Financing and Resource Issues in High School Reform

A Discussion Group — July 12, 2001

Introduction

The American Youth Policy Forum (AYPF) has been working on policy issues related to high school reform as part of its High Schools of the Millennium (HSM) project, begun in 1999. With funding from the Carnegie Corporation of New York, AYPF is able to continue a series of discussions on a range of topics related to high school reform. The topic of this discussion group was Financing and Resource Issues in High School Reform. A list of participants appears at the end.

Betsy Brand, Co-Director, AYPF, introduced the meeting by saying that while many schools are under-resourced, this discussion should be about more than just the amount of money available. Rather, the discussion should focus on how existing money and resources are used to support student achievement in a standards-based reform environment, to restructure schools to increase learning, and to promote an environment of change and continuous improvement.

A number of topics on financing and resource issues were presented to the group:

1. What are successful strategies used by school districts and schools to align programmatic resources with standards-based reform efforts?

2. Do schools need funding specifically set-aside for reform and change efforts or is it possible to use current funding streams to support school-wide or district-wide reform efforts? Suggest how current funding streams can be used for this purpose.

3. With adolescent literacy such a concern, how do schools and school districts support these efforts given the current structure of discipline-based curriculum and staffing patterns and program-specific funding structures?

4. Should per pupil expenditure dollars follow students to alternative educational programs if they leave the high school? How much flexibility and choice should be built into the system to allow funds to follow students and to what types of programs?

5. How are decisions about funding for high school programs, such as funds for AP courses, remedial courses, Tech Prep, career academies, or athletic activities, made?

6. How are the costs of dual-enrollment programs (between high schools and postsecondary education institutions) managed and who pays?

The group added two issues:

1. Financing for special education at the secondary level.

2. Putting the "secondary" back in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), in terms of funding and support.

The following is a summary of the discussion on several of the topics listed above.

Issue 1. Alignment of Resources with Standards-based Reform.  
What are successful strategies used by school districts and schools to align programmatic resources with standards-based reform efforts?

Comments:

There are short term and long term issues when thinking about how to use existing resources to support standards-based reform. Some short-term examples are the 9th grade initiatives in Texas. The state legislature provided about $400 extra for each 9th grade student in certain schools. This money is used for teacher training, some after-school remediation, and for getting appropriate reading materials to help increase literacy.

Money is needed: for new rigorous instructional materials and time for teachers to go to block scheduling; to support brokers/intermediaries, that have been successful in keeping students in school and engaged; to help schools move students to higher levels of competency in the 9th grade; to restructure high schools, physically, into smaller schools and small learning environment; and to break down high schools to look more like elementary and middle schools, in terms of structure and project-based learning; to use cross-disciplinary teaching; and to provide greater connections with adults.

Money from the School to Work Opportunities Act has been used in Connecticut for new instructional materials for 9th grade students, for teacher planning for block scheduling, and for working with employers.

In the Boston Summer Youth Employment Program, the business community paid for an intensive 8-week reading curriculum.

In Philadelphia, community foundations raised funds to support comprehensive school reform models like the Talent Development model.

Boston Pilot Schools have increased flexibility and control over budget and staffing. They can opt out of district services and contract for them, giving the school greater control over how to use their per pupil allotments.

The Milken Family Foundation has provided a small amount of money that is used for professional development to improve teaching. Funds are used to support a master teacher to teach half time and to coach the other half. The Teacher Advancement Program (funded by Milken) provides career ladders for teachers, so that they can earn more money in a more responsible teaching and leadership position, rather than moving into administration.

The question is how to ensure a goal-driven use of resources.

• In places that have some kind of activity, are we seeing any student improvement? The million-dollar question is which programs are really making a difference.

• How do you replicate schools that are hands-on and motivational, especially when you can't start fresh? It's easier to change when you have smaller schools and a smaller number of schools.

• We have examples of school reform with new schools, such as charters. We need research on how charters use money, even though they are new, not existing schools.

• We need to consider the cost of facilities in light of moving toward small schools or other structures, e.g. schools within schools or smaller structures.

