Cost of an Adequate Education in Illinois: Executive Summary
By Dr. John Augenblick and
Mr. Justin Silverstein
OVERVIEW
In September 2000, Augenblick and Myers, Inc. entered into a contract with the Metropolitan Planning Council to conduct a study of the cost of an adequate education in Illinois public schools and the development of an adjustment to that cost to reflect the added costs associated with serving students from low-income families.
The study was conducted to provide the Network 21: Quality Schools and Stronger Communities Coalition with recommendations on an adequate foundation level to ensure that the foundation level is sufficient to provide a quality education for every student in Illinois. The study, it is anticipated, will also be useful to policymakers, legislators and citizens as education funding discussions continue in the Illinois General Assembly.
The study is the most comprehensive one to date that analyzes the costs of providing a quality education in Illinois by looking at actual performance of all districts in Illinois. The study builds on previous groundbreaking work that the Ikenberry Commission relied on to make its recommendations in 1996 for a foundation level that was set at that time at $4,225 per student.
The report demonstrates that in order for all school districts in Illinois to have the resources to meet Illinois Learning Standards, a substantial increase in the foundation level will be required. Additional accountability steps will be recommended by Network 21 to ensure that these resources reach the classroom, are used efficiently and improve the quality of education in Illinois.
METHODOLOGY
Under current law the Education Funding Advisory Board is required to make recommendations to the General Assembly on an appropriate foundation level based on “a methodology which incorporates the basic education expenditures of low-spending schools exhibiting high academic performance.” 105 ILCS 5/18-8.05
The methodology used by A&M examines the basic education expenditures of school districts that exhibit high academic performance based on aggregate student performance on the Illinois Standards Achievement Test (ISAT).* Other criteria, determined in some part by Network 21 members, include attendance and drop out rates.
KEY VARIABLES
The study examined the following key variables:
- Absolute Performance — the percentage of students in the district who met the Illinois Learning Standards as determined by the ISAT. Sixty-seven percent was chosen as the absolute performance criterion.
- Relative Performance — generated through a linear regression analysis to select districts that performed above their predicted level of performance based on the district’s demographic characteristics.
- Attendance Rates — 93.0 percent or greater for unit districts, 95.0 percent or greater for elementary school districts, and 95.0 percent or greater for high school districts.
- Drop-Out Rates — Six percent or less for unit districts and 3 percent or less for high school districts.
- Per-Pupil Spending Criteria — School districts with unusually high levels of per-pupil spending, one standard deviation or more above the state average. This variable is used to adjust the base expenditure lower by removing unusually high spending districts from the analysis.
- Low Income Pupil Proportion — School districts with unusually low or high concentrations of low-income pupils were used to control impacts of low and high poverty concentrations on education expenditures.
The basic expenditure level for all districts is defined as the tuition charge for each district. Expenditures are standardized for inter-district cost of education differences as defined by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).
RESULTS OF THE STUDY
The following tables outline the impact of different variables on a base education cost for unit, elementary and high school districts. The successful school district methodology permits policymakers to adjust a base education figure based on the data presented below.
Unit Districts
Elementary Districts
High School Districts
FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH A QUALITY EDUCATION 1
Along with the foundation level study, A&M also provided a comparison of the characteristics of what they describe as successful and unsuccessful school districts. The designation of successful or unsuccessful is determined on the percentage of students who meet the Illinois Learning Standards at a rate of 67 percent or greater.
This table highlights some important differences in the characteristics of successful and unsuccessful districts.
SUPPLEMENTAL LOW-INCOME CONCENTRATION GRANT
Illinois school districts receive a supplemental grant, commonly referred to as the poverty grant, to defray the higher costs associated with providing a quality education to low-income students. There has been considerable concern that the low-income program instituted in 1997 does not meet the needs of many districts, because there is a minimum floor of 20 percent concentration in order to qualify for the grant.
Current Poverty Grant Structure
A&M recommends a new formula which creates a pupil weight for low-income students and where the weight increases as the percentage of low income pupils increase in the district. The weight would be calculated by multiplying the percent of low income pupils by .8 and then adding to that amount the low income percentage squared times .63.
Thus, if a district has a low income concentration of 10 percent, the weight would be calculated in the following manner:
(.10 X .8) + (.10 X .10 X .63) = .08 + .006 = .086.
For this district, each low income pupil counts as 1.086 pupils.
If a district had 60 percent low income students the figure would be:
(.60 X .8) + (.60 X .60 X .63) = .48 + .23 = .71 (eight times the level of the district with 10 percent low-income students).
For this district, each low-income student counts as 1.71 pupils.
The exact cost of changing the poverty grant program from the current formula to a new pupil weighting system is contingent on several factors including: the foundation level, the data source for the low-income concentration and a determination of a new floor for the grant.
CONCLUSION
This executive summary is intended to provide an overview of A&M’s findings to the Network 21 coalition members and other policymakers.
The A&M findings are not the final recommendations of the Network 21 coalition, but will assist the coalition in its study of an adequate foundation and poverty level grant.