|
Kathy
Kitchen, Editor
Beginning in the mid-1980s with the publication of the Joint
Legislative Audit and Review Commission’s (JLARC) reports
on funding of the Standards of Quality, addressing equity
issues in public education in Virginia became of paramount
importance. JLARC examined both pupil equity and tax equity
in its 1988 report, “Funding of the Standards of Quality,
Part 2: SOQ Costs and Distribution.” Governor Wilder
formed the “Governor’s Commission on Educational
Opportunity for All Virginians” in April of 1990 to advise
the Governor and the General Assembly on how the Commonwealth
could further address and overcome differences in educational
programs in Virginia’s public schools. This Commission
made twenty-seven recommendations addressing program equity,
pupil equity, and fiscal equity in its August, 1991 report.
Many of the recommendations of the Governor’s Commission
were implemented. However, several local school boards in
Virginia filed suit against the Commonwealth in the early
1990s claiming it was the Commonwealth’s responsibility to
ensure fiscal equity among all school divisions in Virginia.
The Commonwealth was successful in defending its funding methodology
that remains essentially unchanged through the budget adopted
for the 2000-2002 biennium.
With those challenges behind it, the Governor, General Assembly,
and the State Board of Education have moved forward to address
educational issues in terms of “standards reform,”
making pupil equity its top priority. The proliferation of
programs funded to assist local schools in ensuring all students
successfully master the state Standards of Learning is now
taking place.
In its August 1991 report, the Governor’s Commission on Educational
Opportunity for All Virginians contained 12 recommendations
that dealt specifically with pupil equity. These recommendations
included:
- Restructure the elementary grades to emphasize successful
first-time learning, including reducing the pupil/teacher
ratio in grades one through three,
- Reduce the number and percentage of students retained
in grade and dropping out, to increase the percentage of
minority and economically disadvantaged students enrolled
in college preparation and advanced placement programs,
and to reduce the range of differences in student achievement,
- Require all school divisions to offer voluntary preschool
developmental programs for at-risk four-year-olds,
- Address the need to coordinate community support to schools
and students,
- Assess the need for a School Breakfast Program in those
schools which do not currently offer one,
- Develop standards for funding programs for students for
whom English is a second language, and for students from
lower socioeconomic backgrounds who are educationally at
risk,
- Assess the need to revise the current SOQ related to special
student needs, to include standards for funding vocational,
remedial, gifted programs, and related services for handicapped
children which reflect sound educational practice,
- Require school divisions to identify annually students
at risk of failing to meet criteria developed by the Board
and the Department of Education so that these students can
receive additional services, and
- Establish partnerships with business, industry, governments,
higher education, libraries, museums and other cultural
entities to promote preschool-12 education.
With collaboration from or among many other state agencies,
the Department of Education implemented the majority of these
recommendations. Funding was provided by the General Assembly
for several programs designed to enhance pupil equity. These
programs include, but are not limited to:
- At-Risk Funding – First begun in 1992-93, nearly
$44 million is now distributed to all school divisions based
upon free lunch participation. The program is designed to
provide flexibility to divisions as long as the funds are
used to support programs for students who are educationally
at-risk.
- English as a second language – Approximately $4 million
is provided to 95 school divisions to support programs designed
to improve the achievement for ESL students,
- Reduced K-3 class sizes – One of the first programs
designed to provide funding at the individual school level,
nearly $71 million is now appropriated to lower class sizes
in grades K-3 in schools having free lunch participation
of 20 percent or more, and
- A program for at-risk four-year-olds – Approximately
$21.5 million is appropriated to provide high quality preschool
education to 60% of the at-risk four-year-olds not served
by other programs (Title 1, Head Start, etc.). Currently
66 school divisions provide programs through this effort.
A chart, developed by staff from the Senate Finance Committee,
providing information on all programs currently funded for
at-risk students may be viewed by clicking
here.
The State Board of Education set forth an agenda for education
reform that was multi-faceted. First, Standards were to be
developed that set forth what students should know prior to
graduating from high school. Student knowledge of the Standards
would be tested in a statewide assessment program. Students
and schools would be held accountable through a system of
report cards issued to parents and revisions to the Standards
of Accreditation that would give teeth to the reform.
The revised Standards of Learning were adopted by the State
Board of Education in June of 1995. The General Assembly appropriated
funds in 1996 for the development and field testing of a new
assessment program. The program, adopted by the Board of Education,
includes a norm-referenced test in grades 4, 9, and 11 and
state tests on the SOLs in grades 3, 5, 8 and end-of-course
tests at the high school level. Additional funding was provided
for testing in 1998 to maintain the new program and again
in 1999 additional resources were provided to allow students
to take the tests later in the school year and still get results
prior to the close of the year.
