The What Will it Take Project

What Will It Take?

by David Conley

Are Washington's schools funded adequately? How much money is required for essentially all students to master the state's ambitious academic content standards? Is there a relationship between funds provided to schools and the results that can be expected?

The What Will It Take (WWIT) project seeks to provide answers to these challenging questions. The project was initiated this past summer by a coalition of education groups in the state that are seeking longer-term solutions to questions of educational funding and school performance. The WWIT project is not being undertaken to influence this coming legislative session necessarily. In fact, some may ask why a project dedicated to determining what constitutes adequate funding is being undertaken during a period of economic downturn and budgetary belt-tightening. The answer is that the project's perspective is longer range and its goal is to develop new policy tools that define more clearly the state's obligations to fund schools as well as the obligation of local school districts and schools to reach state performance targets when resources are provided. This new partnership emphasizes the roles and responsibilities of each level of the educational governance system as well as the interconnectedness of these levels. Legislatures cannot achieve their policy goal without schools having both the capacity and will to implement the necessary programs, and schools cannot hope to receive the resources necessary to achieve state and local goals without a commitment to improved performance commensurate with funding.

This difficult "contract" cannot be established without some sort of model that identifies what needs to be funded and what performances can then be expected. The WWIT project attacks this daunting challenge by creating The Washington Quality Education Model (WQEM), which has four basic parts to it: 1) a vision of a quality school; 2) the elements and components of such schools as contained in three Prototype Schools; 3) the characteristics of quality schools; and 4) the performance levels that result from quality schools.

1. The vision
The two documents that best define the dimensions of a quality education that have been specified by the Washington Legislature are the Basic Education Act and ESHB 1209. Language from relevant sections create the context for the Washington Quality Education Model.

The vision of a quality education begins with schools that work in partnership with parents and community members to ensure that all children thrive and can develop as much of their full potential as possible. These schools are organized so that state learning goals are consistently achieved and students' multiple intelligences are simultaneously addressed. Each child is able to develop the healthy, positive self-image necessary for academic success and productive citizenship in an atmosphere that is free from fear and intimidation. These schools are places that create a sense of belonging and an appreciation of diversity while reducing inequality among students. Competent and qualified adults who are genuinely concerned about children model positive behaviors that foster a pervasive culture of learning, respect, and caring between and among adults and children alike. The ultimate result of the education children receive in these schools is that all students are able to make successful transitions to the next stage of their lives at the conclusion of their education.

2. The elements and components
The vision of a quality education is translated into practice by creating three "prototype schools" that demonstrate what programs a school would have to offer in order to provide a quality education. These prototypes contain a number of elements and components. Costs are calculated for all of these elements and components in terms of what it costs to provide quality programs.

Element Components
Core staffing English, math, science, social sciences, second languages, the arts
Additional teacher in math, English, science
ESL
Additional course staffing
Licensed academic support staff
Special education staffing
Additional special student programs
Counseling
Licensed support staff- curriculum, instruction, assessment
Instructional support staff assistance Support staff for Alternative ed., teen parent, dropout prevention
Special ed.
Principal's secretary
Counseling office
School-to-work coordinator, internship/mentor-ship coordinators
Learning Center specialists
Registrar
Attendance
Community outreach
Departmental support
Bookkeeper
Volunteer coordinator
Nurse
Health clerk
Media center assistant
Receptionist
Campus monitor
Video studio specialist
Administrative accountability Principal
Assistant principals
Athletic director/ student involvement activities coordinator
Teacher leadership
Computer hardware/ software Hardware including student and administrative
Software
Computer network upkeep/upgrades
Supplies, books, materials Texts, consumables, classroom sets
Classroom materials, all equipment, supplies
Copying
Media center materials
Materials for student projects
Extra-curricular activities Coaching
Other extracurricular sponsors
Athletic event-related expenses
Professional training & development Teacher professional development related to standards and assessments
Materials, Travel
Consultants
Instructional support staff-10 days
Additional instructional time for students to achieve standards Licensed
Classified
Supplies
Other activities
Centralized support costs: Centralized costs distributed to each building Food services
Student transportation
Technology services
Operation, maintenance of plant
Other support services
Centralized special education
District administrative overhead Executive administration (Board of Education, superintendent)
Business & Fiscal Services
Personnel Services
Public Information
Curriculum Development/ Staff Development

Once the program elements and components and their costs are established for the prototype elementary, middle, and high schools, the costs can be calculated and determined on a per-pupil basis. If these figures are then multiplied by the number of students in the state at the elementary, middle, and high school, a hypothetical budget number can be obtained. This number becomes the definition of what it takes to provide a quality education to all Washington students.

3. The characteristics of quality schools
The Characteristics of Quality Schools serve to define a series of organizational conditions that interact with resources as specified in the elements and components of the Prototype Schools to help determine the educational results the Prototype Schools will produce. The Characteristics of Quality Schools are not a vision statement, but a set of propositions stated in terms that can be measured. They specify organizational processes and functioning that are derived from research and are associated with improved academic results.

