Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Lori L. Taylor
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX 77843
E-mail: ltaylor@bushchool.tamu.edu
Bruce D. Baker
University of Kansas
Lawrence, KS 66045
E-mail: bbaker@ku.edu
Arnold Vedlitz
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX 77843
E-mail: avedlitz@bushschool.tamu.edu
No part of the Bush School transmission may be copied, downloaded, stored, further transmitted, transferred, distributed,
altered, or otherwise used, in any form or by any means, except: (1) one stored copy for personal use, non-commercial
use, or (2) prior written consent. No alterations of the transmission or removal of copyright notices is permitted.
Measuring Educational Adequacy in Public Schools*
Lori L. Taylor
George Bush School of Government and Public Service
Texas A&M University
4220 TAMU
College Station, TX 77843
Phone: 979.458.3015
Fax: 979.845.4155
E-mail: ltaylor@bushchool.tamu.edu
Bruce D. Baker
Department of Teaching and Leadership
School of Education
1122 West Campus Road
University of Kansas
Lawrence, KS 66045
Phone: 785-864-9844
Fax: 785-864-5076
E-mail: bbaker@ku.edu
Arnold Vedlitz
George Bush School of Government and Public Service
Texas A&M University
4220 TAMU
College Station, TX 77843
Phone: 979.845.2929
Fax: 979.862.8856
E-mail: avedlitz@bushschool.tamu.edu
September 2005
*
This research updates and extends a report commissioned by Texas’ Joint Select Committee for Public School
Finance.
Measuring Educational Adequacy in Public Schools
Abstract
An increasing emphasis on educational adequacy has altered the school finance debate—
and the research that supports it. Where courts, legislators and litigants were previously guided
by analyses of educational equity, they are becoming increasingly reliant on studies intended to
measure the level of educational funding that can be deemed adequate. Our study systematically
examines the various methodologies used by states and interest groups to measure educational
adequacy, compares the estimates generated by the various studies, and discusses the strengths
2
Measuring Educational Adequacy in Public Schools
Federal, state and judicial initiatives have recently focused a policy spotlight on
educational adequacy. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 requires states to develop
standards for student performance, holds states accountable for adequate yearly progress towards
those standards, and implicitly obliges states to provide the necessary funding. Legislatures in
Arkansas, Kansas, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Texas and Wyoming have commissioned
studies of the level of funding required to meet such standards. State courts in Kansas, New
York, New Jersey, Texas and Wyoming have ordered the states to address deficiencies in not
only the distribution of school funds but also the absolute level of educational funding.
The increasing emphasis on educational adequacy has altered the school finance debate—
and the research that supports it. Where they were previously guided by analyses of educational
equity, 1 courts and legislatures are increasingly asking “how much does an adequate education
cost?” The result is a growing reliance on “adequacy studies.” For example, the Wyoming court
has focused on critically evaluating the “cost basis” of that state’s new “cost-based block grant”
formula. The New Hampshire school finance formula rests on a study of the basic costs incurred
by “successful schools.” And, in decisions at least partially influenced by adequacy studies, state
courts in Kansas, New York, and Texas have all ordered large increases in state support for K-12
education.
No consensus has developed about the most appropriate strategy for conducting such
analyses, however. Numerous types of studies have been employed with highly varied results.
Our study systematically examines the various methodologies used by states and interest groups
to measure educational adequacy, compares the estimates generated by the various studies, and
3
What is an Adequacy Study?
For purposes of this report, we define an “adequacy study” as a publicly-reported attempt
by state officials or special interest groups to apply an empirical methodology to estimate the
costs of providing an adequate public education at the elementary and/or secondary level.
Three major types of adequacy studies presently dominate the landscape. Those
categories include:
Average Expenditure Studies. Prior to the 1990s, notions of educational adequacy were
often guided by the average or median expenditures of districts in the prior year. A common
presumption was that median spending is adequate, and that states should strive to bring the
policymakers in the early 1990s turned their attention to the average expenditures of districts
meeting a prescribed set of outcome standards, rather than the simple average or median of all
Successful Schools studies use outcome data on measures such as attendance, dropout
rates, and student test scores to identify that set of schools or districts in a state that meet a
chosen standard of success. Then the average of the expenditures of those schools or districts is
considered adequate (on the assumption that some schools in the state are able to be successful
with that level of funding). “Modified Successful Schools” analyses include some consideration
of how schools use their resources. This is done in either of two ways. In most cases, analysts
may use data on how schools use their resources to identify and exclude peculiar, or outlier,
schools or districts from the Successful Schools sample. Alternatively, one might seek patterns in
4
resource allocation to identify those schools that allocate resources in such a way as to produce
Resource Cost Studies. The “Resource Cost Model” (RCM) is a method that has been
used extensively for measuring the costs of providing educational services (Chambers 1999;
Hartman et al. 2001). The RCM methodology typically involves three steps: (1) identifying
and/or measuring the resources (people, space, time, and stuff) used in providing a particular set
of services; (2) estimating resource prices and price variations from school to school or district to
district; and (3) tabulating total costs of service delivery by totaling the resource quantities and
their prices. RCM has been used for calculating the cost of providing adequate educational
services since the early 1980s (Chambers and Parrish 1982; Chambers 1984).