Since the adoption of the Standards and the assessment program,
a great deal of pressure has been placed on divisions, schools,
and teachers to ensure students can pass the SOL tests. The
General Assembly has appropriated funding for a plethora of
programs designed to assist local school divisions, primarily
in remediation efforts.
Funding has been provided in numerous areas to assist school
divisions in meeting the requirements of the Standards of
Learning. One of the earliest funding streams was provided
for teacher training and curriculum development to assist
divisions in aligning curriculum with the SOLs. This funding,
one of the few programs to be funded 100% by the state, is
still in the budget for the 2000-2002 biennium. Another program,
funded originally during the 1997 session, provides for additional
instruction for early reading intervention for first-grade
students with reading deficiencies. This program has since
been expanded to students in kindergarten through third grade.
The General Assembly also provided funding on a per student
basis to assist school divisions in purchasing extra instructional
materials to support the SOLs. The funding can be used for
textbooks or any other instructional materials related to
implementation of the Standards.
During the 1998 session, significant funding was included
for a program entitled, “SOL Remediation.” This
funding was designed to assist students who do not pass the
SOL tests. In addition, during the 2000 session, a SOL Algebra
Readiness Program was funded beginning in the 2001-2002 school
year.
The General Assembly has appropriated significant funding
over time to address the needs of students who are at-risk
of educational failure. Policymakers continue to seek information
to determine whether programs they have supported are working
in the local schools. To that end, Section 22.1-199.2 of the
Code of Virginia requires the Board of Education to promulgate
regulations establishing standards for remediation programs
to include:
- An evaluation by local school divisions of their remedial
programs based upon pass rates on the SOL tests and
- Division reporting of data pertaining to the demographic
and educational characteristics of students identified as
needing remediation.
These regulations were required by August 1, 1999 for remedial
summer school and Standards of Learning remediation programs
and by August 1, 2000 for SOQ Remediation, dropout prevention
and at-risk add-on programs. The Board of Education promulgated
emergency
regulations that were sent to school divisions in August
of 1999. These regulations required divisions to maintain
individual student records for all students identified for
remedial summer school and other remedial programs including
the “SOL remediation program.”
Under the direction of the General Assembly, the Department
of Education was required to develop a set of performance
measures that can be used to annually assess the effectiveness
of the seven programs for students at-risk of educational
failure that are currently funded by the State. The Department
of Education funded the College of William and Mary to develop
and test the performance measurement process. As part of that
study, a survey was sent to divisions in June requesting programmatic
and financial data related to these programs. The study is
intended to answer the following questions:
- Who benefits from the at-risk dollars the school receives?
- What specific resources and programs lead to these benefits?
- What are the short- and long-term results for participants
and others?
- Are there promising school-based practices that work with
at-risk students that can be shared with other divisions
with similar problems?
School divisions continue to express concern regarding
the feasibility of developing programs with specific state
and local dollars and struggling to tie individual student
success or failure to any one program. The likelihood of students
participating in numerous programs is very high. In addition,
some state funding included in the above mentioned legislation
has been in place for ten to twenty years with flexibility
given to divisions on the use of those funds. To require divisions
to tie those dollars to specific programs and student outcomes
is not only difficult, but counter-productive.
During the 2000 session of the General Assembly, language
was included in the Appropriation Act at Item 143.B.10 stating:
School divisions may choose to use state payments provided
for Standards of Quality remediation, Standards of Learning
remediation, and summer school remediation as a block grant
for remediation purposes, without restrictions or reporting
requirements, other than reporting necessary as a basis for
determining funding for the programs.
This authorization suspends the requirements of the regulations
mentioned above until June 30, 2002. At that time, similar
language will be required in the 2002-2004 Appropriation Act
or divisions will be required to meet the requirements of
the regulations. Clarifying direction from the Department
of Education was sent to school divisions and may be reviewed
at: Department
of Education.
Over the years a great deal of research has been conducted
surrounding the characteristics of those students who are
most likely to be at-risk of educational failure. Much of
this research was used by the Governor’s Commission on Educational
Opportunity for All Virginians in developing its recommendations.
Senate Document No. 13, 1993 stated:
Twenty-five years of national research and at least four
analyses of Virginia school divisions data have found a strong
and persistent relationship between student poverty and educational
outcomes. School divisions with high concentrations of impoverished
students are more likely to report lower test scores, greater
percentages of overage students, and higher rates of absenteeism
and dropout than are divisions with low rates of student poverty.
One source of additional information on this subject: North
Central Regional Educational Laboratory
Contrary to the high volume of research available surrounding
the characteristics of students likely to be at-risk of educational
failure, there is no research available on the effects of
additional funding and programs aimed at providing remedial
instruction to students failing the Standards of Learning.
The lack of empirical evidence leads policymakers to want
to gather information on “what works” and know if
their efforts are making a difference. The work underway by
the College of William and Mary is the first stab at this
question. However, absent the ability of school divisions
to provide information linking individual students to individual
programs, the data will not be available.