• One strategy to get more money to needy schools is to use a weighted per pupil expenditure (PPE), as Seattle and Houston school districts are doing. Funds are weighted on the number of students living in poverty, that are limited English proficient, with disabilities, and that participate in gifted and talented or technical education programs. Houston is also giving schools their allotment based on actual teacher salaries, as opposed to an average teacher salary. By linking the weighted per pupil expenditure and actual cost of teacher salaries, more funds can be directed to schools with greater needs. Schools can then determine the best mix of teachers and amount to allot for their teaching staff. Strong leadership is needed to push through these changes as well as to allow principals to control their budget and make hiring decisions.

• Many participants expressed the belief that we know what a good school should look like, but the difficulty is in changing the culture of the school. Participants suggested that funds are needed to hire someone who can lead them through the structural and cultural change process and provide capacity building. We need to leverage change, and not throw money at it, one participant said. Another participant said if you don't provide a concrete NEW model for schools and give them a block of money to restructure, they will reinvent the past. If you just throw money at traditional schools without strong, focused leadership, things will not change.

• You need someone to help lead you through this process. The model, First Things First, is all about scaling up, as it provides a district-wide reform model.

• One participant described the Minority Achievement Network, a group of schools that focus on changing the culture of achievement and expectations districtwide. The Network deals with race and equity issues and by using a research base, it involves teachers in trying out research and keeping data on the performance of all students. This does not require large amounts of new money but a focus on data and outcomes.

• In summary, participants felt that given the current resource structure, change is possible if you have strong, flexible, creative leadership; models and guidelines to help teachers and staff change; and funding to support the process of changing the culture.

Issues 2 and 3 will be discussed in fall 2001 (see Next Steps).

Issue 4. Per Pupil Expenditure (PPE) Following Students  
Should per pupil expenditure dollars follow students to alternative educational programs if they leave the high school? How much flexibility and choice should be built into the system to allow funds to follow students and to what types of programs?

Comments:

• The group agreed that schools often receive money for students who have left school.

• In Boston, the per pupil expenditure follows students if they leave their high school to attend a public alternative education program. If the student ends up receiving a high school diploma, the original school can count that student so it lessens the school's dropout rate. High schools in Boston keep some of the PPE money and pass some of it on to the alternative education program the student attends. 

• Some principals consider the PPE dollars following students as a threat, because it removes resources from the schools, especially in financially strapped school systems. There are other cases in which schools are disadvantaged by PPE funds following students. Occasionally, after a student has left to go to another school (e.g. charter or alternative) and the funding has been transferred, the student returns, because he/she was not successful in that environment or wants to return to the original high school. The high school then has to take the student back and also has to count the student's test scores in its aggregate count. However, the school does not get any additional money for the student, because it was already sent to the charter or alternative school. Several participants suggested that tracking students more frequently and using that information to allot the PPE funds on a more frequent basis might solve this problem. A uniform student ID is one way to track students so funds can be allotted on a more regular basis.

• A number of participants expressed the concern that if students drop out or leave school as a result of high stakes tests, funding of alternative education is going to become a greater issue and the PPE will be more sought after.

• PPE funds are determined on a state-by-state basis, so policies are different in every area. The amount of money provided by the state versus the local share can also make a difference in how much PPE funding is available to schools.

• One participant cautioned that we need to be careful of making it easy for students to transfer, because every time you set up an alternative to the main system, it relieves the burden from high schools. But others said if PPE funds follow students to the alternative system, that is a competitive threat and motivation for schools to try to keep students.

• One participant said there is a lot we do not understand about how and why alternative education systems exist. We need a survey to gather information on what is happening and to look at what state laws say about alternative education. There are differing philosophies about alternative education, ranging from increased choice to helping students succeed in a variety of learning environments. Some states set goals of getting students back in the main system, some have policies sending some disruptive students to vocational-technical schools. Another issue relates to the age of the students that are allowed to transfer. Some states limit funds to students under 21 and over 18. Finally, what are the policies with regard to disabled students. 

• Are there transportation costs for moving students around that need to be taken into account if the system allows more student transfers? Who pays for that? 

