North Texas Regional P-16 Council December 2018 A Cohesive - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

North Texas Regional P-16 Council December 2018

2

A Cohesive Partnership Helping Drive Equitable Outcomes Across the Region

Dedicated backbone providing data insights and collective action toward high impact work streams

(Educator pipelines) (Early Childhood) (Post-secondary access/completion)

190+ Organizations within umbrella partnership supported by ~28 FTE backbone staff and governed by board

• f major foundations and community/business leaders that identifies highest impact levers for community focus

Kindergarten Readiness 4th Grade Math High School Graduation Postsecondary Persistence Algebra I Pre-K Enrollment 3rd Grade Reading 8th Grade Science College Readiness Postsecondary Enrollment Postsecondary Completion

TRUE NORTH GOAL: 60% Of Adults Ages 25-34 Have a Postsecondary Credential by 2030

3

Compared to the U.S., Texas has a large student population with generally higher proportions of economically-disadvantaged and ELL students

5.4 Million Students

(10% of Nationwide K-12 Enrollment)

59% Economically Disadvantaged

(12th Highest State in the U.S.; TX educates 1 out

• f every 8 Econ. Disadvantaged Students in U.S.)

19% English-Language-Learners

(2nd Highest State in the Nation)

Texas Education Agency, 2016-17 Texas Academic Performance Reports

= 1 million students

4

Since 2007, student growth in Texas has largely been among economically- disadvantaged and Hispanic student populations

Source: Demographic data: TEA TAPR 2007 and 2017 reports; PS completion: THECB 8th Grade Cohort Study, 2016 report (1) Postsecondary Completion rates are calculated as a percent of HS graduates

200 400 600 800 1,000 All students EcoDis Not EcoDis Hispanic Black White/Other

Change in Texas Public PK-12 Student Enrollment, From 2007 to 2017

Students (in thousands) +17% +24% +12% +32% +4% +12% +770k students +610k +160k +13k +680k +70k

Change Since ’07

79% of K- 12 Growth in Low Income Students 88% of K- 12 Growth in Hispanic Students

5

Troubling outcomes resulting from relationship of our spending relative to our growing student challenges, particularly in literacy

Texas: 43rd out of 50 states

In Per Pupil Public Education Spending

46/50 in 4th Grade Reading 41/50 in 8th Grade Reading 19/50 in 4th Grade Math 24/50 in 8th Grade Math

EdWeek, Quality Counts 2018 Report National Center for Education Statistics, 2017 NAEP Results

2017 ”Nation’s Report Card” (NAEP) TX Rankings

6 321,305 113,380 228,140 221,343 199,974 214,676 272,064 36,411 75,844 201,378

• 2%

n/a +6% +14% +4% +11%

• 1%

+3% +2% +2% +1%

• 1%

+2% +6% +0% +3%

• 1%

+1% +0% +1%

Where We Stand Today: Texas’ Education/Workforce Pipeline

~201,000 (72%) of High School Grads Don’t Complete P.S. Credential in 6 Years

Source: Commit Partnership 3/19/18 testimony to Outcomes working group (1) Pre-K Enrollment: Percent of 3- and 4-year-olds enrolled in district Pre-K programs. Texas Education Agency (TEA) – Texas Public Education Information Report (TPEIR) – Texas Pre-Kindergarten Report; (2) Kindergarten Readiness: The percent of students deemed Kindergarten Ready based on assessments given by districts at the beginning of the year to Kindergarteners; (3) STAAR indicators: Achievement levels represent percentage of students achieving “meets grade level” standard on 2017 STAAR exams. (4) College ready: The percent of HS grads who took the SAT or ACT and scored at least a 24 on the ACT or 1110 on the SAT (reading and math) – TEA TAPR 2017. (5) Graduation rate: the percent of the 9th grade cohort from 2012 – 2013 school year that graduated four years later in

• 2016. Texas Education Agency: – 2016-2017 Accountability System – 4 year Federal Graduation Rate; (6) College enrollment: The percent of 2010 HS graduates who enrolled in a TX postsecondary institution; THECB 8th

Grade Cohort 2016 report; (7) College completion: The percent of 2010 HS grads who earned a PS degree/certification within 6 years of HS graduation; THECB 8th Grade Cohort Study, 2016 report

