Introduction

An adequacy study is a publicly reported effort by special interest groups, state officials, and independent researchers to use an empirical methodology to evaluate the costs of offering an adequate public education at the elementary and secondary level. The major categories of adequacy studies include average expenditure, resource cost, and statistical modeling. The types of adequacy analyses include professional judgment model, evidence-based professional judgment model, modified successful schools model, production function model, cost function model, and successful schools model

Economic Cost Function Model

The economic models, like total cost function, average cost function, and production function, apply in measuring economic of scale and, consequently, improve the efficiencies. An educational cost function model utilizes statistical techniques to gauge the systematic relations between educational outcomes and actual expenditures. During this process, input prices and technological factors such as the size of school and the characteristics of students are taken into account. In an agency or a firm, the cost function model shows the relation between the cost, output, and input prices. The short-run cost function can model the relation between the costs, outputs, prices of different inputs, and level of quasi-fixed or fixed inputs (Gronberg, Jansen, & Taylor, 2017).

Garms and Smith (1970) developed the Economic Cost Function model with aim of improving the horizontal equity. The model utilizes statistics to determine the adequacy of education. With the model, the performances of students are treated as independent variables while spending is considered dependent variable. Regression analyses are then utilized to determine performance level to establish the level of funding that is link to adequate performance of students. The changes in students’ performances are determined by changing the funding level. The adequate level is determined by looking at the changes in the achievement of students for an increase in a dollar. The necessary funding level is determined after the targeted performance level is determined.

In the field of education, the Economic cost function model has helped in comparing the actual expenditure and education outcomes. For instance, the Texas cost function model helped to determine education outcomes regarding the quality and quantity of school districts by combining input factor such as teachers, who are hired with environmental input factors like student skills, which are not purchased. The researchers found out that the cost of achieving an average of 55percent passing in both reading and math was 6,483 US dollars on average (Gronberg et al., 2017).

The Economic Cost Function model has some limitations. The model does not suggest activities that are important for the improvement of the performance of students. Furthermore, the model is only useful for average schools with average students. The Economic Cost Function model does not take into account the unique needs of urban and low-income students (Banicki & Murphy, 2012).

Successful Schools Model

Successful schools and cost function analyze related costs and performance outcomes. The two methods help to evaluate directly the costs linked with schools and districts, which achieve particular educational outcomes. However, the two methods differ in that under the cost function model, the levels of spending differ for districts with different characteristics and serve various student populations studied in addition to the level of the current spending linked with a specific set of outcomes. Contrarily, the modified successful schools analysis involves the evaluation of the outcome of students and the expenditures needed to achieve the outcomes. Furthermore, it involves an analysis of how schools and districts organize their resources (Voight, Austin, Hanson, 2013).

The Successful Schools Model is also known as Generalization for Cost Model. The model was titled the Successful Schools after it was adopted in Illinois. This model is based on the assumption that schools that are performing as expected are those spending sufficient funds. With this view, schools that are meeting the set performance targets are identified then efficiency is determined by considering property values and teacher to student ration. The success can be measured based on this model by taking into account performance on standardized tests, attendance rate, dropout rate, and graduation rate (Banicki & Murphy, 2012).

The adequate level of funding is established with the Successful Schools Model by first identifying schools meeting the set performance target and other efficient measures. A group of these schools is then analyzed to establish the mean spending for every student. The adequate level of spending is afterward determined by establishing the average spending of the successful schools (Taylor, Baker, & Vedlitz, 2005).

The main limitation to the model is its failure to look at the improvement techniques of the successful schools. The model only relies on effectiveness in the use of limited resources. For this reason, schools that are usually used are those with high academic achievement and low expenditure per student. This affect the true nature of results as the schools in a jurisdiction could have different characteristics (Downes & Stiefel, 2008).

 

 

                                                      Professional Judgment Model

Professional judgment model helps to determine resources needed to provide particular educational programs regardless of the desired outcomes. The model often applies in analyzing the types of performance outcomes that should arise after providing certain inputs. As such, specific characteristics of a region and the accountability systems are taken into account. The selection of resources centers on curricular standards established by boards of education or legislatures with the expectations that certain curricular offerings will lead to expected performance results.

Under the Professional Judgment model, educational experts are used to determine resources that are needed when offering adequate education. In addition to the expertise of the educational experts, the identification of resources is also based on knowledge about efficient educational strategies. After the resources have been identified, they are then analyzed then the cost of suggested resources is determined and utilized to establish the adequate funding (Downes & Stiefel, 2008).

