The Search for Better Education Information

Standards-driven education reform has started a cyclical process that feeds on and demands better data. Each question that leads to stronger accountability systems seems to expose new problems with the old “input-driven” information, such as per-pupil spending and accreditation data. Higher student achievement will not be readily attained without knowing which expenditures and which classroom instructional practices will bring about the most improvement. Conversely, knowing which practices and expenditures produce the least amount of change is just as important. Quite often, however, frustration is the only element that policy makers and classroom teachers have in common. The new education information is not being hidden. In most cases it just hasn’t been created yet. Starting with better assessment data, states have to work in two directions. First, more specific policy questions need to drive the collection of data from the state legislature through the state agency to school districts. Second, from the classroom up to the policy level, more specific information on classroom practices and student instructional materials will need to be added to the mix. Underneath it all are governance systems based on combinations of local and state control that might have to be changed before the relevant questions can even be asked, much less answered. Better Data on Finance In Oregon nearly 70% of the money spent on education comes from the state. During the 1997 legislative session policy makers grew frustrated with the lack of information on what the state dollars were buying. This frustration led to the passage of H.B. 3636, which requires the state to develop a chart detailing spending that would eventually answer the question, What does a basic education cost? Titled the Cost Accounting and Performance Tracking System, the project has set out to build a large database on schools in 16 districts. The database project has a price tag of $2.9 million. In the 1997 session $800,000 was appropriated, with the additional $2.1 million for 1998 coming later. A large portion ($1.2 million) was earmarked for a contract with KPMG Peat Marwick to develop the database, gather information from the school districts, and create a computer-driven model that will allow users to access data on the Internet. The pilot project will include approximately one-fourth of the state’s student population and will start by collecting data from three areas. * Financial data will include the educational cost per student, salary data, the cost of educating students with special needs, and the costs at the building level for administration, building operation, staff support, pupil support, instruction by subject area, and central office support costs. * Education data will include class size by grade level, information on required courses, teacher experience, teacher training, length of the school year, learning resources, student demographics, how class time is spent, and the number of specialists supporting instruction. * Student performance data will include state assessment data in English, mathematics, science, and other subject areas; other test results; and dropout and school completion rates. The due date for a working system to track expenses, programs, and results in the 16 school districts is March 1999. From there, the system is to be extended to the remaining 183 districts. But as plans were being laid, the big question was, Will the effort concentrate only on data that are easy to collect? If so, what will be done about parent involvement, classroom discipline, and academic expectations? What’s more, the list of pertinent questions is likely to grow. Meanwhile, Gov. John Kitzhaber has a task force working on educational quality that he hopes will develop a list of spending priorities that will assist schools in meeting student achievement levels. The governor made use of a similar method of ranking services according to benefits and costs in creating the Oregon Health Plan.