1 blueprint funding reform resource allocation model
TRANSCRIPT
1
Blueprint Funding Reform
Resource Allocation Model
2
Blueprint for Reform
In May 2003, Minister Kosky outlined a vision for education reform, that would result in :
better outcomes for all students; a system that is innovative and creative a system that supports every school to improve; and makes a real difference to those individuals and groups
of students for whom our schools are currently not delivering.
3
The Blueprint for Government Schools The Government's reform agenda is outlined in
the document The Blueprint for Government Schools.
The Blueprint contains strategies and initiatives that will bring about improvements in learning outcomes for students.
The RAM is one of these strategies. Other Blueprint strategies are aimed at building
leadership capacity, creating a performance and development culture, improving schools and improving strategies for student learning.
4
Why the existing model needs to change
Complex – time consuming for principals and teachers
Inequitable Highlights dollars spent rather than
education outcomes achieved Lacks flexibility and discourages
innovation Doesn’t effectively target student needs
5
Broad Government Framework Allocations to government schools to be based on:
− a core amount, consisting of a per-student price; and− an amount to cover overheads
The core amount would be adjusted to reflect: school characteristics; student and family/community characteristics; and levels of schooling
Funding would be linked to the planning and accountability mechanisms for schools
The costs of school education would be benchmarked on a rolling basis to determine the relative costs by levels of schooling
6
The Research
Prof Richard Teese
7
Asked to research CORE funding Rurality LOTEAnd on the equity side: Special Learning Needs ESL
Purpose : Can we improve outcomes through better resource delivery?
8
The Core Components of the New Model
9
Concept of the Core
The new model comprises Core Funding allocated to schools via:− a Per-Student Price
plus:− a Base Amount.
The majority of funding is to be provided through the Per-Student Price, with the Base Amount being a safety net.
Student Learning Allocation RelativitiesRelativities across the student learning levels excluding base
1.23 1.23 1.23
1.04 1.04 1.00 1.00
1.32 1.321.40 1.40 1.40 1.40
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
Prep Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12
Stages of Learning Relativities
11
Stages of Learning Relativities
The key factors that determine the different costs of delivering education are:
Supply side− Teaching allotments− Class sizes− Academic programs
(level of cognitive demand)
− Specialist teaching resources
− Organisational differences
Demand Side− Relative diversity in
student learning− Relative
behavioural/cultural diversity of students
− High rates of retention− Subject preferences
and program option demands
− High levels of tertiary aspiration
12
Base Amount A Base amount ensures that all schools,
regardless of size, have sufficient resources to operate – a safety net
Extensive research and modelling was undertaken.
This work comprised:- analysis of fixed vs variable costs;- Ensuring ongoing viability of schools; and- examination of base funding regimes in other
comparable educational jurisdictions.
13
Base Amount A number of options have been modelled. In our view - due to economies of scale -
larger schools receive sufficient funds through the Per-Student Price.
This is reflected in the preferred approach – which is a base that tapers to zero at threshold points.
This approach is consistent with other comparable jurisdictions.
14
Base Amount – Enrolment Linked Base
Enrolment Linked Base
Enrolment
Bas
e A
mo
un
t ($
)
15
Rurality & Isolation
• Current R&I funding is composed of :- Rural Size Adjustment funding to compensate for small size- Location Index funding to compensate for the higher costs associated with isolation
• Substantial urban growth has meant that schools once identified as rural are now part of major city areas
• Current methods of allocation require review to improve targeting
16
Major Cities of Australia
Inner Regional Australia
Outer Regional Australia
Remote Australia
ARIA Boundaries - Victoria
17
Languages Other Than English (LOTE)Currently three different funding formulae in use• Secondary
• Primary - $77.84 per student• Former Stage 1 Schools of the Future still receive a special
LOTE allocation.
Enrolments EFT
1-400 0.4
401-800 0.6
801-1200 1.0
1201+ 1.5
18
LOTE (Continued)
• Current allocations inequitable- large discrepancies in per student funding- maximum $1,187 per student- minimum $27 per student
• Current thinking is- to introduce a fairer more equitable model- allocations to be transparent- to shift LOTE to student per capita (CORE) in 2006
19
LOTE (Continued)
Current thinking• All schools funded on tapered base plus
per student funding• Different per student rates for primary and
secondary commensurate with stages of learning relativities
• Modelled separately for 2005
20
Development of Equity Funding Aspects of the
New Model
21
Equity Funding
Additional funding needed to compensate for factors that affect a student’s capacity to learn.