41% 58% 44% 45% 47% 50% 16% 90% 73% 28%

Establish a starting line Build a solid early foundation Equip for the future Support to and through post- secondary completion

Kinder Ready2 3rd Reading3 4th Math3 8th Reading3 Algebra I3 College Ready4 High School Grad5 3 and 4-yr-olds enrolled in district Pre-K1 Postsec. Enrollment (of HS grads)6 Postsec. Completion (of HS grads)7

Change Since 2016 Change Since 2012

Students Not Meeting Benchmark in 2017

7

Roughly $200 Billion Dollars Foregone by Each Texas H.S. Class by not Obtaining Postsecondary Credentials

$2.5 M $1.5 M $0 M $1 M $2 M $3 M Completes P.S. Credential Does Not Complete P.S. Credential

Within each Texas H.S. graduating class, students subsequently not earning a postsecondary credential lose up to ~$200 Billion in future lifetime earnings (equal to 1/8th of Texas $1.6 trillion GDP)

Gap: ~$1 Million in Lifetime Earnings Estimated Lifetime Earnings by Education Level, H.S. class of 2010

# students, 2010 HS cohort 79,142 201,378 Texas

Source: The Commit Partnership, Median earnings found and adjusted for inflation (2017 Dollars) in U.S. Census, American Community Survey Briefs, “Work-life Earnings by Field of Degree and Occupation for People with a Bachelor’s Degree: 2011”; PS attainment numbers estimated using the THECB Higher Education Attainment report, HS grad classes ‘08-’10

8

Other Costs of Undereducated Workforce Beyond Lost GDP Unemployment, Uninsured Medical, and Incarceration

11

Skills Mismatch:1 ~300,000 unfilled jobs per Texas Workforce Commission vs.

~544,000

unemployed Texans Incarceration:3 ~147,000 inmates costing

~$3.2bn

annually ($22,000 per inmate), or 2x what we spend on K-12 student Uninsured Medical:2 ~$6.0 bn annual cost to Texas for people without the health benefits typically associated with living wage jobs

Source: (1) Texas Workforce Commission, 2017, (2) Anne Dunkelberg Presentation, Outcomes Working Group 5/29/18, (3) Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice, 2016.

9

Why Focus on Dollar Incentives?

Current Outcomes Impacted by Poverty…But Very Wide Variations in Outcomes Among Districts with Similar Demographics Show That Strategies, Priorities and Resource Allocations Can Matter Greatly

Source: Commit Partnership 3/19/18 testimony to Outcomes working group, STAAR performance: 2017 TEA STAAR report; District student EcoDis: 2017 TEA TAPR report

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2017 STAAR “Meets Grade Level” Rates by District: All Grades, All Subjects

2017 STAAR “Meets” %: all grades, all subjects 2017 District Economic Disadvantage, % Large Medium Small

Houston ISD Dallas ISD Cypress-Fairbanks ISD Northside ISD Fort Worth ISD

Proficiency at Meets for Highest Perf. ISD/Charter ProfIciency at Meets for Lowest Perf. ISD/Charter Gap Between Highest and Lowest

All Students

87% 25%

62%

Non-Low Income Students

87% 28%

59%

Low Income Students

52% 21%

31%

English Language Learners

40% 5%

35%

10

27% 40%

39% 47%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018

% of DISD Students Meeting State Std. % of State Students Meeting State Std.

Key strategies implemented by Dallas ISD have contributed to strong achievement growth almost 2x the state’s improvement

Source: 2018 TEA Accountability Ratings.

Principal Evaluation System Implemented Full-Day Pre-K Mandated by Board Policy as Budget Priority Teacher Evaluation System Implemented Accelerating Campus Excellence (“ACE”) Implemented Early College and P-Tech Initiative Launched District Wide

13pp gain in Dallas ISD, vs 8pp gain for State despite 1.5x higher poverty

Evaluating Dallas ISD Progress and Strategies

11

Evaluating Dallas ISD Progress and Strategies

Dallas ISD has much higher proportions of low-income and ELL students, yet has seen tremendous improvement over past 4 years

59% 19% 88% 44%

1.5x Greater Economically- Disadvantaged % 2.3x Greater English- Language-Learners %