In 2006, the state of Rhode Island requested R.C. Wood and Associates to create a permanent education foundation aid formula for the state. The firm used four education finance models to determine the adequate target expenditure. The professional judgment analysis was done with a survey of every building principal and several focus group meetings in the state thus establishing nine diverse prototype schools. The prototypes reflected medium, small, and large, middle, elementary, and high schools. The firm used the model to estimate that the insufficient progress students required an additional 51.3 million US dollars for extended educational opportunities to achieve adequacy targets (R.C. Wood & Associates, 2006). The firm further proposed a cost of .

Due to the use of experts, the Professional Judgment model is limited by the possibility that recommendations made are not supported by facts. This is because research practices are not relied upon. It is thus very possible that research evidences will not support the recommendations made by the education experts (Banicki & Murphy, 2012).

Evidence-Based Adequacy Model

The Evidence-Based model or the Effective School Wide Program model focuses on funding recommended especially due to particular intervention as well as school reform research. Evidence-based analyses are resource-oriented, similar to professional judgment analyses. Similar to professional judgment analyses, they are not influenced directly by outcome data. The evidence-based adequacy model of school funding is a reform approach utilized to establish funding levels based on the local educational needs. Allan Odden of the Wisconsin Center for Education Research at the University of Wisconsin developed this adequacy model. When using this model, the research base activities essential to educate students and the resources needed for the activities are identified for a prototypical school. Costs are then assigned to resources and practices. The costs assigned to the prototypical school help to establish the adequate funding level for a specific institution. The model is important because it reduces the control of school funding at the local level by setting research-based practices at the school level. Nonetheless, this funding model can coordinate reform efforts in schools within a state or nation (Banicki & Murphy, 2014).

Commonalities of the Models

The models discussed above differ greatly but all are used in the identification of the costs for providing adequate education. As such, it is important to make similar predictions about the costs utilized. Due to their similarity, informed professionals would prescribe the same measures when advising districts on how to meet particular performance goals as economists utilizing an educational production function. All the models have also been used after court decisions concerning educational funding systems in different states (Brimley, Verstegen, & Garfield, 2012)

Differences in estimates will emerge when the factors are unequal. The level of information use in the analysis offers insight on the possible deviations in cost estimates. First, student outcomes are required by all the performance-oriented methods for calculation of costs. However, the evidence-based and professional judgment approaches do not require the measure of student outcomes. Nonetheless, researchers using the professional judgment analysis might request professionals to have a particular goal when making judgments. Additionally, the researchers can assess and share information about the current performance of schools and school districts.  Researchers using the evidence-based model assert that reform strategies, which have been used successfully in other schools, can produce the desired results in the school. Therefore, researchers using this approach do not require direct measure of results in the school, school district, or state in question.

All the models except the successful school model require information about the input prices, especially educator wages. This kind of information mostly represents variations in price outside the control of the school district. It can be difficult to isolate uncontrollable differences in prices for adequacy studies. Also, all models except the successful school and cost function analyses need information on input quantities; instead, these approaches utilize the total expenditure data. However, the modified successful school model can utilize information on total expenditures and input quantities. Therefore, the models do not require much detailed financial information as compared to other

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Augenblick, J., Paliach, R.M., & Associates (2006). Estimating the Cost of an adequate education in Nevada.  Denver, CO: Author.

Brimley, V., Verstegen, D.A., & Garfield, R.R. (2012). Financing education in a climate of change (11th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Banicki, G.J. & Murphy, G. (2014). Evidence-Based Adequacy Model for School Funding: Success Rates in Illinois Schools. Journal of Modern Education Review, Vol.4 (8), pp. 587-597.

Calderon, M., Slavin, R., & Sanchez, M. (2011). Effective Instruction for English Learners. The Future of Children, Vol. 21(1), pp. 103-127.

Conger, D. (2008). Testing, Time Limits, and English Learners: Does Age of School Entry Affect How Quickly Student Can Learn English? Paper presented at the 2008 Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association, March.

Downes, T., & Stiefel, L. ( 2008). Measuring equity and adequacy in school finance. In H. F. Ladd & E. B. Fiske (Eds.), Handbook of research in education finance and policy (pp. 222-237). New York: Routledge.

Gandara, P., & Rumberger, R.W. (2008). Defining an adequate education for English learner. Education Finance and Policy, Vol. 3(1), pp. 130-148.

Gamoran, A., & Milesi, C. (2003). Quality of schooling and educational inequality Full-day kindergarten in the USA. Paper presents at the meetings of the Research committee on social stratification, International sociological Association, March, Tokyo.

Gibbs, C.R. (2014). Working Paper: Experimental Evidence on Early Intervention: The Impact of Full-day Kindergarten. EdPolicyWors Working Paper Series, No.34.