Two relatively new (circa 1997) variants of RCM have been specifically tailored to
“Evidence-Based” RCM. The difference between them lies in the strategy for identifying the
groups of educators and policymakers are typically convened to prescribe the “basket of
educational goods and services” required for providing an adequate education. In Evidence-
Based studies, resource needs are derived from “proven effective” school reform models. Early
Robert Slavin’s “Roots and Wings/Success for All” model (Goertz and Malik 1999). More
recently, Evidence-Based analyses have strived to integrate a variety of “proven effective” input
strategies such as class size reduction, specific interventions for special student populations, and
comprehensive school reform models, rather than relying on a single reform model.
5
Because Evidence-Based strategies have been recently broadened to include and blend a
variety of reform strategies, we adopt the phrase “Evidence-Based” rather than “cost of
comprehensive school reforms” to describe the approach. We note, however, that this may lead
to a blurred distinction between Evidence-Based and Professional Judgment models. One might
assume, for example, that a panel of well-informed professionals would prescribe inputs for
schools based at least partly on the professionals’ knowledge of research literature on effective
reform strategies. The subtle distinction between this and Evidence-Based analysis is that
Evidence-Based analysis requires an empirical research basis for the recommended resource
consultants conducting the cost study and does not typically include panels of experts from
Cost Function Studies. Cost Function analysis, which is a statistical method used to
measure the systematic relationship between actual expenditures and educational outcomes given
measure the district-by-district differences in costs associated with geographic price variations,
economies of scale, and variations in student need. As such, it can be used not only to predict the
cost of achieving a desired level of outcomes in an average district, but also to generate a cost
index that indicates the relative cost of producing the desired outcomes in each district. For
example, it would likely be found that per pupil costs of achieving target outcomes are higher
than average in small, rural districts, that costs are higher in districts with high percentages of
economically disadvantaged and limited English proficient children, and that costs are higher
6
As an alternative to regression-based methods, education cost functions may also be
estimated via numerical maximization algorithms such as Data Envelopment Analysis or any of
a variety of algorithms intended to fit non-linear multivariate models. Conceptually, the approach
is the same as when regression-based models are used. The goal is to estimate a model of the
relationships between schooling outcomes, exogenous conditions and historical spending such
that the model may then be used to predict costs of achieving different outcomes. Flexible, non-
linear estimation methods impose fewer restrictions on functional form and do not require that
the researcher specify a priori, the shape of the input-outcome relationship. However,
nonstochastic approaches like DEA can be particularly susceptible to errors arising from the
or computers and software required for implementing specific programs. Again, most such
studies prescribe resources toward the achievement of specifically identified sets of performance
performance outcomes of interest to policymakers, and use either tabulation methods (Successful
Schools) or statistical models (Cost Function) to estimate the costs of achieving those
performance standards. Table 1 summarizes the previously discussed models and their variants
7
on a continuum from resource-oriented (top) to performance-oriented (bottom) analysis. Figure 1
[Table 1 here]
[Figure 1 here]
desired outcomes, might be considered pure resource-oriented analyses. Such analyses would be
unlikely in the present policy context. Most recent applications of Professional Judgment
analysis have included at least some discussion of the types of performance outcomes that should
result from providing a given set of inputs, most often drawing on outcomes specified in state
standards and accountability systems. Often, resource selection is guided by state curricular
curricular offerings (core content standards) will lead to desired performance outcomes (often as
are guided by the need to meet certain outcome standards. As with Professional Judgment
At the other end of the continuum are education Cost Function and Successful Schools
analyses, where performance outcome data drive the estimation of costs.4 These methods attempt
to estimate directly the costs or expenditures associated with schools and/or districts that achieve
8
specific educational outcomes. Cost Function analyses differ substantially from Successful
Schools analyses in that they involve much more empirically rigorous attempts to not only
determine what levels of present spending are associated, on average, with a specific set of
outcomes, but also how those levels of spending may vary for districts of different characteristics
Toward the middle of the continuum are hybrid methods like Modified Successful
Schools that involve analysis of both student outcomes and the expenditures required to achieve
those outcomes and of how schools and districts internally organize their resources.
Since the various methodologies are aimed at the same target—identifying the costs of an
adequate education—they should lead to similar predictions about costs, all other things being
performance goal would prescribe the same mix of resources as would Evidence-Based
consultants, and that mix, when evaluated at market prices, would cost exactly as much as
Different cost estimates arise when all other things are not equal. The scope of
information required to conduct the analysis provides insight into the potential for divergent cost
estimates. Table 2 summarizes the data demands of the various methods. As the table illustrates,
[Table 2 here]
For obvious reasons, all of the performance-oriented methods require some measure of
9
student outcomes to be able to calculate costs. Professional Judgment and Evidence-Based
might ask professionals to keep a particular performance goal in mind when forming judgments.
