alignment as I mentioned before instructional facilitator conversation the accreditation requirements consider. You need to have training assistant principal instructions the professor specialist at. So the assistant principals and. Instruction facilitators are means debate and interchangeably. I think about them in conjunction with each other but we really size other advocacy standing the other centers I thank you senator Irvin and the feedback from the educate appeals and is that is was that there is a need for. A full time assistant principal at a school that salaries in on average districts have nearly a full time position So if you think about that judge of that earlier conversation of instruction facilitators their districts for staffing mode wait seventeen combined that they're still staffing more than the two point five positions the latter instruction facilitator once the admin assistant principal. Just something to think about. In the final area is just excellent resources they're not injure just a Looney tracks and there's not a lot of research and feedback in the state we can provide. Other than the the state had some requirements around screens Jensen having reading services for them and having an interventionist at the district level. But that's not something that appears in the matrix educators feel that this is unfunded mandate they're having other categorical checks dollar industry absent the little specific Arkansas with this requirement but again something else to consider. We've covered a lot of ground slides and alleged act so look forward to taking your question yeah. Okay. The Representative Lowery. Thank you Mr chair of my question by the classroom teachers information grades one through three you indicate that previous. Adequacy studies have made recommendations lower than the twenty three to one that we have traditionally had from the district data that you reviewed is there information that tells us just an average of what all school districts are staffing at at that for those grades. Thank you Representative and that is information we don't believe is currently selected your Asian about class size and student teacher ratios really consider all teachers so it it also include your special education teachers or other instructional support two we could not find a good data source for what. Kind of core classroom class sizes looked life other than in that the successful you know the case state schools that we looked at that the tended tech smaller classes in this great but they also tended to be smaller schools on average okay follow up please I I know that your your Mission and you studies is to you know provide case study information thing and obviously. That would include recommendations. would it be or what would you recommend that that be something that we collect I mean at the point that all the research is very compelling that lower class sizes do affects two performances specially at those grades would that not be a critical piece for us to be collecting. To make decisions of whether we need to make the financial commitment or the shift may be in financial commitments so that we can ensure that we are having students reading at grade level at those lower grades which. By understanding of the research is if they're not reading at grade level but great for it's almost next impossible for them to catch up would be your recommendation that we actually be collecting that very specific information. Representative I agree I think that's really important information to have available so I think that would be a good thing to collect or okay yeah and if I can add represented this is Justin Silverstein I think it also would be important I have you know we mentioned it here that with our data analysis there wasn't a correlation between class size and performance aren't lower class size and performance you know part of that is having a single data point versus being in love more specifically a class size they that there are some reports first some other state including one as I read the state that we could probably bring back to you that does a little bit more of that piecing out and we're happy to. We can we should talk to The department that just to make sure that we you know if there's anything else available that we are unfamiliar with that we have before we start talking about any kind of recognition. We'll I'm especially. Sorry. I am especially struck at the literature review summary. Research indicates small class sizes in lower grades improve student outcomes class sizes above seventeen to one I'm likely to show the same educational result or impact and yet we are at a mandate of twenty three to one and some classes can go as high as twenty five to one. I'm not going to put this word into your vernacular but I'm just gonna say I think that that's unconscionable. Unconscionable that we've had three different studies that have told us not to mention case studies and this review of literature. And we are and have not made any attempt to shift as a matter of fact. We your way off the scale in terms of what we ought to be doing so any input is that you can give us and making sure that we collect that information so that we have some very significant data points to point to I would appreciate. Thank you madam chair a question I have is on the the the mental health piece did you get any data on what other folks were spending on a per student basis on those. This amendment brown I don't believe we have specific information about how much they're spending is a broad category of student mental health I believe that the data collected included by dealers primarily focused on that a counselor at school dinners. Okay so we don't wanna because on your report you talked about how other states were. Looking at the mental health issue as well and I didn't know if you had an average that. They were spending to kind of give us a ballpark idea of what we should maybe be looking at if that's something we decide to incorporate into the matrix for assuming we continue with the matrix. Amendment eight not seen ninety information primarily what we are able to collect looking in other states was their overall staffing levels but not specifically expenditures we can revisit to make sure there's something we're not missing. Thank you thank you manager. Representative Springer. Thank thank you madam chair and thank you of Representative Laurie for your questions regarding the teacher student class sizes I totally agree with you out of I would just like to follow up with respect to the same topic and S. what variables this