Download to read offline
Uploaded byEducation Resource Strategies
Access to a Sound Basic Education
The document discusses challenges facing the North Carolina K-12 education system, including relatively low per-pupil funding, declining teacher salaries, high teacher turnover rates, and a generally uncompetitive environment for teachers. It notes North Carolina ranks among the lowest funded states nationally and has seen a 10% decline in real per-pupil funding over time, more than double the national average. The document provides national and state-level data on factors like funding, staffing, salaries, and turnover to establish context and illustrate areas in need of improvement.
More Related Content
Similar to Access to a Sound Basic Education
More from Education Resource Strategies
Access to a Sound Basic Education
- 1. © Education ResourceStrategies, Inc., 2018 NC Commission on Access to a Sound Basic Education February 20, 2018
- 2. ERS is anational nonprofit that partners with district, school and state leaders to transform how they use resources (people, time, and money) so that every school prepares every child for tomorrow, no matter their race or income. Every School. Every Child. Ready for Tomorrow. 1
- 3. We believe…. ▪ Allstudentsdeserve a great education tailored to their needs. ▪ One-school-at-a-time reform is not enough; we must redesign school systems to create the conditions for all schools to succeed. ▪ It’s not just about how much you have, but how well you use it: districts can restructuretheir resources to meet their strategicgoals and schools’ uniqueneeds. 2
- 4. ▪ What doesa state funding system need to accomplish? ▪ Understanding “adequacy” ▪ What would it mean to allocate resources equitably? ▪ How might a state system support excellence and efficiency? 3 Agenda
- 5. Funding systems canenable high performance 4 Equity Adequacy Excellence Efficiency
- 6. 5 NOTE: Expenditures showninclude instruction, support services, food services, and enterprise operations, and exclude capital outlay and interest on debt. Source: ERS analysis using datafrom NCES Table 236.55.Totaland current expendituresper pupil in publicelementaryand secondary schools: Selected years, 1919-20through2013-14; NCES Table 236.10. Summary of expendituresforpublic elementary and secondary educationand otherrelatedprograms, by purpose: Selected years, 1919-20 through2013-14; Bureau of Economic Analysis, Table 3.1 Government Current Receipts and Expenditures 1929-2016; NCES Table 106.70. Gross domestic product price index, Consumer Price Index, educationprice indexes, and federal budgetcomposite deflator: Selected years, 1919 through 2014;Bureau of Economic Analysis, Current-Dollar and "Real" Gross Domestic Product1929-2016 0% 10% 15% 25% $0 $4,000 5% $2,000 $6,000 $8,000 $12,000 20% $10,000 $14,000 1919-20 1921-22 1923-24 1925-26 1927-28 1929-30 1932-33 1934-35 1936-37 1938-39 1940-41 1942-43 1944-45 1946-47 1948-49 1950-51 1952-53 1955-56 1956-67 1958-59 1960-61 1962-63 1964-65 1966-67 1968-69 1970-71 1972-73 1974-75 1976-77 1978-79 1980-81 1982-83 1984-85 1986-87 1988-89 1990-91 1992-93 1994-95 1996-97 1998-99 2000-01 2002-03 2004-05 2006-07 2008-09 2010-11 2012-13 ---Not PerPupilExpendituresin2016-17Dollars Real Inflation-Adjusted National Public K-12 Expenditures, and as compared to % of GDP and % of current public expenditures (1920-2014) K-12 dollar per pupil expenditures K-12 spending as % total public expenditures K-12 spending as % GDP Just since 1970, real inflation-adjusted per-pupil funding increased 220% National Context Real spendingon educationhas increased sharply over the last 50 years (until the great recession), fueled mostly by growthin the economy
- 7. 6 7.4 10.2 10.9 12.1 12.5 12.7 4.3 5.6 6.4 6.9 8.0 8.2 $55K $49K $59K$60K $61K $59K $0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 $70,000 $80,000 $90,000 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2015 Averageteachersalaryin2016-17dollars StafforTeachersper100students Staff per 100 students and Teacher per 100 students over time, compared to changes in teacher salary Staff members per 100 students Teachers per 100 students Average teacher salary $100,000 Pupil to staff ratio 13.6 9.8 9.2 8.3 8.0 7.9 Pupil to teacher ratio 22.3 18.7 17.2 16.0 16.0 16.1 Since 1970, staff per pupil have increased72%, and teachers per pupil have increased 88%, yet real inflation-adjusted teacher salaries have only increased7% National Context