Further, researchers may evaluate and share with professionals data on current performance of
schools and districts at current resource levels. Proponents of Evidence-Based analysis posit that
reform strategies that have produced positive results elsewhere on standardized outcome
measures are most likely to achieve the positive outcomes in the state in question on that state’s
All of the methods, with the exception of the Successful Schools approach, require
information about input prices, particularly educator wages. Ideally, such information represents
price variations outside of school district control. Isolating uncontrollable variations in input
Whereas all of the other methodologies require information on input quantities, Cost
Function and Successful Schools analyses require information on total expenditures. (Modified
Successful Schools analysis may require both.) As such, Cost Function analysis and Successful
Schools analysis tend to require less detailed financial data than other approaches. The obvious
trade-off is that these analytic techniques also offer less information about the optimal level of
input quantities.
The growing track record on adequacy analysis provides us with increased opportunities
to compare the results of adequacy studies and assess whether certain patterns exist. Table 3
presents a comparative look, with adjusted dollar figures, at selected available state studies.6
10
Only publicly available, statewide studies that reported district-level cost estimates and were
sponsored by states or interest groups are included in the analysis for table 3. Studies produced
for an academic audience (such as Reschovsky and Imazeki’s Cost Function analysis of
Wisconsin, 1998), studies that produced cost estimates for only a subset of school districts in a
state (such as the MAP Professional Judgment analysis of Texas) and studies that produced only
school-level cost estimates (such as the Augenblick and Myers Professional Judgment analysis of
[Table 3 here]
feasible. We adjusted dollar figures for year-to-year and state-to-state differences in the price
level using the recently developed National Center for Education Statistics Comparable Wage
school district and excluded wherever possible any incremental cost associated with special
student populations. In most recent Professional Judgment studies, basic costs were easily
identifiable and most often listed as the total of school and district level costs (before student
need adjustments) of a large prototype district. Basic costs, per se, are the costs of providing core
educational services, assuming no additional student needs. Studies where we were able to
identify basic costs are marked “base” in the fourth column of table 3.
For other studies, it was not possible to generate basic cost estimates. The basic cost
figures produced by successful schools analyses are typically the average costs, in districts with
11
relatively small shares of higher need students. As such, we refer to these cost figures as low,
Finally, many authors reported the cost of providing an adequate education in the
“average” district (although it is not always clear whether or not this is a pupil-weighted
average). Such estimates, which are indicated with the label “state mean” in the fourth column of
table 3, overstate basic costs because they include higher-cost small districts and costs associated
because the characteristics of the average district vary so much from state to state. Over two-
thirds of the districts in Texas are small enough that they are unable to exploit economies of
scale and therefore have higher expected costs, while none of the districts in Maryland are below
efficient scale. Nearly half of the students in Arkansas or Kentucky—but less than one third of
financial need). We would expect that states with a greater share of small districts or a higher
proportion of needy students would have higher mean cost estimates than other states, even if
The case of New York is particularly problematic. Quite simply, the average school
district in New York State and the average school district in Kentucky are two very different
things. New York City public schools enroll nearly twice the entire student population of the
state of Kentucky, and serve a population dramatically different from either of those states. New
York City public schools, which enroll over one third of the students in the state, face the
elevated costs of educating a student population with much higher than state average poverty and
limited English proficiency rates in a metropolitan area with elevated labor costs. Including New
12
York City in the calculation of average cost for New York State greatly raises the bottom line.
While state average costs for New York State were estimated at $14,083, New York City costs
per pupil were estimated at $14,768 and costs in a district of average needs at $10,753
(unadjusted estimates).
Not only are differences in district characteristics muddying the waters in table 3, but so
are differences in the definition of adequate. All other things being equal, one would expect that
states with higher expectations for there students will have higher estimates of the costs of an
adequate education. The analysis in table 3 cannot control for such differences.
Caveats aside, it is readily apparent in table 3 that studies employing Successful Schools
methods have produced the lowest estimates of the cost of an adequate education (after
adjustments for inflation and regionally price differences). Resource-oriented methods like
though not all cost function analyses also produced high results. In any state with multiple cost
estimates, the Successful Schools estimate is lower than that generated by any other approach.
However, we stress again that the Successful Schools approach (which by construction uses a
performance standard that some schools already meet) may estimate the cost associated with a
lower performance standard than the one implicit or explicit in the other methodologies.
Table 4 summarizes findings of cost studies where the same researchers examined
[Table 4 here]
13
In four cases, the firm of Augenblick, Myer and Associates of Denver, Colorado
conducted both Professional Judgment and Successful Schools analyses. In all four cases,
Successful Schools analyses produced much lower basic cost figures than Professional Judgment
analyses.