is to the. Group what variables are being utilized to determines to the **** significance regarding for the class sizes have impacted student performance what have you seen in the data that you've reviewed. This amendment thank you for the question so this is the work that was completed by our partners last dance I will attempt to some races laws like involved we need to but they ran a linear regression that included all the variables Student characteristics districts school characteristics. And then the variable of prior performance and that really. Would they found tended to be the the largest explanatory terrible so the idea of where your wrist you miss performing the year prior really had the biggest influence on their progress in the next year when they looked it Class A sentence I this is just a significant relationship I think it comes back to that conversation having just a minute ago of the current classes information is all your your classes Including you see your special education. And what we've seen in the data is that it's your smaller class sizes are really well associate with your higher need schools and communities which is exactly what you would want to see but because we couldn't parse out you can that core class that is what you really see is your small class sizes or in your highest need tend to be your lower performing places that they could not find is just going significant relationship when they ran that linear progression and alternate justified if a mistake to get any of that. That's exactly right and I think it's one of those findings that that is that the the date is absolutely true it based on what we had but I think you know we highlighted I've been in definitely feel that I'm and we talked about a lot even with the committees you know it kind of goes against some of that baseline information we have from Tennessee star study and and other studies that focus on K. three three and so it again we do not have it as of this of data at grade level made that the analysis is a little. Madam chairman of follow up please. Herb in those studies of divinity any of the variables include like the. A poverty levels of the students or anything of that nature or are any could you tell me the expounder bent as for as well but not they receive in free and reduced lunches or anything of that nature. Yeah and I don't know what I mean that's mark to jump in if we we don't talk about this right the tennis B. stars was a very expensive study using yeah you know high levels of statistical data and so basically they had a control in the treatment group on the on that so they were able to compare very similar students of similar background in the they're outcomes if they are getting the smaller class sizes or not and I and I've just off the top Hackett remember prison RCT or because I experimental design of mark might now but that that gave them the ability check to tease out those that those specific issues that you're talking about there and so it was better for all students and regardless of background I believe to have the smaller class alright thank you very much appreciate that. Thank you madam chair in my question I don't want to beat this to death but when we talked about the the fact that. Used you told us that the class size did make a difference what you had in the candy Oct. And you said that was predicated on the fact that most of the schools across this state were similarly sized. Is there any thought to putting in that can be on your report. Rather than having folk look at this report and say class size makes no difference because it's misleading and in my view. Because we all know that if you got forty five keys in a class as opposed to fifteen kids in a class is going to make a difference so was that cat we got that we talked about earlier when I raise the same issue A I thought into adding to the report that class sizes across Arkansas what to some extent similar so that's why there was no significant difference in class I. Senator we we at as we rates are going to have the ability to I think I'd better contextual information around results and we'll make sure that we have that contextual information in the records so folks understand both the outcome but also the context about why that outcome might it might have been in place when I would certainly appreciate it because I I share the concern of of the folks who have already spoken and I don't want to beat a dead horse today at but we did talk about this earlier and we did say that there was a reason in Arkansas that the statistical difference was was not significant so I would so that the average person who reads this report does not go away from it saying that Arkansas has found that there's no state a statistical difference in class size and everybody else is saying you have the larger the class size the less likely the keys are to be able to get the individual attention that they need especially in core curriculum thank you so much and thank you madam chair. Seeing no further questions I guess we'll move on. Okay we'll see if I can successfully get a video up which seems to have been a struggle to smoke. House. The methods for routinely reviewing out of the city. Three sections of the presentation start by reviewing the background in Arkansas and how it's kind to their project currently uses reviewing out the same we're gonna look at the different costing out or adequacy methodologies that are available I have been created over the past twenty years. Finally we're gonna look at a couple states who had review their adequacy themselves through a legislative review process. You know we're really you shear because of the lake view decision back in ninety two but we're gonna start really from two thousand three as we think through the review process but we wanted to talk about just some context starting with what is required by the Supreme Court around this. And so first there's a requirement that. Legislature to financing. That to me is assess evaluate and monitor the entire spectrum of public education. And finally that they know how state revenues are spent in whether true equality in education is being cheap. As we look at the different materials we thought this one section of information was really important for the two thousand seven lake your review. I'm just going to read it and we've got some building that really highlights key components so which is what is especially meaningful to this court is the masters finding that the General Assembly has expressly shall the constitutional compliance in the field of education is an ongoing task. We're