- 8. 6 This means thatwhile teacher pay has kept pace with inflation, it has not kept pace with comparable jobs National Context -8.5% -7.6% -8.8% -10.2% -13.4% -12.1% -4.0% -18% -14% -16% -12% -10% -8% -6% -4% 0% -2% 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 -17.0% 2014 Source: Economic Policy Institute, “The Teacher Pay Gap is Wider Than Ever”, 2016 Note: From thereport: “Figure compares weekly wages. Regression-adjusted estimates include controls for age (quartic), education, race/ethnicity, geographical region, marital status, and genderfor thepooled sample. Data are for workers age 18–64 with positive wages (excluding self-employed workers). Non-imputed data are not available for 1994 and 1995; data points for these years have been extrapolated and are represented by dotted lines.” Wage Gap between Public School Teachers and Similar Workers Accounts for hours worked and other factors
- 9. 8 16% 26% 26% 15% 12% 5% 36% 31% 17% 11% 4% 1% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Distribution ofTeacher Aptitude Based on Mean College SATScores 1963 2000 As of 2010, only 24% of U.S. teachers came from the top third of their college graduating classes, only 14% in poor communities. In some countries, 100% of teachers come from the top third. Lowest 2 3 4 5 Highest National Context The aptitude of new teachers has also declined in lock- step with this growing wage gap Source: Hoxby, Caroline, M., and Andrew Leigh. 2004."Pulled Away or Pushed Out?Explaining theDecline of Teacher Aptitude in theUnitedStates." American Economic Review,94(2): 236-240; Loeb, S., & Beteille,T. (2009) Did You Know?
- 10. The resulting teachershortages significantly impact student performance ▪ Reported increasesin: ▪ Unfilled vacancies ▪ Emergency credentialed teachers ▪ Shortage of applicants even in critical (easy to staff) subject areas ▪ Teachers teaching out of subject ▪ Schools and districts are not set up to handle the growing influx of untrained adults who are being asked to enter classrooms, sometimes with little advance training at all 9 National Context
- 11. Nationally,North Carolina isamong the lowest- funded states 9 $19.6K $0 $20,000 $25,000 Uta h Arizona Idaho Nevada Texas NorthCarolina California Georgia Colorado Tennessee Oklahoma Florida Washington Mississippi Virginia Alabama Indiana Kentucky SouthCarolina NewMexico Orego nMichigan Missouri Minnesota Arkansas SouthDakota Ohi o Wisconsin Kansas Louisiana Iowa Illinois Hawaii Maryland WestVirginia Delaware Nebraska Pennsylvania Massachusetts Montana NorthDakota RhodeIsland NewHampshire Maine NewJersey Connecticut NewYork Alaska Wyoming Vermont Total K12 Per Pupil Expenditure, 2013-14 (adjusted for geography) $15,000 National median= $11K $10,000 $8.1K $6.5K $5,000 Source: NCES; per pupil expenditures adjusted using CWI; ERS analysis
- 12. Recently, real inflation-adjustedper-pupil funding has declined by 10%, 2X more than nationwide 9 -10% -10% -15% -20% -19% -5% Indiana Idaho Arizona Nevada Florida Georgia NorthCarolina Arkansas Wisconsin Nebraska Illinois SouthDakota Wyoming Uta hNew Mexico Colorado Mississippi Virginia Texas Hawaii Maryland Oklahoma Alabama Missouri Louisiana Michigan Maine Kentucky WestVirginia Montana Kansa s Ohi oDelaware SouthCarolina Washington Tennessee Minnesota California Vermont NewYork NewJersey RhodeIsland Massachusetts Pennsylvania NorthDakota Oregon Iow aNew Hampshire Connecticut Alaska Percent change in real inflation-adjusted dollar per pupil revenue 2009-10 to 2013-14 10% 6% 5% 0% National median = -5% Source: NCES, Common Core of Data; Bureau of Labor Statistics; ERS analysis
- 13. 18% 12Source:NCES -5% -10% -15% -20% -18% 0% 15% 10% 5% 20% Arizon aAlaska Colorado Indiana Virginia Florida Kansas Wisconsin NorthCarolina Michigan Washington Mississippi Missouri Minnesota Delaware Connecticut SouthCarolina Hawai i Tennessee Ohi oMaryland RhodeIsland Nevad a Main e Illinoi s Texas Idaho New Mexico California Louisiana Georgia NewJersey Uta hOklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Kentuck ySouth DakotaNew York Alabama Nebraska WestVirginia NewHampshire Vermont Iow aMontana Wyoming Arkansas NorthDakota Massachusetts Percent changein inflation-adjusted teacher salaries, 1989-90 – 2015-16 Inflation-adjusted teacher salaries have declined 8% in the last three decades National median= 0%