State Dallas ISD State Dallas ISD

Year IR Campuses IR Students as % of Total Enroll. 2013-14

43 19%

2014-15

37

2015-16

22

2016-17

13

2017-18

4 1%

School Finance in Texas

13

Imagine Texas School Funding As a Glass of Water

Glass Size Determined by Relative Need According to Formulas; State Fills Balance Not Filled by Local M&O Taxes and Recaptures Excess LOCAL M&O TAXES (Determined by Values and Rate) STATE PORTION (Fills in Balance)

Basic Allotment of $5,140 Targeted Funding For a School District Adjusted For:

• Demographics
• Cost of Living
• Size Efficiencies
• Geographic Span

LOCAL M&O TAXES (Determined by Values and Rate) RECAPTURE

(Determined by Wealth and Adj. Enrollment – “Robin Hood”)

LOCAL TAXES (Determined by Values and Rate) LOCAL M&O TAXES (Determined by Values and Rate) RECAPTURE

(Determined by Wealth and Adj. Enrollment – “Robin Hood”)

14

If unaddressed, recapture will become an even larger burden over a growing number of Chapter 41 school districts over the next 5 years

The $2.5B that the state collects in recapture payments from Chapter 41 school districts is projected to more than double in just five years, up to $6B by 2023 under the current school finance system.

Actual and Projected Recapture Collections, 1994 to 2023

15

School Finance Commission

Outcomes Expenditures Revenues

Todd Williams

CEO, Commit Partnership

• Rep. Dan Huberty

Chair, House Pub Ed

• Sen. Paul Bettencourt

Vice Chair, Intergovernmental Relations

• Rep. Diego Bernal

Vice Chair, Pub Ed

• Sen. Royce West

Vice Chair, Sen. Higher Ed

• Rep. Ken King

Chair, Educator Quality

• Dr. Doug Killian

Superintendent, Pflugerville ISD

• Dr. Keven Ellis

District 9 SBOE Rep

Nicole Conley-Johnson

CFO, Austin ISD

• Sen. Larry Taylor

Chair, Sen. Pub Ed

Elvira Reyna

Frmr State Representative

Melissa Martin

Teacher

Justice Scott Brister

Commission Chair

*Bolded names represent Working Group Chairs

Commission Chair: Justice Scott Brister

16

Three Strategic Levers to Improve Outcomes:

Early Childhood. Effective Educators. Postsecondary Readiness.

Students Who Cannot Read by 3rd Grade are 4x More Likely to Drop Out of School

Students in High-Poverty Campuses are 2.5x More Likely to be Taught by First-Year Teachers than Students in Low-Poverty Campuses

2.5x 4x

42% of Students Enrolling in College Require Remediation.

17

School Finance Legislation Should Include Sufficient Incremental New Dollars to Fund Strategies Across Three High Impact Areas

• Dollars represent additional investments (vs. supplanting)
• Funded through school finance formula (vs. grants) to convince educators

and school boards to make the investment/commitment

• Funding should include specific incentives within the formula funding,

tied to specific goals at critical “gates” within a Texas student’s educational journey that reflect:

• high areas of academic “melt”
• large, systemic challenges where incentives can potentially help alter

actions of stakeholders

• Are equitably determined so that low-income students receive more

funding than non-low-income students and as such funding increases as

• verall campus poverty increases

Early Education Every Student Shall Read by 3rd Grade “Ready to Learn” Teacher Quality, Retention and Distribution “Ready to Teach” Every Student Shall be Ready/ Shall Access Career or P.S. Ed “Ready to Earn”

Outcomes Working Group Recommendations

18

Expenditures Working Group Overview

“The Working Group made recommendations within the context of available resources through the current school finance system, as we were not charged with determining from what source additional funds should be invested. While we believe additional resources are required to achieve our state’s desired outcomes, how much additional resources are needed and the source of those revenues will come through full Commission discussions following a report from the Revenue Working Group.” The Working Group’s 22 recommendations fell into four buckets:

Reallocations & Savings Changes to Existing Allotments New Allotments & Programs

Additional

Recommendations

Expenditures Working Group Recommendations

19

Outcomes and Expenditures Working Group Funding Recommendations

Incentive 1

Early Literacy Supports

Incentive 2

High School Preparedness

Incentive 3

College and Career Readiness

Incentive 4

Strategic Staffing

• 1a. Funding for every 3rd grader who ”Meets Standard” on

the state reading assessment. ($400M/yr.)