Table 5 summarizes cost findings from states where similar methods were performed by
the same and different researchers or policymakers. In cases where multiple estimates are
provided by the same researchers, results may vary for a variety of reasons. For example, several
recent cost function studies estimate costs of achieving different average outcome levels. In New
York State, Duncombe and colleagues provide alternative estimates of costs at performance
levels of 140, 150 and 160 on their composite, 200 point scale outcome index. Similarly,
Reschovsky and Imazeki and Gronberg et al. provide alternative estimates for 55 percent and 70
percent pass rates on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills, and Gronberg et al.
conducted the analysis at the 55 percent passing level twice—once with 2002 data and again
Augenblick and Colleagues provide multiple cost estimates for Illinois based on different
outcome standards, using single or multiple years of data and including some or all outcome
standards. The higher of the two figures in Table 5 represents the average expenditures of Illinois
school districts which, using 1999-2000 data, had 83% of students meeting or exceeding the
standard for improvement over time. The lower of the two figures is based on the average
expenditure of districts which, using 2000 data only, had 67% of pupils meet or exceed the
14
[Table 5 here]
Similar issues exist in a series of successful schools cost estimates produced in Ohio a
year earlier. In Ohio, however, estimates were derived and proposed amidst the political process,
with various constituents picking and choosing their data years and outcome measures to yield
the desired result. Two Ohio estimates are provided in the table, but multiple estimates were
actually prepared based on different subsets of districts meeting different outcome standards. The
Governor’s office chose 43 districts meeting 20 of 27 1999 standards, the Senate selected 122
districts meeting 17 of 18 1996 standards, the House chose 45 districts meeting all 18 original
standards in 1999, and the House again in an amended bill used 127 districts meeting 17 of 18
While different outcome measures yield legitimate variations in cost estimates, other less
transparent features of the methodologies may also lead to different cost estimates. The two cost-
function analyses for Texas cover essentially the same school districts in a similar time frame.
However, the studies differ in a number of key respects (see Taylor 2004a) not the least of which
is that the plaintiff’s estimate (Imazeki and Reschovsky) is the unweighted average of district
cost projections while the Legislature’s estimates (Gronberg et al.) are pupil-weighted averages.
Because Texas has so many small districts with correspondingly high cost projections, this
difference in weighting alone can explain all of the difference in estimated average cost at the 55
Findings of reported Professional Judgment and Evidence-Based analyses are often less
directly comparable. In Maryland, for example, the state’s consultants and special interest
consultants dealt differently with costs associated with special education. MAP, Inc. prepared
15
estimates for the New Maryland Education Coalition, and included special education costs in all
estimates. The two different estimates provided by MAP represent the low and high estimates of
different professional judgment teams but based on the same outcome objectives. While the
state’s own professional judgment estimates prepared by Augenblick and Colleagues was lower,
the legislature eventually chose to adopt (for five year phase in) the even lower finding from the
Because there are a small number of researchers performing adequacy studies, it is also
possible to compare studies where the same researchers applied the same methods to different
states. Two research teams—Augenblick and Associates and Picus and Associates—have
conducted adequacy studies in multiple states.8 Augenblick and Associates conducted either a
Professional Judgment analysis or a Successful Schools analysis (or both) in more than a dozen
states, while Picus and Associates conducted Evidence-Based analyses for Kentucky and
Arkansas.
adjustments for differences in teacher compensation costs between the two states, the two
The Professional Judgment and Successful Schools studies have a much greater range,
but also reflect potentially large differences across states in the definition of adequate. (Recall
that the Evidence-Based approach rests on the consultant’s definition of adequate.) Basic costs,
which are the costs of providing core educational services in a scale efficient district assuming
no additional student needs, range from $6,921 in Tennessee to $9,259 in neighboring Missouri.
16
However, it is possible that the 34 percent difference in adjusted basic cost simply reflects higher
More striking are the variations across states regarding the impact of school size on the
cost of an adequate education. The consulting team’s Successful Schools analyses do not
attempt any adjustment for economies of scale, but their Professional Judgment analyses do
incorporate such adjustments. In each state, the researchers estimated costs of three to five
prototypical districts of varied size, assuming linear changes in costs between the prototypes.