in constant study review and adjust. In this court you ACT fifty seven of the second extraordinary session of two thousand three require an annual adequacy review by legislative committees not to one oh eight the second extraordinary session in two thousand three. Aging education the state's first funding priority or the cornerstone for sharing future so you know there's a requirement of continued study and review of what's in place an adjustment where needed so I think that's really important concepts that will talk about as we look at some of these alternatives. We don't know what's going on now or what's happened in the past for Arkansas we think of kind of two main components the first or those evidence based studies the original one oh three and updates in two thousand six and fourteen that looked at first set the matrix and then continue to review the components. And then the other piece is the consistency a goal of work that BLR does producing really detailed on. Ports looking at all aspects of the system including the matrix and non matrix items. Ending the equity of the system so again trying to meet some of those goals that we stated in this light before. You always coming back down to the fact that the legislature defines adequacy it's utilizing all of this work to make adjustments as needed by that definition of adequacy what we'll see is is in the controlled legislature. So as we think about looking at these other methods a couple things we want to just keep in mind the first the current approach using it be with the matrix really allows for be a larger to look at all those components have been really detailed review at a pretty find a level. What is also true there haven't been really what we can that major component changes to the matrix overtime and that the there isn't any other outside context being brought in the law and the evidence based approach. Page is developed over the past twenty years that take a look at the scene we would put them into two buckets by the first bucket is the resource focus bucket. The. It's that used in the state and the professional judgment approach. Both of those approaches allow for a detailed list of actual school and district level resources to be identified that build up to what the cost of education is for state yeah it provides that that detail. The date data driven approach is successful schools in construction do not provide that level of detail where you're really talking about a model and the the personnel and other costs in the model instead what they provide is information on what that people crossing the judgments are based on looking at on the date so there's less detail involved. We're gonna take a look. The approach is in more detail and a little bit of context around the concept of the review. This was a good table to refer back to I'm not gonna walk through everything on here a lot of this information is in the next lines with the first two approaches are those it. Resource driven approach is the second to a data driven approach is. And I think it's you to point out that for the evidence based professional judgment they can look at really kind of all standards so they're not just looking at correct performance levels but all of the requirements of the state schools in cost motion example schools can only look at. Lemons levels that are currently being mass either through group brother actually performance construction has the ability to Two one model what it might take to have higher levels of performance of strap only to those different levels what is the looking only at current level current data in what's happening currently in districts the bottom part of the slide. The fact that evidence based professional judgment in costume chin really provide build a base and still not just once or its successor schools really only provides the base. The base. Funding or foundation level. So the evidence based on prejudice by the less I will be approach details the right side will be Arkansas context. It is clear. The space identified specific resources that are needed to meet the standard. Based on national research on that I don't think resources that are being known to. Subject statistically significant later some statistic really significant improvement for student performance it also looks at some of the whole school reform models. It does rely on in state educators to validate the figures and provide context so it can make adjustments based on state contacts it's been used across the country for for decades Again it allows the examination of the base and student characteristics. When we think about how you know Arkansas and in the review process clearly it's already in place as part at in the matrix so it's part of the current process. It generally does not provide detailed information on the differences in cost base by different districts sizes Richmond school sizes and so that's one his information that's just not provide it has to be brought in in a different way using the evidence base. It's relatively straightforward to update. State wide a new study clearly it takes time and resources and engagement for educators across the state but again it provides explicit resources better easy to review over time. The professional judgment approach actually produces a similar outcome a similar set of resources to be reviewed it's doing the same thing looking at the same standards. It puts the script a little bit on on that the how we can get to the phone resources it begins with similar research information but it relies more heavily on in state educators to build a number of different sized schools and districts utilizing that research information and provide putting it into more context based on the differences in the state. It is good news for you know over twenty years and they provides the ability to have a base foundation for people amount adjustments for stirring characteristics and because you have the multiple school types and district takes some adjustment for district characteristics. It's going to provide a similar level of detail to the evidence based approach will likely provide more information on differences in size and the cost difference is based on the size of the resource differences. What date is is. Left it's there's a lot of engaging educators you're talking fifteen twenty or more panels across the state you're building up from school level resources in the district level resources talking to see photos and talking to District superintendents. So again it's a it's a large scale effort in across those different. Handles you might not have