Equity funding is presently targeted via the following categories :- Special Learning Needs- English as a Second Language
Research was undertaken to establish:- the best measure(s) for allocating these
scarce resources;- how the concentration of disadvantage
relates to school performance
22
Equity Funding – Current SLN Funding Current SLN (Special Learning Needs)
funding of $33m is targeted using six measures of disadvantage − Family occupation− Family status− EMA− Koorie− Mobility− Language background
It is distributed across about 68% of schools.
23
Incidence and Distribution of Student Need
DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENT NEED (%)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
LOW SES EMA LBOTE Koorie ESL Disabled
per cent of all students in govtschools
per cent of schools carryingfour-fifths of all this group
per cent of schools carrying halfof all this group
24
Uneven Distribution of Student Needs– Across Regions
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
ESL EMA Family occupation Disabilities
25
Multiple Categories of Need
Some schools deal with multiple categories of disadvantage, compounding the difficulties these schools face
A Western Region school has a student population with− 19% Mobile− 64% EMA− 2.3% Indigenous− 13% D&I− 45% ESL
26
22.0
23.0
24.0
25.0
26.0
27.0
28.0
29.0
30.0
31.0
High SES Upper middle Middle Lower middle Low SES
12.0
13.0
14.0
15.0
16.0
17.0
18.0
19.0
VCE results Absences
Secondary School Effectiveness, by SES
27
3.8
3.9
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
High SES Upper middle Middle Lower middle Low SES
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
13.0
14.0
15.0
Year 5 AIM Absences
Primary School Effectiveness, by SES
28
Element (proportion in each school)
Percentage contribution
of each element
Percentage of variance
explained by each element
Significant or not
Direction
Mobility 7.9 3.2 Yes - EMA/YA 13.4 5.3 Yes - Family status 1.4 0.6 No - LBOTE 8.8 3.5 Yes + Family occupation 62.5 25.0 Yes - Indigenous 6.1 2.4 No - Total 100.0 40.0
Variance in Year 5 achievement explained by current SLN funding components
29
Mobility EMA Indigenous Disabilities ESL Family
occupation
Primary schools Year 5 achievement -0.37 -0.55 -0.24 -0.28 -0.21 -0.60 Year 3 achievement -0.39 -0.56 -0.24 -0.26 -0.19 -0.62 Student attendances -0.27 -0.38 -0.30 -0.18 -0.15 -0.40 Secondary schools VCE results -0.61 -0.59 -0.21 -0.40 -0.27 -0.72 Year 10 achievement -0.51 -0.48 -0.25 -0.34 -0.16 -0.49 Retention -0.47 -0.36 -0.41 -0.26 0.09 -0.29 Student attendances -0.38 -0.34 -0.14 -0.24 -0.05 -0.34
Correlations between Effectiveness Measures and Equity Density
30
Model Element 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Family occupation (Focc) (38.3%) (Focc) (Focc) (Focc) (Focc) (Focc) (Focc) (Focc)
Mobility (Mob) (15.0%) (Mob) (Mob)
EMA/YA (EMA) (31.4%) (EMA) (EMA)
Family status (Fstat) (16.0%) (Fstat) (Fstat)
LBOTE (LBOTE) (3.0%) (LBOTE) (LBOTE)
Indigenous (Indigenous) (5.7%) (Indig) (Indig)
Disabilities (Disab) (6.9%) (Disab)
Adjusted R2 38.3 38.8 39.1 38.5 38.9 38.9 40.0 Correlations 0.53 0.82 0.59 0.40 0.27
Models of Year 5 achievement
31
Equity Funding - Summary
Current equity funding ineffective because: SLN Index does not properly measure need Funds are spread too thinly Funds are insufficient to redress
disadvantage
Research findings Best predictor of educational outcomes is
family occupation Government targets cannot be achieved
without disadvantage being addressed
32
Equity Funding - Summary
Recommendations: SLN Index replaced by single measure of
family socio-economic status (based on family occupation)
SLN Funding to be better targeted to the most disadvantaged schools
33
Koorie Students
Koorie students are concentrated in limited number of schools.