- 14. $45K $65K $43K $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $0 $50,000 $70,000 Virginia Arizon a Uta hWashington NorthCarolina Mississippi Colorado Texas Missouri Tennessee Florida Oklahoma NewMexico SouthCarolina Louisiana WestVirginia Georgia SouthDakota Idah o Alabama Indiana Nevada Wisconsin Delaware Kansas Kentucky Arkansas Minnesota Ohio Illinois Maine Hawaii Nebraska NewJersey Maryland NorthDakota NewHampshire Iowa Michigan Connecticut RhodeIsland Oregon California Pennsylvania Montana Vermont NewYork Massachusetts Alask a Wyoming Average Teacher Salary2015-16, Adjusted for Geography After adjusting for differences in geography, NC has the 5th lowest average teacher salary in the nation $60,000 National median= $53K 13Source: NCES; NCES Comparable Wage Index; ERS analysis
- 15. 14 NC teachers earnabout 67% of what similarly educated non- teachers in the state earn, even after controlling for hours worked per week andyear 94 100 Arizon aVirginia Tennessee NorthCarolina Oklahoma Colorado Georgia Missouri SouthDakota Massachusetts Texas Washington Indian aKansas NorthDakota Alabam a Connecticut Kentucky Minnesota Utah Idah o Mississippi Florida Illinois NewHampshire SouthCarolina Arkansas Montana California Delaware Louisiana Maryland Ohi oOregon Vermont NewJersey Wisconsin Hawai iNebraska WestVirginia Michigan NewMexico RhodeIsland Pennsylvania Maine NewYork Nevada Alaska Iowa Wyoming Wage Competitiveness Ratio(2012) 90 80 National median= 73 70 62 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 The wage competitivenessratio controls for age, education level, hours worked per week, and hours worked per year Source: “A coming crisis in teaching? Teacher supply, demand, and shortages in the U.S.”, Learning Policy Institute 2016
- 16. 15 The attractiveness ofthe teacher profession (pay and working conditions) is particularly low in North Carolina 44.6 68.1 40 37.7 30 20 10 0 50 70 Arizona Hawaii SouthCarolina Mississippi Florida Louisiana NorthCarolina NewMexico Montana Oklahoma Maine SouthDakota WestVirginia TennesseeNew Hampshire Alabama Arkansas Colorado Kansas Maryland Nebraska Alaska Idaho Vermont Georgia Virginia Delaware Nevada Washington Wisconsin Texas California Iowa Kentucky Missouri Indiana NorthDakota RhodeIsland Michigan Utah Oregon Ohio Wyoming Massachusetts Minnesota Pennsylvania Connecticut Illinois NewJersey NewYork State Total Scores for Opportunity & Competition and Academic and Work Environment (WalletHub) Source: WalletHub 2017 60 National median = 54.0 States were evaluated on 21 metrics including starting salary, income growth potential, average teacher pension, public schoolenrollment growth, pupil-teacher ratios, and turnover
- 17. 7% 17% 24% 5% 0% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% RhodeIsland Utah WestVirginia NewJersey Pennsylvania Illinois NewHampshire Washington Vermont Maine Nebraska Wyoming California Connecticut NewYork Maryland OregonSouth Dakota Michigan Georgia Ohio Idaho Tennessee Iowa Massachusetts Arkansas Alabama Missouri Florida NorthDakota Virginia Colorado Kansas Indiana Kentucky Minnesota Wisconsin Alaska SouthCarolina Delaware Mississippi NorthCarolina Oklahoma Montana Nevada Hawaii Texas Louisiana NewMexico Arizona Rate of TeacherTurnover(Movers & Leavers) 2013 16 NC has higher than median teacher turnover at 17% per year Source: “A coming crisis in teaching?Teacher supply, demand, and shortagesin the U.S.,” Learning Policy Institute2016;“Finding and Keeping Educators forArizona’s Classrooms,” Morrison InstituteforPublic Policy 2017. National median = 14%
- 18. 16 While spending levelsdon't always predict outcomes, at the lowest levels, they drastically limit possibility $19.6K $0 $20,000 $25,000 Uta h Arizona Idaho Nevada Texas NorthCarolina California Georgia Colorado Tennessee Oklahoma Florida Washington Mississippi Virginia Alabama Indiana Kentucky SouthCarolina NewMexico Orego nMichigan Missouri Minnesota Arkansas SouthDakota Ohi o Wisconsin Kansas Louisiana Iowa Illinois Hawaii Maryland WestVirginia Delaware Nebraska Pennsylvania Massachusetts Montana NorthDakota RhodeIsland NewHampshire Maine NewJersey Connecticut NewYork Alaska Wyoming Vermont Total K12 Per Pupil Expenditure, 2013-14 (adjusted for geography) $15,000 National median= $11K $10,000 $8.1K $6.5K $5,000 Source: NCES; per pupil expenditures adjusted using CWI; ERS analysis
- 19. ▪ What doesa state funding system needto accomplish? ▪ Understanding “adequacy” 18 ▪ What would it mean to allocate resourcesequitably? ▪ How might a state system supportexcellence and efficiency? Agenda