Gronberg, T.J., Jansen, D.W., & Taylor, L.L. (January 01, 2017). Are Charters the Best Alternative? A Cost Frontier Analysis of Alternative Education Campuses in Texas. Southern Economic Journal, 83, 3, 721-743.

Goetz, M., Griffith, M., Odden, A., Picus, L.O., Aportela, A., & Williams, A. (2014). Adequacy for Excellence in Kentucky: Report 2(of 2). Picus Odden & Associates.

Garms, W. I., & Smith, M. C. (July 01, 1970). Educational Need and Its Application to State School Finance. The Journal of Human Resources, 5, 3, 304-317.

Kauerz, K. (2006). Ladders of learning: Fighting Fade-Out by Advancing K-3 Alignment. Washington, DC: New American Foundation.

Kim, J.S., & Quinn, D.M. (2013). The effects of summer reading on low-income children’s literacy achievement from kindergarten to grade 8: A meta-analysis of classroom and home interventions. Review of Educational Research, Vol. 83(3), pp. 386-431.

Lee, J. (2010). Dual standards of school performance and funding? Empirical searches of school funding adequacy in Kentucky and Maine. Education Economics, Vol. 18(2), pp.207-228.

Lee, J. (2012). Educational Equity and Adequacy for Disadvantaged Minority Students: School and Teacher Resource Gaps towards National Mathematics Proficiency Standard. The Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 105, pp. 64-75.

Mangan, M.T., Purinton, T., & Aportela, A. (January 01, 2011). An Evidence-based Adequacy Funding Solution for Illinois Education. Journal of School Business Management, 23, 1, 11-19.

McCombs, J.S., Augustine, C.H., Schwartz, H.L., Bodilly, S.L., McInnis, B., Lichter, D.A., & Cross, A.B., (2011). Making Summer Count: How Summer Programs Can Boost Children’s Learning. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2001). The nation’s report card: Mathematics 2000. Washington, DC: Author.

Odden, A., & Clune, W.H. (1998). School finance systems: Aging structures in need of renovation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 20(3), 157-177.

Odden, A. (2012). Improving student learning when budgets are tight. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Odden, A., Picus, L., & Goetz, M. (2007). Paying for school finance adequacy with the national average expenditure per pupil (School Finance Redesign Project Working Paper No. 2). Center for Reinventing Public Education, Daniel J. Evans School of Public Policy, University of Washington, Seattle

Picus, L.O., Odden, A., Goetz, M., & Aportela, A. (2012). Estimating the cost of an adequate education for Texas school district using the evidence-based approach. North Hollywood, CA: Lawrence O. Picus and Associates. Joint Committee to Establish a Permanent Education Foundation Aid Formula for Rhode Island.

Odden, A., Picus, L.O., Odden, P., & Associates (2016). Appendix F: Full Report and School Case Studies for the Evidence-Based Approach to Estimating a Base Spending Level and Pupil Weights for Maryland. PicusOdden& Associates.

Pitch, L., & Edwards, O. (2006). Kindergarten Study: Full-Day versus Half-Day Kindergarten. Clark County School District (NV) (RE-46-03).

R.C. Wood & Associates (2006). State of Rhode Island Education Adequacy Study.

Riewpaiboon, A., Youngkong, S., Sreshthaputra, N., Stewart, J.F., Samosornsuk, S., Chaicumpa, W., Seidlein, L., & Clemens. (2008). A Cost Function Analysis of Shigellosis in Thailand. Value in Health, Vol.2 (1), pp.75-83.

Thayer-Bacon, B.J. (2010). Education’s Role in Democracy: The Power of Pluralism. Etica & Politica/ Ethics & Politics, Vol. XII (1), pp. 134-156.

Taylor, L. L., Baker, B. D., & Vedlitz, A. (2005). Measuring educational adequacy in public schools. College Station: Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University.

Verstegen, D.A. (2015). On Doing an Analysis of Equity and Closing the Opportunity Gap. Education Policy Analysis Archives, Vol.23 (41), pp. 1-20.

Voight, A., Austin, G., & Hanson, T. (2013). A climate for academic success: How school climate distinguishes schools that are beating the achievement odds.

Whitmire, R. (2014). On the Rocketship. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

GO TO this Arkansas report for a good overview of who originally developed each of these models:

http://picusodden.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/AR_2003_EB_Report.pdf

 

Cite the original authors of this model, which are Augenblick and Meyers.  Palaich is also a founding author

Review of the Augenblick & Myers Adequacy Model
Ben Boer, Policy Director, Advance Illinois
Dea C. Meyer, Executive Vice President, Civic Committee of the Commercial Club

The post Adequacy Models for Public Schools in SA appeared first on Custom Writing Service.