Jay G. Chambers

Financing Special Education.

The best available data indicate that approximately 12% of K-12 public education budgets are allocated to special education and that the cost per student is about 2.3 times the cost of regular education. About 8% of special education funds come from the federal government, 56% from state governments, and the remainder from local school districts. However, the division of fiscal responsibility between state and local sources varies considerably from state to state. Fiscal pressures on special education have increased markedly in recent years as a result of increasing overall school populations, increasing proportions of students found eligible for special education services, and increasing fiscal pressures on schools. At least six states have recently adopted, and the federal Department of Education has recently recommended, special education funding based on census counts of total school populations rather than on the number of students identified for special education services. Proponents of census-based funding foresee greater efficiency of services, while opponents fear a loss of services targeted to individualized needs. An additional proposal is that census-based funding be modified to increase funding to jurisdictions with higher rates of poverty. Criteria for evaluating state special education funding formulas are proposed.

Adjusted Poverty Measures and the Distribution of Title I Aid: Does Title I Really Make the Rich States Richer?

Federal and state governments in the United States make extensive use of student poverty rates in compensatory aid programs like Title I. Unfortunately, the measures of student poverty that drive funding allocations under such programs are biased because they fail to reflect geographic differences in the cost of living. In this study, we construct alternative poverty income thresholds based on regional differences in the wage level for low-skilled workers. We then examine the distribution of Title I revenues after adjusting poverty rates for geographic differences in the cost of living and adjusting Title I revenues for geographic differences in the purchasing power of school districts. Our findings turn conventional wisdom on its head. We find that when we fully adjust for regional differences, Title I funding patterns disproportionately favor rural school districts in low cost-of-living states. We conclude with policy recommendations for revising Title I funding formulas.

Intensive Partnerships for Effective Teaching Enhanced How Teachers Are Evaluated But Had Little Effect on Student Outcomes

Hillsborough County Public Schools (HCPS) Partnerships to Uplift Communities (PUC) Schools Green Dot Public Schools Alliance College-Ready Public Schools Aspire Public Schools The initiative involved three school districts and four charter management organizations (CMOs). The Intensive Partnerships for Effective Teaching initiative, designed and funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, was a multiyear effort aimed at increasing students’ access to effective teaching and, as a result, improving student outcomes. It focused particularly on high school graduation and college attendance among low-income minority (LIM) students.

Taking Stock: The Intensive Partnerships for Effective Teaching Through 2013--2014

This brief summarizes a RAND Corporation evaluation of the implementation of key reform elements of the Intensive Partnerships for Effective Teaching in three public school districts and four charter management organizations.