Funding is broadly dispersed to 692 schools.
Not effectively targeted through the SLN Index
34
Koorie Students - Current Thinking
Separate from SLN No change in funding level Target at 10%+ density or threshold number of
students Distribute on per student basis Minimum allocation
NB : Subject to current review of Koorie education
35
Student Mobility
Funding broadly dispersed to 970 schools Mobile students are concentrated in
specific schools Mobility is not always enduring Not effectively targeted through the SLN
Index
36
Student Mobility - Current Thinking
Separate from SLN No change in funding level Target at 10%+ density Threshold to be sustained over past 3
years on a rolling basis Distribution on late enrolment per capita. Minimum allocation
37
• current English language proficiency assessment
• evidence of an annual instructional plan and a specialist teacher
• a schedule detailing support to be provided and documentation of progress
Manitoba $725 for upto 3 years British Columbia $1,100 for upto 5 years
NB : Same amount to both primary and secondary students
ESL funding in Canada
Set requirements
38
Florida: $1000 (.265 loading) for each ESL student (about $1,000)
Maryland: $1350 for each student for a maximum of two years
New Jersey: $1,102 for each identified student
New York: Based on a loading of .199 (about $776 in 2000)
Texas: Loading of .1 (about $300 in 1998)
ESL funding in the US
39
ESL - Funding in Victoria
A student who either was born in a non-English speaking country or has one or both parents born in a non-English speaking country is eligible for funding
Current funding weights
Level Index Level Description
Weighting 2003
Rate 2003
1 All ESL students not included in levels 2 to 4 Years P–6 1 $284 2 1<3 years in Australian school Years 2–6 1.29 $366 3 <1 year in Australian school Years P–4 1.61 $457 4 <1 year in Australian school Years 5–6 2.03 $577 5 3<7 years in Australian school Years 7–12 2.89 $821 6 1<3 years in Australian school Years 7–12 7.18 $2,039 7 <1 year in Australian school Years 7–12 14.34 $4,073
40
All students are treated the same, irrespective of proficiency levels. How much do students vary?
Language background All <7 years <3 years
English 51.1 ESL students
African 28.0 25.5 NA Chinese 52.1 53.3 51.7 Eastern European 48.5 44.0 38.5 Northern European 45.0 53.7 52.1 Southern European 39.8 37.8 34.4 Turkish/Central Asian 37.3 32.8 30.1 Middle Eastern 37.7 37.1 25.4 South East Asian 40.0 33.4 33.0 Dravidian/Indian 49.0 45.5 37.7 Oceanic 32.6 29.9 38.5 East Asian 48.0 45.7 41.6
ESL - Targeting need
41
ESL -Targeting needHow are students distributed across
Victorian secondary schools? Poverty density (quintile)
Languages Low Lower middle Middle
Upper middle High Total
Percentages within EMA band (column) Chinese 42.7 22.2 14.7 8.2 7.4 19.3 Dravidian/Indian 10.9 12.8 8.0 9.8 3.5 8.7 Eastern European 10.7 15.8 14.6 11.6 9.8 1 2.1 Middle Eastern 8.1 9.0 14.7 14.2 22.8 14.2 Northern European 6.5 8.0 3.8 4.6 2.2 4.9 South East Asian 5.4 8.9 13.1 16.6 18.4 12.6
East Asian 4.5 3.2 1.3 2.1 0.7 2.4 Turkish/Central Asian 4.3 6.8 7.7 12.8 9.3 8.2
Oceanic 3.2 6.2 8.0 8.7 9.9 7.2 Southern European 2.2 3.4 4.1 5.6 2.2 3.3
African 1.0 3.2 10.2 5.7 13.8 6.9
42
ESL – Current Thinking
• Reduce the number of classifications from 7 to five
• Target need by aligning funding with school SFO density
• Reduce the disparity between primary/secondary funding weightings
• Provide support for five rather than seven years