Florida Legislature’s Office of Program Policy and Accountability: Education-Related Reports Issued May 21, 2010

The Florida Legislature’s Office of Program Policy and Accountability published the following education-related reports today, May 21, 2010:

National Association of State Directors of Special Education
Financing Special Education: State Funding Formulas
http://projectforum.org/docs/FinancingSpecialEducation-StateFundingFormulas.pdf

A total of 27 states reported that they had changed their funding formula for providing education services for students with disabilities in some way between 2000 and 2009, although some of the changes were minor. The other 23 states reported that their formula remained the same during that period. A variety of types of arrangements were noted by the 18 survey respondents who indicated that the state had a cap or limitation on funding. An analysis of those provisions revealed that they could be divided into two types of caps or limits on state aid. The first type was a limitation on funding based on the number of students with disabilities who can be counted for purposes of state aid. A total of seven states fell into this category-Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon and Tennessee. The second type was a fixed total amount of state aid per year or aid that is subject to appropriation. A total of 11 states had caps or limitations of this type-Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, Utah, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. A total of 8 states indicated that they are currently considering a change in their funding formula for special education.

Education Commission of the States
State Reporting on Developmental Education: Analysis of Findings
http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/85/27/8527.pdf

Overall, data contained in state and higher education reports on developmental education fell into three main categories: participation of students in developmental education; success of developmental education students, and cost of developmental education. The majority of reports concentrated on collecting participation data, which is an important first step to understanding the developmental education picture. But gathering participation data is not sufficient. It is important to know whether students succeed in developmental courses and beyond to evaluate the effectiveness of remedial education. Factoring in the equation and is necessary to gauge the efficiency of delivering cost – or at least expenditures – rounds out developmental education.

National Conference of State Legislatures
Education at a Crossroads: A New Direction for Federal and State Education Policy
http://www.ncsl.org/IssuesResearch/Education/EducationataCrossroadsANewDirectionforFe/tabid/19634/Default.aspx?TabId=19634

In recent years, driven by members of Congress and presidents from both parties, federal involvement in the day-to-day operations of the K-12 system has radically increased and is ‘upside-down,’ overemphasizing compliance with federal process requirements and underemphasizing results-specifically improving the academic achievement of all students, especially poor and minority students. Student achievement is improving marginally on the same trajectory as it has for the past decade, but the achievement gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students persists. Clearly neither federal top-down mandates nor categorical and competitive grant resources have significantly affected student achievement. By statute and constitution the system of K-12 education administration is overwhelmingly a state responsibility. The prescribed federal role is one of supplementing state and local efforts, providing additional resources for disadvantaged learners and conducting research into best practices and proven reforms. The effects of federal policy are now disproportionate to its contribution to the K-12 endeavor. Some recommendations for a more clearly defined and productive role for the federal government include concentrating available federal funding on those populations most at-risk, using a research-based formula that emphasizes the neediest students instead of trying to leverage system-wide reforms with the 7% federal contribution; funding IDEA at promised levels would immediately free $16 billion annually that, because of federal maintenance of effort requirements, would be redirected to reform and innovation at the state and local levels; making permanent changes to the tax credit provisions of the bonding laws that apply to school construction. This action also would free tens of billions of dollars in state and local resources that would otherwise be spent on debt-service for school bonds; and revitalizing the federal focus on research and reporting on what works and why without picking or mandating how and when ‘winning strategies’ should be required by law or ‘encouraged’ by withholding additional federal resources.

U.S. Department of Education
Achievement and Occupational Career/Technical Education Coursetaking in High School: The Class of 2005
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010021.pdf

Among the public high school graduating class of 2005, occupational concentrators overall earned, on average, fewer credits in core science subjects (biology, chemistry, and physics) and scored lower on the 12th-grade science test than nonconcentrators. Patterns varied across occupational program areas, however, with graduates who concentrated in agriculture, business finance, communications and design, computer and information science, and engineering technology scoring higher than or not measurably different from nonconcentrators. When comparing students who earned similar numbers of core science credits, occupational concentrators generally scored higher than or not measurably different from nonconcentrators at lower credit levels (2.00 core science credits or fewer, in 22 out of 25 possible comparisons), and generally scored lower than or not measurably different from nonconcentrators at higher credit levels (more than 2.00 credits, in 19 out of 19 possible comparisons). In addition to differences in the number of science courses taken, occupational concentrators sometimes differed from nonconcentrators in terms of the types and levels of core science courses they took. While differences in the types and levels of core science coursework taken may contribute to the observed achievement patterns, they may not fully explain those patterns. Self-selection on the part of students with different abilities, interests, and aptitudes into different types of coursework-both academic and career/technical education coursework-may also be a factor, as may the science content of some career/technical education courses.