Fiscal Accountability System for Texas Legislation in Education (FASTLE)
I wrote this in response to Representative Aycock’s request for ideas on improving the accountability system. Unfortunately, he chose not to publish this suggestion. Perhaps he thought I was not serious (I am) or that it would never pass the Legislature (he is correct).
I think reasonable people believe individuals should not be held accountable in the workplace unless the person was provided adequate resources and support to meet her/his expectations. I also think most reasonable people would agree that schools and districts should not be held accountable unless they are provided the necessary resources and support to meet the expectations that under gird the accountability system.
Expectation #1: Allocate enough money per pupil to ALL districts in an amount sufficient to meet the expectations set forth by the legislature.
This would be determined through adequacy studies conducted by a panel of five nationally recognized experts. For any district taxing at the maximum allowable tax rate and not generating enough funds through all revenue streams to meet expectations as determined by the panel of experts, then the district could choose not participate in any state mandated testing and accountability system.
In the last school finance court case from 2005, experts found that the state was underfunding an adequate education. Since then, per pupil funding increased a miniscule 7% over the cost of living increases (This will surely decrease to near 0% with recent budget costs coupled with increased enrollment). Further, the meager growth in per pupil spending came during a time of explosive growth in the percentage of economically disadvantaged students that are far more costly to educate than non-economically disadvantaged students. Moreover, expectations have risen dramatically since 2005. Districts and schools are now expected to ensure all students are college and career ready, graduate from high school, and now pass STAAR and End-of-Course exams that are touted by state leaders as being far more rigorous. If the legislature is not going to provide the necessary resources for districts to meet the expectations of the legislature, then why should school districts be held accountable by that very same legislature?
Expectation #2: Allocate money in a fair and equitable manner, including money provided through a bi-annually updated cost-of-education index (CEI) to ensure all districts competed on an equal playing field.
This would be determined by a panel of five nationally recognized experts. If the system was not considered equitable across districts with different levels of property wealth and percentage of students living in poverty, then any district in the bottom 25% of schools in WADA would be exempted from the state’s district and school accountability system.
The weights for the weighted average daily attendance (WADA) should be based on the findings of the adequacy studies. The studies would estimate the amount of money necessary to educate a student to achieve particular outcomes as measured by a low-stakes assessment or an assessment for which no teaching to the test could corrupt the scores.
The CEI should be updated every two years and re-weighted. Districts should not operate under the “hold harmless” provision that is the largest obstacle to updating the CEI currently.
Expectation #3: Require all individuals entering a classroom as a teacher of record to have a minimum of eight weeks of training, at least 3 weeks of some form of clinical training, and at least a minor in the subject area to which they are assigned.
Currently, low-performing schools are disproportionately staffed by teachers that obtained certification through alternative means. Worse yet, the schools with the greatest needs typically must resort to hiring teachers from private alternative certification programs, many of which provide less than a month of preparation before entering the classroom, allow individuals with college GPAs lower than 2.25 to enter the program (sometimes GPAs are as low as 2.0), and require only 12 college hours in the subject area to be taught. In comparison, high quality preparation programs (both traditional and alternative) provide hundreds of pre-service hours, have high entrance standards with respect to GPA, and require all teachers to have at least a minor and typically a major
Research has clearly shown that teachers that have received more preparation are typically more effective and stay longer in the field. That low-performing schools must resort to hiring teachers from private alternative certification programs simply decreases achievement while concomitantly increases costs through higher teacher attrition.
Unlike high-performing countries across the world, the United States has chosen to reduce barriers to entry into the profession rather than make entrance into teaching more rigorous. Texas has been at the forefront of this effort to deregulate the teaching profession by creating private alternative certification programs whose primary motive is to generate profit rather than prepare quality teachers. In fact, the worse the preparation provided by these programs, the higher the attrition rate which simply drives the demand for new teachers higher. And who benefits? Private alternative certification programs!
To change the current status of teacher preparation in Texas will likely require additional state funding for stipends for teachers in high-need areas (STEM, bilingual education, special education) that agree to teach in high-need schools as well as an appropriate school finance system that includes an appropriate CEI.
FASTLE Report Card
A final panel of experts and educators would consider all available evidence (which would be made available to the public on a website) and assign a grade for each of the three expectations and a final, overall grade. Categories could include less than satisfactory, satisfactory, or exemplary. If the overall grade was “less than satisfactory,” then the state’s district and state accountability systems would cease to operate until the rating improved to satisfactory.
My Estimation of the Current Report Card Grades
Based on my reading of the literature, analysis of the data, and discussions with experts knowledgeable of the Texas school finance system, I provide ratings for each of the three areas of responsibility.
Expectation #1: Allocate enough money per pupil to ALL districts in an amount sufficient to meet the expectations set forth by the legislature.
Rating: less than satisfactory
Expectation #2: Allocate money in a fair and equitable manner, including money provided through a bi-annually updated cost-of-education index (CEI) to ensure all districts competed on an equal playing field.
Rating: less than satisfactory
Expectation #3: Require all individuals entering a classroom as a teacher of record to have a minimum of eight weeks of training, at least 3 weeks of some form of clinical training, and at least a minor in the subject area to which they are assigned.
Rating: less than satisfactory
OVERALL FASTLE RATING: 2011-12:
Less Than Satisfactory
I am open to suggestions and comments. I am sure some people will respond that school districts are inefficient and waste money. Some fit this bill. Others do not. And I can guarantee one thing—I can walk into any business in which a Legislator works or a business person works and find plenty of areas of inefficiencies and waste. The free market does not clean up inefficiency and waste in businesses and corporations, so any argument that a free-market approach would clean things up is simply nonsensical (that, and the fact that research shows a free-market approach to education simply does not work very well).
Mom
May 13, 2012
I love your idea, and am totally behind Expectations 1 and 2; however, I don’t think having at least a minor in the field in which one is teaching is the appropriate way to measure teacher preparedness. I have taught Math for the past 5 years and I am a very good Math teacher. I’m Nationally Board Certified in Math. I was an English major with a minor in Philosophy. I got my M.A in Education of At-Risk Students. I have also taught Science, ESL, and Special Education.
Teacher preparation is an important topic, but I don’t think this is the correct criterion. Let’s keep thinking about it.
drext727
May 14, 2012
I like your idea. I think in conjunction or in addition to your idea there should be a requires the state to fund schools with the highest rates of low socioeconic students in a manner which lower the student teacher ratio. The poorer the student population, the lower the student teacher ratio.
http://www.davidrtayloreducation.wordpress.com
Dr. Ed Fuller
May 14, 2012
drext–the additional funds would be provided in a re-calculation of WADA–weighted average daily attendance. Economically disadvantaged students receive a weight that provides more funding to the district than for a student not economically disadvantaged. Unfortunately, research shows that Texas and most other states under-weight economically disadvantaged students.
drext727
May 14, 2012
Yes….you are correct, disadvantage students are under funded. I think if your building is 90% F and R, then your class ratio in core classes should be a hard cap of 15 to 1. That would take lots of money.
tmelinaraab
May 14, 2012
However the specific elements are fashioned–I leave that to experts like you–holding the state accountable for its responsibility to public education is necessary and long overdue. Please proceed.
Ted
drext727
May 14, 2012
Amen!! Time to vote out all the current politician.
drext727
May 14, 2012
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Texas Education and commented:
This is one of the best ideas that has been printed in a long time. The legislature wants to have accountablity for public education but not have any accountability for their actions.