These attempts have produced widely varied results, even in contiguous states. They found that
costs were minimized in districts with 12,500 students (Nebraska), 11,300 students (Kansas),
8,000 students (Tennessee), 5,200 students (Colorado), 4,380 students (Missouri), 1,740 students
(Montana) and 750 students (North Dakota). In Nebraska, a district with 400 pupils had costs
40% above the minimum, but in Missouri, a district with 364 pupils, had costs only nine percent
As we have demonstrated, there are many analytic approaches to answering the critical
question, “What level of public funding is needed to provide an adequate public education?” All
of the approaches have strengths and weaknesses in giving decision makers the definitive
Resource-Oriented Strengths
Professional Judgment or Evidence-Based analyses, is that the methods are relatively simple and
transparent and produce easily understood results. That is, resource-oriented models appear not
17
to involve more complex statistical modeling. Of course, well-designed resource-oriented models
require researchers to use statistical modeling to determine market prices for educational inputs,9
Because achieving consensus regarding desired educational outcomes can be difficult and
precise measurement of those outcomes even more complicated, one advantage of resource-
oriented analyses is that they avoid these complexities altogether. Professional Judgment
approaches can also incorporate outcomes that are difficult to measure, while outcome-based
analyses can only estimate the costs associated with measurable outcomes.
Resource-Oriented Weaknesses
difficult to justify a cost figure for an “adequate education,” where that cost figure is, at best,
Furthermore, analyses that rest on the judgment of a panel of professionals are vulnerable
to the blind spots and biases of individual panel members. If the panel is poorly drawn or
unaware of cost effective educational practices, their cost estimates will be biased.
comprehensive school reforms and improved outcomes, research evidence regarding the
effectiveness and more specifically the cost effectiveness of these reforms is mixed at best
(Bifulco et al. 2002; Borman and Hewes 2002; Levin 2002; Borman et al. 2003). Furthermore,
there may be little connection between the outcomes such reform models are “proven” to
districts, which can lead to problems when actual school districts differ from the prototypes. For
18
example, it can be difficult to estimate the costs of operating a district with 600 pupils, when
prototypes have been estimated with 200 pupils and 1000 pupils. Similar issues exist in the
accommodation of student needs, where only a limited range of possibilities may be feasibly
represented in the prototypes. The greater the difference between the prototypes and the actual
schools, the greater the margin for error. It can be particularly problematic to estimate costs
when the actual schools differ from the prototypes in more than one dimension, as would occur
when schools were smaller and served more disadvantaged students than the most similar
prototype. Even apparently subtle differences in applying the prototypes to the real world (such
but tend to presume that implementing such changes will have no effect on resource prices. If the
increase in demand resulting from the new intensity requirement drives up the price of inputs,
then the total cost predictions from the analysis will be greatly understated.
In summary, to use an analogy, with resource-oriented analysis, you know the mode of
transportation you’re going to take, but you’re not sure exactly where you’re going.
The primary strength of performance-oriented models is that they establish a direct link
between education costs and desired outcomes. Understanding the link between costs and
outcomes and designing aid formulas based on this understanding is arguably a critical objective
Cost Function analysis has the added strength that it is specifically designed to measure
the district-by-district differences in costs associated with the geographic price variations,
19
economies of scale, and variations in student need. As such, it provides an empirical basis not
only for the basic level of spending, but also for various cost adjustments that must be applied to
that base.
consensus regarding important outcomes and the empirics of precisely measuring those
outcomes. Many outcomes that policy-makers consider important may be too difficult to
measure, and that which is measured well may be a biased representation of that which we hope
to achieve. The Cost Function approach is data intensive, requiring high quality measures of
school district performance and expenditures. Many states lack the necessary data to conduct
such analyses. For example, Maryland does not collect detailed data on school expenditures.
Thus, although the state of Maryland was able to identify 104 schools that it considered to be
than 60 schools on the grounds that it would be difficult to obtain fiscal data from the full 104
within the time available. Cost Function analyses on the basis of such a small sample would be
problematic.
A difficulty with more complex statistical methods like education Cost Functions is that
both the underlying methodologies and eventual outcomes of those methodologies can be
methodologies rest on theoretical and analytical assumptions with which informed parties may
disagree.
are also vulnerable to error and bias, there can be political resistance to methodologies that reveal
20
By design, statistical models describe relationships within the experience of the data. It is
problematic to extrapolate beyond that experience to predict the costs associated with a level of
performance that is not regularly achieved, or is not achieved by districts with a particular set of
relationship between spending and outcomes, they do not provide specific insights into how
districts should internally organize their resources to effectively and efficiently produce
outcomes.
In summary, again, with performance-oriented analysis, you know where you’re going
and how much money it should take to get there, but you’re not quite sure of the best way to go.
Conclusions
Over the last decade, educational adequacy studies have been conducted in many states.
Such studies can be grouped into three broad categories: average expenditure studies, resource
cost studies, and cost function studies. No one approach dominates the others from either a
theoretical or a practical perspective. All have been used by policy-makers, litigants, interest
The lack of consensus regarding the appropriate research methodology would be largely
moot if all of the methods yielded similar predictions about the cost of an adequate education.