• The consensus of the group was that money should be used to support learning for a student wherever it occurs in the community. A system that provides a wide menu of learning options was described. If school districts develop such systems, equity must be an underlying principle so that all students have access to high quality opportunities, rather than being tracked to certain options (e.g. low level vocational schools). Home schooling, virtual high schools, charter schools, and quality vocational technical programs should be considered as part of the alternative education system. Students need to have good counseling and guidance systems to provide them information on community-wide learning options.

Issue 5. How are Funding Decisions Made?

• How are decisions about funding for high school programs, such as funds for AP courses, remedial courses, Tech Prep, career academies, or athletic activities, made? Comments:

• Teachers are key. One strong, committed teacher can make something happen at his/her school. Intermediary organizations and partnerships can be successful in directing funds and resources to certain programs (e.g. school-to-work and career preparation programs supported by employer intermediary organizations).

• Engaging in community-wide discussions to gain support for an idea or program can be effective. Sometimes, however, opening up the budget process to community scrutiny may not work because the community may have a vested interest in keeping the status quo.

• Decisions are based on the values of the school district and the community. Change must be in the context of a set of community values. For example, you can't go after athletics if that is a major part of the community and what is important to the community.

• One participant said the community needs to push for change, especially based on accountability. The 36,000 principals across the U.S are just average people making the best decisions they know how. Having community input and pressing for data and accountability can change how resources are used. It is important to disaggregate data so you can see the inputs and the outcomes for students. Often a focus on data will lead to changes in the way resources are used (e.g. Baldrige In Education Initiative).

Issue 6. Dual Enrollment (Dual Credit/Concurrent enrollment) 
How are the costs of dual-enrollment programs (between high schools and postsecondary education institutions) managed and who pays?

Comments:

• One participant began with some fundamental questions: Why do we even want dual enrollment, what does it achieve? What is the goal - to shorten the time students are in high school, to keep students engaged and in high school, or help them adjust to postsecondary education?

• In the District of Columbia, a program called High Skip provides funds for students to take courses at local universities. About 20 students from each high school are involved in this dual enrollment program. Students must meet the same entrance criteria as any college student and must have equivalent SAT scores. As a rule, students who participant in this program are exceptional students. When the District of Columbia was looking at dual enrollment programs, it decided it wanted a program for strong students. District of Columbia officials studied the middle college high school model, but determined it was designed for at-risk students, as a way to keep them from leaving high school, and they were more interested in a program for higher achieving students.

• In Massachusetts, students must physically be on a university or college campus to be eligible for dual enrollment credit and funding.

• The Diploma Plus model, developed by the Commonwealth Corporation in Boston, provides an extra year of study during which older students who are working on a GED take courses at a community college. The goal of the program is to help students become acclimated to college and continue their studies after receipt of a GED. Massachusetts provides partial funding for Diploma Plus students as a separate line item, as well as funding for a regular dual enrollment program.

• Concurrent enrollment is only as useful as the principal, counselors, and teachers make it so, said one participant.

• There was also discussion of Advanced Placement (AP) courses. Many more students are now taking AP courses, leading some colleges to believe that they are becoming less valuable. Also, with more students taking AP credits, it could become a financial issue for colleges and universities.

Note: A general question on financing for and prevalence of dual enrollment was posed by AYPF to several listserves: The National Tech Prep Network managed by CORD, the High School Forum listserve managed by the Institute for Educational Leadership, and the School to Work listserve managed by the School to Work Learning Center. Responses to this question continue to arrive. They are being summarized and will be shared electronically with the listserves and incorporated in the final report of this project.

Next Steps

The group was not able to address all of the issues on the list and agreed to meet again. A second meeting will be scheduled in the fall of 2001. In addition, the National Association of Secondary School Principals offered to hold a similar meeting with a small group of principals, to gather their views. This meeting has been scheduled for late October, 2001. After all of the meetings have been held, a summary document will be prepared and disseminated.

Please feel free to send any thoughts or comments on these topics or the summary to Betsy Brand, AYPF, bbrand@aypf.org or call 202-775-9731.

American Youth Policy Forum   1836 Jefferson Place NW,  Washington DC 20036
Telephone 202-775-9731      |      Fax 202-775-9733      |     Email aypf@aypf.org