perfect consistency in how they implement resources so as you start to look at smaller sitting there is larger setting they might think a little bit differently about student teacher ratios are they might think a little bit differently about student support. Negative we have kind of the the the sure probably consistency across. If you had multiple models by size that you have when you have a single model to the evidence base. Approaches the first data driven approach. Examines all get only be spending it districts that are outperforming other districts when we talk about how performing we're looking at either absolute performance for growth or a combination of the two. It is readily available performance expenditure data to examine adequacy so it it it there aren't a lot of barriers on the data side. It looks actual expenditures of districts were being identified as performing at high levels. In a place efficiencies greens to that disclose information so you can. Look at all spending for all districts to meet a standard we're gonna take into account if there's any inefficiencies or actually you know extreme efficiencies in that distribution of districts and I sent it to any time. Looks at the base cost. It is a low cost approach that is really easy to implement and it's easy implement on a frequent basis. It does allow the state to look at different levels of performance again you can include for for absolute performance or growth. And you can also say well. The district meet this standard or how many districts meet that standard are there differences in their base expenditures it does not provide that detailed level resource information so you don't know how many teachers are in the building or you won't know the principles things like that. And again it doesn't give us information on that just means you need for at risk for. English learners are special and it is very easy to replicate your two year or every couple of years again because the Jetta so easily available. House bill should approach really takes this a good example schools probably puts on steroids but it's examining the relationships between spending performance in student district demographics and utilizes high levels physical nonsense it depends on a large generally school level D. isn't U. R. state that collects a lot of data ACT eighty E. has a wonderful website where you can pull most of it down you know just straight from the website that. Data issue probably is not a barrier to entry for Arkansas. You can examine different levels of student performance it's gonna use the models to predict what the resource needs are at at different levels of performance in a provides base student characteristic investor characteristic of Johnson's. In that in that context for Arkansas it does require complicate and also is that takes time and resources it allows the state to look at again those different performance levels. Absolute or growth actually performance program. It does not provide detailed request information and do what is right clickable you can do it every couple years the models themselves You know you need somebody who really understands as high level statistics and it's not that you can actually run the exact same model year to year there are some relationships that happen things that happen under the hood that can change the model little bit as you have up to the data at so you do want someone who understands the models and so it will not be perfectly replicated a year to year perhaps and thank you know can be a little bit of a hard to understand everything going on in the regression like this so there's a little bit of under your transparency sometime issues about exactly what type. Two other states we want to look at three states here who have done these reviews over time I think the first thing to mention really important Arkansas is one of the few states that has a process in place to review and sat there the the perimeters of their on school finance system is an adequacy approach to do it many other states perhaps most other states have a you know based funding figure that's more historically based than anything else it might be being updated by inflation of might not there's not a lot of meaning behind the funding system you have pretty explicit needing in Arkansas your well out ahead with that concept compared to other states. So we look at Maryland Mississippi in Wyoming we picked these three because their time lines are very different and often they do this and the processes are very different so give this just in scope on what possible. Maryland is first on the work was done in two thousand two it was the legislature the usable successful schools and professional judgment successful schools they identified these constants exhaust whistle so they would not look and look at those higher performing In their case schools because they had very few districts and is at the basic cost of of that and then the use of the professional judgment process to set the relative meets. The in the passing of the law FOR for their implementation of the new formula they required unused costing out or adequacy study in ten years it took longer to do it it took until twenty fourteen to get the studies the study started and it wasn't till twenty sixteen early twenty seventeen that is finished a capital successful schools and professional judgment but they actually added the evidence based approach also. The formula includes basin weights they put the system in place pretty quickly and then they just the base amount and keep the relative position of the weights in place really since the very beginning. there have been changed other aspects of the overall funding system but those for and he formulas on their their foundation amount they're at risk ET AL in their special lead those forms of state consistent over time for the most part legislature required to adopt any of these results. I've been at this point of the most recent study. Mississippi they implemented the Mississippi adequate education program back in ninety seven. It relies on subtext successful schools to determine the foundation base amount and it does that by looking at the at expenditures instruction in ministration plant means an operations in ancillary support districts based on Speaker is updated for years you also us. There's an inflationary adjustment on that used in the non calculation years. The district spending is examined are identified through by looking at really districts reckon of the average performance level of the state then examines expenditure of those districts. When they look at