The reality is that such congruence of cost estimates is not the case. The choice of research
method has considerable influence on the nature of the predictions. Adjusted for inflation and
regional price variations—but not for differences in the definition of “adequate”—the estimated
per-pupil cost of an adequate education for the same state but using different adequacy measures
21
can range from $6,612 to $10,945 (in 2004 dollars). Furthermore, even when two research
methods yield roughly similar estimates of the cost of an adequate education in the baseline or
average school district in a given state, different methods can yield strikingly different estimates
of the variations in costs associated with district characteristics, like size and student
demographics.
Given the sensitivity of the cost projections to variations in research methodology and
study specifics, states must be sensitive to the methods used in their specific case and the
assumptions underlying that method. If the method chosen affects the amounts identified, states
must be sensitive to study choices and the application of specific approaches, and their
interpretation, in their particular context. One obvious policy response could be to conduct
several studies with different methods. In such a comparative context, researchers should be
assumptions, and the relevance of their particular assumptions to specific state contexts.
Policymakers and the courts should evaluate educational adequacy from a variety of
perspectives, with clear enunciation of assumptions and their relevance to a specific state’s
education, social and economic environment. No single adequacy study, without such
22
Notes
1. For more on educational equity, see Johnston and Duncombe (1999), Moser and Rubinstein,
2. For example, a commonly used index of school finance equity/adequacy is the McLoone
index, which compares the average expenditures of the lower 50 percent of children with the
children fall below the median (50 percent are at the median).
3. For example, early successful schools analyses in Ohio used data on district resource
allocation as a partial basis for modifying the sample of districts to be used for calculating
4. An appendix detailing the output measures used in Cost Function and Successful Schools
7. Unweighted, the Gronberg et al. estimate at the 55 percent pass rate is $7,375 using 2004
data, and $7,304 using 2002 data (both in adjusted $2004). We thank them for making these
8. The North Dakota study was formally attributed to Augenblick, Palaich and Associates.
9. It is important to note that one critical phase in well developed resource cost modeling is the
setting of competitive market prices for educational resources and the estimation of how
those prices vary from one district to another in a state. This phase is best performed via
statistical modeling not too unlike Cost Function modeling in its statistical complexity. See
Chambers (1999).
23
10. In Kansas, for example, differences in aid resulting from applying linear segments between
Augenblick and Myers prototypes and applying a curved expenditure function of similar
24
References
Bifulco, Robert, Carolyn Bordeaux, William Duncombe and John Yinger. 2002. Do Whole
School Reform Programs Boost Student Performance? The Case of New York City.
Smith-Richardson Foundation.
Borman, Geoffery D. and Gina Hewes. 2002. The Long-Term Effects and Cost Effectiveness of
Success for All. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 24(4): 243–66.
Borman, Geoffery D., Gina Hewes, Laura Overman and Shelly Brown. 2003. Comprehensive
73(2): 125-230.
Chambers, Jay G. 1984. The Development of a Program Cost Model and Cost-of-Education
Model for the State of Alaska. Volume II: Technical Report. Associates for Education
——— 1999. Measuring Resources in Education: From Accounting to the Resource Cost Model
Approach. Working Paper Series, National Center for Education Statistics, Office of
Chambers, Jay G. and Thomas B. Parrish. 1982. The Development of a Resource Cost Model
Funding Base for Education Finance in Illinois. Report prepared for the Illinois State
Board of Education.
Evans, William N., Sheila E. Murray and Robert M. Schwab. 1999. The Impact of Court-
Mandated School Finance Reform. In Helen F. Ladd, Rosemary Chalk and Janet Hansen
(eds) “Equity and Adequacy in Education Finance: Issues and Perspectives.” Committee
25
on Education Finance, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education,
Goertz, Margaret E. and Edwards Malik 1999. In Search of Excellence for All: The Courts and
New Jersey School Finance Reform. Journal of Education Finance 25 (1): 5-31.
Hartman, William T., Denny Bolton and David H. Monk. 2001. A Synthesis of Two Approaches
to School-Level Financial Data: The Accounting and Resource Cost Model Approaches.
In Selected Papers in School Finance, 2000–01, edited by W. Fowler. National Center for
Implications for the Minnesota Education Finance System. Minnesota Center for Public
Johnston, Jocelyn and William Duncombe. 1998. Balancing Conflicting Policy Objectives: The
Levin, Henry M. 2002. The Cost Effectiveness of Whole School Reforms. Urban Diversity
Series No. 114. Eric Clearinghouse on Urban Education. Institute for Urban and Minority
Education.
Moser, Michele and Ross Rubinstein. 2002. “The Equality of Public School District Funding in
the United States: A National Status Report,” Public Administration Review, 62 (1): 63-
72, January-February.
Reschovsky, Andrew and Jennifer Imazeki. 1998. The Development of School Finance Formulas
Developments in School Finance, 1997 (NCES 98-212), edited by William J. Fowler, Jr.,
26
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics.
——— 2001. Achieving Educational Adequacy through School Finance Reform. Journal of
Taylor, Lori L. 2004a. Estimating the Cost of Education in Texas. Prepared for the Texas Office
——— 2004b. Adjusting for Geographic Variations in Teacher Compensation: Updating the
Texas Cost-of-Education Index. Prepared for Texas Joint Select Committee on Public
School Finance.
