Wyoming School Funding Model Recalibration
Prepared for the Select Committee on School Finance Recalibration in 2018
Augenblick, Palaich and Associates (APA) was chosen by the Wyoming Legislature’s Management Council at the recommendation of the Select Committee on School Finance Recalibration to conduct a review of the current Wyoming Educational Program and a recalibration of the current Funding Model. APA was joined by national school finance expert Mike Griffith, William Hartman, and Bob Schoch of Education Finance Decisions; Shelley Billig and Jennifer Weston-Sementelli of Denver-based RMC Research Corporation; Dan Player with the University of Virginia; and Dr. Jennifer Imazeki from San Diego State University. The study team has more than 100 years of combined experience studying school finance issues.
The study team focused on pairing its national expertise and knowledge with a deep understanding of the Wyoming context and perspective to determine if any changes to the educational program or funding model were necessary to ensure the state’s students can be successful. Each proposed component of the study incorporated substantial Wyoming stakeholder participation.
Each of the study tasks that are the basis of the recommendations is briefly described below.
Review of Wyoming’s Current Educational Program and Funding Model
The study team conducted a review of Wyoming’s current educational program, set forth by Wyoming Statute 21-9-101 (the defined “basket of educational goods and services”) and the curriculum of the Hathaway Scholarship program, as defined in Wyoming Statute 21-16-1307. The study team’s curriculum experts from RMC Research conducted an initial analysis of the state’s current educational standard compared to other benchmark states. APA also conducted interviews and listening sessions with stakeholders who are knowledgeable about the state’s current and needed educational standards, including educators, the governor and staff, Wyoming Department of Education (WDE) staff, and leaders of key educational membership organizations. The study team also administered an online survey to gather additional feedback from other educators and the broader community. Recommendations were made based on expert review and feedback from Wyoming stakeholders. These recommendations were presented to the Select Committee in October and are included in the full report.
The study team also examined how the current funding model functions and how it has changed over time. The team conducted an equity analysis to examine horizontal equity, vertical equity, and fiscal neutrality. The equity analysis also included supplemental analyses regarding teacher salaries, regional and inflation adjustments, special education and transportation funding, and other uncontrollable cost factors faced by Wyoming schools and districts, such as size and geographic isolation. As part of the stakeholder interviews and meetings described previously, the study team also gathered feedback on the funding model through interviews, listening sessions, and the online survey.
The report on the review of the educational program and funding model can be found attached as Supplemental Report A. The equity study is included as Supplemental Report B. The review of teacher salaries, the regional cost adjustment, and the external cost adjustment is included as Supplemental Report C.
Alternative Approaches to Recalibration
The study team implemented three alternative methods for examining the resources needed to meet Wyoming’s educational standards: the professional judgment approach, a modified successful schools/school districts approach, and the statistical approach.
The professional judgment approach relies on the expertise of Wyoming educators to identify the resources needed to meet the needs of students, schools, and districts. The study team conducted a series of eight professional judgement panels with educators from throughout the state to identify the personnel, non-personnel costs, technology, and additional programs needed to serve students at the base level, as well as the additional resources needed to serve at-risk, English Language Learner (ELL), special education, gifted and talented, and career and technical education (CTE) students. Specific resources identified were then compared to the current legislative funding model and the 2015 evidence-based study recommendations. The results of the PJ approach are presented in Chapter III of this report.
The second approach was a modified version of the successful schools approach. This approach identifies schools (or districts) that are outperforming their peers and attempts to understand how they are using their resources to accomplish this level of success. Schools were selected based on their performance in the state’s accountability system. Based on three years of data, schools were selected if they were “Exceeding Expectations” in two of the three years, and at least “Meeting Expectations” in the third year. The study team reviewed staffing and expenditure data for all schools that met these criteria, and also conducted case study interviews at 12 of the successful schools to better understand the types of programs and services that are being implemented to attain high student success. The results of the successful schools approach are presented in Chapter IV of this report.
The third approach was the statistical approach, which attempts to determine relationships between expenditures and performance. Unfortunately, due to the limited number of schools in Wyoming, the statistical modeling was unable to produce valid and reliable results. Supplemental Report D presents the results of the attempted implementation of the statistical approach.
Additional Studies
The study team also examined opportunities for cooperatively providing and sharing services (such as for special education, transportation, and gifted and talented programming) between school districts. This analysis first included a detailed examination of both the reimbursement models for special education and transportation, a review of the literature, a survey of all districts to collect data on current cooperatively provided and/or shared services, and barriers that exist to cooperatively providing or sharing services.
The study team also evaluated consolidation opportunities to inform recommendations regarding what types of districts would be candidates for consolidation and under what conditions. The report on the special education reimbursement model can be found in Supplemental Report E, the report on transportation can be found in Supplemental Report F, and the report on consolidation and shared services is included as Supplemental Report G.
Reconciliation of Study Results to Provide Final Recommendations
Following the in-depth review of the current educational program and funding model, examination of the alternative recalibration approaches, and additional studies, the study team gathered, compared, and reconciled all of the information to create a set of initial recommendations, which were presented at the November Select Committee meeting and in an earlier draft report. These recommendations have seen been refined through additional review and analysis, as well as gathering additional stakeholder feedback. Any modifications to draft recommendations will be noted in this report. Further, the cost implications of the overall set of recommendations will be presented in the final chapter.