expenditures in those four categories each of them has its own set of efficiencies greens. These are all a little different in how their applied and we'll get through those know what is true for every efficiency screen districts in that pool who are more than one standard deviation above the median for in each category are excluded as inefficient in districts or balloon two standard deviations from the mean are excluded from being overly efficient are really how they generally think about that is. You're trying to identify the costs that could be up local all districts if you were extraordinarily efficient that might not be something that other districts can accomplish because I can just be something in your district that makes it easier to at a more efficient to have that specific set of resources. There are additional just means I can be made for pay raises or retirement or health and also outside of these four categories. Efficiencies greens just for some background includes teachers per thousand for instruction on excluding the resources for at risk students and some other areas so that it's really again focused on based. Ministration the ratio of administrative staff to non administrative staff which allows a user to have more overall staff or could have more Mr sack more overall so you're not getting beings I just for being in a more have you know highly resource district. Plan means an operations is looking at thousand that expenditures per thousand square feet of building space in the ancillary support combines a couple of the. Student services category personnel and looks at that total personal per thousand students. Wyoming it's probably the state that that is very close to Arkansas in what they're doing similarly there working it was barely push from the core series of court decisions. Starting in ninety five. The system was declared unconstitutional and the state was required to determine the cost of quality of a quality education in funded and then review those cost based actors every five years and then inflate every every two years. The state implemented a cost based resource allocation model and evidence based model developed by pike is a non. It is really a school level model and there's only a little over forty districts in the state and a lot of them are One just a couple schools. Only goes to the school the general use kind of an event traditional evidence based update to every five years to update the model they want to and look at multiple approaches back in eighteen so didn't do an evidence based update but look to professional judgment and suspects successful schools started implementing cost function that didn't really work in a state with that that few districts that the student schools I but in the end have stuck with their evidence based mobile and updating it through the evidence based month. And with that I'll take questions. Well. Representative Allen you're recognized. Thank you thank you Mr chair in your presentation you listed of several different approaches. Which proved which approach has worked in Arkansas. So you at this is Justin Silverstein that you currently use the evidence based and you really use the other evidence based approach since the very beginning eight I think a couple things and you know it it's used it updated at. B. skews me BLR has a strong approach. To review and what's in the formula and what's going on over all the education system so I think it has that kind of a standard and and the expectation of what review looks like over time in the state which it's at some of those linked to the evidence base is exquisite ride. Detail on resources. Okay follow. You're recognized okay did show of research identify the schools that were successful. We did identified that the fifteen schools that were successful. Based on growth and and did that for the case studies I we did not do a full fledged successful school study which would would likely incredible looking at schools are success on growth and also looking at schools that were more successful on absolute performance. Thank you. Absent Dawson you're recognized thank you Mr chair looking at your a successful schools approach presentation if if we were to adopt something different like this first as the evidence based approach that we currently have what would that look like I mean would it be a similar type matrix that you would set up would could we easily move to something like that how would we go about doing that sort of thing. Yes that I think is Adam one of the things that we're we're still really knew going through a bad as we we talk about recommendations in November The switch is something like successful schools is unlikely to get you a resource matrix successful schools or or even cost function identify the base cost and then you'd want to like to ride weeks off that base cost but one of the things that successful schools does not do generally as provided very specific resource matrix and again I think as we think about what it looks like to possibly change that that review methodology the rescue some understanding of what is The store goal. We have been doing it and what has been generally accepted as is just a process and what delete is more aligned with what has to be done right so as you can see other states have you successful schools and use that as their process not related to a court case and all of these approaches are generally accepted have been accepted in someplace by a court is as a way to think about adequacy. But only the professional judgment evidence based would would likely lead to as explicit a set of resources to review whereas successful schools are cost option would provide method that are pretty easy to update consistently but what will be highly unlikely to have that level of detail at the at the personal specifics. For Mr. manager So. I guess if if we were to move to something different like this It obviously would be differ on on the successful schools approach I'm looking at this and does it have a base foundation funding that you said. A starting point I have as and then our different districts allocated different levels of resource based on Outperforming one district over another the performance of different districts. Yes it what what the method does is it actually identifies and a group of districts to examine just their base expenditure and then set eight at a single base for foundation amount for all districts in the state from that mark so it would be very similar to that so the bottom line of the matrix what which provides that. people amount for every district it just is