Taylor, Lori L. and William J. Fowler, Jr. 2005. A Comparable Wage Approach to a Geographic
Cost Adjustment in Education NCES 2005–862. Washington, D.C.: National Center for
Education Statistics.
Wyckoff, James H. 1992. The Intrastate Equality of Public Primary and Secondary Education
27
Table 1. Types of Adequacy Analyses
28
Table 2. Data Demands of Various Models
Input Input
Model Outcomes Expenditures
Quantities Prices
Professional
X X
Resource
Oriented
Judgment
Evidence Based
Professional X X
Judgment
Modified (Resource
Performance
X X X X
Oriented
Analysis) Successful
Schools
Successful Schools X X
Cost Function X X X
29
Table 3. Adequacy Analysis Findings
Regionally
Estimate Includes Estimate &
State Authors Cost Method Estimate
Type(a) Disabilities Year Inflation
Adjusted(b)
Arkansas Lawrence O. Picus and Associates Evidence Based State Mean YES 2002 $6,741 $8,630
Colorado Augenblick and Colleagues Professional Judgment Base 2002 $6,815 $7,504
Colorado Augenblick and Colleagues Successful Schools Low 2002 $4,654 $5,124
Illinois Augenblick and Colleagues Successful Schools Low 2000 $5,594 $6,360
Illinois Augenblick and Colleagues Successful Schools Low 2000 $5,965 $6,782
Indiana Augenblick and Colleagues Professional Judgment Base 2002 $7,094 $8,447
Kansas Augenblick and Colleagues Professional Judgment Base 2001 $5,811 $7,577
Kansas Augenblick and Colleagues Successful Schools Low 2001 $4,547 $5,929
Kentucky Lawrence O. Picus and Associates Evidence Based State Mean 2003 $6,893 $7,998
Kentucky Deborah A. Verstegen Professional Judgment State Mean YES 2003 $8,438 $9,791
Maryland Augenblick and Colleagues Professional Judgment Base 2000 $6,612 $7,325
Maryland Augenblick and Colleagues Successful Schools Low 2000 $5,969 $6,612
Maryland (High) Management, Planning & Analysis, Inc. Professional Judgment State Mean YES 1999 $9,313 $10,945
Maryland (Low) Management, Planning & Analysis, Inc. Professional Judgment State Mean YES 1999 $7,461 $8,769
Minnesota Center for Public Finance Research (w/Ruggiero) Cost Function (DEA) State Mean 2002 $6,236 $6,834
Missouri Augenblick and Colleagues Professional Judgment Base 2002 $7,832 $9,259
Missouri Augenblick and Colleagues Successful Schools Low 2002 $5,664 $6,696
Montana Augenblick and Colleagues Professional Judgment Base 2002 $6,004 $8,592
Nebraska Augenblick and Colleagues Professional Judgment Base 2001 $5,845 $7,827
New York Duncombe & Colleagues (Syracuse U.) Cost Function State Mean 2004 $14,107 $12,622
New York American Institutes for Research & MAP Professional Judgment State Mean YES 2002 $12,975 $12,303
New York (140) Duncombe & Colleagues (Syracuse U.) Cost Function State Mean 2000 $14,083 $14,563
New York (150) Duncombe & Colleagues (Syracuse U.) Cost Function State Mean 2000 $14,716 $15,218
New York (160) Duncombe & Colleagues (Syracuse U.) Cost Function State Mean 2000 $15,139 $15,655
New York (High) Standard & Poors Successful Schools State Mean YES 2004 $13,420 $12,007
New York (Low) Standard & Poors Successful Schools State Mean YES 2004 $12,679 $11,344
North Dakota Augenblick and Colleagues Professional Judgment Base 2002 $6,005 $8,065
Ohio Legislature Successful Schools Low 1999 $5,560 $7,093
Ohio Legislature Successful Schools Low 1999 $4,446 $5,672
Ohio Augenblick and Colleagues Successful Schools Low 1996 $3,930 $5,624
Oregon Oregon Quality Education Commission Professional Judgment Base 1999 $5,448 $7,086
Regionally
Estimate Includes Estimate &
State Authors Cost Method Estimate
Type(a) Disabilities Year Inflation
Adjusted(b)
Tennessee Augenblick and Colleagues Professional Judgment Base 2003 $6,200 $6,921
Texas (55%) Reschovsky & Imazeki Cost Function State Mean YES 2002 $6.949 $7,352
Texas (55%) Gronberg, Jansen, Taylor & Booker Cost Function State Mean YES 2002 $5,950 $6,295
Texas (55%) Gronberg, Jansen, Taylor & Booker Cost Function State Mean YES 2004 $6,483 $6,495
Texas (70%) Reschovsky & Imazeki Cost Function State Mean YES 2002 $9,787 $10,355
Texas (70%) Gronberg, Jansen, Taylor & Booker Cost Function State Mean YES 2004 $6,523 $6,534
Washington Ranier Institute Professional Judgment State Mean YES 2001 $7,753 $8,398
Wisconsin Institute for Wisconsin'
s Future Professional Judgment Base 2002 $8,730 $9,757
(a) Base = cost of basic programs, assuming 0% additional student needs; Low = average spending for target outcomes, in generally “low” student
need districts; Mean = cost of target outcomes in district of state average student and district needs/costs.
