Linking School Performance to Resource Allocation.

Public school districts, like most government entities, are attracting increasing scrutiny from stakeholders seeking to hold them accountable for their use of tax dollars. Prior to the 1990s, however, evaluation of school districts was mostly informal, based on impressions rather than objective

performance measures. State and federal aid, meanwhile, was typically contingent upon wealth ratios, property values, and the number of students requiring remedial or special education support. In effect, the more economically and educationally disadvantaged the school district, the more likely that school district was to receive state and federal aid. These funding formulas indirectly promoted substandard performance by providing financial incentives for certain failing schools.

Today, school districts are expected to demonstrate their level of adherence to established standards of scholastic achievement. Test scores and attendance, suspension, and graduation rates are routinely reported in the context of local and national performance standards. According to the National Association of State Boards of Education, all 50 states now engage in some form of standardized testing. [1]

Educational reform at the federal level only promises to accelerate the trend toward accountability. Under a Bush administration proposal, all states receiving federal aid would be required to develop accountability systems to improve and demonstrate school performance. States that improve student performance would be rewarded with additional federal aid while those failing to do so would have a portion of their aid withdrawn. [2]

Educational Accountability in New York State

In New York State, test data for each school and school district is reported in a document called the School Report Card. The news media report the results of these tests, often ranking schools in ascending order and focusing on the lower performing schools. Data from the School Report Card is taken seriously, since it has clear financial repercussions. Real estate agents and local business bureaus use the data to promote properties and municipalities, while local school boards use it to evaluate the performance of school superintendents and principals. The results also affect the ability of districts to raise revenues, and influence property values and population trends.

Despite the movement toward accountability, the direct and indirect consequences of standardized testing make it a topic of continued debate. Many school administrators and teachers question the validity of standardized testing and are reticent to accept the results as the ultimate measure of a school's success or failure. Still, most recognize the value of such data in developing and refining curriculum and other programs. [3]

Incorporating School Testing into the Budget Process. Results from the School Report Card play an important part in the budget process. School officials use the data to allocate resources where they are most needed and most deserved, thus making schools and school districts fiscally accountable for scholastic performance. The federal government and state education departments, meanwhile, are taking accountability one step further. In their applications for federal and state aid, school districts are required to identify how dollars are being spent to improve student achievement--especially where the results of the School Report Card do not meet performance standards. In New York State, many school districts have chosen to participate in a planning/budget model called the Comprehensive District Education Plan (CDEP). This model facilitates application for federal and state aid through a document that demonstrates how that aid is linked to educational outcomes.

Developing the Local CDEP Plan. The CDEP development process is a cyclical one spanning a three-year period. Data is evaluated over the course of time, thereby minimizing the statistical anomalies that are especially prevalent in school districts with low enrollment. The plan must accomplish the following: [4]

* interweave the many plans previously produced to create one plan focused on improving student achievement;

* be based on results-oriented data available on the School Report Card;

* use a school improvement committee that is representative of the district to engage the public in a discussion focused on these results;

* align all funding streams and other resources toward the improvement of district results, primarily test results; and

* demonstrate how local, state, and federal resources will be used in a coordinated fashion to meet student needs.

Two things must occur so that the CDEP plan becomes more than just another document to be filed away until the next time it has to be submitted. First, it should be developed by a CDEP planning team, including local business leaders, parents, school administrators, teachers, and school board members. This approach ensures that the diverse interests of the community are represented in the plan and distributes responsibility for its implementation among the various stakeholders.

Second, the CDEP document should include measurable outcomes based primarily on the data from the School Report Card. These outcomes are called Key Result Areas (KRAs). A KRA might read as follows: "School district X will design and implement strategies that will result in 90 percent of the student population achieving the reference (passing) score and 40 percent achieving the distinction level on the fourth grade New York Math Assessment." Once desired outcomes are identified, strategies for achieving them are developed. An example of a strategy for the aforementioned KRA would be the creation of a tutoring program to provide individualized help to struggling math students. Each strategy should include an implementation plan that establishes deadlines, identifies funding sources, and designates project managers. As new data become available, strategies should be evaluated for effectiveness and, if necessary, revised.

A Snapshot of One School District

The Prattsburgh Central School District is a high-need district in upstate New York. All of the district's 600 K-12 students are housed in a single building in northern Steuben County. Despite its 42 percent poverty rate and isolation from major population centers, the district has performed very well academically. District officials credit this success to the continued emphasis on providing students with a quality academic experience.

In developing its plan, the Prattsburgh CDEP team's primary consideration was the impact of any changes on measures of academic performance reported by the School Report Card. Since Prattsburgh began utilizing the CDEP model to link the budget process to educational outcomes, the staff and administration have been better able to focus their efforts on the end result. Financial, human, and other resources are specifically designated to fund strategies that promote Key Result Areas. The results of these efforts are evident in the School Report Card. The district has met and, in most cases, exceeded state standards for student achievement.

The CDEP plan also provides a useful framework for justifying and defending spending plans to the public. Because academic performance is clearly tied to resource allocation, district officials can objectively demonstrate the cost effectiveness of their operations. As a result, the district has enjoyed the continued confidence and support of the community. Each year, voters resoundingly approve the property tax levy upon which the district's budget depends. In addition, extracurricular programs continue to be fully funded.

Conclusion

Although school districts have always been held accountable for student achievement on an informal level, the 1990s ushered in a new era in public school accountability that demands measurable results. School performance is subject to increasing public scrutiny, putting pressure on districts to "make the grade" or suffer financial consequences. As a result, many schools are coming up with new ways to link performance to the budget. In New York State, this effort has resulted in a planning/budget model called the Comprehensive District Education Plan (CDEP). This tool has proved invaluable in developing strategies to achieve specific educational outcomes and in demonstrating how these outcomes are related to resource allocation decisions.

JEFFREY BLACK is Assistant Superintendent of Schools at the Prattsburgh Central School District in Prattsburgh, New York. Black holds bachelor's and master's degrees in education and is a former elementary school teacher and counselor.

NOTES

(1.) National Association of State Boards of Education Legislative Brief, March 2001.

(2.) Bush, George W., 1999. A Culture of Achievement. Available at http://www.georgewbush.com Accessed August 15,2001.

(3.) Semas Harkham, Judith, "High Stakes Testing: Debating the Standards Movement," Curriculum Administration, August 2001.

(4.) New York State Education Department: Comprehensive District Education Plan Development Handbook, Spring 1999.