Today I am going to diverge completely from the topic of Common Core and the controversies surrounding it and think out loud (or rather on electronic paper) about an idea I have for revamping the way we fund schools. For some time I have been considering how the state might change the funding formula to put less emphasis on seat time and more emphasis on the amount of learning that takes place. I have also wondered how we might more adequately reward truly exceptional teachers. The idea that is currently forming in my head would, I believe, address both of these issues (although it does not dramatically increase the amount of funding to schools). Further, I have worried about funding to help gifted students reach their potential as well as encourage those who teach Special Education students to continue to progress at the fastest pace possible.
As all of these concerns (and many more) have been floating around, colliding in my head, an idea emerged. My inclusion of it on my blog does not mean that I am sure this is a brilliant idea that should immediately be adopted and pushed. It simply means that I am thinking through the idea and find writing down my thoughts beneficial as I question my own assumptions and conclusions. I would love feedback and comments so that I might continue to refine the idea into something that might actually work and benefit our students, teachers, and schools.
In order to understand my idea, readers must first understand some basics about school funding. Most of our public school funding comes from the state and is given out based on Average Daily Attendance and/or Average Daily Membership. So for every student at a school, the state pays a certain amount of money per day that a student is enrolled in that school. As long as attendance for a school is above a certain percentage (I think 97%), the school is funded based on membership rather than attendance. Most of the time this is the case. Attendance is counted based on a number of hours required in each grade. So an elementary student is required to be in school something like 6 hours per day (except Kindergarten); a junior high student has about the same requirement; and a high school student should be in school at least 20 hours a week to count for 100% attendance for that week. Even when classes are taught on-line at a "virtual" school or in a "virtual" class, parents or teachers must vouch that students were working on the class for a certain amount of time in order to get full attendance (and thus, full funding). As such, schools and districts are paid for "seat time" or the number of hours students spend in school. This funding is in no way linked to what students learn and does not reward schools for helping students catch up or get ahead.
As stated earlier, most of public school funding is distributed in this way, based on seat time. In addition to seat time, certain student characteristics prompt additional funding. In Arizona, students with special needs, students in grades K-3, and a few other factors prompt multipliers that supply extra funding to allow for appropriate class sizes, interventions, etc. There is also federal funding for schools with a certain percentage of students receiving free or reduced lunches, transportation funding, and extra funds for districts with a higher percentage of highly experienced teachers (because their salaries cost the district more). There are voter approved funds, some of which are tied to incentives. And in the past, there were funds for building new schools and maintaining older ones, but these funds have not been available for several year. Some districts pass bonds to help cover their building and maintenance needs as well as new technology. I am sure this is not an exhaustive list of school funding streams, but suffice it to say that the vast majority of funding comes from the state and is based on seat time. This is the portion that I would propose altering.
My proposal would be to change from seat time funding to funding based on individual student progress. For each subject taught in our schools, progress or growth levels could be set. Each student coming into our schools will be at a different growth level for each subject. Growth levels may or may not correspond with specific grade levels. They definitely should align to state standards for each subject that has corresponding standards. A students' progress level can be determined based on testing, portfolio, or a combination of these and other methods. It should not be determined based solely on standardized test results.
Each subject and progress level within that subject should be given a relative value based on three things - the skill set's necessity in future education, the skill set's relative value in the work force, and the skill set's value in civic/community engagement. So a skill like writing that is extremely important in all three fields would receive a significantly higher value than many other subjects.
Once progress levels are set and each progress level for each subject is given a relative value, schools could be funded based on the progress levels that students attain over the course of the year. Multipliers should be added for students who struggle to progress, are significantly behind their age group peers, or are economically disadvantaged. In this way, schools would be compensated for the extra work it takes to help these children progress. Gifted education would automatically receive additional funding simply because gifted children progress more quickly. And there would be much greater reward for identifying economically disadvantaged gifted children and helping them reach their potential. Schools who make sure they fill in gaps for children who are behind will be compensated for each gap they fill because those children will continue to meet new progression levels even if they do so behind their peers. Special education would continue to need a significant multiplier as well as, perhaps, more appropriate progression levels for students with significant mental handicaps. This way, schools are given the flexibility to teach students in whatever way is necessary to help them progress. And no matter what level a student is at when he enters a school, the school will be compensated for each gain he makes.
The final part of the plan is what I believe would make it truly powerful. Teachers should receive a percentage of the compensation received for each of their students' gains. In this scenario, teachers who teach kids with multipliers (students who are behind or economically challenged) or who are gifted will have greater opportunity for reward. This is appropriate since they are both more difficult groups to teach. (If you don't think gifted children are more difficult to teach than average children, then you haven't spent much time around gifted children). And teachers will have to know the progress level of each student in her class on each subject. Great teachers will be rewarded for each skill set they teach a child.
Now, for the stumbling blocks that make this a very difficult pathway to pursue. First, setting progress levels for every subject taught in every school in the state would be a difficult and perhaps highly contested process. Educators must decide which progress levels must be accomplished in a designated order and which are more stand-alone skill sets. Assigning values will also be challenging. These designations will be difficult to make, but I am certain it is possible to do so. Perhaps even more daunting is the task of determining a means by which progress levels of individual students can be judged. As stated earlier, I do not believe this should rely solely or even primarily on standardized tests. Nor should students wait until the end of the school year to find out how far they have progressed. Progression from progress level to level should be assessed regularly. I prefer a portfolio approach. However, judging portfolios is both time consuming and subjective. I am not sure what the best answer is. It may be that each progress level or subject requires a different means of showing mastery. In music is may be performing music that is at a certain level of difficulty with minimal errors. In math, it may be completing a certain number of assignments above a cut-rate score. In PE, it may be doing a specific number of push-up with proper form. Regardless, teachers will have to be trusted to make truthful assessments throughout the course of the year; dishonesty in these assessments would have to be handled fairly harshly (because there is such a reliance on teachers' honesty); and results that differ widely from those on standardized tests should be investigated (especially if there are a high concentration in a single class or school).
If all of this could be accomplished (and I am by nature a very optimistic, can-do person), I believe our students would receive several benefits. First, there will be a much greater incentive at both the school and teacher level for individualized learning. Second, schools and teachers that do a poor job progressing students will have to either improve dramatically or close. This applies to both public and charter schools. Those charters that do a poor job educating students will not be able to compete. However, schools that serve underprivileged students or those who are significantly behind will continue to receive adequate (yes, I know that is debatable) funding as long as their students make appropriate progress. Finally, there is an incentive to help kids who are ahead continue to progress at the fastest rate they can. There is no longer an incentive to keep them back until everyone else catches up (something that never happens with truly gifted children). Likewise, there is an incentive to help special needs children progress even if it takes much greater time and patience.
Having taken a peek into my convoluted, perhaps overly optimistic mind, I would love to hear (or rather read) your thoughts. Would it work? Would teachers prefer this type of compensation (I am not saying entirely replace salary, but rather that a portion of salary would be directly tied to student progression)? Does anyone else out there have an idea how to move away from seat-time based funding to something more meaningful? Has anyone ever heard of something like this being tried and whether or not it worked? Please share your insights.
No comments:
Post a Comment