1. General consensus that there are disparities in the equitable distribution of resources not only between districts but also within districts. Money alone does not mean better equity
2. Maintenance of effort provision should remain but should consider the inability of high poverty areas to keep up
3. Counties should be required to pay the local share for the at-risk formulas but perhaps with a circuit breaker for low-wealth counties
4. The State should ensure more high-quality teachers are teaching in high-need schools through offering incentives such as higher pay, smaller classes, more planning time, and mentoring perhaps by incorporating into a career ladder
5. Maryland should incorporate a concentration of poverty factor into the funding formulas based on a sliding scale using a lower weight for lower concentrations and a higher weight for higher concentrations
6. The weight for special education students, currently at 74%, should be raised.
7. Should per pupil funding follow the child to the school level.
OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
Some discussion of using a different proxy than FRPM. If student is coming from a poor neighborhood (vs poor family) then can provide more resources to that school
a. Possibility of using mother’s education level (but data issue) or household income within a community
Eliminate GCEI? Find an alternate?
How do we treat overlap of risk categories; should an adjustment be made for that?
Discussion did not reach a conclusion on the pros and cons of successful schools, professional judgement, and evidence based
a. The rationale for multiplicative wealth is unclear
b. APA’s rationale for not selecting the successful schools model was not clear
Discussion did not reach a conclusion on the pros and cons of a higher base and lower weights as recommended by APA
a. If funds don’t follow the student, then weights don’t need to be higher; if funds do follow the student, then weights should be higher
b. While APA found all students have more needs (hence, the recommendation to increase the base), research suggests that more weight needs to be given to at risk students (thus, the data doesn’t entirely support a higher base
- The concept of equity includes quality of teaching, closing achievement gaps, etc. Generally, how the money is spent is just as important
- Community schools may provide a high “bang for the buck”
- After school programs would also be helpful
- Year round schooling may help in certain jurisdictions
- Universal prekindergarten is critical in achieving equity
2. Maintenance of effort provision should remain but should consider the inability of high poverty areas to keep up
3. Counties should be required to pay the local share for the at-risk formulas but perhaps with a circuit breaker for low-wealth counties
4. The State should ensure more high-quality teachers are teaching in high-need schools through offering incentives such as higher pay, smaller classes, more planning time, and mentoring perhaps by incorporating into a career ladder
5. Maryland should incorporate a concentration of poverty factor into the funding formulas based on a sliding scale using a lower weight for lower concentrations and a higher weight for higher concentrations
6. The weight for special education students, currently at 74%, should be raised.
7. Should per pupil funding follow the child to the school level.
OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
Some discussion of using a different proxy than FRPM. If student is coming from a poor neighborhood (vs poor family) then can provide more resources to that school
a. Possibility of using mother’s education level (but data issue) or household income within a community
Eliminate GCEI? Find an alternate?
How do we treat overlap of risk categories; should an adjustment be made for that?
Discussion did not reach a conclusion on the pros and cons of successful schools, professional judgement, and evidence based
a. The rationale for multiplicative wealth is unclear
b. APA’s rationale for not selecting the successful schools model was not clear
Discussion did not reach a conclusion on the pros and cons of a higher base and lower weights as recommended by APA
a. If funds don’t follow the student, then weights don’t need to be higher; if funds do follow the student, then weights should be higher
b. While APA found all students have more needs (hence, the recommendation to increase the base), research suggests that more weight needs to be given to at risk students (thus, the data doesn’t entirely support a higher base