Common Standards for K-12 Education? Considering the Evidence: Summary of a Workshop Series (2008) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
5 Costs
5 Costs
Pages 39-52
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 39... ...
Calculating the cost of a policy that can be implemented in a seemingly infinite number of ways is a formidable challenge in itself, but economists also consider what they refer to as opportunity costs -- the value of the potential benefits of policy options not chosen -- when they evaluate the costs of different choices. Looking first at the question of what states must spend in order to have standards, the committee identified five framing questions to guide the discussion: 1.
|
From page 40... ...
Interventions might include developing school improvement plans, measures to build capacity at the district level, or professional development in such areas as curriculum and instruction, data analysis, assessment, and leadership. For failing students, states vary in terms of how they determine eligibility and in how they structure and deliver remediation, as well as in how much funding may be available from the state for this purpose.
|
From page 41... ...
6. Instruction Delivery System • upporting teachers, schools, and districts in implementing new or revised S standards (professional development, curriculum alignment, resources for expanded standards, adequacy studies to determine what would be re quired to give all students the opportunity to meet proficiency standards)
|
From page 42... ...
Another complication is the task of distinguishing state costs from local costs. Since state education funding formulas vary, the extent to which costs incurred at the local level are covered by state K-12 education funding can vary significantly -- which makes it more difficult to compare across states.
|
From page 43... ...
A significant fixed cost of standardsbased reform is developing the content standards and setting the performance standards: this cost would be the same whether the standards were to apply to 100 or 1 million students. However, Harris explained, a common standard is likely to set a higher bar, which is likely to mean significant additional costs.
|
From page 44... ...
Harris and Taylor also calculated the overall costs per student of assessment and accountability programs in each state, shown in Table 5-2, and some of the additional fixed costs states incur when they go beyond legal requirements, in this case the cost of annual reviews of the standards. These figures are shown in Table 5-3.
|
From page 45... ...
. TABLE 5-3 Additional Fixed Annual Costs of Standards, Assessment, and Accountability Cost of Annual Test Reviews Florida N/A North Dakota $61,000 Texas $842,000 NOTE: N/A = Not available.
|
From page 46... ...
For this analysis, Harris and Taylor broke down for the three states the fixed costs (e.g., the standards themselves, annual test reviews, and state assessment divisions) , which stay the same regardless of the number of students served by the program, and the variable costs (e.g., testing contracts, professional development, local data management)
|
From page 47... ...
Other participants added to this point, noting that of most interest would be a sense of the cost of developing common standards that had the effect of helping more students meet high standards. To calculate the cost in that way would mean including the costs for such interventions as professional development courses and new instructional materials.
|
From page 48... ...
Participants proposed many potential costs that had not been considered in the analysis, while acknowledging both the complexity involved in developing the estimates and their value as a starting point for discussion. Laurie Wise summed up the message that many drew from the consideration of costs with a reminder of the fundamental question: "Is what we are investing in actually helping students to meet these standards, not just in defining and measuring them?
|
From page 49... ...
First, there are differences in what the cost estimates actually represent. For example, researchers might have reported only an average of the total cost per district or per pupil, or they might have reported the base cost of regular education programs and treated separately the additional costs for special, bilingual, and compensatory education.
|
From page 50... ...
Districts with high proportions of disadvantaged students, who require various supplementary services and resources, will also have higher costs, but these costs are typically not factored into successful school and evidence-based studies, whereas they are in cost function and professional judgment studies. Even when adjustments are made, there are several methods of estimating the necessary adjustment, particularly with respect to the costs of educating disadvantaged students, which further contributes to the variation.
|
From page 51... ...
Another noted the complexity of making a political case for the benefits of increased spending for a policy approach. There are too many cases, such as the push to reduce class size, for which it was never possible to muster sufficient evidence to prove that the expenditure was worthwhile -- and achievement gaps remained.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.