built up by looking at what is currently spent in successful places verses the matrix so it does get to the same place as as far as a base amount. The base amount is the starting point for everything and then then you would add layers on top of that depending on what additional resources are needed to bring other schools that need additional performance enhancements up to the the high performing schools. Level in. Thank you committee. I just say and it's more about the additional resources that would be needed for certain student group. Or other considerations could be you know district characteristics so what is a smaller districts with smaller schools need to get to that same level so the base amount is the state for all schools and then it's targeting was dollars towards certain student groups for senator in types of districts. Much of which you all currently do through you know categorical funding and some other adjustments so again it could be pretty much at a one to one spot that on that basic foundation amount and if they are you can keep all the the pieces wrapped around thank you would want to you know eight overall you one understand those relationships to make sure that that you have the right distribution of funds and and and you're taking into account all those characters. Thank you madam chair up I think it the last points that represent Dotson just brought out and the unit you articulated you responded to I think those were a big part of my concern that FOR the variations of of of districts that we have because of the diversity in our state the in I'm always careful of norms or medians or anything that just takes eight average of versus dealing with. The real evidence of each district I think as you get to November you get to recommendations is my prayer that you will be inclusive of of of real deals of real situations that we can apply and fix which. If properly used at you know utilized by us those things that will last me to the terms of the the variations which make sure we if we use accessible approach that we provide the resources that we identify offers the provide resources for those that are not there to help them truly get their so that that that that was my major point thank you. Send it back. Thank you madam madam chair I'm looking at the. Fifty model and of the. Matrix for you have instructional administration maintenance cost operations and all that so I I am I correct her saying that then they would have sort of like many matrix with each one of these categories. Yeah and again that sale with successful schools in thinking that those two groupings I'm successful school and costs function look at her pupil spending amounts they do not look at the underlying resource And so you don't have to so when we talk about instruction person administration verses and I know person dance Larry what they're looking at is the expenditures in each of those categories of the per pupil level and not how each of the districts gets to those expenditures there has been work done in states like Ireland I think even an environment where we the work is done at the school level which gets you a little bit better information but you still would not have a common set of a common matrix because each school is likely getting to their outcomes differently as far as the personnel distribution so in the end what you have state Mississippi is you have amounts per pupil so let's say that base is going to make up a number five thousand right you have thirty five hundred dollars per pupil in instruction five hundred dollars and administration seven hundred fifty and maintenance operation and two hundred fifteen ancillary that's how they get to the five thousand but they can't tell you that the process just at its base level does not tell you. How many teachers that should be or how many principles that should be that we all know principal should be one principal should always be one or how many assistant principals it just tells you the amount per pupil adjuster to expand in part what this does is it disengages the funding model from really any expectations on how this works when expand it really says here's an amount of money you need to just determine how you want to spend those dollars within the context of things like rules or K. accreditation how you see fit as a district. And so those data driven approach is are are more explicit enacted in the US the funding to the expenditure model where as a professional judgment or evidence based can lend themselves to folks wanting to understand how closely districts or expending dollars compared to how they're being fun. If I buy a so the question then is. Is there any I guess I guess since this is sort of Coming back of the atrix you needed to talk about the instructional and and all that is there is there any data gathered That was shall it looks like it could be a a nice tool to determine because we we do have a lot of different school districts and and Arkansas the had different challenges and it looks like possibly some of these might be a way to at least a show us of where schools are are spending money. Given the we have a lot of diversity of schools in in in Arkansas but also it was say someone that's a similar school or these are these break down said as far spending is concerned purposes of. The L. the show that maybe of school districts alignment that to happen to help them I just I guess to be successful is is is is that correct I mean is this actually a model that brings this data up to this. Is that what you're saying as far spending data. Yeah I think it it is definitely a model as far more explicit on the expenditure side would provide some information on the distribution of expenditure with successful schools you know really targeting that base you you work you know you're not going to look at difference is as much as you're trying to just look at the most successful places however the state to find success but you definitely could build on from that and you're a broader view which which has been done in a couple places on looking at differentials in spending. I think with with any approach and I were matching here you know you want to make sure that you are measuring what that what the resource differentials are based on different you there's two or District characteristics you have a number of those pieces in your funding system we didn't today AT jury view on how those pieces that band identified I did something we will consider as we bring back recommendations. Thank you. Thank you madam chair this is a follow up to eleven cents you mention that in the state of