- 20. Unfortunately, we knowthat the concentration of poverty predicts outcomes in most cases Data on school average proficiency from 4 large districts R² = 0.74 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% R² = 0.81 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% R² = 0.72 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% R² = 0.77 19 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% A B C D ELAProficiency15-16 % FRL
- 21. School level concentrationof poverty lowers performance for ALL students 89 83 82 74 56 67 63 62 56 40 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0-19% 80-100% PercentofStudentsRatedProficient 20-39% 40-59% 60-79% Percent of Poverty Students in School Student Performance vs. School Level Concentration ofPoverty Non-Economically DisadvantagedStudent Economically DisadvantagedStudent 20Source: ERS Analysis of 8 largedistricts across 8 states
- 22. ..And NC hasa larger gap between low- and high- funded districts than most states -5% 22% -25% -20% -19% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% -5% -10% -15% Illinois NewYork Pennsylvania Texas Maryland MichiganNorth Carolina Iowa Montana Missouri Idaho RhodeIsland Wyoming Maine Nebraska NewHampshire Alabama Arizona Virginia Colorado Kansas SouthCarolina Vermont NorthDakota NewMexico Florida Arkansas Connecticut Washington Mississippi WestVirginia Oregon Wisconsin Utah Oklahoma Georgia NewJersey Louisiana Massachusetts California Kentucky Indiana Tennessee Delaware SouthDakota Minnesota Ohio %DifferenceinFundingBetweenHighest-and Lowest-PovertyDistricts EducationTrust Funding Gap, Unadjusted for Need 21
- 23. Early Learning & Early Intervention Teaching Excellence School Funding Dimensionsof resource equity School Leadership Instructional Time: Length of Day/ Year Personalized Time & Attention Social & Emotional Supports Academic Rigor: Curriculum, Instruction, & Course-taking Diverse & Inclusive Schools Support for Parental Engagement 22DevelopedbyERS inpartnershipwithChiefsfor Change
- 24. ▪ What doesa state funding system needto accomplish? ▪ Understanding “adequacy” ▪ What would it mean to allocate resourcesequitably? 23 ▪ How might a state system supportexcellence and efficiency? Agenda
- 25. Organizing for highperformance means making big shifts from traditional ways of organizing Design Essential From: To: Teacher Collaboration Teaching as anindividual enterprise. Teamsof teachers whowork together to execute a collective vision for excellent instruction, and their own professional improvement. A“one-size-fits-all” teaching job. Roles and assignments that matcheach individual’s unique skills and expertise to neededroles. Personalized Time & Attention Standardized class sizesin “one-teacherclassrooms.” Groups of teachers and students that vary across subjects, activities and students. Rigid time allocations. Flexible schedules that allow timeto vary with needs ofstudents. WholeChild Investments in culture and social-emotional support that remove resourcesfrom coreinstruction. Investments that are embedded within and reinforce the school’s core instructional work. 24
- 26. And is theresult of transformational changes in how people, time, and moneyare used 24 Design Essential Examples of TransformationalResource Changes Teacher Collaboration ✓ 90 min+ weekly for shared-content teacher teams to collaborate ✓ 100% of teams facilitated by an instructionalexpert ✓ Coaching ratios of 8-12 teachers per full-time instructional expert Personalized Time & Attention ✓ Struggling students receive 50% more time in target areas than students who are proficient ✓ Targeted student groups are adjusted more than 4x/yr based on student progress ✓ Teacher load in high-priority classes is fewer than 50 students WholeChild ✓ Regular time exists in student schedules to deliver an SEL curriculum that is developmentally appropriate ✓ Classroom teachers and school-based SEL staff meet regularly to review student data and action-plan
- 27. ▪ Design newteacher and principalcompensation structures that attract and keep the most effective ▪ Shift staffing resources to highest-prioritysubjects ▪ Enable more flexible roles in schools that fit today's work world ▪ Explore innovative ways of delivering instruction through technology and outside partners ▪ Extend and vary instructionaltime 26 Supporting and enabling higher-performing school designs requires funding flexibility in order to:
- 28. Funding systems canenable high performance 4 Equity Adequacy Excellence Efficiency While NC must address adequacy, funding reform must also ensure that new dollars do not flow into legacy staffing and compensation structures that no longer work for students or teachers.