(b) We use a Comparable Wage Index to adjust for both inflation and regional variations in labor costs. The estimates are in $2004. See Taylor
and Fowler (2005).
31
Table 4. Comparison of Findings from Alternative Models where Analyses Were
Regionally
Estimate Includes Estimate &
Authors Estimate
Type Disabilities Year Inflation
Adjusted
Successful Schools
Illinois
Augenblick and Colleagues Low 2000 $5,594 $6,360
Augenblick and Colleagues Low 2000 $5,965 $6,782
New York
Standard & Poors State Mean YES 2004 $13,420 $12,007
Standard & Poors State Mean YES 2004 $12,679 $11,344
Ohio
Legislature Low 1999 $5,560 $7,093
Legislature Low 1999 $4,446 $5,672
Augenblick and Colleagues Low 1996 $3,930 $5,624
Professional Judgment
Maryland
Augenblick and Colleagues Base 2000 $6,612 $7,325
Management, Planning & Analysis, Inc. State Mean YES 1999 $9,313 $10,945
Management, Planning & Analysis, Inc. State Mean YES 1999 $7,461 $8,769
Cost Function
New York
Duncombe & Colleagues (Syracuse U.) State Mean 2004 $14,107 $12,622
Duncombe & Colleagues (Syracuse U.) [140] State Mean 2000 $14,083 $14,563
Duncombe & Colleagues (Syracuse U.) [150] State Mean 2000 $14,716 $15,218
Duncombe & Colleagues (Syracuse U.) [160] State Mean 2000 $15,139 $15,655
Texas
Reschovsky & Imazeki [55%] State Mean YES 2002 $6.949 $7,352
Gronberg, Jansen, Taylor & Booker [55%] State Mean YES 2002 $5,950 $6,295
Gronberg, Jansen, Taylor & Booker [55%] State Mean YES 2004 $6,483 $6,495
Reschovsky & Imazeki [70%] State Mean YES 2002 $9,787 $10,355
Gronberg, Jansen, Taylor & Booker [70%] State Mean YES 2004 $6,523 $6,534
33
Figure 1. Continuum of Education Cost Analysis Methods, Adequacy Studies 1995-2004
Performance Oriented
Resource Oriented
ProfessionalJudgment
Judgment EvidenceBased
Based Modified Cost
Cost
Professional Evidence Modified SuccessfulSchools
Schools
Wyoming1997
Wyoming 1997(s)
(s) New Jersey 1998 (s) Successful Schools Function
Function Successful
New Jersey 1998 (s) Successful Schools Mississippi 1993(s)
Oregon2000
Oregon 2000 Kentucky2003 2003 Ohio1999
1999 NewYork
New York Mississippi 1993(s)
Kentucky Ohio Ohio 1999
SouthCarolina
South Carolina2000
2000(s)
(s) Arkansas20032003 NewHampshire
Hampshire1998 1998(s)
(s) 2004
2004 Ohio 1999
Arkansas New Maryland20012001
Maryland2001(2)
Maryland 2001(2) ------------------ Illinois 2001 Texas
Texas Maryland
------------------ Illinois 2001 Kansas 2002
Kansas2002
2002 pending NewYork
York2004
2004 2004,2005
2004, 2005 Kansas 2002
Kansas pending New Louisiana2001
2001(s)(s)
Nebraska 2003
Nebraska 2003 Wyoming Minnesota
Minnesota Louisiana
Wyoming Colorado2003
2003
Indiana 2002
Indiana 2002 2005/06 2004
2004 Colorado
2005/06 Missouri2003
2003
Wisconsin2002
Wisconsin 2002 Kansas -------------
------------- Missouri
Kansas New York 2004
Colorado2003
Colorado 2003 2005/06 pending
pending New York 2004
2005/06 Vermont20042004(s)(s)
Missouri 2003
Missouri 2003 Kansas
Kansas Vermont
Montana2003
Montana 2003 2005/06
2005/ 06
Kentucky 2003
Kentucky 2003
NorthDakota
North Dakota2003
2003
Washington 2003
Washington 2003
NewYork
New York2004
2004
Tennessee2004
Tennessee 2004
Vermont2004
Vermont 2004(s)
(s) (s) School level costs estimated (not included in Table 3)
Includes only statewide cost analyses.
34