Arkansas we only have fifteen successful schools showing growth and that's not me now the expectation. Will that will these approaches improved performance and school district. So the first thing that I I am sure I said it poorly is Monday morning and I'm very good at saying things poorly special money mornings we identified fifteen schools as part of our case study work there were not just fifteen schools who would have qualified we identified that very top fifteen schools there are a number of other schools who would have met the performance standards we sat. There are more. We did show in our data analysis that there are characteristics of a school's or students that are highly predictive of some poor outcomes than we than anybody would want to see and so with these approaches including the evidence based all have aspects to them that are designed to identify the needs and and ways to adjust for I just what you're talking about these differences in either student or to. Follow up where is the schools located member bill to. I'm the man and you want to I believe yes we had five at least five schools that were located in the. Yes we we selected case study schools was looking for the highest and again as you clear for the performance we were looking at schools that were performing better than expected so kind of that beat the odds model so west and ran a pretty complex. Model and you look at the schools that were performing better than you might expect given their demographics or acquired. So we didn't selected the top elementary middle and high school from five regions in the state of the death of the northeast park west out the southwest and central. Thanks. thank you madam chair and looking at Maryland Mississippi in Wyoming are any of the the. These days performing and a very very high level overall. According to national standards. There there's differences I think across the states I think one of the key aspects to look at with the Mississippi approaches that looks at identifying those districts in the average and so it really is kind of funding average performance average expenditure I don't think Mississippi thank Mississippi is highly regarded for the amount of effort as a state and make sure education funding but its overall performance levels tend to be lower Maryland is that the kind of higher side of performance but I will say they also we're trying to to move their performance up and in Wyoming Cemex data there they they do tend and some nature areas which is the only performance measure across all states to be relatively high but they also they have some student characteristics at that would lend themselves to being a little higher and in some of that performance just really small schools really small settings a relatively homogeneous population. In Arkansas when we look at it I'm trying to remember where we rank nationally all of these things to me a sometimes inject subjective. When we look at the rankings. We are but Mississippi's wars rankings of concern is that right. Senate thank god is not the reason I don't know but I was wondering. Are any of these going to. Or do any of these funding methods lead us to know what is working best for the majority of the It is the success bay healing is that what is showing that it works best with children do we have that. Senator I would say the the evidence basis is the most explicit model trying to tie its resources to what works for students eight and so because it's on the data driven side and and other folks and you guys know you know Larry take as an Allen you know they are they are working overtime to adjust their models they get more evidence. Professional judgment relies on that same information and then provides and tries to then tailor it a little bit more to that the state setting goals by using more educator input from within this state. I would say eight the successful schools and cost function really do you do do not have built into their system anything about what's the right way to do it A instead are really identifying how much is needed to meet performance levels and leaving the what to do much more to either the accountability program of the state and the board the districts themselves and I'm looking at marker Amanda or anyone else if I lately but. Thank you thank you and your permanent and I know you have and what your to that at all Justin but I do think that there's also an aspirational difference between the evidence based and professional judgment approaches and successful schools and that the underlying assumption for both evidence based and professional judgment is that all or nearly all students should be able to perform up to standards based on the funding levels that that they decide or that they generate whereas under successful schools you really know the funding levels are gender will generate money to get you know hopefully all schools up to what your best rules are currently doing so then it becomes a question of whether I you as a legislature and stakeholders feel like your best schools are doing the ultimately the best that if you want to do in your state or whether you have higher aspirations. Thank you. You can turn my my company. That are there any other questions. Thank you very much we appreciate your all of your information today. And I think we'll look forward to seeing you on November the night the night of November. At one thirty. You will see that the nice person. We look forward to seeing your face yes thank you. A week. By. On your desk we have distributed the ACT scores which I think that might be kind of interesting that our profile or state profile on take a look at where we stood as far as ACT scores this last year and obviously realizing that in some instances lots of our kids were not able to take the test because ACT had to close down some of their testing sites across the United States but I think one of the things it's too is interesting is we've had this discussion on college and career this one sheet here kind of looks that has our thinking about as policy makers course I would just like it to be career because everybody has to get a job so how you get there to that job is important but it doesn't always include college but I think this kind of this framework is kind of interesting to look at and think about as we move forward here because I've had these discussions in here during this adequacy thing about what is a career readiness so anyway and then we will be meeting on November the ninth Monday at one thirty we have no meeting on Tuesday November the tenth. So everybody have a wonderful week go vote.