• 1b. Weighted funding for every K-3rd grader that is low-

income or ELL to target early literacy supports. ($780M/yr)

Funding for every 8th grader who “Meets Standard”

• n the state Algebra 1 and/or reading assessment.

Funding for every high school graduate assessed as College or Career Ready who successfully achieves industry certificate upon graduation or who enrolls in postsecondary

• r the military. ($400M/yr.)

Funding for districts opting into the development and implementation of a multi-measure evaluation system to better prepare, retain, and strategically staff their best

• teachers. ($100M/first year growing to $1bn over

time, assumes roughly $4k/teacher for 50th to 75th percentile and $9k/teacher for 75% to 100% percentile = Also supported by Expenditures recommendations.

20

Additional Expenditures Working Group Recommendations

In addition to supporting the Outcomes Working Group recommendations, the Expenditures Working Group also suggested:

Recommendation Rationale

Cost

Base compensatory education funding on a campus specific spectrum. Spectrum approach would direct more funds to districts that have campuses with higher concentrations of deep poverty.

$1.1 billion per year

Create new dual language program allotment Dual language programs have better academic outcomes than

• ther bilingual education

programs, but districts need additional support/incentives to implement them.

$50 million per year

Create new dyslexia allotment Districts may be under identifying those with need and should receive supports to fully address the need

$100 million per year

Create extended school year incentive pilot program Studies of effective summer instruction show that academic decline over summer can be eliminated with 3-4 hours of instruction for 5-6 weeks.

$50 million per year

21

Commission Trend: A Focus on DENSITY of Poverty

• Current Compensatory Education Weight: 0.200, based on Free and Reduced

Price Lunch Eligible Students

• Expenditures Working Group recommends: Sliding scale based on the

density of poverty, with the lowest threshold at 0.225.

• How would this work?

Ø Using Free and Reduced Lunch numbers, the scale would be based on the density of poverty: .225 for low campus EcoDis percentage; .275 for high EcoDis percentage; and a sliding scale in between. Ø Every campus in a district would be assigned a Comp Ed. weight according to this scale Ø The assigned weight by campus would then be averaged across the district to create a district Comp Ed. weight that would apply to economically disadvantaged students

• Districts with higher percentages of concentrated poverty would be

funded at higher rates, given the challenges concentrated poverty presents

• All EcoDis students would be weighted greater than in the current

formula.

Overview of Various Taxes in Texas as Potential Sources of Investment in Education

23

TX one of 7 states with 0% TX one of 6 states with 0% TX ranks 12th (<OK, AR, LA) TX TX ranks 6th Highest in U.S.

24

TX ranked 4th Lowest in U.S. TX

Total State and Local Tax Burden Ranked 46th in 2012

25

The Commit Partnership’s Recommendations

• Formula Funding: All new dollars need to be in the formula (vs. grants) to

ensure sustainability/stability for school districts, and should contain mechanisms that allow funding to increase as outcomes improve

• Invest in Outcomes: New dollars must be invested in outcomes at the most

critical levers along a student’s academic path:

• early literacy
• high school preparedness
• college and career readiness
• effective educators
• Support Our Highest Needs Students: Funding should be targeted to support

students with the greatest challenges and lowest outcomes, specifically economically-disadvantaged and English-Language-Learning students

• Invest in Best Interest of All Students: All recommendations should be

district/region agnostic (what solution has highest probability of improving

• utcomes for all 5.4mm students)
• Reduce Recapture: Keep local dollars in the local system where possible to

establish a greater sense that additional local investing benefits “our kids”

Invested Texas - A Campaign to Reform School Finance to Focus on Students, Educators, and Outcomes

Improving our school finance formula systemically and sustainably to equitably increase per-pupil funding Additional, equitable funding for students to achieve critical gateways, especially for low-income students and English Language Learners High-impact early literacy interventions, including Pre-K, to ensure that every student can read by 3rd grade Increasing teacher compensation to ensure students are getting supported by effective, well-prepared educators

27

Get Involved with InvestEd TX

Join the Grassroots Campaign

Text INVESTEDTX to 52886

Visit Our Website and Social Channels

Website: www.InvestEdTX.org Facebook: www.facebook.com/InvestEdTX Twitter: www.twitter.com/InvestEdTX A non-partisan, pro-public education campaign advocating for increased funding, strategically spent, for our Texas public schools