These Characteristics of Quality Schools create a framework for judging how effectively and efficiently the Prototype Schools are functioning. This is important to do because it is not enough simply to specify the resources needed to offer a quality education program. If a school is functioning poorly, increases in resources are not likely to lead to improvement. Conversely, schools that are highly effective on the Characteristics of Quality Schools can achieve remarkable results with the resources provided them.

The way the Characteristics of Quality Schools work in practice in relation to the Prototype Schools is that assumptions are made regarding the degree to which the Prototype Schools meet the criteria stated in the Characteristics of Quality Schools. Based on these assumptions and in combination with the elements and components specified for the Prototype Schools, the performance level that can be expected from the Prototype Schools at various funding levels can be established. Characteristics of Quality Schools 1-9 are adapted from Nine Characteristics of High Performing Schools, OSPI.

Clear and shared focus: Everyone in the school community has a clear, shared focus on student achievement in a positive learning environment. This focus, or vision, is used to guide decision-making and allocation of resources in the building. Instruction approaches are consistent and reinforcing across classrooms.

High standards and expectations: Teachers and staff believe that all students can learn. Teachers operate under the assumption that they can teach all students. The school enacts high expectations for all students as reflected in the structure and content of the instructional program.

Effective school leadership: High-performing schools require principals who advocate, nurture, and sustain a school culture in which all adults are involved in decision-making and take responsibility for student learning. Leadership is widely shared and broadly developed in these schools.

Safe, supportive learning environment: Students feel secure at school and in the classroom. Students know adults in the school care about them. Instruction is designed to promote student self-confidence, their respect for self and others, and connection with other learners.

High levels of community and parent involvement: Schools create opportunities for parents to be involved in their children's education and members of the business community and public agencies to support student learning. Information on the school's programs and performance on a variety of measures is widely and conveniently available to help parents and others understand how best to become involved.

High levels of collaboration and communication among adults who work and volunteer in the school: The school has well-established channels, activities, and norms that maximize interaction among adults. This interaction leads to regular exchanges of information regarding individual students, improvements in the instructional program and the climate of the school.

Continuous adjustment and adaptation of teaching and learning: Formal and informal information on student learning is used to make changes and improvements in the instructional program and classroom teaching.

Curriculum, instruction, and assessment aligned with standards: Curriculum, instruction, and classroom-based assessments are aligned with the Essential Academic Learning Requirements. Communication and planning systems operate to align the school's instructional program within the school across grade levels and between schools from elementary to middle and middle to high school.

Focused, effective professional development: The school sponsors and facilitates an ongoing program of adult learning connected to the school's goals that is designed to improve the individual and collective skills of all staff with instructional responsibilities.

High teacher and teaching quality: Teachers have content knowledge and instructional skills that enable them to teach to the state standards effectively. Teachers are able to adapt their instruction to the students in their classes and know when and how to access appropriate resources and specialists when necessary. When teachers make decisions about the instructional materials and methods, they utilize research whenever possible as a key reference point.

Data systems that enable staff to make decisions to improve student learning and success. The school has a user-friendly, convenient system for making a wide range of data on student performance, curriculum, and instruction available directly to staff and, where appropriate, to parents and the community. This information includes cumulative student-level data as well as system-level information and is used regularly to set goals, to assess school progress, and to allocate resources.

School and district policies that support school quality and allow flexibility, innovation, and adaptability of educational practice. School boards and central offices function to help and not hinder schools as they seek to achieve their stated goals. Decision making authority is decentralized appropriately to allow schools to change and adapt as necessary to achieve their goals. Everyone in the school system is accountable for the achievement of school goals.

4. The performance levels
The WQEM calculates a level of student learning and performance that can be expected at various funding levels with the programs defined in the prototype schools operating at the level specified by the Characteristics of Quality Schools. Schools would be expected to meet these targeted levels if the funding identified were provided. These have not yet been calculated, but would include a range of measures including but not limited to WASL results.

The WQEM does not prescribe specific educational practices at the school level, nor does it allocate funds to different programs and require that they be spent by schools in a specific fashion. Neither is the model a way to distribute funds to individual districts or schools; it is only a tool to determine what the state education budget should comprise.

The WQEM is based on work conducted initially in the state of Oregon to develop the Oregon Quality Education Model, which has been in place in that state since 1999. The governor has used the OQEM as the basis for developing his K-12 budget the past two biennia. Voters in the state passed a constitutional amendment in 2000 requiring the legislature to fund schools to a level that is adequate to achieve state education goals or explain why they have not done so. The OQEM is the tool that is used to establish the definition of adequate funding. The governor also established the Oregon Quality Education Commission to oversee the model's development, implementation, and continuous improvement.

About the Author

Dr. David T. Conley is Associate Professor of Educational Policy and the founder and director of the Center for Educational Policy Research at the University of Oregon. He is a nationally recognized expert on educational reform, the relationship between state academic content standards and college admission, and adequacy-based state funding systems. He is currently developing a set of standards for university success and analyzing state assessments to see how well aligned the tests align with university expectations. He serves as consultant to the What Will It Take Project. He can be contacted at conley@oregon.uoregon.edu

© September 2002 New Horizons for Learning
http://www.newhorizons.org
For permission to redistribute, please go to:
New Horizons for Learning Copyright and Permission Information