Most school divisions provide programs of intervention, prevention,
and remediation to all students needing additional instruction.
Such programs may include:
- One-on-one assistance,
- Small group instruction,
- Alternative schools at the elementary, middle, or high
school level,
- Remedial summer school,
- Pre-school programs, and
- Computer-assisted instruction.
Some alternatives might be year-long placements such as alternative
schools; others might be provided on an as-needed basis. Most
programs are designed to meet the needs of individual students
rather than for a selected number of weeks, days, or hours.
In addition, students might often be placed in more than one
program during the same time period. Hypothetical examples
of multiple interventions might look like the following:
- Student A - 4th grade
Characteristics
- Scored in the bottom quartile on Stanford 9 and
- Did not pass 3rd grade SOL in mathematics
Remediation Plan
- Morning tutoring program (1 on 1 instruction),
- “Lunch time learners” (small group instruction),
and
- Summer school intervention course
- Student B - 8th grade
Characteristics
- Performing below grade level in language arts,
- Teacher identified as likely to fail 8th grade SOL
in reading
Remediation Plan
- Prescribed year-long program of reading reinforcement,
- After-school tutoring program
- Student C - 10th grade
Characteristics
- Failed Algebra I end-of-course test.
Remediation Plan
- Remedial summer school, and
- Computer-aided instruction (school year and summer
program).
Funds from state, federal and local sources are combined
in schools and in programs to maximize services to identified
students. In most school divisions, with the exception of
remedial summer school and dropout prevention, funds from
state sources for remediation and at-risk programs cannot
readily be linked to distinct programs. SOQ Remedial Education
and At-risk add-on funds have been provided to school divisions
with maximum flexibility for many years (since 1980-81 and
1992-93 respectively); state funds have been combined with
local funds to offer many programs. Additional state funding
for “SOL Remediation” has been used in many cases
to enlarge and enhance programs that had previously been in
place. Reporting on the numbers of students and types of programs
offered is possible; however, students might be counted more
than once due to multiple placements during a certain time
period.
Implementing programs designed to promote pupil equity has
been a focus in the Commonwealth since the early 1990s. These
programs, such as preschool for at-risk children and lower
class sizes in the primary grades were intended to provide
additional assistance to students who came to the public schools
without the basic skills needed for success. In more recent
years, the focus has shifted to programs designed specifically
to ensure students pass the SOL tests.
The issue that is now surfacing is a desire to find out which
“dollar” can guarantee the outcome desired. Past
efforts to determine what impact funding in total has on student
achievement have not been successful. To now try to determine
which specific funding stream is making a difference in performance
is problematic.
School divisions should be held accountable for the use of
state and local funds provided for students at-risk of educational
failure including those originally designed to enhance pupil
equity and those more recently funded to assist students in
reaching the Standards of Learning. The primary accountability
tool has been designed - the SOL tests. These scores will
provide a measure of determining the success of local efforts.
When students are served in a variety of programs, an increase
in performance cannot be attributed to any single program.
It is likely that a combination of efforts such as instruction
in the primary grades (lower K-3 pupil teacher ratios and
extra reading instruction), remedial efforts (tutoring, computer
assisted instruction), curriculum alignment, and the use of
other tools will lead to success by the student.
Tracking individual dollars to programs is not feasible given
the need to provide flexibility to divisions and schools to
design programs to address individual student needs. Divisions
can provide information on remediation efforts such as demographic
and educational characteristics of students taking part in
a variety of remedial programs, as well as information on
the types of programs offered.
Providing state assistance for remediation programs in a
block grant approach would provide maximum program flexibility
and best serve the interest of all students. Ultimate accountability
will be at the individual student level and school level through
the Standards of Accreditation.
Click here for summary of recent Virginia Legislative history
of “Remediation/At-Risk
Student Equity Funding.”
At-Risk Funding – FY 2000-01, Senate Finance Committee,
2000 (chart linked earlier in this discussion under Historical
Perspective).
Governor’s Commission on Educational Opportunity for All
Virginians, Final Report, 1991. For further document detail,
contact the Virginia Department of Education.
“Regulations Governing Remedial Programs,” Section
22.1-199.2 of the Code
of Virginia, Presentation to the Joint Subcommittee on
Remediation, Chesterfield County Public Schools, November
29, 1999.
Study under progress by the College of William and Mary at
the request of the Department of Education. Contact: Dr. Tom
Ward or Mrs. Ruby Potts at the College of William and Mary
– (757) 221-2358 or (757) 221-2357.
Click cepi@vcu.edu to provide
comments or additional information. Please indicate in an
e-mail the copyright source and contact information for new
inclusions. Back to Top
Copyright © CEPI 2000
CEPI grants permission to reproduce this paper for noncommercial purposes if
CEPI is credited.
|
